Morris predicts who will win 2016 GOP nomination

Will Rick Perry win the GOP nod for 2016.
Dick Morris says he's set up just right for it.

As a former pollster and political campaign consultant for Bill Clinton, Dick Morris is an expert on how to win elections. In a recent column, "To Get GOP Nod, First Lose," he explains how the GOP is a a "monarchic and legitimist institution," with the current leader handing off the reigns to the next leader.

In other words, in order to win the nomination a candidate must first have lost a bid to gain the nomination.

He said:

The Republican Party is, at heart, a monarchic and legitimist institution. Party leadership is handed down in orderly succession. Rebels and insurgents are typically given short shrift.

He explained this further:

In the beginning, Thomas Dewey begat Dwight Eisenhower. Eisenhower begat Nixon. Nixon begat Ford. Reagan lost to Ford and then, it was his turn. Then Reagan begat Bush-41. Dole had lost to Bush-41 and then, it was his turn to try. Bush-41, literally, begat Bush-43. McCain lost to Bush-43 and then, it was his turn. Romney lost to McCain, and then, his turn came.

The democratic party is the opposite, he said, with only Al Gore previously losing a bid for the Presidency before he eventually won the nomination.

So, he said:

What does this predict for 2016? Of the defeated candidates left over from 2012, Rick Santorum is probably too focused on social issues to win. Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann can be dismissed as flashes in the pan and the problems that knocked them out of contention have not gone away. Romney probably won’t get a third chance — even Nixon only got two. Newt Gingrich inflicted too many wounds on others and on himself.

That leaves Rick Perry. He’s acceptable to Latinos, based on his Texas record. He draws strong Tea Party support without being defined by it. A Southerner, he is clearly ready to play on the national stage. A big state governor, his record on jobs has only gotten better. Perry can’t be dismissed.

Of course, as Morris readily admits, Perry is not the perfect candidate. He said:

Will his debate brainlock disqualify him? Not if he doesn’t repeat it. Bill Clinton recovered from a disastrous 1988 convention speech. He’s probably had enough time to recover from his dismissal of Social Security as a “Ponzi scheme” in his book.

But Perry has to develop a truly national perspective to win. He can’t forever be repeating “in the state of Texas” before each line.

He needs to know more about issues other than energy. In 2012, he showed the same lack of depth and laziness in issue preparation as Sarah Palin did in 2008, but he wasn’t caught as easily because he’s a man.

So, we'll lock this in as Morris's prediction.  Let it be known, for the record, that he predicted, in a book nonetheless, "Condi vs. Hilary,"  that Condoleezza Rice would be pit against Hilary Clinton in 2008, and, while he was close about Hilary, he was not even in the ballpark with Rice.

Morris, however, has been very right about many of his predictions regarding presidential elections, and, so right in fact at times, that he may have been the sole reason Bill Clinton won twice. So his predictions should be duly noted. 

The era of the hypocritical liberal

There is a long list of libertarians and conservatives who have said for years that many liberals, those who think capitalism is unfair and want to make laws to limit people from enjoying the benefits of it, are hypocritical.

For instance, Al Gore champions the cause that capitalism is the cause of global cooling/ warming/ change, while at the same time flying around the globe in a CO2 emitting jet.  Obama does the same.

Curtis Kalin, in his June 24, 2014, article at cnsnews.com, "The Era of the Limo
usine Liberal," sort of hits the nail on the head of this discussion. Share on email

Hillary Clinton is not the only prominent, rich liberal who is having trouble articulating their vast concern for the poor and income inequality. Recently, there has been a rash of major liberal figures downplaying the fact that American capitalism has been quite good for them, while attempting to hamstring it for the rest of America.

Of course, this debate began anew after former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made her infamous comment that she was “dead broke” after leaving the White House, despite her ownership of multiple homes. Clintondoubled down on the sentiment in an interview with The Guardian, saying she’s not “truly well off,” even though her net worth is around $100 million.

Hillary isn’t even the only member of her family who sounded tone-deaf on their wealth. Her daughter, Chelsea told The Telegraph she’s tried really hard to care about money, but just can’t:

“I’ve tried really hard to care about things that were very different from my parents. I was curious if I could care about [money] on some fundamental level, and I couldn’t.”

Enter Vice President Joe Biden, whose salary has been paid for by taxpayers since he was elected to the U.S. Senate at age 29, said he
doesn’t own asavings account, even though he kind of does.

Back in 2012, inequality crusader Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who lives in a $5 million house and whose stock portfolio totals around $8 million, boasted about her wish that no member of Congress own stocks.

And finally, anti-capitalist movie-maker Michael Moore was asked by yours truly via Twitter in 2011 why he produces movies trashing the same economic system that made him a very rich man. Let’s just say after four minutes of trying, Moore really never cogently explained that conflict of interest.

It seems the era of the “limousine liberal” has returned. Self-proclaimed crusaders for the poor who rake in millions while attempting to undermine the very system that allowed for their wealth.