Where's Glinda? The Wizard Of Presidential Race WTF
I keep hoping this blonde lady in a shimmery dress will wave her magic wand, wake me up, and say, "No, dear. It's just a dream" -- about Trump, Hillary, and everybody's everybody's old crazy Jewish uncle being the current presidential candidates.
If Glinda waved her magic wand and fixed this mess, who would your candidates be, for each party? And why?
ahw at May 5, 2016 12:36 PM
You've written so many times on your blog about the problems with immigration and h1b visas. Now someone actually wants to do something about it, and you get cold feet. All any establishment GOP candidate had to do to beat him was take a tough line on immigration, and they did not.
Also, if you don't understand how someone who is not beholden to special interests is a breath of fresh air, you really don't understand how the average person thinks and votes.
Snoopy at May 5, 2016 12:55 PM
Great question. I haven't really thought about who I would have if I could have anyone -- save for suggesting to Gregg on the phone just now that Matt Welch (Reason editor) would be great.
Amy Alkon at May 5, 2016 12:58 PM
As for real suggestions, let's throw some out.
"Now someone actually wants to do something about it, and you get cold feet."
Um, does a mature and sentient adult really elect a person based on a single issue?
Yes, I understand why Trump has appeal. This doesn't mean he'd make a good or even adequate president.
Amy Alkon at May 5, 2016 1:00 PM
I think even a year ago I would have been interested in someone who was libertarian-leaning, but not necessarily *pure* libertarian. I'm primarily interested in less regulation and greater personal freedom, in general. (Example: I don't think interior decorators and eyebrow threaders should need to be licensed, and I think pot should be legal.)
I find the current anti-free-trade sentiment interesting... It does cause me to think more about how free trade agreements have affected every-day Americans.
One I've moved farther away from libertarian-ism is that I think ISIS/ISIL is a threat that could grow, and I don't think a non-interventionist stance is appropriate right now... and I don't buy the libertarian stance that I must be an unreasonable Islamophobe for believing that.
I'm not for open borders, either.
ahw at May 5, 2016 1:18 PM
I wanted Cruz. He's pretty hated by the career pols, which can't be a bad thing. And thus far at least, he'd not caved on any issues. I imagine he was offered the Supreme Court nomination to drop when he did.
Ann Richards would have been my Dem pick, if we must pick one to run. If we're just spitballing, death shouldn't be a disqualifier.
momof4 at May 5, 2016 1:22 PM
I don't think there are any D's like Ann Richards any more, and I don't think there ever will be again.
I wanted to like Rand Paul. I really did. I just can't buy his foreign policy theories.
I like Paul Ryan enough...
Cruz was just too socially conservative for me. I would have voted for him in the general election, of course. I don't think he could have won, though. If there is an actual possibility that he could sit on the Supreme Court, I would support that.
ahw at May 5, 2016 1:33 PM
> Um, does a mature and sentient adult really elect
> a person based on a single issue?
Yes, if that issue affects your livelihood and makes the difference between whether you have a job or not. And that's what so many in the establishment don't understand and why they keep losing to Trump.
That being said, Trump sure isn't a one issue candidate. I'm just saying all it took to defeat him was that one issue, yet no one could step up to the plate.
Snoopy at May 5, 2016 2:36 PM
Also, if you don't understand how someone who is not beholden to special interests
Trump is a special interest, and a crony capitalist. Maybe someone should ask Vera Coking what she thinks of The Donald.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/08/19/donald-trumps-abuse-of-eminent-domain/
We have a choice between two of the oligarch class: a crony, corrupt politico, and a crony capitalist.
As one wit observed over a decade ago: we're in that awkward stage were it's too late to save the Republic, but it's too soon to start the revolution.
I R A Darth Aggie at May 5, 2016 3:13 PM
No, by definition. Not to an office that handles multi-faceted issues.
A mature and sentient adult elects a person that will do the best job for the country overall, even if it conflicts with a pet issue.
Conan the Grammarian at May 5, 2016 3:28 PM
> even if it conflicts with a pet issue.
What if the pet issue is your livelihood? For tens of millions of people, that's the case.
Snoopy at May 5, 2016 5:30 PM
What are you worried about? This is a democracy - Patrick says so.
The mystery is how these people were nominated, offered up, qualified, etc.
I would find it wonderful if we offered a President who could simply speak a second language, and it doesn't have to be Spanish.
Look back, and you see many things, most of which are corrupted by the mistaken idea that the President has the job the voter intended for him to perform. Most are actually Congressional duties, but an egotistical American shows up to vote for President, having no concern for those "lesser" people, even though they spend his tax $$.
If you really have a concern about Trump, ask yourself why he has not offered the very simplest solution to illegal immigration: prosecuting employers.
In the local Taco Bell, we learn from their billboard that one must be approved by the Department of Homeland Security to work there. Close a business for one day for each illegal employee, you will kill the demand.
We could have asked this of any candidate for the last 20 years, but didn't. Hmm.
Radwaste at May 5, 2016 5:44 PM
If we did that Rad then the price of food would jump. Suddenly the minimum wage would be a major issue. Want a $15/hr minimum wage enjoy your $10 box of Cheerios.
I'm not objecting, just noting what would happen. We really should be honest about how we produce food and bring these people out of the shadows. And yes, the wall is a joke. It won't keep anyone out. But it will employ some of Trumps friends.
Ben at May 5, 2016 6:15 PM
What if your livelihood is making buggy whips? Are you supposed to vote for the anti-automobile Luddite?
I'm sure slave owners and slave traders voted to keep slavery. Would you say they were right. After all, they voted their pet issue, their livelihood.
Single issue voting for a candidate for a multifaceted office is short-sighted. A president oversees foreign policy, defense, commerce, diplomacy, infrastructure, as well as national policies on health, the environment, education, etc. Voting for a single issue candidate is saying only your pet issue is of any consequence.
Conan the Grammarian at May 6, 2016 6:32 AM
Trump didn't win solely because of his immigration stance. That's part of the reason he won, of course- but I think that working and middle class Americans gravitated toward him because they fear the loss of their jobs, in general. The "They're takin' our jobs!" rally cry isn't just in response to fears about illegal immigrants. People are rightfully concerned about outsourcing. If you're in customer support/sales/tech help and can do your job solely on the computer or over the phone- you can telecommute- your job can likely be outsourced. That's a huge group of people at varying income levels.
Then, there's the rust belt industrial folks who think that they've been sold out by free trade agreements.
Also see coal miners and similar fields.
Remember the oft-reported assertion an election cycle ago, that, "It's the economy, stupid!" I think we're seeing that on a personal level. Does it matter to Jim that tech stocks are up if he's just been laid off from the oilfield or the mines? How much does Rachel care about Verizon's returns when she's just had her call-center position outsourced to Bangladesh?
ahw at May 6, 2016 7:49 AM
My Glinda would add the Libertarians and Greens to the Roster... four parties, different perspectives, equal air time and ad funds.
NicoleK at May 6, 2016 11:15 AM
Leave a comment