Why Do You Think Bush Is Strongest?

[bobloblaw]

I have noticed that there are quite a few people here who think that Jeb Bush would make the strongest candidate for the GOP in 2016. I completely disagree, but Id be curious as to hear why. Especially from those who consider themselves GOP or GOP leaning voters.

I think that if Bush is the nominee, not only will he lose badly to Clinton, he will pull down the entire GOP  downticket because conservatives wont come out to vote. And dont think that conservative hatred for Hillary will result in votes for Bush, it wont. A good case can be made that Hillary would help conservatives long term and Bush would destroy them just like Daddy and W did.

[bobloblaw]

Conservatives will vote for Bush, you're forgetting how much they hate Hilary.

There seems to be a lot of revisionism regarding Bush. Ted Cruz and his ilk like to pretend that Bush is a RINO and that he's awful when in fact he's pretty damn conservative-he's anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro-gun, pro-business and was a 'severely conservative governor'

What did I just say above? Also being in the UK doesnt exactly give you a strong position to know what American conservatives will do. in fact in 2012, 5 million white working class voters stayed home, in 2000, Karl Rove said the DUI issue caused 3 million evangelicals to sit out. So conservatives will indeed sit out the election.

[bobloblaw]

Money.

Presidents Connolly and Gramm agree

[bobloblaw]

If conservatives came out for McCain and Romney despite insisting they wouldn't, they will for Jeb too.

That said, I don't think Jeb is the strongest. I see Kasich and possibly Walker/Paul as stronger.

They DIDNT come out for Romney and McCain. Both got fewer votes than GW Bush when Bush ran a "Base Campaign" in 2004.

[bobloblaw]

If conservatives came out for McCain and Romney despite insisting they wouldn't, they will for Jeb too.

That said, I don't think Jeb is the strongest. I see Kasich and possibly Walker/Paul as stronger.

They DIDNT come out for Romney and McCain. Both got fewer votes than GW Bush when Bush ran a "Base Campaign" in 2004.

This is simply not factual. Romney actually got more 'conservative' and more white evangelical (base) votes than Bush in 04.

Conservatives:   % of voters / % GOP
Bush 04       34 / 84
McCain 08   34 / 78
Romney 12   35 / 82

White Evangelical Christians: % of voters / % GOP
Bush 04       23 / 78
McCain 08   26 / 74
Romney 12   26 / 78

Romney was able to get more white evangelicals than Bush even though the number of white voters overall shrunk 6%. The biggest difference between Bush in 04 and McCain and Romney was Bush's appeal to non-GOP base voters and moderates, especially non-whites.

Non-whites: % of voters / % GOP
Bush 04       22 / 27
McCain 08   26 / 18
Romney 12   28 / 18



That is why people thing Jeb Bush can win.

yore not sourcing any of that.

[bobloblaw]

I think a lot of people here do want Bush, not only because he would be a guaranteed loser, but it makes the Establishment comfortable because on many issues the election wouldnt matter. Like on education and immigration. Bush is certainly one of "Them" or "us" depending on your prospective.


Personally, I wouldnt vote for Bush under any circumstances. I think he is an entitled brat of a failed political family. A loss would relegate them to the ash heap of history. I also think he is a progressive in that he believes that the federal government should actively work to make people's lives better. I am certainly not alone in that belief.

I would indeed vote for Hillary over Bush. Both would destroy their party's national position over the course of their SINGLE term. And I'd rather it be Hillary who does that.

[bobloblaw]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/polls/us-elections/
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls.main/
http://elections.nbcnews.com/ns/politics/2012/all/president/#exitPoll


I'm sorry but conservative media have been lying about how Romney and McCain lost because conservatives "didn't show up." The GOP party leaders know this, it is all in the 'autopsy' they released, talking about how they need to expand the appeal of the party beyond the base. 

Only two of your links have any decent data.

well 32% of the electorate in 2008 was GOP and 37% was GOP in 2004. So it would seem that I am right. A moderate GOP candidate results in lower GOP turnout.

[bobloblaw]

He may not be stronger than Kasich or Paul, but he is DEFINITELY stronger than Walker, Rubio, Cruz, Carson, Snyder, ...

Reasons:
1.) He's a great debater. Better than Clinton.
2.) He can appeal to Hispanics and maybe Asian Americans (but not because of muh Hispanic wife!)
3.) He has enough money.
4.) He can defeat Clinton.
5.) He would be an establishment candidate.
6.) He's smarter than Romney and wouldn't let Hillary define him as "pure dynasty evil".

1. Bush hasnt debated anyone since 2002
2. Any votes he gets from hispancs will be offset by losing 2x more white votes
3. People overestimate $$. You need $$ to run a good campaign, but after that additional $$ doesnt get you much.
4. He cant defeat Clinton
5. Establishment candidates without conservative appeal havent won since 1972
6. Wouldnt let anyone define him as "pure evil dynasty" That is like saying a duck wont left you define them as a duck.

[bobloblaw]

He may not be stronger than Kasich or Paul, but he is DEFINITELY stronger than Walker, Rubio, Cruz, Carson, Snyder, ...

Reasons:
1.) He's a great debater. Better than Clinton.
2.) He can appeal to Hispanics and maybe Asian Americans (but not because of muh Hispanic wife!)
3.) He has enough money.
4.) He can defeat Clinton.
5.) He would be an establishment candidate.
6.) He's smarter than Romney and wouldn't let Hillary define him as "pure dynasty evil".

1. Bush hasnt debated anyone since 2002
2. Any votes he gets from hispancs will be offset by losing 2x more white votes
3. People overestimate $$. You need $$ to run a good campaign, but after that additional $$ doesnt get you much.
4. He cant defeat Clinton
5. Establishment candidates without conservative appeal havent won since 1972
6. Wouldnt let anyone define him as "pure evil dynasty" That is like saying a duck wont left you define them as a duck.

1. So what? Listen to his interviews. He will be a great debater in the GOP primary...
2. Could be, but I seriously doubt it. I mean... why should he lose so many Whites? In fact, he would probably do better among women voters than Romney.
3. Sure. But he needs it to win the primary.
4. ...
5. What makes you think Bush has NO conservative appeal?
6. That is right, my mistake. What I mean is that he wouldn't let anyone define him like Obama did with Romney.

Don't get me wrong: I am no Bush supporter but I still think he would be a great GOP candidate.

1. Interviews arent debates.
2. Why lose so many whites? Pandering to hispanics is the reason. Sean Trende covers this well. Coalitions are fluid. You cant go after one without losing another.
3. Cash is overrated. You cant have none, but having a 2 billion for the primary wont get you a single vote beyond one billion whih wont get you a single vote beyond $500m. The media is obsessed with money.
4. He cant defeat Clinton
5. Pay attention. He is despised. I for one would prefer a Hillary to a Jeb presidency and I am not alone.
6. He is already defined.

[bobloblaw]

I'm so sick of the threat from conservatives.  Conservatives, in general, vote in very high numbers and are quite loyal to the GOP.  They were not responsible for big victories like 1984 (Reagan won so handily because he won over independents and even many Democrats), and they were not the reason McCain or Romney lost either (look at what states we won and which states we didn't win).  The GOP needs to expand its voting base, not become even more ridiculously conservative than it already is.  There's absolutely no reason that a college educated, upper-middle class Black family living in the suburbs shouldn't be voting Republican, yet hardly any of them do.  That shows we have a CLEAR image problem on cultural issues.  Getting more conservative makes that worse.

There is no room for you in the party anymore Rocky.

Youre absolutely wrong about upper middle class blacks voting GOP. Lower class blacks vote more GOP than middle or upper middle class. Upper middle class blacks owe their position to affirmative action and government jobs. They actually become MORE liberal the more they move up the income ladder.

[bobloblaw]

I'm so sick of the threat from conservatives.  Conservatives, in general, vote in very high numbers and are quite loyal to the GOP.  They were not responsible for big victories like 1984 (Reagan won so handily because he won over independents and even many Democrats), and they were not the reason McCain or Romney lost either (look at what states we won and which states we didn't win).  The GOP needs to expand its voting base, not become even more ridiculously conservative than it already is.  There's absolutely no reason that a college educated, upper-middle class Black family living in the suburbs shouldn't be voting Republican, yet hardly any of them do.  That shows we have a CLEAR image problem on cultural issues.  Getting more conservative makes that worse.

I am not a party-man. I am not in favor of winning for the sake of winning.

[bobloblaw]

I'm so sick of the threat from conservatives.  Conservatives, in general, vote in very high numbers and are quite loyal to the GOP.  They were not responsible for big victories like 1984 (Reagan won so handily because he won over independents and even many Democrats), and they were not the reason McCain or Romney lost either (look at what states we won and which states we didn't win).  The GOP needs to expand its voting base, not become even more ridiculously conservative than it already is.  There's absolutely no reason that a college educated, upper-middle class Black family living in the suburbs shouldn't be voting Republican, yet hardly any of them do.  That shows we have a CLEAR image problem on cultural issues.  Getting more conservative makes that worse.

Great post, man. This is possibly the best post I've seen all day. By going further to the right, and pandering to the religious right even more is not going to help Republicans. If you got hard right conservative God-fearing Republicans out to vote 100%, that wouldn't matter in states like Michigan, in states like Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin. All of the states Republicans hope to win in. There are not nearly enough extremist conservatives in this country to elect a president without support from any other ideological lean or demographic. Republicans can't keep blaming the reason they lose on " those far left liberal socialist communist hippies like McCain and Romney" because that's not why they lose.

The Democratic Party has successfully branded itself as the party of inclusiveness. "Everyone is welcome here." That's their mantra. Republicans need to end their xenophobia and open their tent to other Republicans who may not be as conservative as them and may not look exactly like them. Up until now, they haven't done that. They've relied on white men to help them get past 270, and it's not working. They've relied on ancient backwards policies like opposition to marriage equality and breaking up and deporting loving families who, for all intents and purposes, are Americans. IT'S. NOT. WORKING.

There is no room for you in the party anymore Rocky.

Youre absolutely wrong about upper middle class blacks voting GOP. Lower class blacks vote more GOP than middle or upper middle class. Upper middle class blacks owe their position to affirmative action and government jobs. They actually become MORE liberal the more they move up the income ladder.

First of all, that's racist. Just because a black person is successful doesn't mean it's due to preferential treatment on job applications or government helping them up.

And Jeb Bush, for all his faults (he's still a**-backwards on marriage equality), wants to expand the Republican tent and include true Republicans who may not look like your traditional idea of a Republican, and who may not talk your traditional idea of a Republican, but are Republican. Because, bobloblaw, you can't elect a president relying solely on the support of hardcore conservatives while alienating the rest of the country, including other Republicans. George W. Bush (his brother, I should remind you) appealed to conservatives while not alienating moderate and independent voters.

I'm not saying they need to abandon their conservative principles, but they can't keep relying on pandering to close-minded hardcore right-wingers to win. There are not enough in the world to elect an American president with support from no other ideological sect. It's just not mathematically possible. What I am saying is that they can still fight for conservative principles of limited government, low taxes, a strong foreign policy, and an unfettered economy, but to rely on these xenophobic backwards principles in desperate attempts to appease the hard right is not a winning strategy. I know conservatives are anal about ideological purity, but relying on xenophobic losing arguments is untenable.

And yet for all the exclusionary actions, the GOP is the majority party in the US.

What the left desperately wants is for elections to not matter. Where the GOP candidate is the same as the Dem candidate. Where there is near 100% agreement on all major issues. Immigration, Climate Change, Social Issues.

You win by running a campaign on conservative issues and not shying away from your ideas. Cruz isnt the one, but Walker and Rubio would do much better than Bush.

[bobloblaw]

Blacks get into the middle class via government jobs. I am not saying that Jesse Jackson says that. The reason Jackson opposes any shrinking of the USPO for that very reason

[bobloblaw]

I'm so sick of the threat from conservatives.  Conservatives, in general, vote in very high numbers and are quite loyal to the GOP.  They were not responsible for big victories like 1984 (Reagan won so handily because he won over independents and even many Democrats), and they were not the reason McCain or Romney lost either (look at what states we won and which states we didn't win).  The GOP needs to expand its voting base, not become even more ridiculously conservative than it already is.  There's absolutely no reason that a college educated, upper-middle class Black family living in the suburbs shouldn't be voting Republican, yet hardly any of them do.  That shows we have a CLEAR image problem on cultural issues.  Getting more conservative makes that worse.

Great post, man. This is possibly the best post I've seen all day. By going further to the right, and pandering to the religious right even more is not going to help Republicans. If you got hard right conservative God-fearing Republicans out to vote 100%, that wouldn't matter in states like Michigan, in states like Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin. All of the states Republicans hope to win in. There are not nearly enough extremist conservatives in this country to elect a president without support from any other ideological lean or demographic. Republicans can't keep blaming the reason they lose on " those far left liberal socialist communist hippies like McCain and Romney" because that's not why they lose.

The Democratic Party has successfully branded itself as the party of inclusiveness. "Everyone is welcome here." That's their mantra. Republicans need to end their xenophobia and open their tent to other Republicans who may not be as conservative as them and may not look exactly like them. Up until now, they haven't done that. They've relied on white men to help them get past 270, and it's not working. They've relied on ancient backwards policies like opposition to marriage equality and breaking up and deporting loving families who, for all intents and purposes, are Americans. IT'S. NOT. WORKING.

There is no room for you in the party anymore Rocky.

Youre absolutely wrong about upper middle class blacks voting GOP. Lower class blacks vote more GOP than middle or upper middle class. Upper middle class blacks owe their position to affirmative action and government jobs. They actually become MORE liberal the more they move up the income ladder.

First of all, that's racist. Just because a black person is successful doesn't mean it's due to preferential treatment on job applications or government helping them up.

And Jeb Bush, for all his faults (he's still a**-backwards on marriage equality), wants to expand the Republican tent and include true Republicans who may not look like your traditional idea of a Republican, and who may not talk your traditional idea of a Republican, but are Republican. Because, bobloblaw, you can't elect a president relying solely on the support of hardcore conservatives while alienating the rest of the country, including other Republicans. George W. Bush (his brother, I should remind you) appealed to conservatives while not alienating moderate and independent voters.

I'm not saying they need to abandon their conservative principles, but they can't keep relying on pandering to close-minded hardcore right-wingers to win. There are not enough in the world to elect an American president with support from no other ideological sect. It's just not mathematically possible. What I am saying is that they can still fight for conservative principles of limited government, low taxes, a strong foreign policy, and an unfettered economy, but to rely on these xenophobic backwards principles in desperate attempts to appease the hard right is not a winning strategy. I know conservatives are anal about ideological purity, but relying on xenophobic losing arguments is untenable.

I am not going to take political advice from a WV Dem. Youve gone from the most Dem state in 1980 and 1988 to one of the least. You certainly dont know about how to adapt.

[bobloblaw]

I am not going to take political advice from a WV Dem. Youve gone from the most Dem state in 1980 and 1988 to one of the least. You certainly dont know about how to adapt.

Let me say for the record now, I am a Maryland Democrat. I just happen to be living in West Virginia right now. I was born in Maryland, I was raised in Maryland, I lived in Maryland all my life up until a few years ago. My state (Maryland) is consistently liberal, and before you say it the reason they just elected a GOP governor is because of a piss poor campaign by Anthony Brown and low turnout. And to be fair, dissatisfaction with O'Malley's tax hikes.

And yet for all the exclusionary actions, the GOP is the majority party in the US.

What the left desperately wants is for elections to not matter. Where the GOP candidate is the same as the Dem candidate. Where there is near 100% agreement on all major issues. Immigration, Climate Change, Social Issues.

You win by running a campaign on conservative issues and not shying away from your ideas. Cruz isnt the one, but Walker and Rubio would do much better than Bush.

What I desperately want is a Republican Party that isn't a crazy party. I want to be able to have the choice, even if I usually go for the Democratic candidate. If there's an election where you have a Michael Dukakis or a Walter Mondale running, I want to be able to vote for a Republican that is not completely insane. But you're right, Bush fatigue is real. I think Walker would be a great candidate (not one I would vote for, but electable), Rubio would less great. I just don't see what he brings to the table, electorally speaking.

Blacks get into the middle class via government jobs. I am not saying that Jesse Jackson says that. The reason Jackson opposes any shrinking of the USPO for that very reason

Jesse Jackson is not the ultimate authority on this. Not all black people who are successful have government jobs or got their job because of affirmative action (which I oppose, by the way).

The GOP isnt a crazy party. Crazy parties arent the majority. The Dem party arguably is crazy party out of touch with the voters. You have one institution, the WH and its occupant has a 46% approval rating.

[bobloblaw]

That entire paragraph is what we call right wing bulls*it. I have trouble seeing the 2x Obama voter becoming a Jeb voter, which is exactly what needs to happen for him to win the general election. Most 2x Obama voters who voted even once for W probably voted for Obama because they didn't like W very much. It's tough to see them being drawn back to a guy who has hired W's economic all-star team. You think the name doesn't matter? Most people who don't give a damn about politics have a very negative reaction to the Bush name. Bill Clinton is perceived as having done a good job, that's the difference with Clinton and Bush. Benghazi and foreign money donations, yawn.

Correct, Bush is a weak candidate. All of Hillary's glaring weaknesses are erased with Jeb as the nominee

[bobloblaw]

I think one of the biggest problems for the GOP if Jeb's the nominee is that 2016 will become much more of referendum on Clinton vs. Bush than on Obama. That's not a problem if by election day Obama has high approval ratings and the economy is in great shape (although this would automatically favor Hillary anyway), but it makes him one of the worst candidates to capitalize if things go sour. A fresh face could make the case there needs a change from Democratic policies - tying Hillary to Obama - if that happens, but it'd be much more difficult for Jeb to convincingly argue that going back to another Bush would be the solution.

Good analysis. Bush v Clinton means it becomes the 2000s v 1990s and the 2008-2016 period is ignored.

[bobloblaw]

Maybe because Jeb is a bit less conservative than people like Walker and Cruz.

like the last bunch of losers...going back to 1976