How is it feasible for Jeb to beat Hillary?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Getting popcorn for the 4 page long response from dudeabides.

...but yeah, he's been a pretty terrible candidate so far, thank God the money wants him. Mind you, there isn't a reasonable top-tier candidate who hasn't been pretty awful.

Once the nominees are picked, it all changes.  The GOP base won't love Jeb, but they hate Hillary, and will show up as much as they can motivate themselves to do so.  They won't stay home or vote the Constitution Party.  It's the right fringe voters that don't always show up and don't view Bush as much different than Clinton that may give 1% of the vote to the Libertarians or Constitution Party that would vote GOP when properly motivated, and in a game of inches, that's somewhat relevant.

Jeb's negatives are out there, starting with the fact that he's a Bush, and he carries those negatives into the general election, where the average voter doesn't want another Bush.  This is balanced out, somewhat, by the fact that there is a sentiment (to a lesser degree) that some voters don't really want another Clinton.  But he's a guy who is serviceable.  He's like a QB that isn't anything special, but if you put him in a system and limit him to 30 passes, he's OK.  He's the Andy Dalton of Presidential Candidates.  (Maybe we can re-name Jeb "Red Rifle Lite".)

Hillary, on the other hand, has less predictable negatives.  Her unlikability is something that works against her, and it's not certain as to how bad that can get.  And the e-mail and Benghazi issues are real question marks.  No one's going to jail or even getting indicted for either, but it doesn't mean that it won't resonate, and it's questionable as to how much it will resonate.  Perhaps the worst of this is going on right now and it will be resolved by general election time, but these issues are two of a string of ethics issues attached to Hillary.  After a while, some of it sticks and has the effect of making you unsavory.  This will happen to Hillary; the question is whether or not it will happen enough to cause her to lose.  It is still an open question as to how much the Clinton "stuff" (including Bill Clinton's scandals) will be a gift that keeps on giving for Jeb.

My guess is that Hillary will survive all the crap and be elected President.  The road will be tougher than expected, but Bill and Hillary Clinton have survived a torrent of scandals and actually become "the Establishment" of the Democratic Party (at least unofficially).  But it's a variable, and if Hillary can't contain damage control, the "unsavory" factor may be enough to nullify the legitimate Bush Fatigue factor that puts Jeb Bush in the underdog seat as of now.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Romney would be stronger than Jeb Bush.

I tend to think so, but there's a caveat to that.  Romney disclosed a minimal amount of tax returns during the 2012 campaign, and given how much others have disclosed, that won't fly in 2016.  

I believe that one reason Romney lost is because he acted like someone with something to hide in those tax returns.  In a moment of candor, Ann Romney stated that Mitt wasn't releasing more information because Obama would attack him on the information.  That only added to the speculation of what Romney might be hiding.  At worst, evidence of a tax felony for which he received amnesty.  At best, a pattern of investment that would convincingly destroy his "job creator" narrative (a poorly thought-out strategy that helped beat Romney from the get-go).  Then, too, Romney committed his share of gaffes and was caught in flat-out lies more than once, which didn't help his image.  

Still, he's not a Bush, and his own record at Bain Capital is excellent.  On top of that, Mitt Romney was a good Governor of Massachusetts.  His real problem in 2012 was being crammed into a narrow, false narrative of "Mitt, the Job Creator" that made him look far more foolish than he ever needed to look.  That strategy, IMO, was far more harmful to Romney than the "47%" comments.

[Fuzzy Bear]

What makes you think that the 2016 election will be a referndum on the Bush and Clinton presidencies? Also, DeadPrez, Bush would do better with minorities than Romney. He will rally the base because the base hates Clinton. If you think Bush has a 0% chance of winning, you're wrong.  

Bush has a chance of winning, but he'd be an underdog, because the negatives of the Bushes will be more significant than the negatives against the Clintons.  People think more of Bill Clinton than George W. Bush at this point, granting that they think more of Bill than of Hillary.

The base hates Clinton, but I am not sure that Jeb Bush would do much better than Clinton amongst minorities.  He'll carry FL and improve over Obama with Cubans, and he may well improve amongst Texas Mexicans, but I doubt he'll make the kind of Hispanic inroads in NV and CO to significantly impact the Hispanic vote there, and he WON'T carry New Mexico.

But Bush could win.  He could well be the GOP nominee, and he well could beat Hillary Clinton.  Neither party has such an electoral college lock at this point to where it would take a miracle to win.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Romney would be stronger than Jeb Bush.

I tend to think so, but there's a caveat to that.  Romney disclosed a minimal amount of tax returns during the 2012 campaign, and given how much others have disclosed, that won't fly in 2016.  

I believe that one reason Romney lost is because he acted like someone with something to hide in those tax returns.  In a moment of candor, Ann Romney stated that Mitt wasn't releasing more information because Obama would attack him on the information.  That only added to the speculation of what Romney might be hiding.  At worst, evidence of a tax felony for which he received amnesty.  At best, a pattern of investment that would convincingly destroy his "job creator" narrative (a poorly thought-out strategy that helped beat Romney from the get-go).  Then, too, Romney committed his share of gaffes and was caught in flat-out lies more than once, which didn't help his image.  

Still, he's not a Bush, and his own record at Bain Capital is excellent.  On top of that, Mitt Romney was a good Governor of Massachusetts.  His real problem in 2012 was being crammed into a narrow, false narrative of "Mitt, the Job Creator" that made him look far more foolish than he ever needed to look.  That strategy, IMO, was far more harmful to Romney than the "47%" comments.

Your'e hatred for the Bush family, based on nothing, is hurting your'e ability to properly analyze politics.

Mitt Romney did not lose the 2012 election because of his tax returns, though that issue hurt him. He lost because he did nothing to reach out to minority voters, he pandered on immigration way too much, he didn't propose a very detailed economic plan, and he allowed Barack Obama's misleading attacks to dominate the race without properly responding.

Also, Mitt Romney had a great record at Bain, he was a decent Governor, but Jeb Bush was a far better Governor who also had a successful career in business during the 1980s and early 1990s.

I also agree with my friend TNVolunteer that this isn't going to be about Bush Vs. Clinton. It's going to be about Jeb Vs. Hillary. Jeb was a very successful Governor, and he was successful in business. Hillary will have to run on her record as a U.S. Senator, where she didn't get much done, and she will have to run on her controversial tenure as Secretary of State. Hillary Clinton will run for Barack Obama's third term, Jeb Bush will run as a Washington outsider. 

The Bush Family has governed for the best interests of Bechtel (Desert Storm) and Halliburton (Operation Iraqi Freedom).  The latter war was base on a false premise (WMDs) that were never located.  Two corporations, each of whom with alumni in Bush Administrations (Cap Weinberger and Dick Cheney) profited greatly as a result of these wars.

We here so much about the "wonderful example of integrity" of Bush 41.  This is a man who pardoned Cap Weinberger prior to standing trial in the Iran-Contra case.  Why the pardon?  Only Bush 41 knows, but one thing is for certain; the pardon ended all possibility that Cap Weinberger would ever implicate Bush 41 in court.  Insiders really know how to cover each other, eh?

Abuses of power that resulted in unnecessary wars and dead Americans.  A questionable pardon to cover up facts and preserve a legacy.  Huge profits for corporations that profit on nation-building whose execs are part of Bush Administrations.  Scripture commands us to abstain from even the appearance of impropriety.  The above-cited record fails the smell test by any reasonable standard, and it's enough of a reason for me not to ever trust Jeb Bush to any elective office again.

[Fuzzy Bear]

What makes you think that the 2016 election will be a referndum on the Bush and Clinton presidencies? Also, DeadPrez, Bush would do better with minorities than Romney. He will rally the base because the base hates Clinton. If you think Bush has a 0% chance of winning, you're wrong.  

Bush has a chance of winning, but he'd be an underdog, because the negatives of the Bushes will be more significant than the negatives against the Clintons.  People think more of Bill Clinton than George W. Bush at this point, granting that they think more of Bill than of Hillary.

The base hates Clinton, but I am not sure that Jeb Bush would do much better than any other Republican amongst minorities.  He'll carry FL and improve over Obama with Cubans, and he may well improve amongst Texas Mexicans, but I doubt he'll make the kind of Hispanic inroads in NV and CO to significantly impact the Hispanic vote there, and he WON'T carry New Mexico.

But Bush could win.  He could well be the GOP nominee, and he well could beat Hillary Clinton.  Neither party has such an electoral college lock at this point to where it would take a miracle to win.

[Fuzzy Bear]

What makes you think that the 2016 election will be a referndum on the Bush and Clinton presidencies? Also, DeadPrez, Bush would do better with minorities than Romney. He will rally the base because the base hates Clinton. If you think Bush has a 0% chance of winning, you're wrong.  

Bush has a chance of winning, but he'd be an underdog, because the negatives of the Bushes will be more significant than the negatives against the Clintons.  People think more of Bill Clinton than George W. Bush at this point, granting that they think more of Bill than of Hillary.

The base hates Clinton, but I am not sure that Jeb Bush would do much better than any other Republican amongst minorities.  He'll carry FL and improve over Obama with Cubans, and he may well improve amongst Texas Mexicans, but I doubt he'll make the kind of Hispanic inroads in NV and CO to significantly impact the Hispanic vote there, and he WON'T carry New Mexico.

But Bush could win.  He could well be the GOP nominee, and he well could beat Hillary Clinton.  Neither party has such an electoral college lock at this point to where it would take a miracle to win.

[Fuzzy Bear]

W got a much greater share of the Hispanic vote than Romney. Jeb is going to do at least as well as that, if not a little better. For that reason alone, Jeb will be a better candidate than Romney.

You are confident.

Not really. Why do you think Jeb would do worse than W among Hispanics? W's support for amnesty was mumbled because he didn't want to offend his party. Jeb is much more enthusiastic.

There are two (2) Hispanic constituencies where Jeb would have an advantage over other GOP candidates.  One is the Florida Cuban community, which has been staunchly GOP in the past, but has sharply trended Democratic.  Bush could win many of them back.  The other group are Texas Mexicans, who gave strong support (by the standards of Mexican-American voters) to Bush 43 both times.  It remains to be seen how Jeb will do with Hispanics in CO and NV.