Would it be problematic for Republicans to elect Jeb Bush in 2016?

[Jacobtm]

Since Reagan, Republicans have not had any luck getting someone in the White House who wasn't named Bush.

This time around, R-Money is obviously going to fail. And there are already rumblings about Jeb Bush.

Would you find it troubling, from a dynastic perspective, if Jeb Bush was chosen by Republicans in 2016? Does it seem a little bit much to have this one family in such a position of power?

We just narrowly avoided Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton, I would hate to see Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama-Bush

[asexual trans victimologist]

This doesn't seem to bother Republicans since Jeb Bush makes many of them seriously wet for some inexplicable reason, but I would certainly hope it would bother most other people.

[Jacobtm]

This doesn't seem to bother Republicans since Jeb Bush makes many of them seriously wet for some inexplicable reason, but I would certainly hope it would bother most other people.

I think they just love the idea of soft monarchy really. Anything that reduces voter participation, they're for it. Anything that helps privileged people, they're for it.

[Chris B]

I don't like it. Especially when it occurs in such a brief timespan.

Though I don't think Jeb Bush harbors any serious Presidential ambitions, and I don't think he'll run 2016. If he did, then I don't understand why he hasn't done more to stay relevant.

[krazen1211]

Logic suggests that it would not be problematic if Jeb Bush got the most electoral votes.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Some of our rightists remain unaware that value judgments and cultural phenomena other than legalism exist, film at eleven.

[krazen1211]

Some of our rightists remain unaware that value judgments and cultural phenomena other than legalism exist, film at eleven.

Arrogant liberal thinks he knows what's best for everyone and can determine society's value judgments and cultural phenomena even though society and culture decided otherwise.

Film at 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9:30. Matinee pricing before 5.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Some of our rightists remain unaware that value judgments and cultural phenomena other than legalism exist, film at eleven.

Arrogant liberal thinks he knows what's best for everyone and can determine society's value judgments and cultural phenomena even though society and culture decided otherwise.

Film at 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9:30. Matinee pricing before 5.

When did society and culture decide otherwise on this issue? The Bush family does not in fact de-facto dynastically rule America or the Republican Party.

You are of course not answering the point that the question was 'would it be problematic?', not 'would it be illegal?', but you're just going to マイペースする your merry way through life regardless of what anybody else says anyway.

I'm not a 'liberal', and I most certainly do know better than vast segments of the population of this benighted world.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

No, or at least not anymore than any other Republican.  Would they lose the Congress (if they held it) if he won.  Probably.  Just like Obama, Bush, and Clinton.  But I doubt he'd be elected anyway.

[Emperor SJoyce]

No, of course not, because America hungers for a third president from that talented family... As Jon Stewart put it, "The Bush presidential trilogy must be completed, with the Return of the Jebi."