Jeb

[Statistikhengst]

I think Jeb Bush is one of 3 or 4 (currently on the scene) candidates in the GOP that can win out of the gate.

Money. Check
Name Recognition. Check
Heavyweight Credentials. Check

In truth, a warm bucket of spit with a D or R next to their name on the ballot gets 35% of the vote out of the gate; not enough to win but enough to be on deck if the only viable opponent has a fatal gaffe or develops a pimple on their face and loses favor among the voters.

Party affiliation should be removed from all ballots, even if that takes a Constitutional amendment.

If a person does not know enough about the issues and candidates to vote without a party symbol to guide him, he does not need to be voting.

Au contraire. Party aff should DEFINITELY be on ballots, as is currently the case.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Lithdq]

Well, I think Jeb Bush is not very conservative.

 

[candycorn]

I think Jeb Bush is one of 3 or 4 (currently on the scene) candidates in the GOP that can win out of the gate.

Money. Check
Name Recognition. Check
Heavyweight Credentials. Check

In truth, a warm bucket of spit with a D or R next to their name on the ballot gets 35% of the vote out of the gate; not enough to win but enough to be on deck if the only viable opponent has a fatal gaffe or develops a pimple on their face and loses favor among the voters.

Party affiliation should be removed from all ballots, even if that takes a Constitutional amendment.

If a person does not know enough about the issues and candidates to vote without a party symbol to guide him, he does not need to be voting.

States have all given their duties for running elections over to the parties. This is why primaries are sometimes held on different dates and sometimes with different polling places. It's a total garbage move made by states to save a buck. It's also why there are different slates of electors that cast electoral votes...

Nothing (in an electoral sense) bodes worse for the future of the nation more than these sad truths that we can't trust/can't afford citizens or officials to execute the most basic tenants of government.

 

[FA_Q2]

I'm not sure why you think the name Bush is a guaranteed negative....many here remember the years prior to Obama as the golden age of the nation it seems.

ONLY those that will vote for republicans no matter what see it that way.

Those are not the people that win elections. Unfortunately, they ARE the people that win primaries.

 

[candycorn]

I'm not sure why you think the name Bush is a guaranteed negative....many here remember the years prior to Obama as the golden age of the nation it seems.

ONLY those that will vote for republicans no matter what see it that way.

Those are not the people that win elections. Unfortunately, they ARE the people that win primaries.

Yeah, that's like 35% of the electorate. It's up to the candidate her/himself to patch up the rest.


I really don't know who you support on the GOP side (if any one). I haven't followed your politics closely. Please let me know...who is more centrist on the GOP side than Jeb? If you're stating that Jeb can't win the middle, are you seriously telling us that Rubio will...that Ted Cruz will...that Rick Santorum will?

 

[candycorn]

Well, I think Jeb Bush is not very conservative.

Neither was Romney and he got 47% after running the worst campaign in recent memory.

 

[FA_Q2]

I'm not sure why you think the name Bush is a guaranteed negative....many here remember the years prior to Obama as the golden age of the nation it seems.

ONLY those that will vote for republicans no matter what see it that way.

Those are not the people that win elections. Unfortunately, they ARE the people that win primaries.

Yeah, that's like 35% of the electorate. It's up to the candidate her/himself to patch up the rest.


I really don't know who you support on the GOP side (if any one). I haven't followed your politics closely. Please let me know...who is more centrist on the GOP side than Jeb? If you're stating that Jeb can't win the middle, are you seriously telling us that Rubio will...that Ted Cruz will...that Rick Santorum will?

I don't really like anyone on the right atm but that is another story altogether.

Neither of them have much hope for gaining the center but neither does Jeb. It has nothing to do with positions or Jeb being a centrist though. When have policies mattered at all in politics?

No, what matters is little shit like a good slogan (Hope and Change) or idiotic one liners that the media feeds on. Hell, Who put their dog on top of their car and who ate dog were bigger game changes than actual policy last election. The fact that Jeb is a Bush, the center is NOT fond of the name Bush at all and he would be the THIRD bush in office sinks any chance that he would have ever had IMHO. Basically, the left is very good at controlling the dialogue and the entire time they will ensure it is about Jr.

 

[JWBooth]

"The only things in the middle of the road are yellow stripes and dead armadillos." Jim Hightower

The only thing he ever said that I agree with.

 

[candycorn]

I'm not sure why you think the name Bush is a guaranteed negative....many here remember the years prior to Obama as the golden age of the nation it seems.

ONLY those that will vote for republicans no matter what see it that way.

Those are not the people that win elections. Unfortunately, they ARE the people that win primaries.

Yeah, that's like 35% of the electorate. It's up to the candidate her/himself to patch up the rest.


I really don't know who you support on the GOP side (if any one). I haven't followed your politics closely. Please let me know...who is more centrist on the GOP side than Jeb? If you're stating that Jeb can't win the middle, are you seriously telling us that Rubio will...that Ted Cruz will...that Rick Santorum will?

I don't really like anyone on the right atm but that is another story altogether.

Neither of them have much hope for gaining the center but neither does Jeb. It has nothing to do with positions or Jeb being a centrist though. When have policies mattered at all in politics?

They do matter. Obamacare was announced well prior to the 2008 election. McCain agreeing with Bush 90 plus percent of the time mattered.

What you're likely referring to is that not all campaign promises are kept so you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater and saying none of it matters which is false.

No, what matters is little shit like a good slogan (Hope and Change) or idiotic one liners that the media feeds on. Hell, Who put their dog on top of their car and who ate dog were bigger game changes than actual policy last election.

It mattered more here in the peanut gallery. Not on the streets. I recall Romney's policies of wanting to cut 10% of the federal workforce, wanting to allow Congress to have to vote on EPA regs that would cost jobs/money over a certain quantity/dollar amount, his "5 point plan" which was pretty lame.

True..catchy slogans are what people remember. But what you're doing is transferring the cynical nature of this forum to the electorate as a whole.

The fact that Jeb is a Bush, the center is NOT fond of the name Bush at all and he would be the THIRD bush in office sinks any chance that he would have ever had IMHO.

Based on what? That the Bush family has won the Presidency twice is your evidence that they are not able to win?

Basically, the left is very good at controlling the dialogue and the entire time they will ensure it is about Jr.

It's an effective strategy. However, if you're handicapping the entire field...I am hard pressed to find a GOP candidate on the scene who has a better chance than Jeb.

 

[Siete]

"The only things in the middle of the road are yellow stripes and dead armadillos." Jim Hightower

The only thing he ever said that I agree with.

and the only thing or the right or left of the road is a ditch ...

 

[FA_Q2]

They do matter. Obamacare was announced well prior to the 2008 election. McCain agreeing with Bush 90 plus percent of the time mattered.

What you're likely referring to is that not all campaign promises are kept so you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater and saying none of it matters which is false.

No, that is not what I am referring to at all. I am referring to the simple fact that the vast majority of voters have no idea about any of the platforms at all or the details of their chosen candidates. Ask around - actually ask people what they know about the candidates and it is downright scary what most of them don't know.

It reminds me of the Harlem skit that Stern did asking voters if they supported Obama and attached all of Romney's positions to them. I dont base my opinion off that (it is a piece done for entertainment) but rather the people I see each and every day almost none of them with a single clue about what is going on politically. VOTERS that vote without a single idea about actual policy positions. I know FAR FAR FAR more of them than I know people who actually know the positions of their chosen politicians.

No, what matters is little shit like a good slogan (Hope and Change) or idiotic one liners that the media feeds on. Hell, Who put their dog on top of their car and who ate dog were bigger game changes than actual policy last election.

It mattered more here in the peanut gallery. Not on the streets. I recall Romney's policies of wanting to cut 10% of the federal workforce, wanting to allow Congress to have to vote on EPA regs that would cost jobs/money over a certain quantity/dollar amount, his "5 point plan" which was pretty lame.

True..catchy slogans are what people remember. But what you're doing is transferring the cynical nature of this forum to the electorate as a whole.

YOU recall his positions. YOU are not even close to the average person. You are here - that is FAR more than the average person devotes to understanding political candidates. most people cant articulate anything outside of a commercial (most of which are outright lies). I am transferring the 'cynical nature of this forum.' The fact is that most people here are far better informed than the average person - even the complete dolts. That is because they at least have a vested interest in politics.

Everyone I know outside of my family (they are interested in politics) knows far more about the local football team than they will EVER know about any politician and that is simply sickening.

Based on what? That the Bush family has won the Presidency twice is your evidence that they are not able to win?

No. Based on the fact that the LAST Bush fucked the republican party over. BIG TIME. The first Bush was not seen as 'the worst president in history' by a large percentage of the electorate. Bush Jr. IS. That is a rather HUGE mountain to climb over.

Or did you really forget the horrendous shellacking that they took in 2009? Or the fractures that are all over the party?

It's an effective strategy. However, if you're handicapping the entire field...I am hard pressed to find a GOP candidate on the scene who has a better chance than Jeb.

They all have a better chance - even the ones that are nuts. I just don't see the nation electing another Bush when they are still calling the last one the worst president EVER. You cant even put lipstick on that pig.

 

[candycorn]

They do matter. Obamacare was announced well prior to the 2008 election. McCain agreeing with Bush 90 plus percent of the time mattered.

What you're likely referring to is that not all campaign promises are kept so you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater and saying none of it matters which is false.

No, that is not what I am referring to at all. I am referring to the simple fact that the vast majority of voters have no idea about any of the platforms at all or the details of their chosen candidates. Ask around - actually ask people what they know about the candidates and it is downright scary what most of them don't know.

Fair enough.

Some vote against the other gal/guy

And for some, they are sophisticated politically enough (I count myself in this group)to know that Presidents fiscal promises mean little since the opposition Party always seeks to obstruct and impede and the rules of the Senate enable one Senator to stall legislation with or without the Party being behind her/him. I've stated numerous times that I vote values because after 3+ decades on Earth and witnessing politics, I know enough to know both parties are out to lunch fiscally.

Romney was for repeal of Roe, anti marriage equality, thought an example of struggling was having to sell stock to get by. All of this happened in the campaign. All of this was public record. All of this caught the voter's attention.

Contrary to convenient and popular belief, Conservatives don't vote for someone because Megan Kelly says they should and liberals do not vote for someone based on what Brian Williams says.

Below, you comment that people here are more engaged? If you honestly believe that (It's crap by the way) you would have to believe that those not here are less engaged. Well, what differentiates the two groups? A username, password, and interest in getting into the often unfair discourse. Seriously, do you think people are here to not "go there"?

YOU recall his positions. YOU are not even close to the average person. You are here - that is FAR more than the average person devotes to understanding political candidates. most people cant articulate anything outside of a commercial (most of which are outright lies). I am transferring the 'cynical nature of this forum.' The fact is that most people here are far better informed than the average person - even the complete dolts. That is because they at least have a vested interest in politics.

Everyone I know outside of my family (they are interested in politics) knows far more about the local football team than they will EVER know about any politician and that is simply sickening.

Sickening? Hardly. I think it's unrealistic to think that people should know more about the nuances of an agriculture bill than something that is entertaining such as football or where the NASCAR drivers are this weekend. Why? Because we live in an republic where we vote for representatives to vote on our behalf. We can measure the results. Reagan's great gift was that he could simplify the message. "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago." That is our litmus test when it comes down to it with a mix of "Watch out for the other guy..." If you're correct about anything, the "Watch out for the other guy" is where the voters get bamboozled by those seeking their support.

No. Based on the fact that the LAST Bush fucked the republican party over. BIG TIME. The first Bush was not seen as 'the worst president in history' by a large percentage of the electorate. Bush Jr. IS. That is a rather HUGE mountain to climb over.

Or did you really forget the horrendous shellacking that they took in 2009? Or the fractures that are all over the party?

Got some news for you. Obama is seen as the worst President in the history of the nation. Check that. He's seen as the worst executive in the history of the world. Check that. He's seen as the worst leader of any group of primates ever on the planet.

Seven Presidents from now, whomever she/he is sitting there will be seen the same way by a large % of the nation.

Bush won 2 terms. His dad won one term. The past isn't always prologue but past success isn't a sign of bad things to come...is it???

Yeah...in 2014 politics, 1/2 the nation sees the incumbent as a loser, 1/2 sees the incumbent as a winner. Politifact has Obama as keeping/compromising on 70% of his campaign promises. The story on this hallowed board? Look around. DO you see anyone who is a conservative admitting these facts? Nope. You never will either.

I'm sure if I had looked (and it had existed) at Bush's stats at the same point in his presidency, you'd see nearly the same performance with nearly the same outright lies from liberals.

It's an effective strategy. However, if you're handicapping the entire field...I am hard pressed to find a GOP candidate on the scene who has a better chance than Jeb.

They all have a better chance - even the ones that are nuts. I just don't see the nation electing another Bush when they are still calling the last one the worst president EVER. You cant even put lipstick on that pig.

If you actually believe that Rand Paul or Ted Cruz have a better chance than Jeb Bush with their lack of constituency and zero legislative record...

If you actually believe that Bobby Jindal or Rick Perry have a better chance than Jeb Bush with the electoral math available at this time...

And if you believe that the Senators Rubio, Portman, or even Ayotte are in the same league....

I don't know what to tell you. You're way off.

 

[auditor0007]

.

Looking more like Jeb is gonna run, so let's look at some random facts.

1. As I understand it, he's a "RINO", so he'd have to overcome the more conservative elements of the GOP.

2. I've heard (haven't seen data on this) that 4 million GOP voters stayed home because Romney was a "RINO".

3. The party needs a presidential victory pretty badly right now.

So if Jeb somehow survived the nominating process, can he win without those 4 million votes, or would some or all of those voters suck it up and vote for him?

I guess the same question applies to Christie.

.

Jeb just lost any consideration I might have had for him with his idiotic remarks concerning the Ebola situation. Barring an economic collapse between now and 2016, there is not one single Republican who can or will beat Hillary. I'm not sure there is a single Republican who could beat any Democratic nominee.

 

[candycorn]

They do matter. Obamacare was announced well prior to the 2008 election. McCain agreeing with Bush 90 plus percent of the time mattered.

What you're likely referring to is that not all campaign promises are kept so you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater and saying none of it matters which is false.

No, that is not what I am referring to at all. I am referring to the simple fact that the vast majority of voters have no idea about any of the platforms at all or the details of their chosen candidates. Ask around - actually ask people what they know about the candidates and it is downright scary what most of them don't know.

Fair enough.

Some vote against the other gal/guy

And for some, they are sophisticated politically enough (I count myself in this group)to know that Presidents fiscal promises mean little since the opposition Party always seeks to obstruct and impede and the rules of the Senate enable one Senator to stall legislation with or without the Party being behind her/him. I've stated numerous times that I vote values because after 3+ decades on Earth and witnessing politics, I know enough to know both parties are out to lunch fiscally.

Romney was for repeal of Roe, anti marriage equality, thought an example of struggling was having to sell stock to get by. All of this happened in the campaign. All of this was public record. All of this caught the voter's attention.

Contrary to convenient and popular belief, Conservatives don't vote for someone because Megan Kelly says they should and liberals do not vote for someone based on what Brian Williams says.

Below, you comment that people here are more engaged? If you honestly believe that (It's crap by the way) you would have to believe that those not here are less engaged. Well, what differentiates the two groups? A username, password, and interest in getting into the often unfair discourse. Seriously, do you think people are here to not "go there"?

YOU recall his positions. YOU are not even close to the average person. You are here - that is FAR more than the average person devotes to understanding political candidates. most people cant articulate anything outside of a commercial (most of which are outright lies). I am transferring the 'cynical nature of this forum.' The fact is that most people here are far better informed than the average person - even the complete dolts. That is because they at least have a vested interest in politics.

Everyone I know outside of my family (they are interested in politics) knows far more about the local football team than they will EVER know about any politician and that is simply sickening.

Sickening? Hardly. I think it's unrealistic to think that people should know more about the nuances of an agriculture bill than something that is entertaining such as football or where the NASCAR drivers are this weekend. Why? Because we live in an republic where we vote for representatives to vote on our behalf. We can measure the results. Reagan's great gift was that he could simplify the message. "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago." That is our litmus test when it comes down to it with a mix of "Watch out for the other guy..." If you're correct about anything, the "Watch out for the other guy" is where the voters get bamboozled by those seeking their support.

No. Based on the fact that the LAST Bush fucked the republican party over. BIG TIME. The first Bush was not seen as 'the worst president in history' by a large percentage of the electorate. Bush Jr. IS. That is a rather HUGE mountain to climb over.

Or did you really forget the horrendous shellacking that they took in 2009? Or the fractures that are all over the party?

Got some news for you. Obama is seen as the worst President in the history of the nation. Check that. He's seen as the worst executive in the history of the world. Check that. He's seen as the worst leader of any group of primates ever on the planet.

Seven Presidents from now, whomever she/he is sitting there will be seen the same way by a large % of the nation.

Bush won 2 terms. His dad won one term. The past isn't always prologue but past success isn't a sign of bad things to come...is it???

Yeah...in 2014 politics, 1/2 the nation sees the incumbent as a loser, 1/2 sees the incumbent as a winner. Politifact has Obama as keeping/compromising on 70% of his campaign promises. The story on this hallowed board? Look around. DO you see anyone who is a conservative admitting these facts? Nope. You never will either.

I'm sure if I had looked (and it had existed) at Bush's stats at the same point in his presidency, you'd see nearly the same performance with nearly the same outright lies from liberals.

It's an effective strategy. However, if you're handicapping the entire field...I am hard pressed to find a GOP candidate on the scene who has a better chance than Jeb.

They all have a better chance - even the ones that are nuts. I just don't see the nation electing another Bush when they are still calling the last one the worst president EVER. You cant even put lipstick on that pig.

If you actually believe that Rand Paul or Ted Cruz have a better chance than Jeb Bush with their lack of constituency and zero legislative record...

If you actually believe that Bobby Jindal or Rick Perry have a better chance than Jeb Bush with the electoral math available at this time...

And if you believe that the Senators Rubio, Portman, or even Ayotte are in the same league....

I don't know what to tell you. You're way off.

EDIT::::

It is still way too early to handicap the field and as we wind our way to 2016...there are sure to be gaffes and mis-steps.

 

[Nosmo King]

.

Looking more like Jeb is gonna run, so let's look at some random facts.

1. As I understand it, he's a "RINO", so he'd have to overcome the more conservative elements of the GOP.

2. I've heard (haven't seen data on this) that 4 million GOP voters stayed home because Romney was a "RINO".

3. The party needs a presidential victory pretty badly right now.

So if Jeb somehow survived the nominating process, can he win without those 4 million votes, or would some or all of those voters suck it up and vote for him?

I guess the same question applies to Christie.

.

It seems the Republicans are caught between a Bush and a Hard Core. Another Centrist Republican candidate can't win the votes of the Rabid Right base. No Tea Party candidate can win a national election.

 

[auditor0007]

.

Looking more like Jeb is gonna run, so let's look at some random facts.

1. As I understand it, he's a "RINO", so he'd have to overcome the more conservative elements of the GOP.

2. I've heard (haven't seen data on this) that 4 million GOP voters stayed home because Romney was a "RINO".

3. The party needs a presidential victory pretty badly right now.

So if Jeb somehow survived the nominating process, can he win without those 4 million votes, or would some or all of those voters suck it up and vote for him?

I guess the same question applies to Christie.

.

It seems the Republicans are caught between a Bush and a Hard Core. Another Centrist Republican candidate can't win the votes of the Rabid Right base. No Tea Party candidate can win a national election.

Hillary will win the general election by ten or more points. It will be devastating for Republicans. Dems will take back control of the Senate, if they lose it on Tuesday, and they might even take back the House, but that will be much more difficult. Dems vote big in presidential election years, not so much in midterm years.

 

[candycorn]

.

Looking more like Jeb is gonna run, so let's look at some random facts.

1. As I understand it, he's a "RINO", so he'd have to overcome the more conservative elements of the GOP.

2. I've heard (haven't seen data on this) that 4 million GOP voters stayed home because Romney was a "RINO".

3. The party needs a presidential victory pretty badly right now.

So if Jeb somehow survived the nominating process, can he win without those 4 million votes, or would some or all of those voters suck it up and vote for him?

I guess the same question applies to Christie.

.

It seems the Republicans are caught between a Bush and a Hard Core. Another Centrist Republican candidate can't win the votes of the Rabid Right base. No Tea Party candidate can win a national election.

Hillary will win the general election by ten or more points. It will be devastating for Republicans. Dems will take back control of the Senate, if they lose it on Tuesday, and they might even take back the House, but that will be much more difficult. Dems vote big in presidential election years, not so much in midterm years.

The times of 10 point wins in Presidential elections are over for the forseeable future.

 

[Eaglewings]

They must think we are all dumb, with a short memory span. We are just getting out of the hole that the last Bush got us into.

 

[candycorn]

They must think we are all dumb, with a short memory span. We are just getting out of the hole that the last Bush got us into.

I think you'd find that the name doesn't mean duplicity as much as the policies; meaning that there are likely other candidates closer to Bush Jr. than Jeb is...policy speaking.

 

[Statistikhengst]

.

Looking more like Jeb is gonna run, so let's look at some random facts.

1. As I understand it, he's a "RINO", so he'd have to overcome the more conservative elements of the GOP.

2. I've heard (haven't seen data on this) that 4 million GOP voters stayed home because Romney was a "RINO".

3. The party needs a presidential victory pretty badly right now.

So if Jeb somehow survived the nominating process, can he win without those 4 million votes, or would some or all of those voters suck it up and vote for him?

I guess the same question applies to Christie.

.

It seems the Republicans are caught between a Bush and a Hard Core. Another Centrist Republican candidate can't win the votes of the Rabid Right base. No Tea Party candidate can win a national election.

And that makes me very sad.

NOT.