Jeb Bush Outlines His Campaign Strategy

[Frodo]

Jeb Bush Outlines Campaign Strategy, Should He Choose to Run

By PETER BAKER
APRIL 6, 2014

COLLEGE STATION, Tex. — With eyes increasingly on him, Jeb Bush signaled on Sunday the kind of campaign he would mount if he ran for president: one arguing against ideological purity tests while challenging party orthodoxy on issues like immigration and education.

Even as he sharply criticized President Obama for his handling of foreign affairs and health care, Mr. Bush made clear that he would run against the style of politics that has characterized recent Republican nominating contests. He said he would decide by the end of the year, in part on whether he thought that with a “hopeful” message, he could avoid “the vortex of a mud fight.”

“We need to elect candidates who have a vision that is bigger and broader, and candidates that are organized around winning the election, not making points,” Mr. Bush told an audience at the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum here. “Campaigns ought to be about listening and learning and getting better. I do think we’ve lost our way.”

[BaconBacon96]

It's becoming more and more likely he will run and he will be the party nominee.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

It's becoming more and more likely he will run and he will be the party nominee.

Not if Scott Walker has anything to say about it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Bush as the nominee could very well lead me to leave the GOP.

[heatmaster]

Jeb Bush, will likely run, he wouldn't be making such a widely publicized appearance in a forum speaking the way he did, if he weren't; he is merely sticking his toe in the water, to test the temperature; but already it is becoming clear that he has been given the all-clear and with such potential opponents as Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Scott Walker (possibly Paul Ryan), Rick Santorum & Rick Perry (Marco Rubio- also from Florida won't run if Bush is going. There are question marks if Chris Christie will be able to fully recover from fall-out of Bridgegate to mount a sufficiently credible bid. Jeb is pursuing a clever strategy, potential donors won't commit until they know what Bush is going to do, essentially everyone is waiting. With Bush as the nominee, Florida is out of reach for Democrats, it's a no-brainer. To all those nay-sayers who have doubts that a Bush can't make it, he has a brand-name and HELLO! he's no Dubya.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Bush as the nominee could very well lead me to leave the GOP.

And he might be one of the few who could lead me to stay in it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Clinton vs. Bush would be such an uninspiring election.

[GLPman]

He's running.

[moderatevoter]

Clinton vs. Bush would be such an uninspiring election.

Here I was thinking 'Ready for Hillary' would drive me to insanity, and now this?

[Suburbia]

It's becoming more and more likely he will run and he will be the party nominee.

If he runs, he'll have to go through Mark Levin, the talk radio crowd, Ted Cruz and the far-right conservatives. It will be a tough road to the nomination.

[henster]

He will not make it through the primary.

[heatmaster]

Why not Hillary vs. Jeb; but unlike 1992, I doubt very much it will be Clinton in the winner's enclosure; there are many reasons why I believe this, but here are two primary one's.
1. Rarely do party's who have held the White House for two terms, rarely win a third term for there party; the exception to this rule was in 1988, but in that instance Reagan's popularity enabled then Vice President George H.W. Bush win, the economy was humming along nicely and of course you had an inept challenger like Dukakis factored in. The 2000 election defied logic, Gore lost the presidency despite the apparent popularity of a flawed Bill Clinton and yes the economy was in pretty good shape, despite uncertainty about it's future health. Dubya's unpopularity and the economic meltdown in 2008, doomed McCain's prospects and ushered in Obama.
2. Obama's two term's might be considered a success, if you count the offing of Osama Bin-Laden as a good legacy; Obamacare is a two edged sword, it might be growing in enrollment, but it's coverage or lack thereof is threatening Democrat's chances in this years mid-terms; Obama is already a politically toxic commodity and if you think Dubya fatigue was bad, well what about Obama fatigue? Of course there are many Democrats who will strongly disagree with my analysis of Obama, but then again he's the messiah isn't he? Will don't judge the Democrats response so much by words, but by actions alone and we will see. Hillary might be on a paper an ideal successor to Obama, like McCain in 2008, who was tied to Dubya; she will be tied to Obama whether she likes it or not, that of course if she runs. So yes let it be Hillary with her resume, but my money is on Jeb.
The far right loons, plus Mark Levin and Ted Cruz will be the making of Jeb, sorry guys had to throw that in.

[henster]

Why would GOP primary voters pick Jeb over someone like Walker? If the GOP has any desire to win running another Bush is the last thing they should do.

[Maxwell]

Bush is going to be a paper tiger. That's that.

[SteveRogers]

1. Rarely do party's who have held the White House for two terms, rarely win a third term for there party;

It's actually basically 50-50.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-white-house-is-not-a-metronome/

[Likely Voter]

Bush may have some thoughts on a general election strategy but what about the primary. The last competitive GOP primary he was in was 1994 FL Gov race. Things have changed a bit in the GOP since then. I'm not sure he is ready for the level of pandering needed to get through it.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It's becoming more and more likely he will run and he will be the party nominee.

Not if Scott Walker has anything to say about it.

m

Just ... Lol

[eric82oslo]

Oh no, he actually said that illegal immigrants have a heart. Now he will be slaughtered by the GOP grassroots for sure.

[Simfan34]

Bush as the nominee could very well lead me to leave the GOP.

Why!?

[Mister Mets]

1. Rarely do party's who have held the White House for two terms, rarely win a third term for there party;

It's actually basically 50-50.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-white-house-is-not-a-metronome/

I disagree with one part of the Silver headline.

For the last 80+ years (I'm using 1928 as the cutoff since 1924 was skewed by a strong Independent, and the strength of the Democratic party from 1860-1928 wasn't as strong as that of the Republican party today), there has been a steady pattern of parties gaining support, peaking and losing support until the other party wins. And the cycle repeats.

Obviously, the next election could be an exception due to a variety of circumstances (a political realignment, a poor Republican candidate, an especially favorable environment for Democrats, an exceptional Democratic campaign, a weak environment in 2012 skewing results for that election, etc.)

All that has to happen for the formula to continue is for the 2016 Democratic nominee to get less votes than the 2012 nominee. It's still possible to win under those circumstances. FDR peaked in 1936, and slowly lost support in 1940 and 1944, but he still stuck in the White House.  Republicans peaked in 1984, but Bush managed to stick around in 1988.

[m4567]

I still kind of doubt he'll run. If he does, I'm not sure he can win the primary. I also think he's too dull for the general. Unless he's going up against someone even less exciting than him.

[Maistre]

Bush as the nominee could very well lead me to leave the GOP.

I wouldn't vote for him either.

[Del Tachi]

Bush as the nominee could very well lead me to leave the GOP.

And he might be one of the few who could lead me to stay in it.

Ditto. 

You beat me to it

[heatmaster]

Jeb Bush can't win, as opposed to Ted Cruz - far too conservative for a general election, same applies to Rick Santorum - time to give up the ghost Ricky boy! Rick Perry! not going to happen! Rand Paul doesn't have the gravitas to make a credible run; Marco Rubio, nice and to much of a light weight; Chris Christie, bully and is no more likely to make it passed the true blue tea party conservatives than Mitt Romney; Paul Ryan, not presidential enough and is to much identified with congressional Republicans; Scott Walker has to win re-election first and being durable enough is iffy at the least, besides he has a brittle quality that will be likely his undoing. All the possible contenders are all as flawed in one way or another as Jeb Bush appears to be and I use appears advisably, yes the family name might condemn him, but he's not his brother and he seems to represent the happy face of Republicanism like Ronald Reagan and doesn't come across as angry as the likes of Cruz, Santorum, Walker do or identified with tea party extremism as Paul or Rubio are or a light weight like Ryan is. Bush can without doubt appeal to hispanics and independents alike and represents more of the open tent Republicanism as embraced by Reagan, it's a no-brainer. So yeah let the GOP nominate Santorum, Cruz, Paul, Perry, Ryan and the outcome is a dead cert, to lose big time; Rubio or Christie just to many imponderables so again we are back with Jeb again. Besides his presence on ticket, makes Arizona, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico more competitive for Republicans, puts Florida out of reach for Democrats. I expect a good many Democrats will disagree with my "flawed" analysis as it takes them out of there comfort zone and Tea Party and hardline Republicans don't want to consider the idea that one of there "guys" might not have the electability to win; but that's where I believe we are.

[Joe Biden 2020]

With talk like that, I'm willing to bet he runs.  How far he'll get remains to be seen, but I'm willing to bet he runs.  It doesn't seem like to me that the Bush name is as toxic as it was in the 2012 election, considering that by most accounts, on both sides of the aisle, the Obama administration has been less than superb or has not met expectations.  I could be totally wrong on that, but that's what I've gathered from CNN and my political research.