I probably have more confidence that most in the Republican Establishment’s ability to push through the candidate of their choice, so I think Jeb Bush has a good chance of winning the nomination. However, I don’t think he can do it without dividing the right and creating a huge opening for a more conservative third party candidate.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
I probably have more confidence that most in the Republican Establishment’s ability to push through the candidate of their choice, so I think Jeb Bush has a good chance of winning the nomination.
How? Or is it that the establishment fills up the clown car so no one candidate can coalesce behind one clown and defeat the establishment candidate?
That’s how Mittens got the nomination.
A certain someone might divide the Right and win it all back; “deep” (read broad) field, primaries clinched by April and convention in June? Seems just begging to be gamed. I’m guessing we’re in for some surprises.
Looking at the roll call for those votes over the weekend was a revelation to me, thanks whomever posted them. Cruz has almost single-handedly turned the entire legislative cohort of his party, and ours, on its head and shaken it; I can’t remember seeing both parties so split on any major vote recently.
Establishment Republicans are seething but relatively powerless. Cruz has ample funding for now. The real outcome of the weekend’s shenanigans? Cruz has all his colleagues on record in those votes; notice the dodging and weaving among his fellow presidential aspirants. The Republican 2016 juggernaut is away and he nearly wrong-footed the lot. We’ll see.
Jeb Bush v Hillary Clinton – should I care who wins?
Only if you care about social issues being totally unfunded by the GOP. There is a difference in the two parties. Think not? Go ask those on food stamps that have been cut. Just for a small sample of things to come with a GOP controlled Congress, Senate and President. Any and all social policies including Social Security and Medicare will be at risk.
On the brighter side the Corporations and 1% will be making money hand over fist through numerous tax cuts and subsidies from their GOP puppets. The other 99% will be footing the bill for the costs, like usual.
Social Security and Medicare are at risk from Democrats!
The Supreme Court.
Go ahead with the Bush = Clinton crapola. The country will suffer.
That’s what I was going to say. Unless someone wants to argue that Sotomayor and Kagan are just the same as Roberts and Alito.
More bank puppet appointees either way.
Well, all right then. Somebody is going to argue that Sotomayor and Kagan are just the same as Roberts and Alito. How about that?
Sometimes they are. Generally they aren’t. What they rarely do is split the difference between a liberal judicial position and that of the radical rightwing members of the court and declare it’s the “sweet spot.”
After twenty years of Democrats declaring that the “sweet spot” is to the right of Nixon and later, near or to the right of Reagan and BushI, some of us have had enough of making the rich richer, the bankster protection racket, and the fully funded, permanent war machine that reserves the right to bomb and torture anywhere.
Well, the question wasn’t why anyone should be enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton. It was, given the choice between her and Jeb Bush, why we should even care who wins. The Supreme Court is one reason why it wouldn’t be hard for me to choose between a second Clinton and a third Bush. On the other hand, I do hope that isn’t the choice I have to make.
Do you think that a Clinton nominee as “liberal” as Ginsberg would have any chance of confirmation? And any replacements for Scalia and Kennedy that aren’t similar enough to those two wouldn’t have a chance. Or are you thinking that Clinton will have Senate coattails like her husband had — oh wait, he didn’t have any coattails.
It’s not the 20th century anymore. Split ticket voting is on the way to extinction, which means there’s almost nothing but coattails and district lean now.
I don’t get the HillaryHate. The Clintons are weathervanes – if Clinton gets elected by a progressive wave, she’ll be a progressive in office. Clinton is a great candidate if you want to reform the Democratic party because if you reform the rest of the party she’ll come along.
The critical issue with the 2016 elections is the House. If we don’t flip the House, the Republicans will sabotage any Democratic president and we’ll be facing a disaster in 2018. If we do flip the House, Pelosi will set the agenda and we’ll be fine with almost any Democratic president – certainly with Clinton.
That depends at least as much on who’s in Congress as who’s in the White House.
Obama’s going to cut Social Security ANY. DAY. NOW. He just has to wait for the right time when the Republicans will stop blocking him from doing what he’s always wanted to do!
Well, in the sense that the Secret Unelected Govt will still be in charge regardless of who wins, yes.
Maybe too in the sense that with that grim choice, we are likely to see tremendous social and political backlash and upheaval as this country stumbles into what seems to be another civil war.
With a Hillary win, the Right would be even more galvanized into taking extraconstitutional action to stop her from governing, led by TP crazies with their guns. It’s difficult to imagine them patiently and calmly accepting a Hillary presidency, especially after having to tolerate 8 years of the African Muslim in the WH.
A Jeb “win” would likely be with the aid of considerable Dem voter suppression efforts, some already in place via GOP state lege’s, which could finally be enough to actually cause liberals to set aside their Miss Manners ways and organize in protest.
That said, I’d much prefer to take my chances with Hillary.
Are you black, Hispanic, gay, female, old, sick, a veteran, a child, a parent, an educator, or poor? Or do you care about anyone who is one of those things? Then yes, you should care. If you really can’t tell the difference, nothing we say will help.
As the numbers of Latinos, gays, females, old, veterans, and parents that have been voting for the GOP and DINOs for decades aren’t insignificant and do vote for those that they view as best for themselves, why should anyone else care about them? And yes, there are unionized female teachers and poor people that also vote GOP. A vote based on “me and mine” instead “all of us” hardly qualifies as being civic minded. For all it’s many faults, the US Constitution and the constitutions of many states were drafted with a better eye towards the whole. Voters have allowed trashed those founding agreements and the spirit of them to be trashed over and over again through ignorance, isms, thoughtlessness, and selfishness.
Every vote I’ve ever cast has been based on what’s best for the people of this country and my state as a whole. Often to my own personal detriment. When the majority doesn’t overrule me in an election, those in legislatures and/or executive branches do and for Democrats it’s often contrary to their campaign pledges which really pisses me off because I loathe liars.
Hillary Clinton lies, is supported by Wall St. and self-centered wealthy elites, and is a warmonger. A solid majority in this country approves of torture. The death penalty remains in most states. Abortion remains a political instead of a personal medical decision.
Caring about others and the world we all inhabit and must share who continuously refuse to care about others gets old. And they are the majority.
Well, maybe I shouldn’t have posted as I did here a week ago that as a Dem I greatly feared the Jebster throwing his sombrero into the ring. Now look at what he’s gone and done.
While it’s possible the right might revolt, I think it more likely they’ll get their say and spend their energy with a half dozen or so of their crazies in the primaries, who will shoot themselves in the foot, go off the deep end one too many times even for most TPers, or otherwise embarrass and cancel themselves out in favor of one of the few “not-insane conservatives” in the race, namely Jeb.
And all the while the GOP Establishment will be working their magic behind the scenes, with party regulars in the states, and with their many media resources, to clear the path for yet another Bush.
Then sit back and watch the same process, only doubly intense, in the general as the opponent Hillary becomes demonized as a deceitful evil witch of a woman who is even more power-hungry and dangerous than Al Gore. Watch the Right fall in line easily at that point behind Jub.
Absent a third and fourth party challenger (one right and one liberal), Jeb v. Hillary might produce the lowest ever voter participation rate.
So far I’m only planning on voting for Tammy Duckworth. I read on the web that Foster is going to challenge Kirk. Based on his Cromnibus vote, I’m not voting for either. No gov candidates in 2016, Hillary vs Jeb, it will be a short ballot. I mark I circle, then turn it in. I don’t care which TBTF bank puppet wins the other races.
It’s early days still. But can’t recall when the Democratic <60 years old bench was as thin as it is now and the total absence of buzz/money for anyone other than a senior citizen.
I remember just a few months ago we had such a deep bench.
Now we have nothing?
Well, that link only mentions Grimes, who we now know was a dud.
That’s conflating two different things. And how did having the Clintons stump for Grimes turn out? Granted, she shot herself in the foot. The point being having the Clintons show up doesn’t help a disastrous campaign. He was talking about a deep bench meaning future candidates for office. Right now, who is going to challenge Sestak for the right to face Toomey in ’16? Josh Shapiro? He’s awful. Anyone else?
Run Jeb!!!
Run Mitt!!
LOL
Don’t laugh too out loud. Some can still recall liberals/Democrats in the lead up to the 1968 election saying “Run, Tricky Dick, run,” in 1980 “Run, geezer Ronnie, run,” in 1988 “Run, silver foot in the mouth George, run” and in 2000 “Run, Shrub, run.”
Tricky Dick and Ray-gun didn’t have fathers and brothers who were President already. That’s the big difference.
Shrub had a father that had not only been a two-term VP and President, but had also been rejected for a second Presidential term.
As for being legacy candidates, seems about even in a Hillary v. Jeb general election. About as exciting as a bowl of warm mush to anyone under the age of forty.
Yep. And in 1966, we had Gov Brown (Pat) hoping the Repubs would nominate Bedtime for Bonzo Ronnie as opposed to the more feared candidate SF Mayor George Christopher, the attractive-looking-on-paper liberal-moderate Repub.
I’ve already seen/heard too many overconfident libs in the media downplaying the Jeb candidacy. A few days ago, there was the rather confident assertion by a center-left journalist that the Jebster’s dubious financial activities in recent years would doom his chances.
Not likely, as a general matter. Bushes don’t seem to be dissuaded from running for high office so easily. (But Dems should look into it, and see if an effective American job loss ad could be made.)
And Pat Brown was widely regarded as a competent and good governor. What those pundit missed is that a second-rate SOCAL GOP is competitive with a first-rate NORCAL DEM.
wrt the “bombshell” about Jeb’s financial management activities, it’s a nothingburger. Two or three pissant investment funds that in total are worth less than Romney. Jeb’s income from and share of those funds are likely dwarfed by the income and wealth of the Clintons.
Kinda early to tell what the background political environment is going to be, but it’s likely not to be too stable. In 1960s parallels, we are about at 1965 or 1966 in the political unwinding. Which puts 2016 right about where 1968 was.
A Jeb Bush – Hillary Clinton prospect in polling in midsummer 2015 will likely draw both a third candidate independent and fourth candidate independent reaction. Likely these will be candidates with some credibility as far as being substantial spoilers. And the common issue for both will be political dynasties.
A less likely although not impossible scenario is that one or both parties split. GOP on Tea Party/Old Establishment lines. Dems on within Congress/outside Congress lines, which might be a progressive/New Democrat split crossed with an inside Beltway/outside Beltway split.
Weirdest scenario could be Jeb and Hillary get nominations of Reps and Dems respectively. Hillary wins plurality but not majority of electoral vote, election goes to Republican House; Jeb elected.
Right now, it looks like the next two years are going to be flatout crazy unless there is a major economic collapse and then it looks like 1932 instead of 1968.
I’d say your last point is the real key. Any prognostications about 2016 need to consider what’s going to happen over the next two years. Flatout crazy is right, and God only knows how things are going to play out.
But which candidacies rely on the status quo and which are positioning for a black swan? I’m thinking the swan is the better bet, frankly.
Well I don’t see a viable independent candidacy from the left. Neither Bernie Sanders nor Eliz Warren would do it, and that leaves who? Nader is a spent force since his idiotic and deceitful 2000 spoiler run and would likely struggle to get to 1%.
Not sure who else out there would have the ability to get sufficient votes to make a difference. Walter O’Malley is a rather blah personality, and the liquified coal guy with the bolo ties, Gov Schweitzer is a little too quirky and insufficiently lefty on enough issues to get a quorum.
You know Republicans shut up about Perot being the spoiler in 1992 when the facts revealed that he took about an even number of votes from Bush and Clinton. But a dozen years on some Democrats continue to blame Nader when the facts don’t support that position.
It wasn’t Nader’s fault that Gore dismissed Nader’s critique and chose a suck-ass like Lieberman for VP. It wasn’t Nader’s fault young people were turned off by Tipper’s quasi-censorship of music lyrics campaign. It wasn’t Nader’s fault that Gore lost WV and NH (either one of which would have given the win.) The “butterfly ballot” in FL and Jeb’s “ballot stuffing,” voter suppression, and not counting the votes in certain jurisdictions efforts wasn’t Nader’s fault. Nor did Nader shut down the FL recount and toss the decision to the Supreme Court.
Seriously — time to get over it and stop blaming the wrong person.
No doubt there were other factors in Gore’s defeat, and some of those you listed I agree with, probably in total constituting primary blame.
But Nader did his part, consciously, to create the false Gush=Bore meme, and also broke his pledge to not campaign in tossup states. He also forced the Gore campaign — highly imperfect as it was — to squander time and resources having to go back and defend in once-safe Blue states.
I’ve consistently since 2000 assigned Nader about 25-33% blame for Gore’s loss. Clearly there were additional reasons. But Ralph is blameworthy nonetheless. Sorry, still not over it.
And I still think the Scotus theft was worth going into the streets to protest, peacefully, despite Gentleman Al’s cautioning us all to politely accept the Court’s corrupt decision lest there be “tanks in the streets.”
Gore had seven years to formulate a strategy for winning in 2000. Instead, he must have expected to win a third Clinton term against a hapless candidate and campaign like what the GOP offered in 1992 and 1996. He lost his home state by a larger percentage than he lost OH, MO, and NV, and Nader had nothing to do with Gore losing in TN (or OH, MO, or NV). Sort of overlooked the fact that Clinton had failed to win 50%+1 in two tries and had in 1994 lost and never regained DEM control of Congress.
The only thing he did right in the campaign, and that came a bit late, was to distance himself from Clinton’s personal shortcomings. If he didn’t like Nader bashing Clinton’s GOP-lite public policies, maybe he should have distanced himself from those as well. Some large percentage of Nader’s voters wouldn’t have voted at all if he hadn’t been on the ballot; Nader gave them someone to vote for. And the remainder would have voted Green, Libertarian, or Socialist.
Yes, it was sad that after running a really crappy campaign that he had his victory snatched away by several unique occurrences. It was still a stupid decision to turn FL into the make or break state considering that his opponent’s brother had the ability to put a thumb on the scales there (he just underestimated the amount of thumb pressure required).
Walter O’Malley is a rather blah personality, …
Were you a Brooklyn Dodgers fan or something? 😉
Sorry Phil. That’s just the way the name gets written — at least until Walter shows me he’s got game.
???
What do you mean? Walter O’Malley was the owner who moved Brooklyn to Los Angeles. Martin O’Malley is the Governor, for a few more days, of Maryland.
Phil, Pholks, yes yes, I know who he is. But not many others out there among the great unwashed do, and even with this political semi-junkie he barely registers on the national radar. A known unknown.
A second-tier true longshot at this point, at best, along with Mr Bolo Tie Guy.
It’s really all just my way of staying loose as we are about to enter the endless campaign slog of 2015-16 which by all appearances seems like a long march to an inevitable Hillary nomination. I need to find or create my moments of levity where I can.
Martin O’Malley’s hidden strength is he has an awful lot of chits to call in– he is one of the few high-level Democrats who actively campaigned AND FUNDRAISED for pretty much everybody– even Dems who were in near hopeless campaigns that Hillary wouldn’t risk being associated with.
If Hillary doesn’t run, start watching the endorsement game. He’s going to be in the picture regardless.
He’s also been pretty highly regarded in the region for some time – my impression from talking with MD residents. Is that your impression as well?
How can we maximize the discord between the Republican establishment and the crazy right-wing to maximize the probability of a conservative third-party candidate stepping into the race?