re: Clinton vs Bush most probable 2016 race

quote:

---

So you're saying it's a bit premature

---

In a word, certainly. But the $$$ support will be picking up momentum up in this next quarter (as I posted earlier, more than $50M in donations to Obama and Clinton combined in 1st Q of 2007), and people will start to officially announce their candidacies (and non-candidacies) in the upcoming months. We're 13 months away from the Iowa caucuses and things start to move fast when they do start to move. It's not the hard poll numbers that matter in the first half of 2015, but trends within those numbers. Due to her ridiculously high numbers early on, Clinton has only one way to go and that's down. Her numbers dropping will thus not be significant in and of themselves, but only in terms of any inverse proportion to the rise of some other Dem candidate. (Will non-Hillary Dems unite behind one opponent, or split among 3 or 4 others?) On the Republican side, each candidate will get a bump at the time they announce; the question will be can they sustain that bounce. There will be candidates that have not appeared in any of these early polls, and one or two may well catch fire early on.

Yes, it's definitely premature. But in the next six months, which will fly by fast, we'll know most of the players and and the numbers will start to take on meaning. Not as much for who leads, but for who will bite the dust early. As candidate #10 drops out, who gains his financial support and campaign "team"? Which "sub-races" (two candidates with the same supporters/backers, one yields to the other, drops out, and endorses the other) develop? Much of what will transpire in the first half of 2016 will be molded by candidates and events in 2015.

The "premature" stage will move on to the simply "early" stage by the end of May, the "significant" stage by the end of August, and the "serious" stage by the end of October, when struggling candidates see the writing on the wall and start to officially withdraw. The 2016 primary season will be the shortest, most-condensed in recent history and the general election campaign the longest. A nominee that is not physically energetic, healthy and durable will have more trouble than ever surviving the process without showing their weaknesses and flaws.

This new "longer run" will not play well for Hillary Clinton. An opponent that has experience under the gun for protracted periods of time and has weathered it successfully could make her look very vulnerable by comparison.

An opponent like Walker, who faces adversity without batting an eye or giving an inch. The question for him, however, is where will his funding come from. A Republican who can win three statewide elections in Wisconsin in a 4 year period , Walker will have just turned 49 days before Election day and seems up to the rigors of this new long post-convention campaign . He also seems able to conquer the intra-party divide that has emerged in recent years (in the same way newly-elected IA Senator Joni Ernst did this year).

One of his major obstacles, however, though it shouldn't be from a practical perspective, is that the fire in his belly often doesn't effectively translate into his overall persona. Though it shouldn't matter, the populace reacts well not only to a fighter, which he clearly is, not only to one who inspires confidence, which he does, but also to someone who has a personality, an ability to be informal and to come across as one of them. I believe Walker has that character trait, but for the most part has internalized it.

He didn't blink at the state level. He needs to show that he won't blink at the national level, and that he can even smile now and then, that it's okay and does not undermine his seriousness of purpose.

The above, however, is not to say Walker is my guy yet because ...

quote:

---

it's a bit premature

---