Gotta have something to talk about for the next 4 years. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83550.html?hp=t1_3 2016 election: Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush?
The Bush name is mud. I don't think he'd have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected with that name.
it depends on how he handles it. If he actually runs on a platform of distancing himself from his brother AND actually hires people who weren't in his brothers cabinet or "team", he could run and win their nomination and potentially the Presidency. But if he runs on blaming the "liberals" for calling his brother what he was, he'll just remind people who his brother was AND he'll get guilty by association. But in all honesty, I think you're right. This country has had enough Bush's in the white house. While we had 8 years of Clinton, he's by far more popular and well liked (and a better President) than either Bush was AND she's (for reasons you may or may not agree with) intensely popular. Think about it though, if Bush runs in 16, and wins, that'd mean a Bush have been in the white house for 24 of the last 40 years. That's a bit overkill.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ipartisan-moderate-jeb-bush-come-from/258514/ Dan Gelber, who served as the Democratic leader in the Florida House under Bush and disagreed with him fiercely on all of the aforementioned issues, has been, well, "surprised'' by Bush's conciliatory tone of late. "When Jeb Bush is saying it's gotten hyperpartisan, that's really something. It shows you how far the needle has moved,'' Gelber quipped. "He was quite a partisan guy .... Payback was also part of his agenda, no question. He took care of his friends and went after his enemies.'' But Gelber said Bush's hardline positions were always firmly grounded in policy, not in political scorekeeping. That makes him different -- and smarter -- than some of the conservative leaders in Washington and in state capitals across the country, Gelber said, including Governors Rick Scott in Florida and Scott Walker in Wisconsin. "We were prepared to do battle with Jeb every day but it was over ideas,'' Gelber said, almost wistfully. "The difference with these guys today is that it's about electoral politics, so anything the other guy says is bad.''
It does not matter. If this last election didn't teach you that half the battle is public perception, I don't know what to say. People are going to see, and the Dems will certainly remind them, that he is another Bush and I can almost promise that he won't get the vote.
truth be told, if the Republicans look at this last election as a sign of things to come, running an older rich white guy is probably the last thing they should do. Barring a lack of qualified candidates, of course. Women are the majority of the electorate now. They don't blindly vote with their husbands (if they're married). Minorities are a huge important block of voters too. Right now, one of the well known female republicans (who is also a minority) is Rice. And I'm not sure she wouldn't suffer from the same problems that Bush would. The R's really need to shy away from old white rich guys, who tell women what to do with their bodies and think Businesses are people. Basically, they've alienated a large portion of the populace with how they run their elections and continuing to run the same old same old, shows they wouldn't have learned a god damn thing.
The republicans for the past two elections have taken a page from the Democrats' old playbook. They've run weak fields of candidates in the primaries and the eventual nominee wasn't a winner. Bush is anything but a weak candidate. He's married to a woman born in Mexico. He speaks fluent spanish. He was quite popular in Florida as governor and won significant chunks of votes from the Democrats' constituencies (women, latinos, jews) I've mentioned Rice as a potential candidate as well. She's well loved by Republicans, but I'm not sure they were ready to nominate someone who's pro choice. They might be now. Personally, I think she's a great american and a great person, but I don't know of any real world experience she has in a domestic executive position. She's an academic. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...spanics-back/2012/01/25/gIQAgy3PRQ_story.html BTW, I found this and thought it would be good to share. [video=youtube;JfHKIq5z80U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfHKIq5z80U[/video]
I think Jeb would have a real chance. Marco Rubio might do better. If he could get to the general, John Huntsman would clean up.
I am really impressed with Rubio. His stance on gay marriage needs to seriously evolve over the next 2-3 years if he's going to be a better candidate than Jeb.
I like Huntsman a lot. I've seen him speak twice, and he's very intelligent (and knowledgeable on Far East relations). But, he's Mormon--which means to many, it seems, as if he can't overcome the "cult" he gives money to and worships.
Whenever i hear the name Jeb Bush, i now picture his character from the Comedy Central cartoon, "Lil Bush"
I would vote for him in a second. I couldn't believe his opponents ran commercials against him stating that his experience with China was bad.
I like Huntsman a lot, but he'd never win his party's nomination in the current GOP climate. I think Jeb Bush would have a reasonable chance...I don't think the "name" is destroyed, and even George W. Bush himself is going to be remembered better going forward than he was as his presidency drew to a close. In today's hyper-partisan political environment, there's roughly 45% of the vote you're simply not going to get no matter who you are and 45% of the vote you're going to get just by being part of one of the two major political parties. I think the Bush name is only beyond repair in the 45% of the vote who wouldn't vote for a Republican anyway. I think Marco Rubio is probably their best bet for 2016, though. He's young, charismatic and, with a Latino background, has appeal beyond the older, white male demographic that's been boxing in the GOP the past two election cycles. His views are probably about as extreme as Paul Ryan's, but he's better at coming across as a moderate, without it seeming fake. For the Democratic party, I think Hillary Clinton is their best candidate, if she's interested in running again, 8 years after her last attempt. She's quite popular, especially among the Democratic base, and she, like Bill Clinton, is the type of extremely pragmatic moderate who tends to do well in general elections. If she doesn't run, I'm not well enough versed in the Democrats' bench to know their next best candidate might be.
What has Jeb Bush even been up to lately? Is he in politics anymore? A huge gap on his resume would work against him. IMHO anyone associated with the W, whether it's Jeb, Colin Powell, or Condy Rice, is a poor choice. Not to mention everyone involved with the Schiavo case is a national embarrassment. I don't think Rubio is nearly as exciting as Republicans want him to be. He's the 2012 Bobby Jindal. He's in bed with the Tea Party which is seen as pretty wacky by anyone not in it, and has some socially conservative views that are against the current mainstream in the nation (that will increase in social acceptance over the next four years). Contrast him with someone like Gavin Newsom (Democratic VP candidate) who also has some conservative social views but puts them aside when he governs. Republicans need someone that has mass appeal (Chris Christie joke). Christie is well-liked! People don't like their other candidates. Christie and Huntsman would be a great moderate, no-nonsense ticket, and although Huntsman's religion is worrisome he seems less inclined to lean on it in terms of policy. Anyone who says that the religion of a candidate is something that shouldn't even be discussed fails to recognize that religion is a choice and an indicator of a person's ability to reason. Regardless, can't see the GOP going for it. Once the sting of this election wears off they'll be back to their old mentality. The Democrats are likely to run Hillary Clinton with Cory Booker (mayor of Newark) or Newsom. If Obama is even marginally more successful in his second term, that is a hard ticket to compete against when coming from so far behind.
