The Establishment Protests

George W Bush has once again spoken his mind on the state of affairs.  Amazing that he was able to hold his tongue for 8 years while Barack Obama hammered him on everything from the state of US foreign policy to the state of the economy.  No more!  He needs to speak.  According to Bush, the forces of bigotry have been emboldened of late and he fears that the US is slipping toward white supremacy.  No names are mentioned but it's pretty clear who he is blaming.  Just the other day, John McCain criticized spurious nationalism.  Yes, the establishment is furious.

 

The source of all this nationalism and white supremacy nonsense is that Trump has instructed ICE, the Border Patrol, et al. to enforce the laws that Congress had passed and his predecessors had signed.  No new laws have been passed.  After decades of neglect, those laws appear draconian.  Amazingly, enforcing immigrations laws has long been a winning issue that neither party was interested in pursuing.  Bush sought to pass an amnesty - Path to Citizenship - and was shot down.  Bush's brother, JEB, described illegal immigration as an 'act of love.'  McCain is a big amnesty proponent except when he is running for re-election every 6 years.  Obama didn't even bother with Congress and enacted a limited amnesty via executive order: DACA.  The establishment doesn't like the voters and is importing new voters.

 

Bush is part of the establishment, a true believer in big government, which he termed 'compassionate' conservatism.  Moreover, he has personal reasons to dislike Trump, the man who easily squashed his brother's presidential run.  These are not the wise musings of a dispassionate statesman.  This is a member of the establishment trying to damage an outsider lest that outsider derail the deep state.

 

The rebellion against the establishment is a global phenomenon.  Brexit?  Catalonia?  The rise of the right in France, Germany, Austria, Hungary?  Trump is just the American version of this rebellion.  Remember, the establishment with all their Ivy League degrees managed to estrange the electorate to such a degree that the electorate voted for Trump!  Bush and his fellow scolds need to take a long look in the mirror to discover how we came to this point.

Silver Linings

America managed to dodge catastrophe only to crash into disaster.  Still, there are some silver linings from this dark cloud of an election year.

1. The Clinton Dynasty is done.  Though it is possible that Chelsea will make a run at some future date, both Bill and Hillary are going to retire to private life.  That neither of them holds public office means that the Clinton Foundation will see its funding evaporate.  Without the play, there will be a lot less pay.

2. The Bush Dynasty was foiled.  If there is one thing Trump did for which I am truly grateful is that he crushed JEB!  These dynastic families are a threat to the country.  The growth of an elite establishment in Washington, DC is strengthened by these dynastic families.  Sadly, JEB's son, George P Bush, is currently Texas Land Commissioner and doubtless on a path toward higher political office.  They're like roaches.

3. The adversarial press is back.  Where Obama and Hillary have had a largely fawning media, Trump will have to endure a hostile media.  I like that.  Yes, the media remains biased but I am much happier when the media is biased against government rather than for it.  If Trump's Secretary of State tries a private email server, there will be hell to pay immediately.  If the IRS starts targeting MoveOn.Org or the Huffington Post, the media will rightly demand investigations and firings; they will not be satisfied with early retirements and 5th Amendment invocations.  The president should not have a comfortable relationship with the media.

4. The Rule of Law is valid again.  This is related to the adversarial press but also applies to the Democrats.  When the rule of law was an impediment, the Democrats flouted it.  Now that it can be a cudgel to be used on the ruling Republicans, the Democrats are going to call for respecting the laws.

 

5. No more excuses for the Republicans.  Though not a Republican myself, I generally side with them on most issues.  The Republicans have had a string of victories since Obama's election and have somehow failed to capitalize on any of them.  The 2010 retaking of the House led to... nothing.  They couldn't do anything without the Senate.  Right.  Have you guys read the Constitution?  Apparently not.  In 2014, the Republicans captured the Senate which led to... nothing.  They couldn't do anything without the Presidency.  Seriously?  You really need to read the Constitution.  Now they have the Presidency, the Senate, and the House.  Implement some of that stuff you promised back in 2010.

 

6. Speaking of past promises, Obamacare repeal!  Obama promised that my premiums would drop $2500 a year and I could keep my plan.  Neither of those came to pass.  In fact, my costs went up.  Repeal Obamacare and don't replace it.  Let the market work.  Government regulations always drive prices up and make it harder to innovate.

 

Yes, it's bad but it's not all bad.

Establishment doesn't Endorse Anti-Establishment Candidate? Shocking!

Just encountered an anti-Trump post on Facebook that pretends to offer wisdom.  It reads as follows:

There are five living presidents, both Democrats and Republicans.  NONE of them has endorsed Donald Trump for president.

 

Maybe we should listen to those who know what the job requires to succeed.

 

Occupy Democrats

Wow, that's a good point.  Then again, you wouldn't expect the Democrats to endorse a Republican, would you?  That means Obama, Clinton, and Carter are beside the point.  But what about the Republicans?  Let's see, that would be George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush.  Wait, didn't a close relative just get shellacked by Trump?  Yeah, I remember!  JEB, GHWB's son and GWB's brother, was called 'low energy' and utterly trounced in the primaries.  It was actually embarrassing considering how much money JEB got from the establishment donors who had also supported the other Bush campaigns.  Trump broke the family dynasty while hardly spending a dime!  And you say they didn't endorse him?  Huh!  Clearly, that decision was not at all biased.

Hamstringing a Future Presidential Run

In his speech tonight, Senator Ted Cruz failed to endorse his party's nominee, Donald Trump.  Instead, he said vote your conscience.  No matter the justifications, that is petty.  Such an open display of disunity and a failure to support the person the voters chose is a political blunder.  Very early in the primary season, the Republican candidates were asked if they would support the eventual nominee.  The whole purpose of that question was to prevent Trump from going rogue.  JEB, Cruz, Rubio, et al. said they would support the nominee, whoever it was.  Where are they now?

Let us suppose that Trump loses and Cruz runs in 2020.  Has he given a speech that will draw the voters to him?  No.  He has disrespected their choice and expects them to choose more wisely next time around.  Even those who voted for him might find this off putting.  He could have learned some political maneuvering from Richard Nixon.  Nixon went all in for Barry Goldwater in 1964.  Though Nixon was no where near as conservative as Goldwater, the Goldwater voters remembered his loyalty to the party.  Nixon won the nomination and the presidency in 1968.

Ideologically speaking, Cruz is probably closest to me.  If he gets some sense, he will stump for Trump during the campaign and make an appearance with Trump to undo this political faux pas.  It is not necessary to like your party's nominee but it is a requirement to support him.  The Bush wing of the party is notably absent but, as JEB's fabulous showing demonstrates, that wing is almost dead.  Don't go down that path, Ted.  Even if the quarterback is a jerk, be a team player.

Sour Grapes

JEB offered a backhanded congratulation to Donald Trump for winning the nomination:

Kudos to him for, you know, kind of creating the environment and then manipulating the environment to his effect.

 

Trump appealed to voters while JEB appealed to donors.  The donors sure did love JEB prior to votes being cast.  His war chest was so vast that most thought it was a foregone conclusion that he would win the nomination.  No, he pissed all that money away to no effect.  The all-knowing JEB then offered this insight:

The tragedy of this though, is that there isn't going to be a wall built. And Mexico's not going to pay for it. And there's not going to be ban on Muslims.

JEB doesn't think that's a tragedy.  He doesn't want a wall and he doesn't want to limit Muslim immigration.  In any case, there is already a law to build the wall.  JEB may be surprised to learn that it was passed and signed during his brother's administration!  Isn't that interesting.  The law was passed but Congress didn't fund it.  Wow, imagine if the Republican Congress stopped funding stuff the Republican base doesn't like.  Maybe if they had, you wouldn't have Donald Trump as your nominee.  Oh, but he wasn't done:

And that's the heartbreaking part of this.  Is that I think people are really going to be betrayed.

You mean like the Republicans betrayed their voters after the 2010 elections?  And betrayed their voters again after the 2014 elections?  And have betrayed their voters again and again?  Do you remember all those promises to stop Obamacare, JEB?  If the border wall could be stopped by just not writing that check, what excuse do the Republicans have?  Spinelessness.  Trump is many things but he isn't spineless.  Again, Republican voters have had establishment Republicans betray them so frequently in the last 10 years that Trump is viewed as a more reliable option.  Ponder that, loser!

 

It is wonderful to see yet another Republican come out and trash the nominee of his party.  This is the guy that - like it or not - your voters chose.  Trashing him can easily be viewed as an attack on the Republican base.  And you wonder why you didn't win so much as a single state, JEB?

Media is saving Bombshells for the General Election?

In this article, Ted Cruz suggests that the media has numerous bombshell stories to drop on Trump should he be the nominee.  That sounds like a reasonable suggestion.  But is it?  If there are bombshells out there, why hasn't every Republican opposition research team dug it up and used it?  Or what about the conservative media that is hugely opposed to Trump?  Ben Shapiro blasted Trump pretty hard in a recent video which seems to have done nothing.  Romney - the man who lost the most winnable election against a Democratic incumbent since Reagan beat Carter - launched a massive attack and Trump replied with little more than a shrug.  After all, Romney's a loser.  Trump is an admitted adulterer, has acknowledged bankruptcies, admitted influencing government officials because that is how the game is played, and more.  He is still in the lead.  I'm doubtful there are worse failings to be uncovered.  Sure, the media will press hard on all these issues but Trump isn't the typical Republican who will wilt.  Also, Hillary has an equally huge number of bombshells, many of them relating to her performance as a public servant.  Unlike Romney vs. Obama, where Romney didn't hammer on Obama's record of failure, I'm pretty sure Trump is going to tear into Hillary in exactly the way Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, JEB, or any other Republican wouldn't.  Trump fights and he doesn't give a crap what the media thinks.  Yes, his attacks are often unfair and inaccurate; Cruz of all people should know that.  However, they stick.  I've talked to people who distrust Cruz because of what Trump said about him.  Look what happened to JEB after Trump called him 'low energy.'  I don't begrudge Ted his effort to use potential media bombshells to turn the electorate toward him but I also don't think Trump is an easy mark for Hillary.  This is an anti-establishment year and Hillary is the most establishment candidate still in the race.

South Carolina and Nevada

Trump (32.4%) has another victory and all the Palmetto State delegates too.  Jeb! (7.9%) has finally admitted what has been obvious for months and suspended his campaign.  Where will his sliver of voters go now?  I doubt they will go to Trump, as Trump has been particularly abrasive toward Jeb.  It is pretty clear that it is a three way race with only Trump, Rubio (22.4%), and Cruz (22.3%) having enough support to reasonably stay in the race.  Kasich (7.6%) had over a hundred town hall meetings in New Hampshire to achieve a distant second; Santorum used the same strategy to win Iowa in 2012 but it gained him little traction thereafter.  Kasich and Carson (7.2%) will be the next two to suspend their campaigns, perhaps after Nevada but pretty certainly after Super Tuesday.  Trump will be best served if both Cruz and Rubio are still in the race after Super Tuesday so that the anti-Trump wing of the party can't coalesce around one of those two.  It is also possible that as the last 'establishment' candidate, Trump and Cruz will serve to split the anti-establishment vote and give Rubio his path to victory.  Interesting days ahead.

 

Meanwhile, Nevada chose Hillary (52.7%) over Bernie (47.2%), thus providing Hillary her first solid victory from the voters.  It could hardly be more appropriate that the land of gambling and prostitution chose Bill Clinton's wife rather than America's anti-capitalist scold.  Hillary is likely to win South Carolina as well.  Despite her apparent unpopularity, she has the Clinton network to manage her ground game.  Young voters prefer Bernie - much as they preferred Obama in 2008 - but turn out has been down among Democrats this year.  That's bad news for Bernie.  Low turnout tends to benefit the establishment.  Nevada participation was down by a third from 2008, showing the voters are less interested in the Clinton - Sanders race than they were in the Clinton - Obama race.

 

On the issue of turnout, the Republicans have had tremendous participation so far.  If the relative voter enthusiasm holds to the general election, this could be a Republican landslide.  As I said in an earlier post, the presidency almost always switches parties after a two term presidency.  Lacking a roaring economy only makes it more likely to flip.

New Hampshire Primary

A bit late on this but here's what I've got.  First, big money isn't what it used to be.  Here are a few charts that shows how much the candidates spent and how that broke down per vote.  In theory, if money is what makes you win, the dollars per voter figure should be roughly equivalent.  Therefore, if Candidate A spends $10,000 and Candidate B spends $20,000, Candidate B should get twice as many votes.  At least, that is what the 'money in politics' people will tell you.  But this didn't work out in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Nearly $100 million was spent on Jeb's campaign, dwarfing his nearest competitor by a factor of 2.  And yet, in Iowa he came in 6th with less than 3% of the vote.  He did better in New Hampshire, achieving 4th place with 11% of the vote.  Again, according the money in politics people, Jeb should have won but he is barely registering.  He spent $2600 per vote.

By contrast, Ted Cruz won Iowa with 27.6% of the vote and, despite spending less than half a million dollars in New Hampshire, achieved 3rd place with 11.7% of the vote.  He has spent $472 per vote.

But here is the big one.  Trump, who is almost exclusively self-financed, was 2nd in Iowa and 1st in New Hampshire for a mere $87 a vote.

If big money was the secret to winning the nomination, the top three Republicans should have been Jeb, Carson, and Rubio.  That is not to say that money has no role, it clearly does.  However, lots of money behind no message vs. little money behind a popular message, the message is winning rather than the money.  At least, that is how it works on the Republican side.

Among the Democrats, we have something that looks undemocratic.  Iowa was a virtual tie, with Hillary getting 0.2% more votes than Bernie.  In New Hampshire, it was a rout.  Bernie got a shade over 60% of the vote to Hillary's 38%.  Between the tie and the slaughter, Hillary has a commanding lead in delegates, 394 to Bernie's 44.  How can that be?  The Democrats have super delegates, party members who can pledge for whichever candidate they like, regardless of voting.  As it happens, though the voting delegates of New Hampshire (24) were split between Bernie (15) and Hillary (9) based on the vote totals, the 8 super delegates were spit among Hillary (6) and Unpledged (2).  That means the 22 point landslide in Bernie's favor found him getting 15 delegates to Hillary's 15.  Sure does look like the party bosses have decided on the nominee before the rank and file voters even have a say.  That's why it's call the Democratic Party.

 

Historically, this should be a Republican year to win.  In the last 60 years, only once has the party not changed after two terms: George Bush in 1988.  Reagan was sufficiently popular even after 8 years of ups and downs to convince the voters not to switch parties.  I don't think Obama will have that same effect.

Hawkeye Thoughts

There is talk that because Trump did not win Iowa that he is now toast.  He failed the expectations game and his support will now desert him.  I am doubtful.  Unlike a primary, a caucus requires a much greater commitment.  Stopping by your local polling station to pull a lever is a lot easier than attending a caucus.  There are efforts by other participants to win you to their candidate while you try to woo them to yours.  Since one is committing the evening to the event rather than just swinging by the polling station, a ground organization is far more important in Iowa.  Had Iowa been a primary, Trump likely would have won.  The big test will be how he does in the New Hampshire Primary.  If he doesn't win this one, then his support may ebb.

Though Rubio looks to be on the rise, he has the huge issue of his Gang of Eight fiasco.  In a year when an outsider like Trump was able to rocket to the top on the issue of immigration, it would be folly to nominate a Senator who attempted to foist amnesty on the voters.  Immigration is the Republicans' trump card and Rubio cannot play it.  This duplicates how Romney could not press Obama on Obamacare thanks to his passage of Romneycare in Massachusetts.  I like Rubio but this is the wrong year for his run.  He's young and has plenty of time to come back in later years, hopefully after atoning for his Amnesty foolishness.

 

Hillary is in big trouble.  Her two tenths of one percent victory is really a tie.  Bernie, who has been largely ignored by the media, somehow closed a double-digit gap thanks to a message that resonated with the base.  The base loves the farthest left candidate and Hillary can't credibly go there thanks to her history.  She voted for Bush's Iraq invasion, she lobbied Obama to stay in Iraq, for a greater commitment in Syria, and was the top cheerleader for the Libyan adventure.  She is comparatively a hawk in a party dominated by doves.  The party doesn't want Bernie - which is why he gets as little coverage as he does and why there are so few debates - and will probably enlist Biden or Warren if Hillary doesn't turn things around quickly.

 

Bernie is a true believer.  Most Democrats deliver the same lines that Bernie does but, once safely in office, they sidle up to the fat cats on Wall Street and enjoy the sweet life.  Bernie will attempt the socialist ideals he espouses, ruining that sweet life for all Washington elites.  When no one thought he had a chance, he was treated as the crazy uncle.  Now that he has gained traction, the long knives will come out.

 

Carson peaked too soon and is unlikely to recapture it.  He is unlikely to break the top 5 in New Hampshire.  He would have been more suited to the campaigning styles of earlier eras.  The 24 hour news cycle rewards larger than life personalities while overlooking the quietly humble.  The former is more entertaining but the latter is better suited to the presidency.

 

Kasich, Jeb, and Christie need a good showing to keep the money rolling.  I doubt Christie is going much beyond New Hampshire as many are still annoyed with his embracing Obama only days before the 2012 election.  Efforts were made to enlist him in 2012 but now he isn't wanted.  He missed his window.  Jeb wants to stay in the field and hope to benefit from the winnowing.  Short of some serious disasters for the top tier candidates, I don't see a route for his recovery, and for that I am thankful.

"Conservative" Billionaires for Hillary

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/elections-2016/article48067815.html

What does this say about JEB?  It says that JEB is closer to Hillary than to Trump is.  It says that JEB supporters can more easily swing over to a leftist Democrat than a non-traditional Republican.  Really, both JEB and Hillary are in favor of Amnesty and Common Core.  Hillary says that Obama's executive amnesty (lawlessness) didn't go far enough!  JEB and Hillary could be running mates, which is why JEB's campaign has floundered. 

Fernandez calls Trump the next Hitler or Mussolini.  Gee, Republicans aren't used to being called fascists on a regular basis.  I can't count the number of times that George W. Bush was compared to Hitler or called a Nazi.  Of course, the very ones who hurl the fascism/Nazi label usually demonstrate their ignorance.  Mussolini was a Socialist who later combined with Nationalism to create National Socialism.  Which party has the Socialists again?  Isn't Bernie Sanders a self-declared Socialist?  But the Republican is the Fascist.  Whatever.  But let's look at the evidence so far.

What are Trump's declared policies that are either posted on his website or regularly mentioned in his stump speeches?

 

US-China Trade Reform: Trump thinks we have a bad deal with China as far as trade goes and wants to dramatically reset the table.  He makes a lot of good points and has some prescriptions that I like.  Notably, he suggests fixing our debt as a means of closing our trade deficit (there is an economic proof that shows that trade deficits are related to debt).  I'm doubtful of regaining lost manufacturing jobs but a stronger stance would be generally beneficial.

Veterans Administration Reform: This was briefly a scandal for the Obama Administration and Bush before him.  Trump proposes to fix it but so did the current and previous administration.  Will Trump follow through?  Government agencies are, by their nature, doomed to inefficiency and waste.  Trump may be able to improve it but privatization and reimbursement would probably work better.

 

Tax Reform: Simplify the tax code.  He has proposed 4 brackets and a shift in who pays the burden.  He particularly mentioned hedge fund managers.  Sounds like he wants to tax Wall Street more.  Isn't that was Elizabeth Warren wants?  Is she a Nazi?  I've reviewed Trump's tax ideas in another post and don't need to retread it here.

Second Amendment Rights: He believes in the 2nd Amendment.  Trump has bragged about having a gun and even claims to have a concealed carry license.  Hitler was a gun-grabber, the better to oppress the citizens.  Who else wants to limit the citizens' access to guns?  President Obama!  Sounds like Obama and the Democrats are closer to Hitler than Trump is.

Immigration Reform: Here's the big one, the one that launched Trump into the lead that he has held for months.  Secure the border and eject those who crossed it illegally.  Let's enforce the laws that Congress passed.  US Immigration should primarily benefit Americans, not foreigners.  Why import cheap labor at the expense of increasing the unemployment rate among inner-city youth?  Yep, that sounds like Hitler.  OMG, the Horror!  The Fascism!

War on Terror: Though not listed among his positions on his website, Trump is very strong on this.  He has called for bombing ISIS out of existence and not bringing Muslim refugees into the United States.

All of these are popular overall positions with the American electorate.  That's why he is viewed as a Populist.  However, none of them are Fascist.  You might call his immigration policy Nativist, his trade policy Protectionist, or his Tax Reform a giveaway to the wealthy but none of these policies jibe with Hitler.  Anyway, Trump is less of a danger than Obama, because Trump actually like America.

The Nuance of JEB

Yet again, Jeb has taken a stand at odds with the people who must vote for him if he is to win the Republican nomination.  While Republican, and even Democrat, governors are lining up in the wake of the Paris attacks to refuse to accept Syrian refugees and Speaker Ryan is suggesting a pause in such refugees, Jeb announces that he would not stop accepting refugees.  No, he says he would deal with the problem in Syria.  Gee, that's great Jeb but, with Obama as president, that isn't going to happen.  Deal with what is, not what you wish it was.  Again and again, Jeb appears to be completely oblivious to the current political realities.  He calls illegal immigration an 'act of love' and looks ready to try to push his brother's failed 2007 Amnesty.  The voters keep announcing what they want and Trump espouses it.  Voila!  Trump is in the lead.  Jeb then bashes Trump and his poll numbers sink further.  Despite repeated restarts of his campaign, he remains tone deaf to his electorate.

 

Jeb is ever eager to announce his prior gubernatorial experience in a year when candidates with no political experience at all are leading by double digits.  The voters have seen the wonders worked by 'experienced' politicians with decades in government and the results speak for themselves.  Trump and Carson, two men with zero elective experience lead the field.  In such an environment, running on elective experience is counter-productive but Jeb still hasn't figured that out.

 

It is time for Jeb to join fellow governors Bobby Jindal and Scott Walker and bow out.  Jeb is in the mold of Romney, Dole, and McCain.  They were all moderate Republicans with plenty of experience and no desire to attack the Democrat nominee.  Jeb has more venom for Trump in the primary than he will ever have for Hillary in the general election.  That is a losing strategy.  Even his brother would likely have lost in 2004 if not for the Swift Boat Veterans attacking Kerry.  Given a choice between the perfect candidate who will lose and an imperfect one who will win, choose the winner.

Distrust the Candidate

Immigration is one of the biggest issues of this election season and most of the Republicans are on the wrong side of the debate.  Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton have essentially the same view on immigration despite being from rival parties.  Marco Rubio, who is in the process of unseating Jeb as the establishment's preferred candidate, tried to get amnesty passed several years ago but has since disavowed it.  Sort of.  He has declared that he would not reverse Obama's Dreamer Act; that would be the one that Congress declined to pass into law but the president enforced it anyway.  Hey, faithfully execute the laws is so passé.  Basically, Rubio has shown his cards.  He is going to claim to be a border hawk and against illegal immigration until - should he win - he is inaugurated.  Then, hello amnesty!  Too many Republicans have a short-sighted view on immigration.

 

The fastest growing immigrant group is Muslims.  Islam is entirely incompatible with the First Amendment.  Rather than forcing new immigrants to live under the rules that they knew existed when they chose to immigrate here, we are seeing self-censorship of anything that might upset Muslims.  Those who don't practice self-censorship are the bad guys in most media reporting.  "If you hadn't drawn that cartoon of Muhammad, you wouldn't have been shot.  It's your own damn fault!"  There will come a time when an area is majority Muslim and it will vote for Sharia law.  This is a when, not an if.  Muslim immigration has done wonders for Paris and Stockholm but I'm sure it will work out much better for us.

 

Rubio probably thinks that because he is Hispanic, he will benefit from an Amnesty.  He is delusional.  Amnesty is Republican suicide.  Ever notice how the Democrats are so concerned that Republicans will never win the White House again if they don't change their views on illegal immigration?  If the other party were ruining its chanced to compete with mine, I certainly wouldn't mind and absolutely wouldn't give them advise that might harm my party's chances.  Sure, the Democrats only want what's best for Republicans.  BS!  Republicans, being stupid, have swallowed this nonsense and are prepared to give millions of votes to the Democrats by passing some form of amnesty.

 

Amnesty is an existential threat to the party and yet most of the candidates are in favor.  Few have learned from history.  Republicans lost California thanks to the last amnesty.  Lose one more big state and their presidential prospects will vanish for many years thereafter.

 

This is why Trump still dominates.  Carson and Cruz are on the same page with him but Trump is the one who trail blazed the issue and he may ride it all the way to the Presidency.

Sanders vs. Carson?

Politico has an interesting graphic that shows how much each candidate has raised and, more interesting, what percentage was from low dollar donations (under $200); that would be voters rather than big dollar donors.  Based purely on dollars generated, Hillary is the big winner:

Candidate	Millions of  $
Clinton	29.9
Sanders	26.2
Carson	20.8
Bush	13.4
Cruz	12.2
Walker	7.4
Fiorina	6.8
Rubio	5.8
Kasich	4.4
Christie	4.2

Only the top 10 are listed but Clinton is the big winner with Sanders very close and Carson as the dominant Republican.  Keep in mind that the Republican field is much larger and the money is spread among more candidates.  Though the Democrats look to be the big money draws, the entire field only collected $58.1 million while the Republican field collected $85.3 million.  But here is where it gets interesting.  When considering the source of that money, it is revealing to see how much enthusiasm is coming from the voters vs. the big donors:

 

Candidate	% Small Donation
Sanders	77%
Trump	71%
Carson	60%
Huckabee	59%
Paul	51%
Fiorina	48%
Cruz	43%
Webb	42%
Walker	36%
Rubio	21%

 

Again, only the top 10 are listed but Sanders is clearly supported by the base.  Only 17% of Hillary's money came from small donations.  And she smashes JEB, who only saw 7% of his from small donations.  These under $200 donations are from Ma & Pa Kettle, the average voter.  One more graphic to show dollars from small donors:

  

Candidate	Millions of $
Sanders	20.2
Carson	12.5
Cruz	5.2
Clinton	5.1
Fiorina	3.3
Trump	2.8
Walker	2.7
Paul	1.3
Rubio	1.2
Bush	0.9

 

Sanders has raised four times what Hillary has from the base voter while Carson has collected more than double his nearest competitor.  Trump is a special case since he has not sought, and does not need, donations and has them anyway; he has utterly trounced JEB in small donations, who does have a fundraising machine.

 

Obviously, the election is more than a year away and the first votes aren't cast until February.  However, it is clear which candidates are generating enthusiasm from the voters and which are not.  If the current pattern holds (which it won't), we might be looking at Sanders vs. Carson.  I can hardly wait to accuse every Democrat I meet of being a racist for opposing a black man.

 

The New Nobility

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States

US Constitution, Article I, Section 9

 

Among those running for the Presidency are Hillary Clinton, the wife of former President Bill Clinton and Jeb Bush, son and sibling of two presidents (George Bush and George W. Bush).  There is also Rand Paul, the son of long-serving Congressman Ron Paul and Lincoln Chafee, the son of life-long politician John Chafee.  Lincoln actually inherited his father's Senate seat when the elder Chafee died.  Oh, sure, the governor of Rhode Island 'appointed' him but that's pretty blatant.  The United States should not have family dynasties in politics, especially at the national level.

 

To an extent, this is unavoidable.  For millennia, most men found themselves in the same profession as their father.  A farmer's son became a farmer, blacksmith's son a blacksmith, a cobbler's son a cobbler, and so forth.  Even today, it is natural that a parent would impart knowledge of their chosen profession to their children.  Many kids want to be like mom or dad.  In most cases, that is fine.  However, in politics, it is troublesome.  With all the sway that former politicians accumulate (witness how many become lobbyists of their former colleagues), it creates dynastic families that are not so much elected as anointed.  Would JEB Bush have done so well on fundraising if he wasn't related to two former presidents?  Would Hillary have been elected Senator in New York if she wasn't married to the sitting president?  Would either George W or Jeb have been elected governors of Texas and Florida if their father had not been president?  For that matter, would George Bush have won a seat in congress in 1967 if not for his father, Senator Prescott Bush.

Family dynasties are incompatible with representative republics.  When Jeb Bush announced his candidacy, he let it be known that he would seek the nomination without appealing to the Republican base.  The base opposes Amnesty and Common Core; Bush favors both.  If not for his family connections, he would already be toast.  What of Hillary?  Her campaign, such as it is, survives thanks to Bill's charm and popularity.  Without Bill, Hillary would have had no political career at all.

Sadly, there is no legal fix for this.  It would be inappropriate to deny people to run for public office because a parent, sibling, or spouse had done so.  The only solution is for the public to refuse to vote for them.  I have not yet voted for a Bush or a Clinton and have no plans to ever do so.  Please join me.