The Republicans Will Debate: How Are They Going To Adapt To Conflicting Paradigms?

The Republicans will debate later today. The debate coach in me is happy even though it won't be a debate. Real debate involves delivering prepared cases, engaging in direct cross examination, and presenting concise rebuttals that sum up the key issues in the round. The event would more accurately be described as dueling extemporaneous speeches, but I digress.

 Before the young'uns go into a debate, we usually go discuss the judges. In preliminary rounds there's only one judge. In semi-final or final rounds there are usually three. Many judges have paradigms that determine how the young'uns approach the round. If the panel is composed of judges with conflicting paradigms, the young'uns have some tough choices. The Republicans on the big stage tonight have a few million judges with some fairly set but conflicting paradigms.

That fact prompts a few questions. Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, John Kasich, and Marco Rubio all seem to be fighting to get the establishment vote. Will Bush solidify his lead with this group or will one of the other cut into Bush's support? Will Kasich, Christie, or Rubio make a play for one of the other constituencies. For example, Rubio might try to wrest the tea party vote from Trump or prevent Ted Cruz from making inroads into that constituency.

 Rand Paul seems to be the favorite among libertarian leaning Republicans. Will he make a play for the angry tea party folk that now seem to gravitate toward Donald Trump? For that matter will Trump try to allay some establishment fears or ensure that he heads off any efforts from Paul or, perhaps, Scott Walker to take some of those voters?

 Ben Carson and Mike Huckabee seem to fighting for the social conservative vote. Will one of them emerge as a clear favorite of that constituency? Will Carson cede this group to Huckabee and go after the tea party vote reasoning that social conservatives will follow him if he can outlast Huckabee? The same questions might apply to Ted Cruz,

The groups admittedly overlap and many candidates have their feet in two camps, but at this stage of the campaign, the Republican candidates are not unlike high school debaters trying to determine how to win a round with a panel of judges who disagree about what constitutes a winner.

A Minor Musing About The Paula Hawks Candidacy

Let's encapsulate what will happen in the Paula Hawks challenge to Kristi Noem. First, Republicans will repeatedly cast Hawks as a tax and spend liberal; they will then go on to accuse her of being a socialist or a terrorist sympathizer who will weaken the nation and force school children to begin each school day by reciting entire suras from the Quran. Perhaps they will attempt to be creative and combine the accusations.

Later, the Noem campaign will find a news article or a Hawks social media post and use it to create a YouTube video to belittle Hawks. Hawks will respond by citing Noem's voting record; Republicans and South Dakota's incumbent-friendly mainstream media will accuse Hawks of negative campaigning.

Throughout the campaign, Noem will decry government waste but tout her work on the farm bill and the highway bill that should be finished later this year, and the conservatives who profess to hate pork barrel politics will applaud Noem's work on these bacony pieces of legislation because they provide South Dakota with a heaping helping of Washington's largesse.

Hawks has not begun well. The rollout has been underwhelming. Cory Heidelberger's mostly positive review admits the announcement video lacked thunder. Ken Santema finds it "lackluster." Pat Powers, as his wont for every non-Republican campaign, echoes those who call it "substandard." Whatever mistakes Hawks has made, her worst mistake is not having a professional war room ready to respond to the attacks and poor reviews, especially those from mainstream media outlets.

Another mistake she may be tempted to make is trying to copy Noem's efforts to tie Stephanie Herseth Sandlin to Nancy Pelosi  by attempting to tie Noem to Speaker John Boehner. I find orange skinned men who weep too easily disconcerting at best. Most South Dakota Republicans are not disconcerted in the least. Perhaps Boehner's orange hue makes them nostalgic for the television program Alf.  Pelosi, on the other hand, is a San Francisco Democrat. For most South Dakotans, that description is a pejorative only slightly less offensive than a short guttural verb that been appended with both prefix and suffix to imply that one has experienced carnal knowledge with one's female parent.

South Dakota needs competitive statewide races. I hope Hawks will successfully challenge Noem, but Hawks needs to be ready for fifteen months of rough and tumble campaigning.

This May Be The Most Frightening Political Tweet Of The Year

In Europe Donald Trump would have his own party and seats in a parliament http://t.co/iEWaFCclbI pic.twitter.com/3tO0fdlSNX

— The Economist (@TheEconomist) July 24, 2015

All I can say is Long Live the Republic!

Mall And Republicans And Terrorism, Oh My!

I really don't want to pick on John Kasich. In a Republican field that resembles March Madness more than a presidential primary, he stands out rather positively. Unlike Donald Trump, he is not a bloviating rabble rouser appealing to the lesser angels of our nature.  He has a resume that qualifies him to be president; Ben Carson does not. He isn't running because his father and brother held the office and now it's his turn. He also pays attention to detail; therefore, he will not utter "Oops" in the middle of a debate even if he doesn't wear the Clark Kent glasses Rick Perry suddenly favors.

Further, any Republican could have said the following, but since Kasich said it, he will have to own it.

.@JohnKasich on ISIS threat: "Are we going to be safe to go to the mall?" LIVE on @cspan.org http://t.co/wfjTm4Tm5l pic.twitter.com/uaxJ9IwX6b

— Emmanuel Touhey (@netouhey) July 21, 2015

First, it's not clear if shopping has become a Republican sacrament or their cure for terrorism. After all, George W. Bush recommended Americans undertake it shortly after 9/11. What should be indisputable is the fact that the United States has more important reasons to respond to ISIS than allowing Americans to continue to buy overpriced items at Hot Topic and eat at mediocre food courts.

More importantly, the statement reflects a Republican disconnect with the American middle class. People don't go to the mall as as they used to, and terrorism doesn't seem to be a reason as this US News article reports, "More than two dozen malls have shuttered their doors since 2010, according to Green Street Advisors real estate research company, and another 60 are particularly at risk of closure." The article continues, 

“If you’re a middle-class mall, and those are your anchors, what are you going to do?” asks Davidowitz, noting that "dollar stores" and stand-alone discount retailers like Walmart and T.J. Maxx have attracted traditional mall-goers who are now looking for cheaper alternatives. “The combination of e-commerce, what’s happening to the middle class and everything else is really bad news for the malls. It’s a tough business.”

Evidence of a “permanent shift in consumer behavior” is also mounting, says Neely Tamminga, a managing director and research analyst at Piper Jaffray & Co. investment bank and asset management firm.

“We talked to a thousand women on a panel every six months to gauge their spending behavior,” says Tamminga, who is involved in an ongoing research project through Piper Jaffray that began in the fall of 2013. “No matter how we ask the question, we are seeing an overall shift away from frequently going to the mall.”

Americans, in general, are not going to the mall because they are forced to look for cheaper alternatives or enjoy the convenience and affordability of e-commerce. Linking the mall to ISIS prevents any discussion about substantive ways to help the economy or contain terrorism.

Some Minor Cynical Musings About The 2016 Presidential Race

First, Ohio Governor John Kasich will become the 16th Republican presidential candidate today, a fact that is basically irrelevant to South Dakota. Granted South Dakota's Republicans will conduct their fantasy politician drafts, create a few office betting pools, and make a few donations to their favorite candidate. South Dakota will, however, support the Republican nominee, whoever that may be, with about 63% of the vote. 

Second, Hillary Clinton is the prohibitive favorite to win the Democratic nomination. To win the presidency, however, she faces several, for lack of a better phrase, demographic obstacles. 

In my cynical moments, I wonder if the American electorate is willing to elect the nation's first female president immediately after electing the first African American president. Further, since 1952, there has been only one time when a two-term president was succeeded by a member of his party. 

Finally, Hillary Clinton is nearly 14 years older than Barack Obama. The last time Americans elected new president of the same party who was that much older than the predecessor was prior to the Civil War when James Buchanan replaced Franklin Pierce. Both were Democrats. Since then, when Americans have elected someone more than a decade older than the previous president, the new president has been of a different party. By the way, Democrats who support Bernie Sanders need to remember that he is six years older than Hillary Clinton.