Republicans know they need to win over some Obama voters, right?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Because party activists, left and right - have this view that the country is actually really more like them and less like their opponent and the answer is to elect someone MORE like them. Hence people screeching that Romney lost because he wasn't conservative enough or the Democrats need to shift further to the left.

When again, while politics is very polarised, that doesn't mean the electorate is, especially at the Presidential level. The issue is to win your own people and enough of the middle-ground. Considering the middle-ground of American politics HAS shifted leftwards in recent years, the GOP is in a really, really dangerous position. There isn't a SINGLE GOP candidate who can demonstrate they can win over the middle ground. It's not about personality or who someone is married to, but policies.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Yeah. Swing voters.

Um... yes, but, swing voters aren't actually a bloc. Each election will have a new set of swing voters, previous swing voters may swing back to where they were previously or they might stay where they are politically. Consider that you still have people in the Rust Belt who call themselves Reagan Democrats, despite not having voted for a Democrat for nearly 40 years at the Presidential level.

The basic point for the GOP is having a nominee that speaks to those types of voters and promises policies that are attractive to them.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Republicans know they need to win over some Obama voters, right?
(either that or a vast majority of the 18-22 vote)

If the Obama-phobic haters were outnumbered in 2008 and 2012, there's no way that more of them will show up in 2016, when he's no longer even running.

They need just enough Obama voters to win.

How in the world are they setting themselves up to do that??

Governor Bush is setting himself up to do that. He can win over hispanic voters, catholic voters, moderate voters, and white working class voters who helped his brother and President Obama win. He's doing it by talking about the need to have 4% economic growth and a foreign policy where America leads again. He's not changing his beliefs to win an election.

Some of the other primary candidates have no real chance of victory. Donald Trump alienates the vast majority of Americans with his anti-immigrant rheoric and name calling. Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal have both begun pandering to the right wing of the party much like Mitt Romney did in 2012, it will get them nowhere in a general election. Ted Cruz is the ultimate symbol of the government shutdown, he's too polarizing. Rand Paul's foreign policy is extreme and unrealistic. Chris Christie's record in New Jersey hurts him. Ben Carson has no experience and has made some pretty weird statements. George Pataki is extremely boring. Jim Gilmore was rejected by the voters of his home state, a swing state, when he last ran for office. Rick Perry was a very average Governor and has taken some positions in the past that would come back to haunt him.

So he is doing it by lying? "4% growth" is a worse economic talking point than "9-9-9"

The goal should be 4% growth. He's going to put forth specific policies to get us there. Growing at 4% would create 19 million new jobs in 8 years, that should be our aspiration as a country.

Actually no. That assumes growth across the board. 4% economic growth can come from sectors that aren't labor-intensive, so it's not an automatic thing. It COULD create 19 million new jobs (I'm hoping accounting for baby-boomer retirements) etc etc, but it could also not.

I'm yet to see Governor Bush do anything that your first sentence suggests. It will be very interesting to see how he handles immigration in a debate situation. Very interesting.