Advantage Who?

Dagwood: The 2016 presidential primaries and caucuses are right around the corner, beginning with Iowa on Monday, Feb. 1. Similar to a tennis match, each state primary or caucus has the potential to swing momentum toward one candidate or another.
And the early votes are the most important, because they set the pace for the rest of the country, which will be watching the February contests closely.
That said, I'm asking unaffiliated presidential candidate Buster Bigfoot to break down the early contests and determine who will have the advantages in either party from the out-set of the race.
Let's start with Iowa, Buster.

BF: Okay. On the GOP side, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Dr. Ben Carson carry the advantage in the Midwest because of that region's traditionally more conservative base. I forecast the caucus will go (1) Ted Cruz, (2) Ben Carson, and (3) Donald Trump.
For the Democrats, Hillary Clinton has the clear advantage here. She talks tough on defense and national security issues; both big items for the more conservative base of the Midwest, even among the Democratic Party. I figure it will be advantage Hillary in Iowa, followed by Sanders.

Dagwood: How about New Hampshire? Different story?

BF: Yup. Big time. Although Hillary enjoys quite a bit of popularity in the Northeast, New Hampshire is Mayor Bernie Sanders' back yard. He is from Vermont, and the folks up in that small corner of the country tend to band together. I expect a close one for the Democrats, but Sanders should take New Hampshire over Hillary and even the odds going into the next
contest.
The GOP should see a similar turn-around, too. Donald Trump enjoys much greater notoriety in the Northeast, where he is from. He is also more centrist on social issues, and there are more republican moderates in the Northeast than there are conservatives. If Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina and Chris Christie are going to score any significant points, it will be here. I forecast Trump will take New Hampshire handily, followed by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, and probably Ted Cruz in third.

Dagwood: Then there's Nevada, known for it's libertarian ways. Anybody's game?

BF: Nevada will probably go with Hillary Clinton on the Democratic ticket, and Donald Trump for the GOP. Clinton has shown strong in Nevada in the past, and her notoriety were serve her well there. However, Nevada can surprise people, too. Sanders seems to be gaining momentum, especially in Las Vegas, which is big with trade unions. Nevada really could go either way, but I expect Hillary will edge out Sanders by virtue of her celebrity.
Trump has his properties in Las Vegas, which I expect will vote overwhelmingly for him. Vegas will out-vote the northern part of the state, which I figure will be more geared toward Cruz. Nevada will go Hillary then Sanders for the Dems, and Trump followed by Cruz for the GOP. Ben Carson will come in third there.

Dagwood: South Carolina?

BF: South Carolina will go with either Cruz or Carson on the republican side, and Hillary for the Democrats. Those folks down south aren't too big on folks in "Yankee" land. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are as "yankee" as one can get. Bush and Rubio could have strong showings there, too, as close as South Carolina is to their home state of Florida. But South Carolina, like Iowa, tends to vote more traditionally conservative, so I expect Cruz or Carson to take it over Trump.

Dagwood: The biggest race in March is Texas. What do you see there?

BF: That's Cruz's home state, so I forecast he'll carry it handily over Trump. Carson and Bush should also have strong showings there. Rubio perhaps a little among Hispanic voters, but the Latinos seem to like Bush a lot, too, and his family has its roots in Texas. I'm thinking Cruz will win it, followed by Trump, and Bush in third. Carson will probably come in fourth followed by Rubio.
The democrats should see another win for Hillary here. Sanders is, again, a "yankee" and Texas is not so friendly towards "yanks." Hillary's roots are in Arkansas, which borders Texas. I expect she will win Texas without a problem.

Dagwood: So, for the first month or so, it appears Hillary will likely set the pace for the Democrats, while Cruz and Trump appear to be neck and neck. Is that what you see?

BF: Yes. However, primaries in the upper Midwest, like Illinois, Michigan and Ohio--the Great Lakes states--can easily go Sanders' way. He has a better reputation with the trade unions, and those states are all about union labor. If he sticks with his campaign through Texas, in spite of fighting from behind, he can make the race much more interesting with wins in the Great Lakes. Pennsylvania and New Jersey are also solid potential victories for Sanders. New York is a toss up since Hillary was a U.S. Senator there for eight years. And Virginia will probably go with the former U.S. Secretary of State given its proximity to the Beltway.
Colorado will stand behind Hillary, I think, while Arizona may side with Sanders. California is the biggest prize of all, though. With a lot of union workers, Sanders has good potential there. But so, too, does Hillary. California is anybody's game in the Democratic Party.

Dagwood: What of the republicans after Texas?

BF: May of the candidates will have folded their campaigns after South Carolina. Some even after Iowa or New Hampshire. February will see the race thin out and the front-runner(s) clearly established. After Texas, the Great Lakes states should follow Cruz as they tend to be more  conservative than moderate. Cruz may have the advantage after those states, but Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey will even things out as they side with Trump. Maryland and Virginia likely toward Cruz; but both Rubio and Bush could pick up significant votes there assuming their campaigns haven't already folded.
The keys late in the primary season will be Colorado, Arizona, and California. I expect Cruz to take Colorado and Arizona, but by slim margins. Trump should win handily in California.

Dagwood: Predictions for the party nominations?

BF: It will be very close on the GOP side, but the race will come down to the wire against Cruz and Trump. I think Cruz will take it, though, as the GOP will eventually favor distancing itself from the much more bombastic and controversial Trump, whose mouth can get both himself and the party into deep trouble during the general election season. Cruz is more diplomatic in his approach, and will appeal more with GOP Hispanic voters; having an effect not unlike George W. Bush did in 2000 and 2004.
For the Dems, Sanders will make it a good race, and an interesting one. He may even scare Hillary, giving her reminiscences of 2008 when Obama snatched the nomination out from under her. But not this time. Sanders lacks the swagger, the stuff that Obama had. I think Hillary will get the nod in the end.

2016 Presidential Primaries

Dagwood: The first of the major presidential primaries is coming up at the beginning of next month. Naturally, you weren't invited because you are unaffiliated with either of the major political parties. So, what message(s) would you like to communicate to voters on the eve of the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary?

BF: First, a shout out to my fans in Iowa. Love your corn, man! To my peeps in New Hampshire, maybe I'll see you on the slopes some time.
Now, second, to my message.
If you want plain speak, don't vote for a guy who practices it in front of a vanity mirror while getting his coif perfected. Vote for someone who dishes out plain speak daily with every howl or wood knock he makes. I may not look pretty. My hair is a mess, stinky, full of knots, mattes, and any number of species of tiny parasites. But I care more about what I am saying than how I look saying it.
If you want someone who will bring "real" change to America, don't vote for career politicians looking to move up the proverbial career ladder. That's what you get with most of the candidates in both parties. They are, more often than not, too zealous and wanting for their own good...and yours, too.
I want to be elected POTUS because I want to help people believe in something again; namely their country, its values and ideals. I mean, if you can't believe in Bigfoot, then what the heck can you believe in?

Dagwood: Any particular issues you think need to be stood on for the upcoming primaries?

BF: Yeah, noise pollution. There is an over-abundance of hot air being expelled this time of year; especially in places like Iowa and New Hampshire. I encourage voters to filter out all of the hot air, and breathe fresh oxygen again. That's what they get with me; fresh, organic air not spoiled by pollutants. I don't have the advantage of years of experience in politics. I don't dance the Potomac two-step. I don't talk out of both sides of my mouth, and I'm not double-tongued. I tell it like it is. Don't like it? Don't vote for me. If you are the kind of voter who is easily offended by body odor or truth, then I'm not your candidate. But if you can stomach my smell, then the truth won't hurt you, either.

Dagwood: Who do you think will emerge from the major parties as the front-runners after Iowa and New Hampshire?

BF: I still think Donald Trump is a farce, a show that will eventually lose its luster and fade from the spotlight. Whether that happens in February or June remains to be seen. Let's just say the start of the primary season separates the men from the boys, so to speak. If Trump is real, then his lead will increase to such an extent that catching up with him will be unlikely for any of his competitors. But if he is just a show, as I suspect, then his lead will gradually and steadily narrow. Even if he remains in the lead after the February primaries, if that lead has been significantly reduced, then that tells me the voters of the GOP want someone else with a better message; not simply better hair.
Ted Cruz has come on strong, and that is surprising considering the names ahead of him with greater notoriety and better affluence. But his emergence in the past month has told me that voters eagerly want an alternative to Trump; someone with a similar message, but not the same show. That's why I feel Trump's time in the limelight will be finite. The GOP really does want someone else. But it tolerates Trump because he's good for their bottom line right now.
The rest of the field is too far behind, I think, to make up significant ground on Trump and Cruz. Anything is possible, of course, but that is my feeling.
Bush is Bush. We've done that dance for 12 years. Carson is fading because he is just a nice guy who lacks a political edge to him. People want someone in the White House who they feel exudes strength, and the good doctor is just that: a good guy. Not sure if he is national leadership material.
Fiorina is all corporate. People think of her as the face of a company, not a nation.
Rubio is more centrist, and lacks appeal to the conservative core of the GOP. He also doesn't seem to be as aggressive or assertive in his campaign at this juncture as Trump and Cruz, and that will hurt him in the long run. If you're going to step to the plate, then play ball. Take your swings, and don't watch the strikes fly by you.
Everyone else in the field is just there. The bulk of the field will be gone in 1-2 months.

BF: As far as the dems go, Hillary has the notoriety to run away with this year's party nomination. But a lot of folks thought that very same thing in 2008 coming into Iowa. Then Obama showed up and it was all over. Frankly, Sanders and the other candidates don't have Obama's swagger or his snake oil. It would have to be some dark horse that enters the race late that snatches it out from under Hillary again. I'm not dismissing that possibility, either. Just doesn't seem likely this time around.

Buster on immigration

Dagwood: A month or so ago, Donald Trump made very candid comments about temporarily restricting all Muslim immigrants into the United States. This has come following terrorist attacks in Paris, France, and San Bernardino, California. What do you think of Trump's comments and his stand on Muslim immigration?

BF: Believe it or not, I don't disagree with him. I just take issue with his methods. He's still an arrogant, egotistical showman whose money can't buy him a cent of tact.
I fail to see how more comprehensive background checks are going to help reduce America's risk of attracting people who want to do us harm. If a brainwashed, lock-step follower of ISIS intent on carrying out his or her "holy mission" has no criminal record in the country he or she is emigrating from, then how will tighter background checks on immigrants prevent such a person from setting foot on American soil?
It is the same principal as background checks on guns. Politicians use a lot of rhetoric about tightening background checks on guns every time there is a shooting. But a person with a clean criminal record will pass even the most strict and comprehensive checks. Then they go out and shoot up a school or shopping mall. A lot of good the background check has done.

Dagwood: What solution do you advocate?

BF: I think there needs to be a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigrants until our armed forces can contain ISIS, and/or Islamic nations begin to take the lead on fighting extremism within their own borders. It may not seem fair, but war is not fair. And, ISIS has publicly declared war on the "West," namely the United States. That said, though, America shouldn't have to be the one taking the lead in the fight against Islamic extremists. That fight should have been led, from the very beginning, by the countries from which extremism has taken root. If the problem really isn't Islam, but rather extremists who have hijacked the religion, then mainstream Muslims around the world need to do more than just talk. Merely condemning the extremists with words isn't enough. They need to stand up and take their religion back from those violent factions who have claimed it as their own. When or if that ever happens, then America can welcome Islamic immigrants into her folds with open arms. But until that happens, America needs to protect herself from those who want to kill her. Welcoming them with open arms is like inviting the Angel of Death to dine at your table.

Dagwood: What about immigration in general, and all of the undocumented immigrants living and working in America?

BF: Politicians want to give them amnesty, which is a free ticket to ride, just to curry their votes. Admittedly, those are in the millions, and politicians know it all too well. Illegal immigrants have been caught riding without a ticket. Instead of getting pulled from the ride and sent to the back of the line to purchase a ticket, politicians want to award them with complimentary tickets that they don't have to pay for themselves. And they continue to get to ride for free. Meanwhile, other people have dutifully purchased their tickets and have been waiting patiently in line for the right to get on the ride. It isn't fair to give cuts to cheaters, but that's exactly what politicians favoring amnesty are doing.
I have nothing personally against immigrants, so my message to illegal and undocumented immigrants is simple: Please, do the right thing and follow the rules like everyone else. If you do, then there isn't any problem.