![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bedsitter23The interesting part of Presidential politics is that things happen before anything really happen. Know what I am saying?
Tim Pawlenty dropped out of the last election because of abysmal poll numbers, though by the time the actual campaign came around, everyone had a look at the front runner status- Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich- and the Iowa caucus was won by someone with even worse historical numbers- Rick Santorum. Hindsight tends to think maybe things would have worked out for Tim.
So, while it's not surprising to see a Jim Gilmore and Rick Perry drop from the race, one tends to want to say to Scott Walker "Where's the Fire?". That seems like a pretty obvious reaction, even moreso when you're watching a bought-and-paid-for "Walker for President" TV ad about 2 hours after he announced he was dropping out.
I especially wish Hunter S Thompson was alive for this campaign. He would probably say something about 'peak'ing, and I think it is true.
There is a certain peak that a candidate hits and once they reach that top it's nowhere but down. For an easy example, look at Rick Perry and Chris Christie who spent time as sure-fire next Presidents. (I haven't quite thrown Jeb Bush in there yet, but the jury is out).
It's not always so drastic but it exists. Dick Gephardt had a promising first campaign, but a horribly desperate second. John McCain peaked around 2002 which was enough to get him a party nomination two years later but not enough to put him a formidable November fight. Giuliani was the first of many recent candidates who plateaued too early in the cycle.
Hillary of course hit her peak four years ago but thinks that being the only candidate in the field is enough (WE are finding out that might not be the case).
It is also the fear Trump should be feeling.
Lest we forget, two and a half months ago, Walker was a front runner. He wasn't the biggest name, but he had a sizable lead. Now, he is in tenth at three percent support in Iowa.
He won't win here now and he needed too. I see a five person race now- Trump, Carson, Fiorina, Cruz and possibly Jeb. There may be another - Kasich or Jindal or Rubio though, I have my doubts.
Hunter S probably would have given it a sports metaphor, perhaps a baseball team that barely makes the playoffs but gets hot and wins the World Series, or vice versa.
Which brings me to another thing Hunter S might have said. Scott Walker's problems started when he tried to outcrazy crazy. That probably should have been our sign.
Donald Trump wants to build a wall between us and Mexico, Scott Walker will do that AND he will build a wall between the US and Canada.
Walker had some less than likable ideas to begin with, but this made him look crazy (Note: though it may seem this way, I really don't want Walker to run for President. I have strong suspicions Trump may be a Democratic plant, because this is exactly what Dems would want. I agree with the head of the AFL-CIO who got in the zinger, Scott Walker is still a disgrace, at least now, he's not a national disgrace. Hey-oh!)
Lastly, I want to invoke HST one more time, as I get the feeling this election cycle that the more campaign ads that a candidate runs, the worst their campaign is in.
Rick Perry (and it may be his PAC's fault not him) ran a lot of ads, and they just made me sad for Rick. They came off desperate. Hillary runs ads hourly, which seems unnecessary, but show that she is losing. (Her ads are optimistic and bright, though they should just be 30 seconds of "Seriously, you are not going to vote for the self-proclaimed Socialist Jew?") . So it was with Walker (and Jindal) who have started to run ads.
Meanwhile, Trump doesn't need to. He is the brand name. Bernie is sort of a different animal, but he has that Ron Paul kind of support- people making homemade signs and putting it in their yards. It's incredible to see someone have success with that.
There's still a lot of ground to cover, of course, and the field will probably reset itself a few times before we get there, but it is always interesting.
Tim Pawlenty dropped out of the last election because of abysmal poll numbers, though by the time the actual campaign came around, everyone had a look at the front runner status- Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich- and the Iowa caucus was won by someone with even worse historical numbers- Rick Santorum. Hindsight tends to think maybe things would have worked out for Tim.
So, while it's not surprising to see a Jim Gilmore and Rick Perry drop from the race, one tends to want to say to Scott Walker "Where's the Fire?". That seems like a pretty obvious reaction, even moreso when you're watching a bought-and-paid-for "Walker for President" TV ad about 2 hours after he announced he was dropping out.
I especially wish Hunter S Thompson was alive for this campaign. He would probably say something about 'peak'ing, and I think it is true.
There is a certain peak that a candidate hits and once they reach that top it's nowhere but down. For an easy example, look at Rick Perry and Chris Christie who spent time as sure-fire next Presidents. (I haven't quite thrown Jeb Bush in there yet, but the jury is out).
It's not always so drastic but it exists. Dick Gephardt had a promising first campaign, but a horribly desperate second. John McCain peaked around 2002 which was enough to get him a party nomination two years later but not enough to put him a formidable November fight. Giuliani was the first of many recent candidates who plateaued too early in the cycle.
Hillary of course hit her peak four years ago but thinks that being the only candidate in the field is enough (WE are finding out that might not be the case).
It is also the fear Trump should be feeling.
Lest we forget, two and a half months ago, Walker was a front runner. He wasn't the biggest name, but he had a sizable lead. Now, he is in tenth at three percent support in Iowa.
He won't win here now and he needed too. I see a five person race now- Trump, Carson, Fiorina, Cruz and possibly Jeb. There may be another - Kasich or Jindal or Rubio though, I have my doubts.
Hunter S probably would have given it a sports metaphor, perhaps a baseball team that barely makes the playoffs but gets hot and wins the World Series, or vice versa.
Which brings me to another thing Hunter S might have said. Scott Walker's problems started when he tried to outcrazy crazy. That probably should have been our sign.
Donald Trump wants to build a wall between us and Mexico, Scott Walker will do that AND he will build a wall between the US and Canada.
Walker had some less than likable ideas to begin with, but this made him look crazy (Note: though it may seem this way, I really don't want Walker to run for President. I have strong suspicions Trump may be a Democratic plant, because this is exactly what Dems would want. I agree with the head of the AFL-CIO who got in the zinger, Scott Walker is still a disgrace, at least now, he's not a national disgrace. Hey-oh!)
Lastly, I want to invoke HST one more time, as I get the feeling this election cycle that the more campaign ads that a candidate runs, the worst their campaign is in.
Rick Perry (and it may be his PAC's fault not him) ran a lot of ads, and they just made me sad for Rick. They came off desperate. Hillary runs ads hourly, which seems unnecessary, but show that she is losing. (Her ads are optimistic and bright, though they should just be 30 seconds of "Seriously, you are not going to vote for the self-proclaimed Socialist Jew?") . So it was with Walker (and Jindal) who have started to run ads.
Meanwhile, Trump doesn't need to. He is the brand name. Bernie is sort of a different animal, but he has that Ron Paul kind of support- people making homemade signs and putting it in their yards. It's incredible to see someone have success with that.
There's still a lot of ground to cover, of course, and the field will probably reset itself a few times before we get there, but it is always interesting.
