Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know a lot of conservatives and Republicans (not necessarily the same thing) don't agree with the premise that the GOP needs to move to center, but assuming it is true, can't the party come up with someone better than another Bush?
IMO, the Bush name is poison to enough of the electorate that nominating Jeb guarantees the Republicans lose the White House.
Isn't there another qualified Republican out there who is more moderate and "electable"?
I seriously think that no matter how much they protest, the Democrats are rubbing their hands with glee over the prospect of Jeb winning the GOP nomination.
I know a lot of conservatives and Republicans (not necessarily the same thing) don't agree with the premise that the GOP needs to move to center, but assuming it is true, can't the party come up with someone better than another Bush?
IMO, the Bush name is poison to enough of the electorate that nominating Jeb guarantees the Republicans lose the White House.
Isn't there another qualified Republican out there who is more moderate and "electable"?
I seriously think that no matter how much they protest, the Democrats are rubbing their hands with glee over the prospect of Jeb winning the GOP nomination.
They may be worried because he has a Mexican wife and is pro-amnesty and think that will garner him more of the Hispanic vote. All that will do is turn the conservative base off to him.
They may be worried because has a Mexican wife and is pro-amnesty and think that will garner him more of the Hispanic vote. All that will do is turn the conservative base off to him.
IMO, if you think the conservatives stayed home when Romney was the nominee, just wait for Jeb...
Sure. But in case you haven't noticed, there's a split going on in the Republican party that makes nominating a real centrist problematic. Will the far right once more fall in line with the old school conservatives if Bush or any other apparent moderate is nominated?
Who knows? I don't think anyone knows yet. It's a case of political schizophrenia, with one personality trying to boss the other, back and forth continually. Whoever wins the nomination will need every Republican who is registered to hope to win, and must attract enough non-committed votes to their a needle with a tiny eye as well.
This forces all of them to say things they don't believe and make statements they won't adhere to if elected. As long as the Republican party disunity persists, they all are going to have a very hard time getting into the White House.
Don't be deceived by the Republican triumph of 2014. A Presidential election is like no other in our system, and off-year elections always tend to swing widely from one party to the other. if hubris from 2014 sets in like the 2006 election's hubris settled into the Democratic party afterward, the Republicans are in more trouble than they realize.
Sure. But in case you haven't noticed, there's a split going on in the Republican party that makes nominating a real centrist problematic. Will the far right once more fall in line with the old school conservatives if Bush or any other apparent moderate is nominated?
Who knows? I don't think anyone knows yet. It's a case of political schizophrenia, with one personality trying to boss the other, back and forth continually. Whoever wins the nomination will need every Republican who is registered to hope to win, and must attract enough non-committed votes to their a needle with a tiny eye as well.
This forces all of them to say things they don't believe and make statements they won't adhere to if elected. As long as the Republican party disunity persists, they all are going to have a very hard time getting into the White House.
Don't be deceived by the Republican triumph of 2014. A Presidential election is like no other in our system, and off-year elections always tend to swing widely from one party to the other. if hubris from 2014 sets in like the 2006 election's hubris settled into the Democratic party afterward, the Republicans are in more trouble than they realize.
Democrats have to cater to their fringe also. You're kidding yourself if you don't believe that.
The people yearning for Warren and Sanders may stay home too, if Hillary is the nominee.
If Jeb is the nominee, not only does the conservative base stay home, but there will be a lot of people who vote against him simply because three Presidents from the same family within a quarter of a century reeks of privilege and dynasty. That has the potential to be a problem for Hillary to a lesser degree, regardless of Bill's popularity, but the Republicans lose that slight edge with Jeb.
If the GOP feels they must go moderate, Jeb is the worst possible choice.
I know a lot of conservatives and Republicans (not necessarily the same thing) don't agree with the premise that the GOP needs to move to center, but assuming it is true, can't the party come up with someone better than another Bush?
IMO, the Bush name is poison to enough of the electorate that nominating Jeb guarantees the Republicans lose the White House.
Isn't there another qualified Republican out there who is more moderate and "electable"?
I seriously think that no matter how much they protest, the Democrats are rubbing their hands with glee over the prospect of Jeb winning the GOP nomination.
I am not A Jeb Bush proponent but, he Governed Conservatively. Do you want a Moderate acting as a Conservative ie Bush41. Or a Conservative acting moderate. What we need is A Conservative that can articulate Conservatism in such a way it appeals to moderates ie Reagan.
A recent RNC poll asked something to the effect: If x is the nominee, will you stay home and not vote, Bush was 67%. But will still be the nominee, because Goldman Sachs says so.
A recent RNC poll asked something to the effect: If x is the nominee, will you stay home and not vote, Bush was 67%. But will still be the nominee, because Goldman Sachs says so.
What exactly would be the point of buying a candidate who doesn't win the election?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
