T Nation

Walker To Drop Out


#1

An early favorite, but Walker proved he wasn't ready for prime time - but in fairness, he's a successful, practical governor, and the base isn't interested in someone that is relatively normal and accomplished, it appears, and maybe it just can't be his year because of that. (And it may never be, given the direction of the party.)


#2

Now get rid of all the other asterisk candidates, ya know, the ones that are polling around 1%. Let’s have one big flush.


#3

Do you think the debates hurt him? He didn’t really do poorly, he just came off as kind of a doofus. It seemed like when we were given his qualifications on paper he shot to the top, then we got to see more of him, and he faded into obscurity.


#4

I mentioned this on another thread, Bolt.

Bush has a huge War Chest so that he can last a lot longer…but only as long as the PACS and other donors keep shuttling him money.

Another point. While Bush did well in the debate; it just didn’t have the effect of moving him up in the Polls.

How long he last is a story in and of itself.

Another phenomenon that appears to be happening; (and I’d like your opinion); the Politicians that are “hot” at one time seem to not be getting “second chances” when they run for the Presidency again.

I’m wondering if Walker has missed his window of opportunity.

Mufasa


#5

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
Do you think the debates hurt him? He didn’t really do poorly, he just came off as kind of a doofus. It seemed like when we were given his qualifications on paper he shot to the top, then we got to see more of him, and he faded into obscurity.
[/quote]

I do think his performances hurt, he was flat and didn’t rise to the occasion - but ordinarily you’d hope a candidate as sensible as Walker would get a chance to stick around and iron out his message, his performance, etc. But he gets no real second chance - the likes of Trump has sucked the air out of the room for possibly good candidates who don’t yet have a strong national campaign apparatus.

Walker had an impressive resume, and it was in a blue state. But he got pushed to the margin quickly by Trump and the GOP base, which increasingly looks more interested in reality television theatrics and vacuous one-liners than experience.

He may not have been The One, but I think everyone would have benefited from him being able to go deeper into the primaries. Shame.


#6

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I mentioned this on another thread, Bolt.

Bush has a huge War Chest so that he can last a lot longer…but only as long as the PACS and other donors keep shuttling him money.

Another point. While Bush did well in the debate; it just didn’t have the effect of moving him up in the Polls.

How long he last is a story in and of itself.

Another phenomenon that appears to be happening; (and I’d like your opinion); the Politicians that are “hot” at one time seem to not be getting “second chances” when they run for the Presidency again.

I’m wondering if Walker has missed his window of opportunity.

Mufasa
[/quote]

Good stuff, and I think yes on both.

  1. Jeb doesn’t need to do much except not embarrass himself. He doesn’t need to shine. He has so much money (and access to money) he’s simply waiting for the field to clear. This is an easy game of attrition

  2. I think you’re right about no second chances.


#7

And Miasma, specific to Walker - I don’t think he gets another shot. Maybe if after his run as governor is up he takes some position in the federal government (by election or appointment) - maybe. But I don’t see it.


#8

Not meant to be a hijack (I think it relates…)

But what do you think about Fiorina, TB?

Mufasa


#9

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#10

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I think Walker might very well have made a fine prez candidate and a fine president. He strikes me as a good administrator and I think his governorship confirms this.

However, he lacks the pizzazz to keep the limelight on him which is a requisite for today’s successful presidential candidacies. Wish it was different but the TV age and nonstop polling demands it.[/quote]

Agree.

Walker was at the top of my list…but do you guys remember me asking “Where is he?/When is he going to start articulating his positions?”

He just never seemed to make it out of the proverbial starting blocks.

Push and TB (and others): what do you think about Fiorina?

Mufasa


#11

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I think Walker might very well have made a fine prez candidate and a fine president. He strikes me as a good administrator and I think his governorship confirms this.

However, he lacks the pizzazz to keep the limelight on him which is a requisite for today’s successful presidential candidacies. Wish it was different but the TV age and nonstop polling demands it.[/quote]

Agree.

Walker was at the top of my list…but do you guys remember me asking “Where is he?/When is he going to start articulating his positions?”

He just never seemed to make it out of the proverbial starting blocks.

Push and TB (and others): what do you think about Fiorina?

Mufasa[/quote]

I think we’re about to see Fiorina get hammered for her time at HP, Lucent, and as part of McCain’s campaign and I think it’s gonna come from all sides. For example:

http://www.youngcons.com/carly-fiorina-i-have-such-great-admiration-for-hillary-clinton/

Saw this yesterday. I think it’s total non-sense, but that’s what’s going to happen.

I think how she handles the spot light over the next month will say a lot about her candidacy.


#12

I think Fiorina is pretty impressive, given the field (which really is not that strong).

  1. She is a woman. It matters. Not just for historical purposes, but also for electoral purposes - Tea Party idiocy of recent years has made the GOP extra toxic to a lot of women, who are, at a base level, prettt conservative. Not in the anti-government sense, but in the law and order, security is a priority sense. Fiorina can help make the GOP a safe place for women to cast their vote again.

  2. She has executive experience. There will be a debate over how she did in this role, but you can’t take away the fact she sat in the Big Chair and the buck stopped on her desk.

  3. She’s not afraid to fight, but she brings more to the table other than a persona that she just fights for the sake of fighting. She doesn’t back down from a scrap, but she also looks like someone who can settle down and get business done (unlike some other GOP candidates, who seem like if they were to win the Presidency, all they would do is stand at the Oval Officr windows and yell at clouds and “all the liberals ruining the country” for 8 hours a day).

But I think her lack of government experience hurts her. She lacks policy depth, which could show up as a problem going up against a candidate with deep policy experience.


#13

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
But I think her lack of government experience hurts her. She lacks policy depth, which could show up as a problem going up against a candidate with deep policy experience.[/quote]

How much do you think her choice of VP mitigate this? Say Rubio agree to be her VP for example. Or Kasich.


#14

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
But I think her lack of government experience hurts her. She lacks policy depth, which could show up as a problem going up against a candidate with deep policy experience.[/quote]

How much do you think her choice of VP mitigate this? Say Rubio agree to be her VP for example. Or Kasich. [/quote]

Alot, I think - if she makes it that far and this weakness doesn’t prevent her from getting the nomination. She could position herself as Big Vision President with a policy wonk/legislative liaison vice president (who will obviously have policy experience).

I think that could be a very successful campaign. Now, I don’t think Fiorina is a superstar candidate - but I could see her being formidable in the primaries and in the general election, and not all of the contenders can say that.


#15

I’m surprised that no one has mentioned one of the reasons that Walker says he dropped out. That is in order to hurt the front runner Donald Trump (who is slowly sinking in the polls). He basically said with less of a choice among real conservatives that one would start to pull ahead of Trump (and the other outsiders). The most recent debate once again showed Trump to be a light weight. But, the fact that he has been in two debates has brought TV viewers from the normal 4-5 million to well over 20 million for each debate. This has been really good as more people got to see the legitimate candidates in action.

As for Walker, yes he is a very good Governor. But lets face it he looks goofy. I have no idea how to further define that, but most of you know what I mean. One cannot look goofy and get elected to the Presidency in 2016.

I’m glad that he removed himself. Many of his advisors went to the Rubio campaign. And Rubio, if you have noticed, has risen in the polls after the last debate. He is running 4th to the three “outsiders”. Eventually when this fascination with Trump disappears (and we are in the midst of it now) I believe that the parties nomination will end up in Rubio’s hands. He is an incredibly competent and smart guy. And just as importantly, unlike Ted Cruz whom I like very much, Rubio has the looks, smile and charisma to actually win.


#16

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
But I think her lack of government experience hurts her. She lacks policy depth, which could show up as a problem going up against a candidate with deep policy experience.[/quote]

This is definitely my biggest concern when it comes to Fiorina. She’s light on substantive policy. She will be at a distinct disadvantage in any debate with Clinton, which is why I favor Rubio as the nominee.


#17

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
But I think her lack of government experience hurts her. She lacks policy depth, which could show up as a problem going up against a candidate with deep policy experience.[/quote]

This is definitely my biggest concern when it comes to Fiorina. She’s light on substantive policy. She will be at a distinct disadvantage in any debate with Clinton, which is why I favor Rubio as the nominee. [/quote]

Bis:

I would CERTAINLY be the last to underestimate “The Clinton Machine”; but I think that Fiorina could hold her own in a debate with Clinton.

Remember; while substance has counted in debates; so has things like delivery, overall presence and the hard-to-predict “Zingers and One Liners” that can elevate one candidate and sink another.

Clinton has sounded way too flippant and unsure about herself lately…even kind of bored with it all… while Fiorina seems sharp and focused.

This all can change, of course; but if a debate was held today, Fiorina could hold her own.

Mufasa


#18

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
But I think her lack of government experience hurts her. She lacks policy depth, which could show up as a problem going up against a candidate with deep policy experience.[/quote]

This is definitely my biggest concern when it comes to Fiorina. She’s light on substantive policy. She will be at a distinct disadvantage in any debate with Clinton, which is why I favor Rubio as the nominee. [/quote]

Bis:

I would CERTAINLY be the last to underestimate “The Clinton Machine”; but I think that Fiorina could hold her own in a debate with Clinton.

Remember; while substance has counted in debates; so has things like delivery, overall presence and the hard-to-predict “Zingers and One Liners” that can elevate one candidate and sink another.

Clinton has sounded way too flippant and unsure about herself lately…even kind of bored with it all… while Fiorina seems sharp and focused.

This all can change, of course; but if a debate was held today, Fiorina could hold her own.

Mufasa
[/quote]

I have to disagree. She will be simply outclassed by Clinton’s knowledge and experience. Clinton’s recent performance at a major event at a prominent think tank was nothing short of presidential timber.

Video

Transcript


#19

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
But I think her lack of government experience hurts her. She lacks policy depth, which could show up as a problem going up against a candidate with deep policy experience.[/quote]

This is definitely my biggest concern when it comes to Fiorina. She’s light on substantive policy. She will be at a distinct disadvantage in any debate with Clinton, which is why I favor Rubio as the nominee. [/quote]

Bis:

I would CERTAINLY be the last to underestimate “The Clinton Machine”; but I think that Fiorina could hold her own in a debate with Clinton.

Remember; while substance has counted in debates; so has things like delivery, overall presence and the hard-to-predict “Zingers and One Liners” that can elevate one candidate and sink another.

Clinton has sounded way too flippant and unsure about herself lately…even kind of bored with it all… while Fiorina seems sharp and focused.

This all can change, of course; but if a debate was held today, Fiorina could hold her own.

Mufasa
[/quote]

I have to disagree. She will be simply outclassed by Clinton’s knowledge and experience. Clinton’s recent performance at a major event at a prominent think tank was nothing short of presidential timber.

Video

Transcript
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/events/2015/09/09-clinton-iran/20150909_clinton_iran_transcript.pdf[/quote]

No doubt that she can rise to the occasion when needed…but there is a difference between a debate and making a policy speech.

She may in fact brush up on the former. If she does (Clinton)…she will indeed be formidable.

Mufasa


#20

Fiorina would perform circles around Hillary. She would win in delivery, stage presence one line quips and substance. Fiorina is what everyone on the left wants Hillary to be.

I will put it another way, if Hillary Clinton’s name were “Martha nobody” her poll numbers would be lower by about 75%.

My point being she has nothing to offer, absolutely nothing…except the Clinton name of course.