2016 Early Polling Continues to pit Clinton only against GOP potential candidates, Paul on Iraq – Yes his opinion can be stunning!

It appears that all pollsters continue to compare Hillary Clinton, and no other Dem candidate against the pack of 2016 potential candidates. In a situation where not one has officially announced a candidacy - but may have hinted – the best of those past races are generally put to the poll test. The pollsters have decided that must be Hillary Clinton only for the Democrats, and Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and the 2nd place 2012 GOP candidate – Rick Santorum. In the latest round of Clinton vs. the GOP – she has lost some ground according to Forbes analysis, Clinton is still ahead but has lost ground in key demographics against both Jeb Bush and Rand Paul equally.

Here’s the conundrum – Clinton is likely to either bow out entirely in November, or be ambushed at the Democrat Convention again, by Obama-light – or the new Senator from Massachusetts – Elizabeth Warren. Warren, despite protesting too much, has opened the door in recent interviews and is playing the role of 2014 candidate support, a potential sign of things to come. There is also the Governor of Maryland, who has made no bones about a 2016 run. The latter two are most likely to enter the fray.

On the Republican side, there is no telling who may emerge yet as a frontrunner – as the fortunes and the establishment hijacks, no unlike the national Democrats, will muck things up (See John McCain, Mitt Romney). Although Paul is the most likely to capture both the GOP nomination as well as the national title, it remains to be seen what machinations, if any, the GOP will mount against the son of former Congressman Ron Paul. The establishment GOP candidate is someone who is slightly less Democrat than a Progressive.

It is one thing to hold your ground and compromise while maintaining core principles (Clinton, William Jefferson, and Reagan, Ronald), and another thing when the debates are peppered with “I agree”’s from both candidates!

However, Rand Paul (KY) would most likely have the tables turned in such a debate given his issues are conservative, and at the same time, Libertarian, which allows him some leverage and more reasoned though processes. in an op-ed in the Salem, Oregon, Statemen’s Journal, there is absolutely hope in this letter that as a “Republican” (Paul) telling it like it is re: Iraq, blaming both Bush and Obama, if he will be able to take the “heat” from other Republican’s. It is likely as, in any contest that yes, there will be those incredulous naysayers who will insist that the Iraq war was a brilliant move, yet there are those who are more pragmatic and can honestly say – bad idea. Good for Paul, and doubtful that he will back down from that stance – even hotly contested. He will be battling (a la Ronald Reagan – who was almost kicked from the party), the left and the right of the political spectrum. Although so far, the left has flung only bad photographs and some trumped up plagiarism charge. Paul appears, so far, and this early, to be the best bet of those “who might run”.

On a side note: there has been so much to discuss recently that it is difficult to pick one topic at any given time – from the disaster on the US border where daily cries for help are heard from the local media, to the VA scandal to the IRS scandal to the horrific destruction of the middle east by ISIS, to so much more than one can comprehend in an hour – one debacle after another, makes one incapable of feeling nothing but sadness for the state this nation has been brought to under this administration. One does not necessarily blame the President, simply because he is pretty much a figurehead, and is surrounded by those who are acting on their own accord – yet, surely not this much junk could get by one CEO, or one governor, or one small businessman (say an eye doctor) – which begs the question, should we, as a nation, hire another academic for the highest office in the land?

Elites versus the working man – a schism in American Politics and the rise in popularity of the anti-incumbent

A Tea Party Protest at the Capitol - from the teapartytribune.com

An article in Salon on the political landscape in Kansas by Thomas Frank almost hits the nail on the head – almost. His piece entitled: “The matter with Kansas now: The Tea Party, the 1 percent and delusional Democrats”, suggests that the Tea Party (and independent parties) fueled by the Christian right, in Kansas, is responsible due to a populists movement of the elites versus the common working man. In the later he is correct, and perhaps for Kansas, the Christian right appears to fuel this divide, however, if one were to export the theory nationwide, one might find a rejection of all things “elite”, specifically as it applies to those in Washington D.C., and statehouses and City Councils around the country.

Perhaps, just perhaps the liberal dogma that suggests there are class systems in the United States (First Estate, Second and ad naueaum), is being rejected by those who, not specifically lacking in education, and able to understand the Constitution and Bill of rights, understands that the United States was not founded on the principles of class – rather than every individual had the ability to make their own way.

It was not to elect a king, or a body of respresentative who would be kings (and queens), it was modeled as a Republic in order to prevent that very scenario from occurring. Therefore, as elections come and go, one might find the incumbents out in the street, and those who are running for office too far left and yes, too far right, abandoned for a candidate that may not necessarily be considered viable by those who would be kingmakers (the professors (elite), the media (elite) and the political class (notice that’s common) who are – elite).

From Red State an article on Macon, Georgia, local politics, where the NPR station concluded that due to the fact that a white Republican won in an overwhelming African American district, the candidates being Democrats, that race must be a factor. Although concluded by centrist Democrats and Republicans that it was not. It was the same litany of “race” that stems from the liberal theology, that is part of the problem, and may actually lead to a choice that would be, not racist, but anti-establishment.

How so? When those who sit in ivory towers lecture on “institutions” (isms), the magpies in the media suggest this to be “fact” rather than what is contrary to the principles on which the country was founded. Therefore, all things being political, there is a rejection of those that would be part of the body politic. It is indeed a populist uprising against those who consider themselves part of a specific class, due to a degree, or lineage, by those who disagree that blind allegiance to a party, or ideology has led the nation down the wrong path.

Simply put, the revolution has begun to take place at the ballot box and there is no turning back. Those that may be considered “safe” are those that break rank with their particular political party –that condemn those in Washington as “elite”, and, with libertarian principles strongly grounded in the Constitution, will appeal to those who are no longer trusting of the lot of them.

The recent shock election in San Diego may be worth a second look, a Republican, “Kevin Faulconer won a decisive victory over Democratic Councilman David Alvarez in the San Diego mayor’s race Tuesday, signaling a new chapter for the city after the scandal-plagued tenure of former Mayor Bob Filner. Faulconer had 54.5 percent compared to Alvarez’s 45.5 percent of the vote with all precincts reporting. (UT), a race that was considered a toss-up by Reuters.

San Diego was not so usual in this election cycle (2013-2016), the same scenario played out in small and mid-sized cities, even those with political machines in place, across the country in 2013. In some instances, even fiscally proven Democrats lost seats, while incumbent Republicans (on the “establishment side) were also defeated. It is a non-partisan rejection, and there is that danger of throwing the ‘baby out with the bathwater” but – call it the unfortunate casualty of the ballot box revolution.

The Tea Party, as so often maligned as racist and full of ignorant, even right-ring Christian individuals, is more a conglomeration of all ideologies, specifically those who reject the elitism of the “ruling political class”. It is the economy and it is the infringement on rights guaranteed under the Constitution and the abuse of the same Document that has driven the working man and women to rethink blind political allegiance to one political party (or the other).



Tea Party Poster from 2009 - the beginning - from southchicagoan.blogspot.com

This will bring those “elites “who recognize the climate, to join ranks, be less party centric, and take advantage of the movement, yet, there will be, one can hazard to guess, few of those. The low information voter, a coveted prize by on party or the other, is no longer the uninformed, and therein lays the hope for the nation.