(02-05-2015 02:12 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(02-05-2015 01:21 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Just say no to any more Bush's or Clinton's. Been there, done that.

And yet, the media has dubbed yet another Bush and another Clinton as the "front runners". Killary I guess I understand, given her cult following, but LOL at Jeb Bush.

I remember a few weeks ago when I woke up and turned on the news, and they were telling me that he was now the front runner for the Republican party. I wondered what could have possibly happened between yesterday (when he wasn't even anyone's radar) to today to make that so?

The thing that both Clinton and Bush have is access to lots and lots of money (particularly from Wall Street). At this early stage, winning the "money primary" makes you the frontrunner. Meanwhile, the more conservative wing of the Republican Party is much more split among many different candidates, while the business and moderate wings of the GOP appear to be consolidating behind Bush. Those factors make Bush into the de facto frontrunner (regardless of what people might think of him personally).

(02-05-2015 11:59 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-05-2015 10:45 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(02-05-2015 09:54 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  He would have had a better chance if Romney ran and they would have tag-teamed to marginalize the other candidates, IMO. As is, he is going to be on his own getting eviscerated from all angles, particularly on immigration and common core.

Common Core, maybe.. but it seems that a lot of the candidates favor at least the general direction Jeb's leaning.

It's pretty much a skate-job for anyone who's pro-amnesty right now in the leaders' slots, because other than 1 or 2, they all seem to want it, despite their constituents opposition to it.

That is the key. The people are opposed to it. Not just right wingers either, over 60% is opposed. It is also a high priority issue and someone is going to tap into it.

Depends upon how you define "constituents". The business wing of the Republican Party has been *begging* for immigration reform since the turn of the century. More importantly, from a pure political perspective, should the Republicans be also going after a shrinking constituency, or should they be trying to get over 40% of the Hispanic vote like they did back in 2004? The Republicans *cannot* let Hispanics become 90% in favor of Democrats in the way that the African-American vote has since the 1960s. That will straight-up prevent any type of electoral college victory for the Republicans because any path to 270 electoral votes requires winning Florida and Virginia while holding onto other states with rapidly growing Hispanic populations (such as Arizona and Georgia). This is simply about the electoral math. The GOP with 40% of the Hispanic vote is an electoral force. The GOP with only 10% of the Hispanic vote is basically guaranteed to lose the White House from the get go no matter how many angry populist voters there might be out there. It still boggles my mind how much Republicans have destroyed their credibility with Hispanics over the past decade - that was a group that could have been won over, which was one of the few things that George W. Bush actually did well. The Republicans writing that group off (which is what they effectively have been doing with the anti-immigration rhetoric) is political suicide.

(02-05-2015 09:14 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  The dude is gonna get pushed and pushed by the RNC and their fellow power brokers... and the Republicans might just lose ANOTHER election because of their idiocy.

I couldn't even make it past a few sentences before I came to your conclusion....

holy shite paw, what do I do now?

(02-05-2015 02:45 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The thing that both Clinton and Bush have is access to lots and lots of money (particularly from Wall Street). At this early stage, winning the "money primary" makes you the frontrunner.

Although right now, Walker and Christie are out financing Bush by a landslide from what I'm reading.

So the money thing doesn't apply at this moment. Might down the road, but right now... JB's trailing the crowd.

(02-05-2015 02:12 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(02-05-2015 01:21 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Just say no to any more Bush's or Clinton's. Been there, done that.

And yet, the media has dubbed yet another Bush and another Clinton as the "front runners". Killary I guess I understand, given her cult following, but LOL at Jeb Bush.

I remember a few weeks ago when I woke up and turned on the news, and they were telling me that he was now the front runner for the Republican party. I wondered what could have possibly happened between yesterday (when he wasn't even anyone's radar) to today to make that so?

at least you are gaining on the 'popularity contest' aspect.....

(02-05-2015 02:58 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(02-05-2015 02:45 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The thing that both Clinton and Bush have is access to lots and lots of money (particularly from Wall Street). At this early stage, winning the "money primary" makes you the frontrunner.

Although right now, Walker and Christie are out financing Bush by a landslide from what I'm reading.

So the money thing doesn't apply at this moment. Might down the road, but right now... JB's trailing the crowd.

Where have you seen that? I wouldn't doubt that Walker is getting the some vocal money support (i.e. the Tea Party crowd) and Christie has a good amount of Wall Street ties, but from what I've seen, the lion's share of Romney's 2012 money people are heading toward (or will soon head toward) Bush and he also has chits from his family's connections. Bush's issue would be more akin to Romney in 2012 - will the base really get excited for him in order to avoid a prolonged and ineffective primary process? The money, though, certainly won't be a problem for Bush.

Oops.. i misquoted Politco... They had it as believing they could outraise Bush if NH and IA go the way they think it's going. (Walker was at the top of one of the latest polls in both). My apologies on the misread.

Quote:Some allies of Bush have been arguing behind the scenes that Walker won’t be able to compete with the financial juggernaut they’re amassing. Bush has at least 60 fundraising events scheduled over the next few months, aiming to post a first-quarter haul that will show beyond question he’s the candidate to beat for the nomination.

Walker allies are confident that they’ll have plenty of money to be competitive even if they can’t match Bush. The key, they say, is to collect enough money to be viable in the early-voting states — through March 1, 2016. If they can pull off a few initial victories, a gush of money will follow, they predict.

One Walker adviser likened Bush to Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor who raised oodles of money in the 2008 race but never caught fire with the grass roots. “If you can’t place well in the first four states, it doesn’t matter how much cash you have,” said a Walker adviser.

There is a long way to go.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...html#polls

I'm a Jeb fan, but I don't agree with the entirety of his platform. He is an interesting candidate though because he may dilute the hispanic vote.

Also, his son, George P, may end up being a very formidable Republican in the years to come.

what I really find funny.....is how "spending" still trumps "policy" regarding what matters....

it's over my pay grade of comprehension....

....and I get to vote too.....

I think Jeb Bush right now is the frontrunner in the GOP. That being said I believe him winning the primary would not be good for Republicans. I actually think he would be a good president but I don't think he can beat Hilary. I think the Dem's would love for Bush to win and their media machine would get right to work on the anti-Bush campaign of which they are very familiar.

As I said in another thread I think the far more dangerous challengers to Hilary are Scott Walker and/or Marco Rubio. Both are conservatives that should be able to pull the center in votes. Neither has the baggage or burden I should say of the Bush name. Walker would be running with an impressive economic record, and Rubio is a very well spoken minority who could probably improve Hispanic-GOP relations which the GOP desperately need.

That being said both of these guys will have to raise a lot of money and really create interest in voters, Scott Walker raised some eyebrows in Iowa but we will have to see over the next few months if either of these guys can "catch fire" so to speak.

It may sound unreasonable but I am to the point that I will just be happy to have somebody new.

(02-05-2015 03:42 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  what I really find funny.....is how "spending" still trumps "policy" regarding what matters....

it's over my pay grade of comprehension....

....and I get to vote too.....

I'm right there with you. Makes no sense to me at all.

(02-05-2015 03:40 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  Also, his son, George P, may end up being a very formidable Republican in the years to come.

I believe that George P. Bush would've been a teammate of Jose Cruz Jr. and Lance Berkman on the Rice baseball team during his freshman year (he walked on, but left the team after one season).

(02-05-2015 03:40 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  Also, his son, George P, may end up being a very formidable Republican in the years to come.

Dunno.. I think the media would love for George P. to run at some point, because from what I gather he's the most conservative of the Bush line, and they'd LOVE to rip into him.

I think the establishment is grooming George P to make a run for Cruz's seat.