Why does anyone think nominating Jeb Bush could be anything but disasterous?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Now I know a lot of people have this belief Jeb is far more competent than his brother and can stand on his own despite Florida 2000 but even assuming that's true (and I'm not saying it is), has anyone thought of the implications of basically saying "no all of this voting didn't matter. We're just going to toss out the results and nominate a Bush."

Immediately the narrative is going to be about how the GOP is completely owned and ran by the Bush family and Jeb would just be the third Bush term his brother couldn't get and why they can't nominate and win with anyone not named Bush (a somewhat valid question I'll admit since the last two Republican presidents were Bushes) and basically every single thing the GOP has been trying urgently to avoid the last four years. Not to mention it'd be a liberal conspiracy theorist's dream come true and will allow them to be taken more seriously and about how the Bushes control the GOP so thoroughly they can get one of their own nominated without him even being on the ballot. There is really no response that can beat that reasoning, no "Romney and Santorum are lousy candidates" isn't enough (albeit true). A third Bush under such circumstance is a far bigger nightmare than those two despite all their baggage. I mean maybe it'd be different if Jeb ran and won the nomination fair and square (especially as this would be proof he could overcome the whole Bush name obstacle since Bush isn't too popular with the GOP base at the moment), but giving him the nomination North Korean-style really doesn't help with any misgivings they have with the name Bush they might be willing to get past.

And of course the idea that Chris Christie and Mitch Daniels are going to decide to run after turning down countless opportunities is just as silly...

[TomC]

45>40

[pbrower2a]

45>40

That's one way to put it.

Jeb Bush was at the least a competent administrator with few known scandals. At the least, he handled the severe natural disasters of Florida (hurricanes) very well -- much in contrast to how his brother dealt with Hurricane Katrina. He would have probably been a better President than Dubya. But that is not enough anymore. Look at how long the approval ratings for the current President were in the mid-40s, and look how long Dubya got away with his sub-marginal talent as a leader.

A 2012 nomination to run against President Obama may be a showcase for a race for an open Presidency in 2016. Ordinarily the eighth year of a Presidency is a rough one for the President's Party -- but 2016 could be an exception if President Obama is extremely popular.  A bunch of R Senate seats will be up for grabs -- right-wingers in liberal-to-moderate states.

   

[Link]

Why would Jeb want to run?  I suppose if the economy double dips it may seem enticing.  Other than that why not wait until 2016?

Although a brokered convention is a perfectly valid move I don't think a lot of people would be too comfortable with it.  I don't think a lot of people realize there is no rule against it.  No one who didn't get a single vote cast for them during the primary season is going to be easily accepted by the nation at this point in time.  That's my personal feeling.

[TheGlobalizer]

Jeb would be a solid president if he had a different last name.

[Politico]

Whoever has a plurality of delegates will be the GOP nominee. Having a majority will not be required. If a candidate does not secure a majority, the most likely case is the plurality winner being at the top of the ticket and the second place finisher being on the bottom of the ticket. The only exception would be a very close breaking of the delegates, like, 45-45-10, so whoever wants to cut a better deal with Ron Paul will be the nominee in that case. I would not bet on Santorum winning over Ron Paul.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Whoever has a plurality of delegates will be the GOP nominee. Having a majority will not be required. If a candidate does not secure a majority, the most likely case is the plurality winner being at the top of the ticket and the second place finisher being on the bottom of the ticket. The only exception would be a very close breaking of the delegates, like, 45-45-10, so whoever wants to cut a better deal with Ron Paul will be the nominee in that case. I would not bet on Santorum winning over Ron Paul.

^^^

Proving the statement about a broken clock correct...

[Jacobtm]

Republicans just haven't had much luck with non-Bushes since Reagan left office. Why keep trying to elect people with different last names if you've already found the winning last name?

[Link]

Whoever has a plurality of delegates will be the GOP nominee. Having a majority will not be required. If a candidate does not secure a majority, the most likely case is the plurality winner being at the top of the ticket and the second place finisher being on the bottom of the ticket. The only exception would be a very close breaking of the delegates, like, 45-45-10, so whoever wants to cut a better deal with Ron Paul will be the nominee in that case. I would not bet on Santorum winning over Ron Paul.

Yes but there is a very strong "not Romeny" element.  If 45% is for Romney and the "not Romney" camp is 40% Santorum 10% Gingrich or something like that do you think they will accept Romney or group together to choose Santorum or Gingrich?

I dunno.  Jus' sayin'

[Stranger in a strange land]

Immediately the narrative is going to be about how the GOP is completely owned and ran by the Bush family and Jeb would just be the third Bush term his brother couldn't get and why they can't nominate and win with anyone not named Bush (a somewhat valid question I'll admit since the last two Republican presidents were Bushes) and basically every single thing the GOP has been trying urgently to avoid the last four years. Not to mention it'd be a liberal conspiracy theorist's dream come true and will allow them to be taken more seriously and about how the Bushes control the GOP so thoroughly they can get one of their own nominated without him even being on the ballot. There is really no response that can beat that reasoning, no "Romney and Santorum are lousy candidates" isn't enough (albeit true). A third Bush under such circumstance is a far bigger nightmare than those two despite all their baggage. I mean maybe it'd be different if Jeb ran and won the nomination fair and square (especially as this would be proof he could overcome the whole Bush name obstacle since Bush isn't too popular with the GOP base at the moment), but giving him the nomination North Korean-style really doesn't help with any misgivings they have with the name Bush they might be willing to get past.

Fun fact: the last winning GOP ticket without a Bush on it was Nixon/Agnew in 1972.

[Mr. Morden]

Immediately the narrative is going to be about how the GOP is completely owned and ran by the Bush family and Jeb would just be the third Bush term his brother couldn't get and why they can't nominate and win with anyone not named Bush (a somewhat valid question I'll admit since the last two Republican presidents were Bushes) and basically every single thing the GOP has been trying urgently to avoid the last four years. Not to mention it'd be a liberal conspiracy theorist's dream come true and will allow them to be taken more seriously and about how the Bushes control the GOP so thoroughly they can get one of their own nominated without him even being on the ballot. There is really no response that can beat that reasoning, no "Romney and Santorum are lousy candidates" isn't enough (albeit true). A third Bush under such circumstance is a far bigger nightmare than those two despite all their baggage. I mean maybe it'd be different if Jeb ran and won the nomination fair and square (especially as this would be proof he could overcome the whole Bush name obstacle since Bush isn't too popular with the GOP base at the moment), but giving him the nomination North Korean-style really doesn't help with any misgivings they have with the name Bush they might be willing to get past.

Fun fact: the last winning GOP ticket without a Bush on it was Nixon/Agnew in 1972.

And the last one without either a Nixon or a Bush was Hoover/Curtis 1928.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Whoever has a plurality of delegates will be the GOP nominee. Having a majority will not be required. If a candidate does not secure a majority, the most likely case is the plurality winner being at the top of the ticket and the second place finisher being on the bottom of the ticket. The only exception would be a very close breaking of the delegates, like, 45-45-10, so whoever wants to cut a better deal with Ron Paul will be the nominee in that case. I would not bet on Santorum winning over Ron Paul.

Don't count on this working for Romney. He really wants to have 51%. If he needs to make a deal with paul, there is a chance that his delegates won't go along with any deal and that they might want to force it to a second vote to unlock the ninja delegates, that could screw Romney with several successive ballots bringing him fewer and fewer delegates.

[Mr. Morden]

Whoever has a plurality of delegates will be the GOP nominee. Having a majority will not be required. If a candidate does not secure a majority, the most likely case is the plurality winner being at the top of the ticket and the second place finisher being on the bottom of the ticket. The only exception would be a very close breaking of the delegates, like, 45-45-10, so whoever wants to cut a better deal with Ron Paul will be the nominee in that case. I would not bet on Santorum winning over Ron Paul.

^^^

Proving the statement about a broken clock correct...

Nah, he's right that one of the people running in the primaries would still end up being the nominee, but wrong that it would be because of a deal that involves the 1st place guy being president and 2nd place guy being VP.  I don't see such a deal happening easily between Romney and Santorum after a long, bitter primary fight.  What would more likely happen is that they'd try to make deals with individual delegates from the other side to get them to switch, rather than make a deal with each other.  Or they'd try to make a deal with Gingrich or Paul or their delegates.

[Mr. Morden]

If he needs to make a deal with paul, there is a chance that his delegates won't go along with any deal and that they might want to force it to a second vote to unlock the ninja delegates, that could screw Romney with several successive ballots bringing him fewer and fewer delegates.

"Unlock the ninja delegates" is a great slogan.

[Brittain33]

Jeb would be a solid president if he had a different last name.

Jeb would be a divorced real estate agent in Miami if he had a different last name.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Whoever has a plurality of delegates will be the GOP nominee. Having a majority will not be required. If a candidate does not secure a majority, the most likely case is the plurality winner being at the top of the ticket and the second place finisher being on the bottom of the ticket. The only exception would be a very close breaking of the delegates, like, 45-45-10, so whoever wants to cut a better deal with Ron Paul will be the nominee in that case. I would not bet on Santorum winning over Ron Paul.

^^^

Proving the statement about a broken clock correct...

Nah, he's right that one of the people running in the primaries would still end up being the nominee, but wrong that it would be because of a deal that involves the 1st place guy being president and 2nd place guy being VP.  I don't see such a deal happening easily between Romney and Santorum after a long, bitter primary fight.  What would more likely happen is that they'd try to make deals with individual delegates from the other side to get them to switch, rather than make a deal with each other.  Or they'd try to make a deal with Gingrich or Paul or their delegates.

I'm not too sure a bitter fight completely makes that not possible, Obama may not have had Hillary as his running mate but they certainly cooperated and he gave her the top cabinet position, Bush and Reagan in 1980 got kind of nasty as well. Also Gingrich/Romney was the real nastiness ("When Mitt Romney Came To Town"), though Santorum/Romney is just getting started I suppose.

But I think you've touched on the biggest issue with the "brokered convention nominates someone else" scenario, it's easier to win over 5% of delegates than 50%. Whoever starts out as the "compromise candidate" has 0% of the delegates and it's possible some of the non-plurality holder might be so disgusted on principle (or concerned about the electability of someone nominated under such circumstances) they'd just switch to the plurality holder to prevent it. Not all or even most of them obviously, but if you have a Romney 45/Santorum 35/Paul 20 scenario just 10% of the Santorum/Paul delegates gives it to Romney. Meanwhile it'd take 50% of every candidates delegates to switch to whoever else to win it for them (probably well over 50% of Romney and Santorum delegates in Jeb's case because there's no way many Paul delegates are getting behind him.)

[Whacker77]

It's not surprising Democrats would have a hard time understanding why many Republicans would like to nominate Jeb Bush.  Still, if you had to choose from the three stooges the party has running right now, you'd probably be willing to throw a Hail Mary pass of two.  The fact is many Democrats just can't stand the Bush name so they find him implausible.

In terms of why Republicans might like him, it's quite simple.  He was a very successful two-term governor of Florida who turned the state ruby red at the state level.  He's also a realiable conservative on economic issues, he knows the ins and outs of policy quite well, and he can actually communicate his ideas without mangling the English language.  He may not be a hawk on immigration, but that actually plays quite well with most of the country.

In terms of the electoral map, he also has strengths the three stooges don't.  He locks up Florida without having to spend much time or money, he would also be quite strong in the rust belt states, and he has one advantage that most don't know.  He speaks fluent Spanish and that, along with his immigration stance, would play very well in the Mountain West states like CO, NM, NV, and AZ.

The negative is his last name so that's why Jeb chose to sit out 2012, but I think he's mistaken if he thinks Bush fatigue will be any less in 2016 than it is today.  The same people complaining about a dynasty or the fact his brother was a buffoon will be still be there in 2016 saying the country's not ready for another Bush presidency.

Even if Jeb Bush was a sure loser in 2012, and I'm not convinced of that, he would be beneficial to the Republican Party as a whole because he would prevent a total wipeout on the down ballot races.  Bush would give Obama an extremely tough fight that would probably save some Senate and House seats that would go down in flames with the disasterous campaigns Romney and the gang would run.  Losing 51-48 or 50-49 is far better than losing 52-48.

Jeb Bush might not be able to beat Obama, but he's a better candidate and better on policy than anyone in the race right now.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No matter what you say about him, as I pointed out before the only things the average voters know about him is:

1-His last name is Bush.
2-He was Governor of Florida during the 2000 election fiasco.
(and in this scenario: 3-He was nominated under very odd and undemocratic circumstances)

And he has only six weeks in the biggest media circus ever to convince everyone otherwise.

[Whacker77]

No matter what you say about him, as I pointed out before the only things the average voters know about him is:

1-His last name is Bush.
2-He was Governor of Florida during the 2000 election fiasco.
(and in this scenario: 3-He was nominated under very odd and undemocratic circumstances)

And he has only six weeks in the biggest media circus ever to convince everyone otherwise.

The idea Jeb Bush would pop up out of the blue on the last night of the convention shows how little you've actually thought about this.  Under no circumstances would it work that way.  If a new candidate were to enter the race in hopes of winning at the convention, that person would have to enter in early June so money could be raised, a campaign could be set up, and delegates could be wooed.  Jeb, or anyone else, would not be sitting in their favorite chair at home only to find out they've been nominated.

And honestly, if you think the 2000 election would become a big part of the 2012 camapign, then you've been spending too much time wearing the tin foil hat.  Ask Bill McBride how powerful that message was in 2002 when he was mowed over by Jeb Bush.  Terry McCaulife and the gang made the defeat of Jeb their number one priority in 2002 and made the election and Bush hate a big part of the campaign and it didn't work.  There are lots of reasons to believe Jeb can't win in 2012, but the election of 2000 is definitely no one of them.

[Mr. Morden]

I'm not too sure a bitter fight completely makes that not possible, Obama may not have had Hillary as his running mate but they certainly cooperated and he gave her the top cabinet position, Bush and Reagan in 1980 got kind of nasty as well. Also Gingrich/Romney was the real nastiness ("When Mitt Romney Came To Town"), though Santorum/Romney is just getting started I suppose.

That's different though.  In those cases, Obama and Reagan respectively already had the nomination won.  At that point, you might as well be a good soldier.  But the scenario we're talking about is one in which the nomination is still contested.  Why the heck would either Romney or Santorum just give up, simply because the other candidate has a few more delegates and votes than they do, albeit not a majority?  They're not going to give up a real chance at the nomination just for the vice presidency, not after a months-long bitter primary fight, with all of their supporters egging them on to keep going.

The only way it would happen is if one of them becomes convinced that the other guy is sure to win it anyway, even without his cooperation.  In which case, time to make a deal.  Otherwise, it's a smarter bet that they'd try to woo Gingrich and Paul and their delegates, as well as try to convince delegates from each others' camps to jump ship.