Breaking: George H.W. Bush to vote for Hillary

[Trapsy]

[Dr. Arch]

HRC continues bringing our country together in ways never thought possible before.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The fact that people like George HW Bush and Hillary Clinton (who for the record, are very different from each other on foreign policy) get called "neocons" is more proof that it's a generic term of abuse by the  neo-isolationists who somehow think it would be a good idea for the US to forfeit its international commitments and leadership (because obviously the world would be so much better if the only plausible alternatives  like Russia and China had more power and global influence than the US!)

[President Johnson]

Good guy.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Only Hillary Clinton could be accused of being so polarizing and evil that 99.9 percent of Republicans hate her times infinity and then turn around and be attacked when Republicans endorse her as "proof of her closet Republicanism." She's damned if she does, damned if she doesn't.

[Classic Conservative]

At first, Ovthought this was George HW Bush is dead.

[Wells]

Despite Trump's efforts to divide our great nation, Clinton always brings us back together.

[Skye]

We have something in common.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The entire Bush family is voting for Hillary.

And, as an anti-war Republican, this is supposed to impress me?  As an anti-NAFTA Republican, this is supposed to appeal to me how?

Oh, yes, I forgot.  This is neocons locking arms and singing "Solidarity Forever".

[rafta_rafta]

No living president has endorsed Trump. I bet Trump would get Nixon's endorsement if he was alive.

[MasterJedi]

The fact that people like George HW Bush and Hillary Clinton (who for the record, are very different from each other on foreign policy) get called "neocons" is more proof that it's a generic term of abuse by the  neo-isolationists who somehow think it would be a good idea for the US to forfeit its international commitments and leadership (because obviously the world would be so much better if the only plausible alternatives  like Russia and China had more power and global influence than the US!)

A big deal is always made by how the Republican party has went far right where Nixon and Reagan are considered RINOs based on actual policy positions. What's usually ignored is how the Clinton's and politicians such as Evan Bayh, Jim Webb, etc are now basically considered Republicans. Shows how dangerous everything is, idealogues on both sides are dangerous.

[Inmate Trump]

It's fun watching former Bush supporters try to hate on the man they once admired (and presumably his son, and both First Ladies who are all likely to vote Clinton) now that he's shown himself to not simply be a mindless drone falling in the Republican line.

More of this should happen.  Just because you're a Republican doesn't mean the candidate your party nominates is always the better option; in the case of the 2016 election, the GOP candidate is the *worst* possible choice across the board.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

The entire Bush family is voting for Hillary.

And, as an anti-war Republican, this is supposed to impress me?  As an anti-NAFTA Republican, this is supposed to appeal to me how?

Oh, yes, I forgot.  This is neocons locking arms and singing "Solidarity Forever".

Maybe we'll get lucky and Dick Cheney will accidentally shoot them in the face at some meeting.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Apparently Bush's spokesperson is not denying this.

[Clark Kent]

This makes me slightly more likely to vote for her.

[Rooney]

Globalists got to stick together. Thug life.

[Mr. Morden]

Apparently Bush's spokesperson is not denying this.

The Politico story says he's neither confirming nor denying.  Publicly maintaining radio silence on who Bush will vote for:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/exclusive-george-hw-bush-to-vote-for-hillary-228395

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

Republicans who think that "Trumpism" will just go away after Trump loses and that the Republicans will nominate another Bush-type Republican in 2020 are deluding themselves.

I don't think Trumpism is just going to go away (and definitely not by 2020), but at the same time you've got to recognize that it's a minority of the party (disliked by the majority, incidentally), one that will not find it easy to coalesce around one candidate in the absence of Trump, and one which has a massive demographic problem in that it gets support mostly from older voters in high-mortality areas.

I don't know what is meant by "Bush-type" (I don't think a hawkish FP-oriented candidate, like Lindsey Graham, has much of a chance in the modern Republican Party, but none of the serious prospective 2020 candidates really fits that description; Cotton is the closest but he's clearly intending to compete for Trump-successor), but I think a Trumpist would need even better luck than Trump had in 2016 to win in 2020, and that after that unless they manage to actually elect a President the prospects become very grim.

I can only speak for myself, but I'd like to see a Kasich-type Republican who isn't as hawkish as the rest of the Republican party nominated in 2020. Even a populist Republican would be great unless they run a "Whites only" campaign.

That candidate wouldn't be my first choice, but I would definitely still back him in the general. (Referring to your first sentence; "populist Republican" refers to a style of rhetoric/campaigning and I judge candidates by ideology and governing/legislative record, so it could be anything from someone fantastic to someone worse than Trump).

Republicans who think that "Trumpism" will just go away after Trump loses and that the Republicans will nominate another Bush-type Republican in 2020 are deluding themselves.

I don't think Trumpism is just going to go away (and definitely not by 2020), but at the same time you've got to recognize that it's a minority of the party (disliked by the majority, incidentally), one that will not find it easy to coalesce around one candidate in the absence of Trump, and one which has a massive demographic problem in that it gets support mostly from older voters in high-mortality areas.

I don't know what is meant by "Bush-type" (I don't think a hawkish FP-oriented candidate, like Lindsey Graham, has much of a chance in the modern Republican Party, but none of the serious prospective 2020 candidates really fits that description; Cotton is the closest but he's clearly intending to compete for Trump-successor), but I think a Trumpist would need even better luck than Trump had in 2016 to win in 2020, and that after that unless they manage to actually elect a President the prospects become very grim.

This would all be true if he loses by 12, but if he loses by 2, as now looks far more likely, this isn't over.  Trump will either anoint someone or run again himself in 2020.  Assuming it's Trump, Cruz and an establishment favorite like Rubio or Ryan, that's a perfect recipe for an even 3 way split of the party and 1924 Democrats style chaos at the 2020 GOP convention.

The gist of my post was that this isn't over even if he does lose by 12, but there are serious structural issues a Trump '20 candidacy, or a different future Trumpist candidate, would have to face.

I don't think the 60% of the party that opposed him in 2016 would magically become more favorable to him after he lost to a Democratic candidate with sub-40% approval ratings. In fact, I don't think his own backers would see him particularly positively after such an event. Even if it's narrower than 2%.

The wing that backed him would still be greater than 1/3 of the party in 2016, and a candidate who could unify them would be a force; but someone who could unify the forces against them (something Rubio came much closer to doing in 2016 than people remember) would crush them everywhere except New England and maybe a few inner Deep South states.

I think the fact that the Republican base (i.e. everyone except the super-wealthy donors and the consulting/journalist class who collectively number in the tens of thousands) is more or less okay with voting for Trump should be concerning.

The "true conservative" Evan McMullin candidacy has proven to be a complete joke, and the Libertarian ticket that consists of two Republican governors is apparently taking more votes away from Clinton than it is from Trump.

A significant portion of the Democrats have reservations about voting for Hillary, as recent polls indicate, but Republicans seem to have no qualms about voting for Trump. (His ceiling is inherently lower but his floor has held up much more strongly than hers.)

Bloggers at National Review and RedState may be saying, "This isn't what the Republican Party is!" but they can't outvote the rank-and-file voters. And if the rank-and-file voters don't decide what their party is, then what is the point?

But that's not what Vosem is saying.  Yes, you're right that the vast majority of Republicans are willing to vote for Trump in the GE, given that he's the nominee.  But Vosem is talking about something else: the odds of Trump or a Trump-like figure being nominated again in 2020, assuming Clinton wins this time.

But on your point, I'm not sure where you get "A significant portion of the Democrats have reservations about voting for Hillary, as recent polls indicate, but Republicans seem to have no qualms about voting for Trump."  Where do you get that from?  The polling I've seen seems to indicate that Clinton and Trump are about equally popular/unpopular with their own parties.

[Monolith]

No living president has endorsed Trump. I bet Trump would get Nixon's endorsement if he was alive.

That's a bit of a reach

[KingSweden]

I imagine HW will keep this private moving forward and not tip his hand, but I also imagine that in private he will most certainly vote for Hillary Clinton. FF.

[DIXIECRAT]

Hillary's some kind of double or nothing gamble. She's promising open borders, strong unions, racial justice... to the different interest groups of the party, while subtly pandering to disaffected conservatives on the grounds that there's no way she's going so left-wing. I guess she can almost as likely win on a landslide or lose to DJ Trump.     

[SATW]

The entire Bush family is voting for Hillary.

And, as an anti-war Republican, this is supposed to impress me?  As an anti-NAFTA Republican, this is supposed to appeal to me how?

Oh, yes, I forgot.  This is neocons locking arms and singing "Solidarity Forever".

whatever helps you and your broken ideology of buzz words sleep at night, bro

[RINO Tom]

Republicans who think that "Trumpism" will just go away after Trump loses and that the Republicans will nominate another Bush-type Republican in 2020 are deluding themselves.

People who think Trumpism represents a coherent set of views that will survive past Donald Trump's candidacy rather than a segment of the population overjoyous that a candidate will publicly say all of the xenophobic and racist things they say behind close doors and cloak it as "straight talk" are deluded.

[heatcharger]

Republicans who think that "Trumpism" will just go away after Trump loses and that the Republicans will nominate another Bush-type Republican in 2020 are deluding themselves.

People who think Trumpism represents a coherent set of views that will survive past Donald Trump's candidacy rather than a segment of the population overjoyous that a candidate will publicly say all of the xenophobic and racist things they say behind close doors and cloak it as "straight talk" are deluded.

Of course they're deluded, but they have enough share of the Republican primary vote to push their candidate into the nomination. Why would that change in 4 years? It's not like they'll leave the party if Trump loses.

[Suburbia]

Not surprising. Bush I has been upset over the rise of Donald Trump since October 2015. Barbara Bush is upset too. Some of the Bushes may either 1) vote for Clinton, 2) vote for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian, 3) Write in: Tom Ridge, Colin Powell, etc., 4) Decide not to vote in 2016 and stay home.

Millennials should not care about this, some of them weren't even alive in 1980, 1988 and 1992 when Bush I was running for president, the economy was booming in September 1988. Some of these millennials won't even survive the '80's with their hyper-obsessed sensitivities of the workplace.