If that’s really the 2016 line up. I want them both to lose, badly. Get rid of this dynastical nonsense. It’s un-American. If some have a social need for royalty, let’s stick to Hollywood celebrities, not people who run the country. I agree with Glenn on this:
My concern is that the GOP’s donor class can only get interested in candidates that the GOP’s base finds unappealing, and vice versa.
It’s a big problem.
Meh, it’s a problem for the Democrats, yes. The Bushs have earned their place, as opposed to Hilliary!…..
Wadaya mean? Hillary is just as corrupt as the best of ’em.
Of course, the press is going to push the most ineffectual and leftist GOP candidate they can (eg. Dole, McCain, Romney) for the primaries, then push the “too conservative for America” line for the general election. I mean, it has worked for them so far and, when it doesn’t entirely, they still get a big-government Republican president for their troubles (eg. any Bush). I don’t see this changing anytime soon, as the GOP contributors are only interested in candidates who promise to keep the pork coming and the Tea Party is unlikely to overcome inertia.
Or am I too cynical?
I think McCain was ok as a candidate. Anyone who went in that election for the Republicans after the economic crisis hit was hard pressed to win.
Don’t forget the “Real Conservatives(TM)” stopping the bank bailout for three days. Man, do or do not, but cracking like and egg after three days? I had a hard time voting Republican…….
It’s gone past that point. I believe the vote for the last Republican presidential nomination was heavily manipulated to make an easy win for Romney. The “inertia” is supplemented by illegal means.
Can I prove it? No. My suspicion is based on some statistical anomalies that cropped up in the last series of Republican primaries.
It may not be Republican voters who chose who the next Republican presidential nominee is.
That’s a rather, um, interesting, conspiracy theory. I sorta wish that I could un-see it so that my brain could go back to processing reality instead of formulating refutations to wild fantasies…
So, if I’m reading correctly, the fact that most campaigns choose to spend their resources in large districts and precincts is indication of systemic vote-counting-machine fraud? The premise of the article is that “establishment” candidates win by larger margins in bigger districts. Well, guess what? How much time do you think any of the campaigns spend out in rural areas of states? How much time do you think they spend in urban/dense areas? When it comes time to door-knock, you can bet all of the “volunteers” are going out to areas where the houses have sidewalks and/or are no more than 50-100 feet apart. They’re not going to waste their time collecting registrations or handing out buttons in an area where they need to get in a vehicle just to get to the next house.
And the breakfasts, parades, and rallies? Densely-populated areas. Bang for the buck. Why spend $10,000 on a rally where only 50 people might show up when you can go to a community college or university campus and capture the attention of 5,000 for the same money?
If the author of that piece was serious, he’d have put his money where his mouth is, and paid for a hand-recount in any of those supposed “fraudulent” districts. Of course, when the hand-recount came out the same as the computer recount, the whole story would fall apart, and where’s the fun in that?
If America wanted family dynasties (Bush, Clinton, Kennedy) they could have avoided the whole unpleasantness of 1776 and stuck with the Windsors, Stuarts, and Tudors.
I absolutely agree regarding dynasties: they’re a horrendously bad idea.
However, regarding both Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton, even without the dynasty issue, both are on my short list of people I could never donate to or vote for. So too is Marco Rubio.
I held my nose and voted for McCain in 2008 in spite of utterly detesting him, but I swore I’d never do that again. And unlike a plethora of politicians on both sides of the aisle, I actually mean what I say.
I was no fan of Romney, but I did donate to, and vote for, him. I just won’t support a candidate who is utterly reprehensible (which Romney wasn’t, but Bush, McCain, etc, are.).
Oh, and in case no one is taking the threat of Jeb Bush winning the nomination seriously, I’ll mention that almost everyone took McCain’s 2008 run even less seriously; before Iowa, he was polling around 4% (He was reviled for the McCain-Kennedy amnesty attempt, plus a few other issues) and no one could understand why he didn’t drop out, because they said he had zero chance of winning the nomination. In Iowa, he finished 4th. But then came New Hampshire, which he won. And all of a sudden, he’s the frontrunner – and eventually won the nomination.
If Jeb Bush wins New Hampshire, I’ll give him even odds of being the nominee. I hope like hell I’m wrong on that.
And if Jeb Bush is the nominee, get ready for 8 years of President Hillary (or maybe Elizabeth Warren or Joe Biden… Hillary is no more the inevitable Dem nominee in 2016 than she was in 2008) – because there are far too many Republicans who won’t vote for Jeb Bush for him to have any chance in November. The Republicans will have, yet again, deftly defied almost impossible odds to snatch defeat from the looming jaws of victory.
Ugh.
I wouldn’t have minded a PRO-freedom dynasty, if you could have such a thing.
Hillary has already had two terms as President. She can’t run again.