I think it's time to start a new thread...

 

I really don't think Jeb Bush will have a shot. George "dubbleya" Bush is still too much of a hated figure among the democrats and, lets face it, a fair chunk of the middle ground and the more liberterian streak of the Republicans. I am sure advertisers are already working on the "want more Bush?" slogans.

 

The mathematics of politics is that elections are won by who turns out to vote. If you put forward a candidate that the other side detests, the other side will win because their supporters will run to the polling booth desperate to make sure anyone, whoever they are, gets into power instead. Putting fear into the hearts of the other side is just as deadly as failing to get your supporters cheering you on.

 

I always think US politicians and political strategists, particular on the Republican side after the last few elections, need to take a look at the 1992 UK general election. The Labour Party had to win. Thatcher was gone, the conservative party was divided, 13 years of Conservative rule and it was Labour's time to come again. Public opinion was firmly behind them. The Labour Leader introduced himself as "the next prime Minister."

 

Polling day arrived. In no election, before or since, has any Party received more voters by numerical total. The winners had a 7 point lead over the second party. Driven by the bragging and celebrations of the Labour Party, driven by that fear, Tory voters came out in their millions, and handed the Conservative party another 5 years of power.

 

 

I'm too involved with American politics and I don't really understand British political parties. I assume there are vast differences in platforms. That being said, Jeb Bush is not my first choice... niether was Mitt Romney. The problem lies in the reality. The candidate that commands the support of the donors will always have the advantage. Sure Scott Walker can make a case, but it will take much more than his popularity with the conservative base to pull big money into his camp. He kind of has the personality of a parking meter and that will affect his campaign. He will have to inspire independents to support him and that will be very tough for him.

 

You talk about the hatred the left has for George W. as the reason Jeb can't win, but you skip the issue of the hatred the right has for Hillary Clinton. Jeb was a very popular Governor of Florida and has not been involved in politics for 15 years. He does not have the Texas accent George has, and speaks fluent Spanish... his wife is Hispanic and he's very popular with Hispanic voters. Jeb is not George and the only kink he has is his last name and we will see if he can overcome that. I believe the Clinton name poses the same, and it will be a wash. He will be hammered on school choice and immigration... but Romney was hammered about Romneycare and still got the nomination. Jeb knows his path to win is in the Hispanic vote, just like his brother.

 

Hillary has bigger problems. She's up to her ears with everything that Obama has done. The anti-war left hates her for Iraq and Libya. The enviornmentalists will hate her for her coming position on the Keystone XL (she won't go against the unions), the progressives will have a problem with her because she's rich and a Wall Street junkie, and the black community will not come out for her like they did for Obama. The USA hates a coronation, and it's all Hillary. Being a woman is not a qualification... it's a coin toss of birth.

Edited January 31, 201511 yr by Lysistrata

I agree with most of what you have said Lysis. I think the one thing that is going to be interesting to watch is how many people are going to try and be a part of another "historic" vote by casting their ballots for Hillary. I sincerely hope that people do not make the mistake of voting for Hillary just because she would be the first female President. Don't just vote for her because she is a woman. Vote for the candidate who shares your beliefs and is going to be the best leader of the country.

 

I think that Jeb Bush could be a good candidate.

You Americans are getting behind. Presidential elections are being held in my country this year .

Hilary is going to win, trust me on this one.

Edited January 31, 201511 yr by Lanyaie

Hilary is going to win, trust me on this one.

What would you base your conclusion on? You would have to assume that the American voters will repeat what they did in 2008 and elect Hillary based on a desire to make history. She has never accomplished a thing. She was suppose to be the shoe-in for the Dem nomination in '08 along with Rudy Giuliani for the GOP, and we all saw what happened. She is trying to delay announcing until July and pressure Trey Gowdy to hold Benghazi hearings before the stonewalling State Dept. is forced to release all the documents... and secret tapes of Dennis Kucinich and the Libyan Government have just come out with her pressing for war in Libya under false pretenses. Sound familiar? She may end up not running at all.

Edited January 31, 201511 yr by Lysistrata

idk, it depends on who's going in for the republicans. Sure Hillary might get the Democrat vote, but it really comes down to whoever the two parties send in. Which sucks cause I'd personally like a reliable 3 candidate that would actually have a shot. Even if somebody did emerge as a candidate that stood a shoot, I'd could see smear campaigns out the ying yang on him/her from both Democrats and Republicans. I haven't seen anybody personally and been like, this person should be president either. So I don't see how much can change this election. 

Hilary is going to win, trust me on this one.

ok

 

Hilary is going to win, trust me on this one.

What would you base your conclusion on? You would have to assume that the American voters will repeat what they did in 2008 and elect Hillary based on a desire to make history. She has never accomplished a thing. She was suppose to be the shoe-in for the Dem nomination in '08 along with Rudy Giuliani for the GOP, and we all saw what happened. She is trying to delay announcing until July and pressure Trey Gowdy to hold Benghazi hearings before the stonewalling State Dept. is forced to release all the documents... and secret tapes of Dennis Kucinich and the Libyan Government have just come out with her pressing for war in Libya under false pretenses. Sound familiar? She may end up not running at all.

 

She was fine Secretary of State, but as I speak, he campaign makes nothing clear about her. Anyway, I do not look forward to see her running, let alone presidenting. I would prefer Joe Biden out of Democrats. US would be better off with Joe Biden as the president with Obama as a vice-president, not other way around. My thoughts of GOP are rather chalk of aversion to the name "Bush", Mitt Roomney and few fine thoughts about Ron Paul. None of them are properly argumented.

Just so you guys know that I was not talking smack about Hillary... it just hit the headline of the Drudge Report

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/2/hillary-clinton-libya-tapes-set-house-benghazi-com/

 

"The chairman of a special House committee created to investigate the 2012 Benghazi tragedy on Monday instructed his staff to review secretly recorded tapes and intelligence reports that detail Hillary Rodham Clinton’s role in advocating and executing the war in Libya, opening the door for a possible expansion of his probe.

 

Rep. Trey Gowdy’s decision to seek a review of the materials, first highlighted in a series of Washington Times stories last week, carries consequences for the 2016 election in which Mrs.Clinton is expected to seek the presidency. It could also move the committee
to examine the strained relationship between the State Department and Pentagon, which sharply disagreed over the 2011 war in Libya and the response to the terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi a year later.

 

The Times reported last week that U.S. intelligence did not support Mrs. Clinton’s story of an impending genocide in Libya that she used to sell the war against Moammar Gadhafi’s regime. The newspaper also unveiled secretly recorded tapes from Libya that showed that the Pentagon and Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich so distrusted her stewardship of the war that they opened their own diplomatic channels with the Gadhafi regime.

 

The tapes included candid conversations and allegations that Mrs. Clinton took the U.S. to war on false pretenses and was not listening to the advice of military commanders or career intelligence officers."

Just so you guys know that I was not talking smack about Hillary... it just hit the headline of the Drudge Report

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/2/hillary-clinton-libya-tapes-set-house-benghazi-com/

 

"The chairman of a special House committee created to investigate the 2012 Benghazi tragedy on Monday instructed his staff to review secretly recorded tapes and intelligence reports that detail Hillary Rodham Clinton’s role in advocating and executing the war in Libya, opening the door for a possible expansion of his probe.

 

Rep. Trey Gowdy’s decision to seek a review of the materials, first highlighted in a series of Washington Times stories last week, carries consequences for the 2016 election in which Mrs.Clinton is expected to seek the presidency. It could also move the committee

to examine the strained relationship between the State Department and Pentagon, which sharply disagreed over the 2011 war in Libya and the response to the terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi a year later.

 

The Times reported last week that U.S. intelligence did not support Mrs. Clinton’s story of an impending genocide in Libya that she used to sell the war against Moammar Gadhafi’s regime. The newspaper also unveiled secretly recorded tapes from Libya that showed that the Pentagon and Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich so distrusted her stewardship of the war that they opened their own diplomatic channels with the Gadhafi regime.

 

The tapes included candid conversations and allegations that Mrs. Clinton took the U.S. to war on false pretenses and was not listening to the advice of military commanders or career intelligence officers."

This essentially says that Hillary Clinton is no worse than Bush, in starting wars. Good luck running now, Hillary, you'll need it... *evil laugh*