Gyroscopic Investing

I'm beginning to think of Jeb Bush as possibly our next President. He is smart, affable, conservative enough, polls very well with Hispanics, and wins Florida hands down, leaving the governership with a 60% approval rating. He will look fresh after his hiatus and obviously comes from a winning tradition. On immigration, he will stand out for his "principled" stand. And he is a uniter, not a divider.

What do you think?

No real opinion of Jeb but it strikes me that we are getting closer and closer to our own version of royal families here in the US with the Bushes, Clintons and (maybe) Obamas.

I think Jeb has a chance, but his last name is sure to be an albatross around his neck. One thing's for sure in 2016, though: there's going to be no shortage of serious, qualified Republicans on the field. If Hillary doesn't run, I think the Dems are sunk, as she's pretty much their only qualified person. Obama has succeeded in wrecking most of the Democrats' talent. I read a pretty neat article on this subject recently: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... 13241.html

Simonjester wrote: Common Core, immigration, GOP (bought and sold) establishment connection, and the Bush last name will be the first few legitimate complains the people will have against a Jeb Bush run...
the last two complaints will seen as a plus by the "buyers and sellers" and pretty much guarantee him the primary nomination if he wants it..

I thought Barbara had come around to the idea of Jeb For President.

Reub wrote: I'm beginning to think of Jeb Bush as possibly our next President. He is smart, affable, conservative enough, polls very well with Hispanics, and wins Florida hands down, leaving the governership with a 60% approval rating. He will look fresh after his hiatus and obviously comes from a winning tradition. On immigration, he will stand out for his "principled" stand. And he is a uniter, not a divider.

What do you think?

Yes, along with Chris Christie, they are the only moderate Republican contenders with a chance.  Scott Walker is too whatever the inverse of a RINO is (although I would love him to win and bust up the public unions).  And Rand Paul just went for the Senate in 2016 so fat chance; besides he's too libertarian conservative.  Ted Cruz or Paul Ryan?  Don't make me laugh.  You can't win by alienating electors on the other side of the aisle.

But either one up against Hillary and a third party that will likely split the Republican vote (if only because Democrats have no economic sense)?  I don't want to take that bet.  Maybe Obama will crash and burn and damage the Democrat party for a couple of decades.  There's always hope.

All things considered, my money would be on Jeb for the nomination due to the Hispanic support and not being stoopid about immigration.**  But Hispanic support is limited to Cubans which are traditionally conservative because of the Cuban embargo.  That may not translate into the wider Hispanic majority who are much more liberal.  It is easier for a Democrat to shift to the center than a conservative Republican.

** This, of course, assumes the Republican establishement is going to wake up to stop the hemorrhaging and not nominate a rightwing nut and pour salt on the gaping wound.

Pointedstick wrote: I think Jeb has a chance, but his last name is sure to be an albatross around his neck. One thing's for sure in 2016, though: there's going to be no shortage of serious, qualified Republicans on the field. If Hillary doesn't run, I think the Dems are sunk, as she's pretty much their only qualified person. Obama has succeeded in wrecking most of the Democrats' talent. I read a pretty neat article on this subject recently: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... 13241.html

Wow, The Gipper really was popular!

Obama is laughable but hey at least he beat Einsenhower's governship loss!  I wonder how bad Democrats got trounced under Carter in 1980 because he's the only comparable wimp I can relate Obama to and thats probably a mean thing to say about a peaceful man who actually got some things done unlike Obama.  I just thought he came across a bit effeminate in those cardigan sweaters...  he was kinda thin too.

[quote=MachineGhost]I just thought he came across a bit effeminate in those cardigan sweaters...[/quote]

I think Carter was targeting the Mr. Rogers demographic

God I hope not.  What so he can grant amnesty to the other 5 million not included by O?

If we are forced to have a "moderate", I'll take Christie at least he is anatomically correct i.e. not spineless.  NOt that I want either.

Benko wrote: If we are forced to have a "moderate", I'll take Christie at least he is anatomically correct i.e. not spineless.  NOt that I want either.

Why do like Christie instead of Bush?  I don't really know their specifics.

MG,

I don't know a lot of details.  I do know that Republicans with a spine are rare.  You can see on you tube examples of Christie dealing with e.g. hecklers, people asking stupid questions, and just people who disagree with him and Christie deals with them very directly.  Perhaps too directly/abrasive for many voters, I dunno.  I grew up in new York city area, so doens't bother me.  Also Christie did get things done over the oppositiion of unions, etc which can't be easy in NJ. 

Jeb was a much better governor than Christie is. I believe that taxes in NJ have gone up under his leadership. The state is in a massive deficit. His much publicized plan to revitalize Atlantic City has been an abject failure. Despite his weight he has a very thin skin and comes off as unlikable. I have my doubts if he would beat Hillary in his home state.

Benko wrote: I don't know a lot of details.  I do know that Republicans with a spine are rare.  You can see on you tube examples of Christie dealing with e.g. hecklers, people asking stupid questions, and just people who disagree with him and Christie deals with them very directly.  Perhaps too directly/abrasive for many voters, I dunno.  I grew up in new York city area, so doens't bother me.  Also Christie did get things done over the oppositiion of unions, etc which can't be easy in NJ.

Yeah he's a straight shooter for sure.  It's what I like about him and it's very refreshing.  But are electors ready for that?  HAHAHAHAHAHA.  I will remain to be surprised.  So much about electability has very little to do with common sense.

Besides, hes frackin' fat and thats a big negative.  We have a lot of anti-fat prejudice in this country.  Paired up against Bush?  I think sizzle will matter more than steak.

EDIT: Well if Reub is correct, than forgetaboutit.

I have no idea if Reub is correct.  As I said, I don't want either of them.  And the Rs would have to be clinically insane to run a candidate named Bush (here, let me slit my throat for you).

"Chris Matthews: "Mark My Words," Mitt Romney Will Beat Jeb Bush And Be GOP Nominee"
Romney wouldn't be my first choice (or 3rd), but he wouldn't be terrible.  Anyone on here still think he would have been no different than O?- 

Walker has an impressive record and beat the Unions who did their best to unseat him twice.  I've heard he has the opposite problem as Christie i.e. too boring, but have not seen enough.  I'd like to know more about him.

Paul is still intriguing  but too many concerns e.g. anotehr senator, flip flopping, weird views in his closet (?), etc.

Here's a thought.  If/since Hillary will run, then Jeb Bush is obligated to join the Battle of The Dynasties.

If the Republicans actually want to win in 2016 (a big assumption), they will nominate Rand Paul. He can draw anti-war independents (and maybe some Democrats) away from Hillary, and would shred her in any debate.

Libertarian666 wrote: If the Republicans actually want to win in 2016 (a big assumption), they will nominate Rand Paul. He can draw anti-war independents (and maybe some Democrats) away from Hillary, and would shred her in any debate.

That's just wishful thinking due to your own ideological bias.  I don't think you realize just how polarizing a libertarian-conservative is to both conservative and liberal electors.  Also, I doubt anti-war independents are even a significant factor, if they ever were.  "It's the economy, stupid!"  See the exit polls for the last election.

I would actually prefer to have Rand Paul or the Libertarian Party win...  but it's just not going to happen.  We are not ready for libertarian policies yet.

He would be a loser. Unpretty, bland, boring, strange hair.....and besides, his policies are weird.

IDK about Jeb. He is so mainstream that he is as close to Romney or McCain as you can get. Possibly a nationally fresh face like Scott Walker or John Kasich would excite people more and rally the base.

Pointedstick wrote: I think Jeb has a chance, but his last name is sure to be an albatross around his neck.

Positively albatrocious. I also think he's got a chance, though.

Simonjester wrote: albatrocious with everyone except the establishment and the big money behind them, with that crowd he is just the thing they want, and that gives him more than a chance.. it almost guarantees he wins the primary, and can then go on to have a McCain/Romney caliber shot at the general election

Bush is leading.  We'd need a really big surprise candidate to knock him off the totem pole.

He still stands no chance against Hillary.

A bigger question is, how difrerent is Hillary from Obama?  She has the benefit of real world experience...  sort of.

Reub, this is where we need you to come in and say that Obama was so disappointing that he made it possible for the Empire to Strike Back, aka the Republicans. After all, look at their recent Senate seat victory.

I will puke if Jeb is the R nominee.  Three from one family is two too many.

clacy wrote: I will puke if Jeb is the R nominee.  Three from one family is two too many.

Second place is Marco Rubio.  Maybe Obama is sticking it to him by lifting the Cuba sanctions.

Problem is Rubio is like an Obama...  no real experience.

Rubio is too much of an amateur to get the nod, IMO. 

Walker and Kasich are my dark horse candidates.

Third place is Christie.  But Reub thinks he's too ugly.

Now as I've mentioned several times in this here forums, the third party cycle is due in 2016, so maybe Republicans disgusted with Bush will revolt.  I can't see Hillary being that polarizing now that Obama has crashed and burned his "Hope & Change" message.