Regular readers of this blog will recall that I went out on a limb on May 30, favoring Ohio Governor John Kasich for president in 2016.  I was wrong.

I liked Kasich for his record on two of the most important issues facing the country today, jobs and the economy.  His experience as the architect of the balanced budget while serving as Chairman of the House Budget Committee when he was in Congress, and his record of job growth in Ohio were impressive.

Kasich’s appeal has fallen victim to the “mad as hell” voters.  We’ve known them before as the “silent majority,” a group of individuals who were dissatisfied, but were complacent.  They didn’t let their feelings known, and worse, they didn’t vote.

Who knew they would finally say, “and we’re not going to take it anymore,” and favor the likes of Donald Trump and Ben Carson?  I, for one, am surprised that the bloom on the “outsiders” has lasted this long.  Trump and Carson top most polls and Fiorina, another outsider, isn’t far off.

While Trump has been a successful businessman, he doesn’t bring the goods to the presidency like Mitt Romney would have.  Most people agree with what Trump says is wrong with politics in America, but when you listen to him all you hear is bluster, no substance.  And, I can do without the gratuitous slaps at fellow candidates.

If Trump knew that China was not part of the Trade deal now under discussion, you wouldn’t know it from his debate comment.  I read the transcript.  Now he’s demanding an apology from the Wall Street Journal for reporting that Sen. Rand Paul called him out on that.

I like Carson.  No doubt he is a brilliant man, but I just don’t think he’s prepared for the presidency.  His response to the recent debate question regarding the decision to send 50 Special Forces troops to Syria, however, was weak, and his less than dynamic persona doesn’t exude strength.  His statement that “we can’t give up ground there” tells me he doesn’t recognize the vast ground ISIS has already taken in Syria and Iraq.  His remark on China’s involvement in Syria is questionable.

Carson’s “proportionality” tax plan based on 10-15 per cent church tithing sounds reasonable, but not realistic.

I was very disappointed in Kasich’s performance Tuesday night.  He was petulant and was constantly interrupting the moderators and other candidates.  But it was his position on immigration and big banks that soured me.

Most of us are realistic and know that rounding up and deporting 12 million illegals isn’t practical, but his response calling it “silly,” wasn’t presidential.  But Trump’s retort that it would be done in a “humane way” wasn’t exactly explanatory, and certainly didn’t comfort Latinos.  Sen. Marco Rubio learned the hard way as a member of the Gang of Eight on immigration, and now has an immigration plan that I think Latinos can support.

Kasich’s response to the question of the hypothetical failure of the Bank of America, that “as an executive, I would figure out how to separate those people who can afford it versus those people, or hard-working folks who put money in those institutions …” predictably brought boos from the audience.

Where does all of this leave me today?  My primary concern is who can beat Hillary Clinton?  I’ve read the polls, but I ask myself which candidate would win in the one-on-one debates with her.

Sen. Ted Cruz and Gov. Chris Christie would win, hands down.  Rubio would be a good match as would Carly Fiorina. Bush’s performances so far give me doubt.

Trump simply doesn’t have the depth.  He couldn’t even fill a 90-second time slot in the debate.  And, while Carson’s thoughtful responses may impress, Clinton is a foe that will require something we haven’t seen in Carson.   Imagine Trump or Carson winning in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Iowa.  Will the vocal “mad as hell” voters, who want an outsider, come to their senses in time?