From: ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Omar Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Sixteen more years
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:21:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.QerUgaq00VpJI7VG5E
	<1bkoa7INN1s9@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu>
Distribution: world
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Well, since we seem to have wandered into a discussion of 1996
candidates, here's my evaluation.

Republican:

1) Dan Quayle: If GB wins, then Quayle becomes a sitting VP, and will
probably make a run.  However, he suffers from serious image problems. 
Further, his debating is good, but those likely to be running against
him in the primaries is better.  Watch for a quick fade if he runs.  If
GB is not elected, Quayle will probably quietly disappear.

2) Jack Kemp: Possibly the number 1 economic thinker in the Republican
party.  Kemp has the conservative appeal to pull in both social and
economic conservatives.  And he has a strong presentation style that is
exciting to listen to.  His biggest weakness is a lack of real foreign
policy experience.

3) James Baker: Perceived by many as the most competent man in
government today.  Baker has some of the best credentials in Washington.
 He can hold his own both in foreign policy and on domestic issues.  And
he seems to have a gift for running campaigns.  His main weakness is
probably a lack of the dynamism that is needed to spark the press.  If
he doesn't win, he almost certainly will get the VP spot.

4) Patrick Buchanan: His support is wide, but not deep.  Much of his
support in this election came from frustration with Bush.  He might get
another good showing in New Hampshire, but he'll be an also ran by the
time of the convention.

5) William Bennett: Too volatile to win.  His record is easily attacked,
and will be.

6) William Weld: The moderate candidate in this discussion.  Weld might
play well in New England, but he won't stand a chance in the south.  And
his support in Massachusetts is shaky (I'm originally from MA, so I
know).

7) Bob Dole: Another moderate, Dole has solid name recognition and
argues his points well.  However, his ability to run a national campaign
remains in doubt.


Democrat:

1) Paul Tsongas: If Clinton/Gore fail, look for a strong Tsongas bid in
96.  Tsongas, despite poor organization and low funds, ran a hard race
and did very well.  With four years to build his base and good name
recognition, Tsongas might be able to do it.  Tsongas' weakness will be
his moderate social and conservative economic views, which could
alienate the progressive wing of the party.

2) Jesse Jackson: By not running in 92, Jackson has lost a lot of his
ability to manipulate the party.  Watch for Jackson to jump in in 96 no
matter what.  He probably won't win a lot of states, but he should get
double digits almost everywhere, making him a force to be reconed with.

3) Jerry Brown: Brown gained enough in this election to make a run in 96
almost a certainty.  Even if he can't win, he'll try to get enough
convention delegates to influence the platform for the progressives.


Well, that's my opinion.  I'm curious what other's may think, but I also
think it might be better after this to move it to Email.

					Tom the non hacker
					Kemp in 96!
					"If patriotism is the last refuge
					of scoundrels,  Then environmentalism
					is the current refuge of totalitarians."
					Bob Jackson
Newsgroups: sci.econ