It’s not as if his comments recently haven’t been widely reported. The earlier stuff he did get away with because it was early and he wasn’t first tier yet. But the guy was on the View for goodness’ sake and repeated the same stuff.
He’s teflon.
At this point a very small percentage of Americans are paying close attention to the race. If you want to believe that stuff this early matters more than a tiny, tiny bit, feel free… but Nate Silver doesn’t. Stuff this early really tells us very little, except when candidates drop out.
I still see nothing that marks Carson as different than Cain and Bachmann from '12.
More likeable, more inspiring biography, for starters. In a GOP field that you say is so weak, why couldn’t Carson win the nomination? There’s no Romney here either to default to.
I think Cain is much, much more likable, for what it’s worth. Carson has no charisma whatsoever. He’s perpetually half-asleep.
I think the chances are very low because when asked serious questions he either responses with crazy wingnuttery or ignorance (or both); because he has no charisma; because the establishment would be totally against him; because he hasn’t demonstrated any ability to campaign and win elections; and that’s off the top of my head.
Cain was just a list of silly proposals. Carson’s candidacy is about the story of Ben Carson and he couches his views as his personal views. Cain ran as an outsider politician with unique proposals. Carson runs as a regular guy who is just calmly offering up his opinions on the issues of the day. It just resonates better and it’s why voters seem to be more tolerant of him. I don’t know how well that will play when the voting actually starts, but for now it’s working for him.
Cain and Bachmann had the same weaknesses(thus your comparison), but again, didn’t have his biography or his charisma. He’s not electric charismatic, but he does seem to be quietly charismatic in a strange way. I can’t really figure it out for sure either. I’ve been a fan of Carson the man for a long time but I just don’t know about this running for President thing. Nothing he’s saying about being President impresses me. Most of what he says about his personal opinions makes me like him more as a person(he says the same things most conservatives I know say), but doesn’t really tell me why I should vote for him and not my next door neighbor.
This is fine; I just don’t see how any of this means he has a real chance at the nomination. Especially considering what his calm opinions and views are.
We disagree on his charisma. As for the crazy bonkers stuff he says, I’d say they do a lot worse than not impressing me – they make me believe that he’s not capable of thinking reasonably and rationally on issues related to domestic or international politics. In short, he’s a wingnut. Louie Gohmert or Steve King with different delivery, but just as insane statements.
What about his views would keep him from winning the GOP nomination? Isn’t he simply saying what liberals believe about Republicans anyway? For me his views are problematic because I don’t want Republicans to be that way. But enough of them are that it is possible to nominate a candidate like Ben Carson.
No, we agree on his charisma. But at the debates, he gets very positive intensity responses for some of his answers. He’s inspiring people to get involved in a way that Cain or Bachmann never could. How many candidates can brag that they turned a single mother piano instructor into a big dollar bundler? And did Cain or Bachmann ever raise the kind of money he’s raising, almost all from small donors?
So far the Republicans haven’t nominated someone completely insane. They didn’t nominate Bachmann or Cain, or Gary Bauer and Pat Buchanan in the past, etc.
I wish they would – I’d love to face Carson in the general. But I seriously doubt they will.
Cain’s fundraising was pretty comparable at a comparable point in the campaign. Anecdotal stories about single bundlers aren’t convincing to me.
I realize it’s been four years, but Carson’s raised double that. But yes, you’re right that the GOP usually settles down and nominates someone more mainstream.
He’s raised about 1.5 or 1.7 times that (from the numbers I saw), which is impressive, but it wasn’t over the same period of time (Cain’s numbers were over a shorter period of time, I believe). Either way, they’re in the same ballpark. Perhaps Carson is slightly more impressive than Cain in his fundraising, but in his statements he’s even nuttier, and I think he’s a lot less charismatic and interesting to talk to. Cain is kind of fun – Carson is a sleepy nutbar.
Yet.
I spent a little bit of time searching this evening for an article I recall being on fivethirtyeight a while back specifically about the likely vs. registered voter effect. What I recall is that as you near an election, you should absolutely pay closer attention to the likely voter polls, as they’re quite good in the aggregate and have not shown historical bias (where RV polls show about a 2-point Democratic bias at the Presidential level, though with very high standard deviation.) However, as you get further away from the election (such as where we are now), the RV polls are better because the likely voter models aren’t well worked out yet. We don’t know if there will be an enthusiasm gap, or which way. Sadly, I couldn’t find the article.
Either way, I completely agree with iiandyiiii’s point: general election polls at this point are a joke, whether based on RV or LV. Trump loses to Clinton, which the polls actually do show. But Carson loses to Clinton, too. Polls aren’t showing that yet. I wish Carson losing big was a hypothesis we’d get to test, but sadly, I think it’s not to be.
Not seeing it. I see betting on Iowa and NH each separately, but this is a Daily Double bet (horse-racing style, not Jeopardy!) that I’m asking about.
As a Democrat, or at least a left leaning independent, should I be rooting for a Trump win in the primary? I mean, I doubt like hell that he can win in the general, so it would be an easier path for the Democratic candidate. But, at the same time, it would be a non-zero chance of President Trump, which is terrifying.
The first question you have to ask yourself is, which of these bozos wouldn’t be terrifying as President?
No matter which one of these guys is nominated, if he* wins and they retake the Senate, Congress will de-fund Obamacare, block-grant Medicaid, and turn Medicare into a voucher program. For starters. And the GOP President, whoever he is, will sign all that. (I don’t see Trump encouraging such legislation, but I’d bet against his vetoing it.) So they’re all pretty damn scary, AFAIAC.
So given that, the fact that Trump’s candidacy is messing with the heads of those who thought they ran the Republican party, I’m rooting for Trump to do as well as possible for as long as possible. Confusion to our enemies, and the more, the better.
*I’m assuming it won’t be Carly.
Agreed, but there are levels of terrifying. Carson/Trump are defcon 5 terrifying. Bush/Rubio are not.
There is no Defcon 6? Just askin’…
Palin.
Trump is mostly an act. Palin is not.
You guys have the scale backwards. DEFCON 1 is imminent nuclear war. DEFCON 5 if the lowest state of readiness.
Link.
I even thought to look that up to be sure…