From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Sixteen more years
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 17:59:02 GMT

In <QerUgaq00VpJI7VG5E@andrew.cmu.edu>, Thomas Omar Smith writes:

>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.

Probably a fair assessment.  Quayle has a small but loyal following who think
that he has been a "conservative presence" in the administration.  He'd do
well in a primary (among only Republicans) but horribly in a general election.

Quayle's role in politics would probably be relegated to Indiana if GHWB is not
re-elected.

>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.

I really like Kemp.  He combines supply-side economics with something that has
been lacking in GOP politics:  a pro-active anti-poverty program.  Kemp could
be the one GOP candidate who could pull in a decent share of the minority
vote.  A recent poll showed that 62% of blacks who knew Kemp rated him favor-
ably--*by far* the best rating of any Republican in many years.  This would
make Kemp a virtual lock in the South.  Like Reagan, he is a strong motiva-
tional speaker who can make people feel good about themselves and the country.

Many Democrats are attracted to Kemp's economic and social proposals.  They
like the enterprise zones and the push to grant home ownership to the
dwellers of public housing.  This makes him popular in the inner cities, too.

Also, I think that with the current desire for a return to domestic issues,
a lack of foreign policy experience might not be a terrible negative.  Most
observers think that Kemp is the odds-on-favorite for the GOP in '96.  He seems
to have the "compassionate conservatism" that many people have clamored for.

>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.

Baker clearly has foreign policy experience, but he shouldn't run on that.
People now are tired of foreign policy and are seeking a return to domestic
issues.  Of course, if the economy is strong in '96, he could have a winning
agenda--especially if the transition to democracy in eastern Europ runs into
trouble and the communists are trying to come back.

Not many people (of either major party) have really attacked Jim Baker.  He is
seen as an honorable man by most observers, but whether that would translate
into votes in '96 remains to be seen.

>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.

He's a GOP folk hero because he had the balls to challenge Bush in the primary,
and he rendered David Duke irrelevant.  Far too self-righteous for the main-
stream Republican (most Republicans identify with the party for economic
reasons and not because of the Religious Right) and would almost certainly be
beaten by Kemp and possibly Baker.

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

Yes.  Bennett's views are much the same as Buchanan's.  On social issues, they
are almost indistinguishable.  Bennett is very well known among the politically
informed, but I don't think Bennett has the name recognition among average
voters that the others do.

Bennett's record is pretty visible, and it's a like-it-or-hate-it record.  Many
Republicans will like it, but it will never have a chance among all voters.

>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).

Correct about the south.  Weld is perhaps the closest thing to a libertarian
in the two major parties.  He would do well with Republicans who are fairly
liberal on social issues--particularly pro-choice, less-government voters.
He would also be appealing to Democrats who are economic conservatives.

I also think that Weld would do fairly well in California once he gets his
name recognized.  Californians tend to be more socially liberal even if they
are economically conservative, and they deliver 52 electoral votes.  That alone
could make Weld a legitimate contender, as well as the fact that he will be the
one candidate willing to stand up to the Religious Right.

>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.

Dole's name is mentioned every year, and he always flops.

Also, I hear Phil Gramm's name mentioned a lot.  I'm not sure that he has
national appeal, though he would carry Texas.

>Democrat:

Assuming that Clinton loses in '92, I presume.  If not, the Willy and Al Show
would almost certainly get the nomination and the this would become a laundry
list for 2000.

>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.

Conservative Democrats generally like his economic policies.  However, most
of the power in the Democratic Party is farther to the left.  I'm not sure that
the powerful Democrats and their constituencies would let Tsongas succeed (much
like the Religious Right would fight against Bill Weld).  In addition, Tsongas
is perhaps the only Democrat who would have wide appeal to Republican voters,
particularly if the GOP nominates a captive of the far right.

>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.

Jackson is a force in states with a large black vote.  He cannot be ignored,
though I feel his chances of nomination are next to nil.  He lost much of the
momentum he gained in '84 and '88, and the nation at large is not ready for
his brand of rather extreme liberalism.  Jackson has alienated too many people
to hold an elected office (except perhaps as governor in the newly-created
state of New Columbia).

>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.

Brown is an interesting character.  Brown certainly has a small but fiercely
loyal following who will help him make another run in '96.  Democrats who are
disgusted with the status quo may give Brown a look.

There a few other Democrats, too.  Gephardt comes to mind.  Also, some of the
more prominent women (such as Ann Richards) could make a run, too.  I also
think that the California Senate candidates (Boxer and Feinstein) might be
interested (if they win this November), but they are probably better suited by
looking toward 2000.


Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
******************************************************************************
"Take a breath, Al.  Lighten up." -- Dan Quayle to Al Gore, 10/13/92