Stuart Stevens may not be quite like the guy in the Dos Equis commercials – "the most interesting man in the world" – but he might be the most interesting man in politics.

He's a longtime political consultant and writer who began his political work in his native Mississippi, expanded his client base nationwide and was chief strategist for Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign. It's a competitive, tough field and, no surprise, he's rubbed a few folks the wrong way, including some journalists. But he's clearly a different species of operative: He's a fine writer, an extreme sports enthusiast and an acerbic wit. He's written five books, including most recently "The Last Season: A Father, a Son, and a Lifetime of College Football," in which he returned home to spend time with this then-95-year-old dad and indulge their mutual passion for football. He's also been published in prominent magazines and did the pilot for the Emmy-winning "Northern Exposure," as well as writing for the shows "Commander in Chief" and "K Street."

But, as busy as he might be, this is a bit of an odd time for someone who so loves being in the game, since he's not part of the presidential mix this year. For sure, that's brought some unexpected satisfactions amid a bit of soul searching, as he underscored in a long phone chat from Santa Monica, California earlier this week (he lives mostly there and in Vermont).

He's not given to much equivocation. He doesn't think GOP front-runner Donald Trump will be around as a candidate on the night of the Iowa caucuses. He derided Texas Sen. Ted Cruz ("not an outsider"). He predicted the fate of retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson ("He won't be the nominee"). He suggested a big tactical error of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (that he didn't go after Trump from the start "and define himself by dominating Trump"). He said that Romney would be winning if he had run. He discoursed on the corruption of political campaigns and the media's complicity in that corruption and generally how out of touch it is. He argued that Democratic campaigns are more adroit in dealing with super PACs than Republicans. And he explained how President Barack Obama has "radicalized" him on campaign finance reform. Here are some excerpts from our conversation:

So how long does the outsider narrative play out on the Republican side?

I don't think Trump will go all the way to the ballot in Iowa. I will keep saying it: In his world, to be a loser is the greatest sin and you can argue with Forbes whether you are worth $3 billion or $5 billion but you can't argue with the Iowa secretary of state as to what the numbers are. He built his brand on "The Apprentice," hiring and firing, and he's now asking the voters to do the same and they won't [hire him]. My opinion, unburdened by evidence, is that nobody will be nominated for president who hasn't run for office before. In April 2011 Trump was getting 26 percent as an unannounced candidate. Romney and I joked about it since he wasn't even in the race. [Ben] Carson is a different kind of candidate than Trump. He's an accomplished human being. He is a genuinely nice person. He is safe harbor for voters who haven't decided yet. He could win Iowa but he won't be the nominee.

I find it astounding that nobody has attacked Trump consistently in the debates, especially Jeb Bush. But I don't think Cruz is an outsider. He is the ultimate insider. And I would challenge Trump as to whether he himself is an outsider. Anybody who pays six figures to Hillary to get her to his wedding is not an outsider. He can't have it both ways. He can't pose as an ultra wealthy billionaire who has great control of power and as an outsider. It's the same with Cruz. Not being liked is not the definition of an outsider. Ivy League [Princeton, Harvard Law School], former Supreme Court law clerk and U.S. senator is not an outsider.

What has been the biggest surprise so far (on either side) for you?

The reluctance of candidates to engage and argue why they should serve and the others shouldn't. Romney won 37 primaries and caucuses. How did he handle [then-Texas Gov. Rick] Perry when Perry was 10 points ahead before the first debate? He went after Perry on his definition of jobs, saying his own record was better and George Bush's was better. Perry couldn't respond. That's how you win a race. I don't understand why somebody hasn't turned to Trump and said you are an absurdity.

Did the Republican National Committee do the right thing on debates?

I don't think networks – large multinational corporations – should be using candidates in guise of debates to boost ratings and promote their talent. [The debates] should be covered and done by serious people. A terrible model we have for debates. [The RNC] shouldn't be involved and the [Democratic National Committee] shouldn't be involved. They are in the electioneering business. These should be about helping the voters learn about the candidates. Debates ought to be sponsored by serious people, like colleges and universities, with serious people asking serious questions. The networks should cover [the debates]. It's their obligation to do so. They are making millions of dollars off the candidates. Put it on C-SPAN and stream it. People will see it. What was the best show on politics for years? "Meet the Press." With a table and a few chairs. The best debate of the 2012 campaign was Charlie Rose and a couple of other people ... at the student center at Dartmouth. The production values were probably 250 bucks, including the donuts.

CNBC normally charges $5,000 for a spot. They charged $250,000 for the recent debate. Candidates shouldn't be in the business of being forces for revenue for large multinational corporations. It's a crazy idea. This is something Obama has given us by blowing up the federal funding system.

Do you think most of these guys look small compared to Romney?

I think if he ran he would be winning. He's a better debater than anybody up there. A lot of people running now, and working in campaigns now, have had a lesson in how difficult it is to run for president. Some candidates no longer in the race are very critical of the money campaign. And a lot of politics are covered like we cover sports. A lot of people writing about politics are like those who call up [sports talk radio host Chris Russo, AKA the] "Mad Dog" to talk about Tom Brady. Now they are out there on the field themselves and find it is kind of difficult. Welcome to the new world with every reporter having a camera and six deadlines and the need to write about something. But I do think Romney would be winning. I might be wrong.

What would be his one piece of advice for Bush, Rubio and Cruz?

I think in their own way they have different visions. Cruz's concept of how you get elected is wrong. Cruz got less votes in Texas than Romney when both were on the ballot. Cruz's theory is demonstrably wrong – that there is a great horde of conservatives who didn't vote and we can get them and win. Romney got a higher percentage of white votes than Reagan in '80. Rubio has a much better vision of how to win. But I've thought it would come down to Cruz and whoever would eventually win.

I think Bush, and I have felt this from the start, should go after Trump and define himself by dominating Trump. But it's difficult, when you are not in a campaign, to know the decision-making. They chose their own path. You, I, Bush and Trump have all gotten the same votes for president. It's a funny business, primaries, a multibillion dollar business but the stores are only open one day. Bush is much smarter than Donald Trump, who represents a ridiculousness of intent. And you should go right at him. If a serious person is running against a nonserious person, use their nonseriousness to define your seriousness.

Has Trump shown that you don't need paid TV ads?

I don't buy that. I think that Trump would be better off if he were running ads, explaining his positions on issues. People are for Trump because of Trump, and he will have to evolve to be more than a personality candidate. He could be using television to show that seriousness he doesn't show much. He doesn't know much and can't talk about policy. But if he did advertising, he could seem to be more serious. He's not spending the money because I don't think he's that serious of a candidate. It cost Romney about $135 million to win the nomination, and rarely does that number go down cycle to cycle. Say Trump could do it for $60 million to $70 million. Will he write a check for that? I don't think so. He's lying about not having funding. It's a demonstrable lie. It's like saying he's a leprechaun. You can prove it's not true.

Do you think media polling is still reliable?

It's a mess. The only polling that really is of quality is very expensive. Like most things in life, you can do it good, fast and cheap – but only two of those at most. Polling is difficult and expensive. The larger question is about what it means now in a presidential race. National polls are basically meaningless. It's like polling in Louisiana for a governor's race in Arkansas. You might have an opinion but it doesn't count. It's like polling on who will win the next NFL game. It only matters if those people will vote.

Would you get back in the game if a candidate asked during this cycle?

A number have. My firm has worked for Christie in his two governor races and my partner is working for Christie. So I am not working that campaign. But I've stayed out. I don't know what to say that doesn't sound arrogant. I don't think anybody cares. I have gotten some offers. Our firm is working for Christie. I have respect for him and hope he wins.

Will super PACs overwhelm this election or are they overrated as a threat?

I have become radicalized on campaign finance reform. I would go back in a heartbeat to federal funding even with super PACS. I don't see that happening. But it's a great negative legacy of the Obama era to get away from that. I think it's a great moral failing that the [2008] Obama campaign ended that.

Super PACs are very frustrating to campaigns, which people don't realize. Forty percent of pro-Romney advertising was made by the Romney campaign, 60 percent by super PACs. ... Good luck. I think that one of great assets of running a campaign is coordinating things. Super PACs can't participate legally in that process. In 2012 there were fantastic super PAC ads for Romney and he was better off having them run. But obviously, if you can do that bundled together as part of a larger effort, it would be more effective.

Say you're The Washington Post competing against The New York times for Pulitzers and 60 percent of your copy you don't control ... It doesn't go to the quality of what is being done but it goes to the nature of how campaigns work. The Democrats seem better at that than the Republicans, having this cross-pollination between super PACS and campaigns. Look at Clinton and David Brock [a journalist who underwent a right-to-left conversation, founded the nonprofit Media Matters for America and is a vocal Clinton partisan]. They are more hand in glove. I think there's a double standard with the Democrats and campaign financing.

I think the law is in a very bad place. Campaign finance is simple if you think about it for five minutes and impossible if you think for 15 minutes. Every argument to fix it has a good counterargument. I would go to federal funding for all federal elections, including Senate and Congress. But that is up there with wishing for unicorns at the Super Bowl halftime show. It's probably not going to happen.

And, personally, I think that the way campaigns have become a huge funding mechanism for media is inherently corrupt. You have all this consternation about money in politics. But money in politics' primary beneficiary is the media. So I would try to look at FCC regulations for licensing [broadcast stations]. You have to carry debates free. No other developed countries have media charging to carry the debates. You don't have commercials in debates or an increase from $5,000 to $250,000 for commercials. It is corrupt. ... More regulation? Yes, in this case, my answer is: Damn straight, it's more regulation. It would be better.

There are a lot of crocodile tears about the corruption of money in politics, but the vast majority goes for advertising. Talk about military-industrial complex, the media-political complex is vastly profitable. Where does most of the super PAC money go? Goes to the media. And super PACS pay higher rates than the candidates. Who is benefiting the most from all this? It's the media. That's a factual, accurate statement. It's not the pharmaceutical companies or arms dealers, not the defense industry or automobile industry. It's the media industry. And nobody else does it like this.

When the Obama campaign decided to walk away form federal funding, and were then endorsed by The New York Times and Washington Post, any sort of moral authority on campaign finance was squandered. You can't support the candidate who spurned the last great post-Watergate reform on campaign financing and say you support campaign financing. It did great damage to the system. ... Once, you would walk off the stage at the nominating convention, get a certified check from the Treasury Department and that was what you had for the campaign. And it was a much more level playing field. Raising money in the fall [of a general election campaign] is a detriment to democracy. You're spending less time with voters, the media and on policy. By the time Romney won the nomination, he had to raise $100 million a month.

And media coverage of the economy's impact on Americans?

Jon Stewart is a clever multimillionaire from suburbia. But we don't have any John Steinbeck, James Agee or Studs Terkel. So much of the media, in Washington and New York, two of the wealthier areas on the planet, are insulated from this. The best stuff done in the 2012 campaign was by the Des Moines Register and Tampa Tribune. Those reporters were not insulated by wealth. I think it's difficult to understand what it is like for those people [who are hurt by the economy]. It's a real loss to the national conversation not to have those voices [like Terkel].

What did you learn about yourself when you wrote the book about you, your dad and college football?

You know, I hate questions like that since it makes me think about myself.