Evan:
Nice analysis of the Bradley-McCain-New Hampshire Independents dynamic. You left out just one thing: Bradley can’t win. Under any circumstances. He could be inducted emperor of New Hampshire–and Iowa and Delaware, and half a dozen other tiny but reputedly important primary states–and still have no chance of becoming the Democratic nominee, much less president. The problem with Bradley is Bradley. He’s a terrible candidate, the worst since Bob Dole, maybe the worst of all time.
Ever watch him on the stump? He can’t give a speech. He has precisely no sense of humor. A lot of his ideas about policy sound like they were thought up in the shower this morning. At appearances, he often looks like he’s about to fall asleep. He answers questions like he’d rather be having hemorrhoid surgery. Worst of all, he has total disdain for everything about politics, down to and including voters. (Watch carefully and you can actually see him exuding contempt, like the oily haze that rises off airplane engines on a hot day.) This sort of thing may be appealing to some New Hampshire voters and others who mistake ineptitude for integrity, but how do you think it’ll play in the rest of the country? In Florida? Or Texas? No way, man. He’s got no chance.
Speaking of Texas, I like your Times-hates-Texas theory, and I agree it’s possible that Molly Ivins single-handedly poisoned the relationship between your state and the World’s Most Important Newspaper. On the other hand, what does Texas care? It’s not like Arkansas, a state whose citizens are acutely aware that the rest of the world is laughing at them. I remember being amazed when I moved to Little Rock by how seriously people—even the relatively worldly, cynical newspaper people I worked with–took the usual attacks on Arkansas (that it’s corrupt, politically incestuous, culturally backward, etc.). They were genuinely wounded. In other words, they half believed their critics.
Texans are in no danger of that. Even if editors at the Times really did consider Texas to be, as you put it, overrun with oil-slicked bumpkins, tyrannical high-school football coaches, mechanical-bull-riding smoothies, and the odd computer geek–and let’s be honest here, Evan, that’s not an entirely inaccurate depiction–I’m still not sure many Texans would even notice. These are not people with a self-esteem problem.
Sadly, I too have run out of space to talk about the Donald. But perhaps in your reply you can answer the most pressing question about his candidacy: What’s with his hair? I’ve wondered for years, but now that Trump is back on television a lot I’m haunted by it. Plugs? That’s what I’d always assumed, and yet I’ve never spotted the telltale Barbie-like implant clusters. Rug? Maybe, except the whole effect strikes me as too tussled to be a toupee. On CNN yesterday, Wolf Blitzer asked Trump about a million questions–have you overcome your hand-shaking phobia? Who will be your secretary of state?–but, tragically, never broached the Hair Issue. I don’t think we ought to elect him president before getting to the bottom of this.
Best,
Tucker
