The Liz Mair Debate Questions Challenge (An Extremely Unlikely GOP Candidate Answers Extremely Unlikely Debate Questions)

That's how you debate.

Last night's Republican debate on CNBC was a complete mess.  The narrative coming from the candidates is that the questions were "unfair". That's a nonsensical accusation but the moderation was in deed terrible and there was an almost constant din of three people speaking at once in between the questions. The panelists were unable to regain control and it was terrible television. Tonight several of the campaigns announced that they will be meeting on Sunday to discuss a new format for the future debates. If I had a vote, it would be for more debates with fewer candidates. Imagine 3 debates with 4 candidates each, chosen at random.  That will never happen because the networks want Trump in every debate. 

A much better but equally improbably proposal was made by Liz Mair on Twitter last night. Ms. Mair is a former adviser to several major Republican candidates, including Carly Fiorina and Rich Perry. She has been a guest on Real Time with Bill Maher and is one of the most intelligent right-wing voices on Twitter. (That praise is more faint than I intended. She is worth following: @lizmair.)

Her proposal was not for a new format but for better questions.  She posted 18 questions that she would want the candidates to answer.  I would LOVE to hear Presidential candidates answer these questions. I never will, but I decided to do the next best thing: answer them myself.  Spoiler alert: I will not be the 2016 Republican nominee for President of the United States.  Here goes nothing.

Q1: Get your tax person up on stage with you. Here's a whiteboard. Do the math on your tax and spending plan. Show me deficit reduction.

Well there goes the nomination for me.  In this fantasy scenario where I am running for President I would have fleshed out a much more specific proposal but here's the broad strokes:

1. Tax hikes for income rates over $125,000 , with income taxes above $200,000 going back to pre-Bush rates.  
2.  Eliminate the preferential treatment of capital gains. (Tax investment income at the same rate as earned income.)
3. Raise the cap on pay roll taxes, over 10 years to $200K.
4. Increase the federal gas tax by 5 cents a gallon.
5. Increase the Estate Tax to pre-Bush levels.

I don't know how much more revenue that would generate, but it would be significant.  In a rational party, this would be well received. 

Q2: If you failed that question, here's a pie chart showing how much we spend on everything. What are you prepared to cut, right now?

I would make very steep cuts to defense spending. I would roll back our submarine fleet and I would kill some of the unwieldy impractical weapons programs like the F-35. But while we are being honest, I would turn that money around to spend on useful infrastructure programs like roads and bridges.


Q3: Here's a map. Find these places on it right now: Tblisi, Kiev, Islamabad, Kabul, New Dehli, Beijing.

This obviously is a visual question, but I'll do my best to explain how I would do. I know Tiblisi is the capital of Georgia, and Georgia is directly south of European Russia. I have no idea where within Georgia Tiblisi, so I would put a dot right in the middle of that country. (Since she didn't specify, I will assume this map has lines for national borders.)

Kiev is the capital of Ukraine, and it's in the eastern part of the country, more southern than northern. (I think.) Islamabad is the capital of Pakistan and it's up north, closer to India than Afghanistan. Kabul is the capital of Aghanistan and it's in the northeast portion of the country. New Dehli is the capital of India, and it's pretty close to the border with Pakistan. Beijing is the Capital of China and it's well the Northeastern part of the country but I'd be fudging the exact location.

Q4: Now, who runs each of the countries in which those cities sit? Ever met any of them? Ever talked to any of them?

Ukraine: I know they had a very attractive female President for a while, but she's out of office now. I don't know....Plitcheko? Total guess. I know he doesn't like Russia.
Georgia: No idea
Pakistan:  His name is Hussain. That's all I know about him.
India's Prime Minister is named Modi  He held a big rally in Madison Square Garden last year. I think he was accused of ethnic cleansing when he was a governor. That's about all my Moodi knowledge.
China: Xi Jinping.  The worlds worst Communist. He was at the White House a few weeks ago.

Q5: Who's the British PM? Who's the Canadian PM? Who's the German Chancellor? Who's the Russian President? Met any of these people?

David Cameron, Justin Trudeau, Angela Merkel, Vladimir Putin.  No, I have not met any of them but I obviously know a lot more about NATO countries than the rest of the world.

Q6: Are you for free trade?
Generally, yes. That might be I would lose the Democratic primary too.

Q7: Do you think immigration is a net positive or a net negative for our country? Will you make it easier to come here legally?

Net positive and yes, absolutely. Sad to think that none of the candidates on that stage could have given this simple answer.

Q8: What will you do about the 12m people currently here? If you say "deport," show me your math to prove it's doable & inexpensive.

If I was running for Dictator, I'd wave a magic wand and make them all legal. Because I have to provide political cover to congress, I will agree to some stupid points system that punishes people for having committed crimes and to generate some revenue I would agree to a substantial fee for the process. Oh and I would call the form a Ted Cruz form, because he's an evil dickhead.


Q9: Show me your actual health care plan. No, an actual plan. No, writing "repeal Obamacare" on the whiteboard doesn't count.

Well, I suppose we have to give Obamacare 10 years or so to work but I'd love to lay the ground work for states to be able to experiment with single payer systems. That will have to be surreptitious.

Q10: Name 15 specific regulations that you know hamper small business right now, and explain how, in detail.
I can't name 3. But this would be a great excuse to rail against the drug war. Hopefully by this point Chris Christie will have given his eloquent defense of Fantasy Football and I can point out the hypocrisy of him wanting to throw people in jail for smoking weed.

Q11: How will you fix education in this country. In detail. No, "repeal Common Core" does not count as "in detail." You can phone a friend.

I would reduce standardized testing and rebuild our arts and music programs. I would double the time devoted to physical education and I would make federal funds available to high schools that create programs oriented toward skilled professions. In short: more band, more gym, more shop.

Q12: Do you really think we can defeat ISIS. If so, how? Be specific. How much are you willing to spend to do it? How do we measure success?

No. the cost of winning a military struggle against them would not justify the costs. And if we entered that fight in full-force it would legitimize the Jihadists' narrative that the United Stats is at war with Islam. The long term solution to groups like ISIS is for a non-fundamentalist version of Islam to become mainstream and acceptable in the Arab world. I don't know how to bring that about but it's not worth a trillion dollars and several thousand American lives to find out.

Q13: Have you ever met Bibi Netanyahu? How about King Abdullah of Jordan? Any other Middle Eastern leaders?

I have not had the pleasure. This is the one question that I would probably re-work because it would be too sickening to watch all 10 of those jerks compete over how wonderful they think Netanyahu is.

Q14: Name 5 nominations you'd like to make to the Supreme Court.
I can't give names because the only people I know who would possibly be qualified are a few law professors that would be too embarrassed to read their name on my shitty blog so I will give 5 categories of people I would like on the bench:

1. Someone with an advanced degree in a hard science.
2. A lifelong criminal defense attorney. (So the 4th amendment has a chance.)
3. Someone that went to a non-elite Law School. We've had way too many Harvard, Yale and Stanford grads on the bench. How about a UCLA or a Minnesota?
4. Someone from Staten Island so all 5 Boros can be represented on the court.
5. A WASP. It's crazy that our entire Supreme Court is made up of (6) Catholics and (3) Jews.

Q15: Describe to me the precise process you will use to stop abortions happening after 20 weeks & how you'll deal w legal challenges...

Obviously this is a quesiton that only works at a Republican debate. The scientific consensus is that fetuses are incapable of experiencing pain until the 26th week. A policy of ending abortions six weeks before that line is crossed is not something I could ever support.  What I would like to do as President is force the proponents of such laws to explain what the specific punishments should be for a woman who has an abortion during week 21 and for the doctor who performs the procedure. 


Q16: What caused the 2008 financial crisis? What do you think the next crisis might be? How about the next bubble? How will you stop it?

The three principal causes were the Bush Tax Cuts, the 2005 reforms of the bankruptcy code and the extremely suspect lending practices of the home mortgage loan. I think the next crisis might related to student loan debt. I would try to work reductions in the interest rate on student loans into the budget over time, but they would be gradual. I would also love to gradually eliminate the mortgage interest deduction over a course of several decades. It would be unfair to hit homeowners with that hit immediately but if you reduce it by 5% a year for 20 years, the real estate market will absorb that shock.

Q17: What is your biggest weakness
I get bored with ambitious projects before they are completed.

Q18: Who's your political hero? Note: You cannot say Ronald Reagan. I repeat: You cannot say Ronald Reagan.
The 40th president of the United States. (Ha! I played by your rule, Ms. Mair.) Okay, in all seriousness it's FDR.
Q19: What will you use the bully pulpit for as President? Recognizing that you won't be able to/want to legislate/regulate everything.

Secularism and the need for evidence-based reasoning, especially in the sciences. I would also beat the drum for baseball as our national past time and refuse to meet with any soccer team, no matter how many trophies they win. In my administration, the Vice-President will handle the soccer photo ops, no exceptions.

Q20: Explain to me what net neutrality means, in theory and in practice? Can't do it? Phone a friend. Now, same deal re: patent reform.

Net neutrality is the very important concept that Internet Service Providers can not favor certain contents over other content. I am less familiar with patent reform but I believe it relates to eliminating predatory practices like patent trolling. 

The Donkeys Have an Elephant in the Room and the Elephants Have a Bunch of Jackasses Out in the Barn.

                                  Even Gene Shalit might not recognize our next president yet.

2016 is a long way away, but speculating is a lot of fun.  I chose the above clip to give you some idea of how far we are from the 2016 presidential election. It's not quite from the same point in the election cycle, but it is revealing.  In December of 1973, Jimmy Carter was able to appear on a national game show without being recognized by anyone on the panel. At the end of the video they make reference to his role in preparing the Democratic party for the 1974 midterm elections.  Less than 3 years later, he was elected 39th President of the United States.

A. The Donkeys have an Elephant, and the Elephants have a Bunch of Asses.

When David Duchovny left The X-Files, the writers were faced with a big story dilemma. The show was driven by the conflict between a skeptic and a believer in all sorts of nut ball ideas.  To write Duchovny's character, Fox Mulder out of the show, but leave a possibility of returning, should the actor come to his senses, they needed his disappearance to be cooky and unexplained.  This forced his partner, Scully, to disavow her skepticism and become a believer.  After the first episode a review summed up the dynamic between the new leads.  "Scully is now Mulder."

Well the race for the 2016 nominations are also a case of role reversal. Every Republican nomination since Watergate has been a case of orderly succession. The only exception was in the year 2000. The 1996 runner-up had been Steve Forbes.  Forbes did not run in 2000. That nomination went to the son of a recent nominee, George W. Bush. It is because of this history that I give Rick Santorum more of a chance than most observers do. But he can not be called the clear favorite by any stretch of the imagination. He might not even belong on the top tier of candidates.

Will Rogers famously quipped, "I don't belong to any organized political party; I'm a Democrat." And most years the Democratic primaries live up to that aphorism.  The typical Democratic primary process begins with a half-dozen of likely candidates battling for specific racial and economic demographics, with some regional factions complicating things. In 1976, 1984, 1988, 1992 and 2004, a nominee emerged from a field of around five serious contenders. Only twice since then the Democrats began with a heavy betting favorite.  In 2000 Al Gore was the virtual certain nominee from the beginning and he only attracted one competitor, former Senator Bill Bradley.  Bradley put up a decent fight but Gore won comfortably in Iowa and by four points in New Hampshire.  The race was all but over and Bradley never won a single primary. In 2008 Hillary Clinton was also the presumptive nominee by most accounts.  She faced a half-dozen challengers but non were taken too seriously. But unbeknownst to the chatter class of D.C., Barack Obama was building a brilliant strategy: win in Iowa, survive Super Tuesday. and squeeze as many delegates as possible out of the states where he couldn't win.  By the summer, Barack Obama was the nominee.

The 2016 nomination race will probably end up looking like a combination of 2000 and 2008.  The favorite is the same as in 2008, but the result is more likely to be like 2000.  She will face credible challengers, and one or more of them will make Iowa and/or New Hampshire competitive.  If any of them win one of those states, then we will have a race on our hands.  If Hillary wins both, she will probably cruise to the nomination, and might just run the table the way Al Gore did.

My thesis at this point is that Democrats will nominate their previous runner-up and that the Republicans will have a battle among five to seven people with credible resumes and varying regional appeals.  I think that Jeb Bush is their strongest general election candidate. His appeal is broad within the Republican factions but also very thin.  Chris Christie, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz will probably elicit more passionate support but might have problems finding support outside their regional bases.  Huckabee and Santorum probably need to win Iowa to survive.  Luckily for them, the each have accomplished that very thing in the recent past, Huckabee in 2008 and Sanorum in 2012.

B: Another Peak at the Fields.
Some months ago I wrote posts on the likely contenders for each party's nomination.  My intention was to go on the record with my first impressions of the candidates.  The campaign will begin, for real, in the next month or two, and I'm sure I will update these lists more often next year.  But I wanted to do one update before we know the results of the midterms, because next week's elections will probably shape the narrative of the election as it gets underway.

I. The Democrats: One Favorite, 2 Alternatives and a Sitting Vice-President.

Hillary Clinton is the heavy betting favorite to be the Democratic nominee.  So far she has avoided any screw ups and there are some indications that she will learn from her 2008 mistakes and hire the very people who beat her the first time she was the heavy betting favorite for the nomination.  I have not changed either of her numbers: she's almost certain to run, and has about a 70% chance of being the nominee. But one thing has changed in the last few months.  I can now identify 2 plausible, serious alternatives.  And then there's the vice-president.

I still do not think that Elizabeth Warren will run, but she is the clear alternative and the base loves her.  I'm sure she has had many very serious (read: rich) people whispering in her ear that if she runs, they will open their checkbooks for her.  Recently, for the very first time she indicated some hint of wanting to run.  I think she might view a run as a way to put her ideas forward. She definitely thinks that the threat of her candidacy can nudge the party in the right (read: left) direction.

The biggest mover since my last posting is the emergence of Jim Webb as a possible candidate.  I really hope that he runs because I think he would expand the intellectual breadth of the field by talking about issues that are not talked about enough, like prison reform.  He's also the perfect candidate for pointing out that Hillary's foreign policy views are very far to the right of the Democratic party's base.  It's a long trip from being Ronald Reagan's secretary of the Navy to being the darling of the Democratic base, but this Marine just might be the guy to do it.

And dear old Joe Biden is extremely likely to run. And you can never count out the sitting Vice-President if for no reason other than the uncomfortable fact that he is one heart beat away from running as an incumbent.

Soon after the midterms we'll probably hear more from the less likely candidates.  So far no one has stood out as especially credible or promising.  The two New Yorkers that I listed last time both took steps backward.  Senator Gillibrand was listed mostly because she's an obvious alternative to Hillary Clinton if she didn't run.  But as ever, there seems to be no let up in the Clinton machine. So Hillary will run and that will probably preclude a Gillibrand candidacy.  Governor Andrew Cuomo meanwhile has proven to be a borderline boob who was lucky to be renominated for Governor.  He can not win the nomination.

II. The Republicans: Lots of Options, None of them Particularly Good.

The Republican field, lacking a heavy favorite, is much harder to predict at this point.  The biggest wild card as of now is Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin.   I leave him as a pretender for now because he might lose his re-election bid on Tuesday. Nate Silver says he has a 76% chance of being re-elected on Tuesday.  If he is re-elected, even by a very narrow margin, he immediately becomes a serious contender for the nomination. He has been a semi-hero of the base for a few years and his proximity to Iowa could be a big asset But if he loses, he is toast.

The rest of the field has been very static.  Jeb Bush does seem more and more likely to run, and I think he would be the party's strongest nominee.  It's at least possible that the GOP will be so thirsty for a win by next year that they will overlook his heresies on education and immigration but the pitch forks will come out for him on a lot of fronts.

I've also added Mike Huckabee to the list of possible candidates because I think he has under appreciated appeal. He ran a solid third place in 2008 (second if you go by delegates pledged, rather than votes received)  and probably could have been the nominee in 2012 if he wasn't busy paying of his mortgage by hosting a show on Fox News.  When I see him lately he strikes me as a lot cockier than he was when he first became a national political figure.  The confidence might push him towards running but it also might work against him with voters once he is actually running for the Presidency rather than just leading jeers against the current president.

Rand Paul, Chris Christie, and Ted Cruz are all going to run.  And they will all have sizable support in different corners throughout 2015.  Any of them could be the nominee but any of them could also go up in flames early. Paul will have his father's donor base behind him, and that makes him a threat to gobble up delegates all along the way.  If the field stays splintered, he could sneak in.  But he's going to get a lot of heat about some of his less than orthodox views on war and crime.  He'll also say lots of stupid things along the way.

But he's not really any worse of a candidate than the others.  I do think he would be the worst president we have ever had, but that's not a disqualifier in this race. The nominee of this party is likely to be the person who can most convince the GOP primary voters that they hate Obama as much as they do.  But then they will have to run in the general election with some kind of health care plan that doesn't take away the benefits from the millions of Americans that received coverage under Obamacare.  I don't think any of these candidates can thread that needle.  But most of them are going to try and it will be nearly as amusing as watching a monkey try to fuck a football.