Matt
IKYN Guy Groupie
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2000
- Messages
- 80,934
- Reaction score
- 9
- Points
- 31
1992 didn't have "strong candidates." It had an incredibly unpopular Republican incumbent and a governor of a small state whom no one had ever heard of until he ran for president (remember, Clinton didn't win a primary state until Georgia and was widely considered a dark horse). Clinton would've gotten walloped in the general election but for Ross Perot and Bush's own ineptitude as both a candidate and a president. This is underlined by the fact that he only won 43 % of the popular vote.
If anything Perot is the strongest third party candidate in the history of modern politics. Almost all of that comes down to the fact that he had limitless funds. That is something Mattis lacks. A third party candidate who doesn't have Ross Perot money is destined to capture, at maximum, 4 or 5 % of the popular vote (and that is assuming that absolutely everything goes right for them).
Beyond that, I disagree with your assertion that Mattis would be able to out-Trump Trump or challenge Clinton on foreign policy. As to the latter, Mattis knows the military. That doesn't mean he knows foreign policy. There is a very big divide between the two. Look at Wesley Clark's 2004 campaign. Clark was a general who was far more politically active than most military men. Yet any time he was asked about foreign relations beyond the military, he would embarrass himself. Hell, sometimes when asked about foreign relations regarding the military he would embarrass himself (his flipflopping on the Iraq War, for example). And Clark was no dummy. He is one of the most intellectual generals in our country's history. My point is, a blanket statement that Mattis would challenge Clinton, a former Secretary of State, on foreign policy, is fairly absurd.
Its also fairly absurd to assert that he would out-Trump Trump. The reason Trump is succeeding is simple: he knows how to work the media. Christie is every bit as crass and outspoken as Trump. He couldn't hang because Trump knows how to play the media in a way that no political communications director (or candidate) could. Trump isn't succeeding simply because he yells a lot and says rude, ignorant things. He is succeeding because of HOW he is yelling and saying those things. He would treat Mattis with just as much disrespect as anyone else he has encountered and if Mattis tried to fight back, Trump would outmaneuver him in the media. Clinton's media savvy is part of the reason that she is the only person who can beat Trump (he would destroy Bernie, who only knows how to be confrontational with the media).
At the end of the day, if Mattis tries to run third party, he will be lucky to pull in 1 or 2 % of the votes. The only way he gets involved in this campaign, in a meaningful way, is if Paul Ryan is drafted at the convention. Mattis would be a strong running mate for Ryan. Although even that is a long shot because Kasich makes a hell of a lot more sense in that scenario as he adds legitimacy to the process (by having one of the three remaining candidates on the ticket). Only way Mattis (or anyone else) comes into play in a brokered convention is if Kasich and Cruz both refuse to be VP to Ryan, Romney, or whoever is drafted.
