Monday, February 8, 2010

Rothenberg says Baron does not want to face Hankins

From Lesley Stedman-Weidenbener in the C-J-- in her discussion of Baron Hill filing to run for "his" 9th District seat in May/November...

“We started this (campaign) cycle believing that Baron Hill was not significantly vulnerable and that Mike Sodrel – if he were to run again – would not pose a serious threat,” said Nathan Gonzalez, political editor of the national Rothenberg Political Report. “The national trend working against Democrats has brought this seat into play.”...

Gonzalez said he’s not sure it matters which wins the GOP nomination.

Regardless, Republicans will want the race to become “a referendum on Democrats in Washington and how people feel about the direction of country,” he said.

“In contrast, Democrats and Baron Hill want the election to be a choice between him and either Sodrel or Todd Young. They want to localize the election and that’s a race Baron Hill thinks he can win.”

I'm impressed. I thought that a national organization might underestimate a grass-roots-focused campaign like Hankins'.

Gonzalez still believes that an insider-- like Sodrel, Hill, or Young-- could win. But it's difficult to imagine a better year to be an outside-the-establishment candidate.

Gonzalez is also pointing to a basic principle in politics: politicians are risk-averse. In campaigns, they prefer circumstances where the variables have less variance. Sodrel offers little if any variance. Young, as a traditional, establishment candidate, is also relatively predictable from Baron's perspective.

But Hankins' approach to campaigning-- and the movement and principles he represents-- are less predictable. One can imagine a grass-roots campaign that fizzles and one can imagine a grass-roots campaign that catches fire. But knowing Travis and trying to interpret the times, I'd bet on the latter.

In any case, let's hope Baron has a lot of sleepless nights between now and November!


At February 8, 2010 at 1:01 PM , Blogger The New Albanian said...

Let's cut to the chase. I've spent the past half hour surveying Mr. Hankins's web site.

How do you, as an educated college professor, sign on with all this?

What's more, how do you, as an educated libertarian, sign on with all this?

Just curious. Take it off line if you wish.

At February 8, 2010 at 1:59 PM , Blogger Eric Schansberg said...

Can you be more specific about how your concerns ("all this") relate to education and worldview/ideology?

At February 8, 2010 at 2:55 PM , Blogger The New Albanian said...

Nah, I'll let it go for now. I will have specific questions for the Mullah Hankins, and will relay those directly to him.


At February 9, 2010 at 2:43 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At February 9, 2010 at 9:49 AM , Blogger Eric Schansberg said...

Mullah, huh? Do you have any nicknames for the other candidates?

I'd be especially interested in what you have for Hill: warmonger, faux-fiscal-conservative, "my seat", governor-in-waiting, poser-on-key-issues-that-impact-the-working-poor, etc.

At February 9, 2010 at 10:21 AM , Blogger The New Albanian said...

A nice collection, but none as catchy as Mullah. I confess that you're way ahead of me when it comes to theocratic advocacy.

Actually, truthfully, I want Hankins to win the primary, so I'll be gentle.

But just for the fun of it, what does your candidate think about gays in the military?

At February 9, 2010 at 10:41 AM , Blogger Eric Schansberg said...

Hmmm...I thought you'd like warmonger. I'd guess that Hankins would be an improvement over Hill on that issue for you.

No idea...It's not a "top 20" issue. I haven't heard him speak on it and wouldn't suspect it will get any play in May or even November.

You might want Hankins to emerge in May. But to the point of the post, politicians don't like "wild cards". So, Hill might beat Hankins handily in November. But Hill's probability of victory vs. Hankins is probably lower. And in any case, the whole thing would be far less predictable.

At February 9, 2010 at 1:50 PM , Blogger Jenna said...

All forms of government and social structure are "theocratic" nature in the following sense:

The people/leaders who put any of these different ideas (anarchism, conservatism, communism, socialism, progressivism, whatever)into practice "believe in them" to produce the very highest society. They are placing their faith in a person or idea to effect peace and success within their culture.
So, it really is very unfair that only people who regard God's truth as the basis for a healthy and productive society are regarded with disdain for their "theocratic advocacy"

Here is a question I have about gays in the military:

Are gay men and women in the military going to have separate living/bunking quarters?
People who have the potential to be sexually attracted to each other should not be sharing a "close" living arrangement. Being female, I certainly would not want to have to shower or live in very close contact (eg. sleep) with people who might be sexually attracted to me (man or woman).

I would think most men/women, gay or straight, would feel the same way.

I think Travis Hankins is FABULOUS and I hope he goes ALL THE WAY!!!!

At February 10, 2010 at 8:44 AM , Blogger Eric Schansberg said...

NA, if you're more interested in "gays in the military" than our war efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, et. al., then you're eligible for a religious title from the Bible.

At February 10, 2010 at 9:13 AM , Blogger The New Albanian said...

Now, now ES -- I asked a simple question, and restricted it to a specific topic. You brushed it off your collar and said no, it's not on the radar screen.

Good for you. Maybe my pals Adam & Steve can serve their country now without being harrassed by Bible thumpers.

Jenna views it differently, and says that people shouldn't work together if they're sexually attracted. Oops -- there goes virtually every hetero-office-setting in the nation. Might be why the Muslims force women to wear those veils. We men might jump them at any time otherwise.

Wonder how we ever get any work done?

Now, my real POV: Hankins is on the lunatic fringe in virtually every way possible. That's why I hope he beats Sodrel, who's not loony, merely a non-entity. The other guy I don't know. Hankins versus your primal enemy Hill would be wonderful entertainment, and Hill would appear the essence of non-extremism by comparison.

Just do me one favor. Go through the Hankins platform, and rate the damage to your Libertarian principles. What's that radical social agenda going to do, eh?

Just let me know. Thanks.

At February 10, 2010 at 10:12 AM , Blogger Eric Schansberg said...

I've spent some time on his website, but it's quite detailed (too much so for a campaign, I think) and on the top issues, there are a few (relatively minor) things with which I disagree. Are there larger ones on less relevant issues? I haven't seen them, but I'll give it another look.

But my point still stands-- unless you're happy with Hill's foreign policy votes/emphasis. Perish the thought!

If you're not happy with Hill on foreign policy, then you'd be happier with Hankins' view on that-- and you're straining at the GITM speck and ignoring the interventionist foreign policy log.

At February 10, 2010 at 3:04 PM , Blogger Jenna said...

Mr. New Albanian, or is it Mr Mullah?

Whatever the case, you obviously didn't read/comprehend my comment. I said people who are sexually attracted to each other should not SHOWER or SLEEP together. This would be an issue of individual's right to basic human dignity and decency... Maybe that's why you don't seem to get it?

But, as Eric said, there are much more important things to be worried about -- like removing the crony capitalists/politicians from their shared sleeping arrangement and cutting off their access to OUR MONEY -- I thought those were major Libertarian principles.



Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home