Do Republicans want to lose?

[JonathanSwift]

The recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows Jeb Bush gaining support among Republicans.  75% say they would support him -- higher than the percentage for any other candidate (although Rubio is close behind, and has a much lower percent who say they definitely would not support him). By contrast, less than half would support Rand Paul, and nearly as many say they definitely wouldn't -- this in spite of the fact that Rand Paul does by far the best in general election match-ups against Hillary Clinton.

Bush also leads in the latest RCP average, with 10.8%. Rand Paul is at 8.2%, and even Marco Rubio -- who is quite close to Bush ideologically and does better in general election match-ups than any candidate besides Paul -- only has 10%.

All of this begs the question -- do Republicans want Hillary Clinton to be the 45th President? I can think of no other reason whatsoever why they would want to nominate Jeb Bush over far more electable candidates.

[IceSpear]

Ironic coming from a guy with Trump in his signature.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

It's called an announcement bump. This is all statistical noise at this point.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Jeb is running because Hillary is running, and this way, no one can shout "DYNASTY!".

[IceSpear]

Jeb is running because Hillary is running, and this way, no one can shout "DYNASTY!".

It's not really equivalent. For one thing, there's only been one Clinton, whereas there's been two Bushes. Secondly, Hillary is Bill's wife, not his daughter. It's not really a "dynasty", at least not until Chelsea runs for office...

[The Other Castro]

Fox News Republicans want to lose, being in the opposition helps with ratings.

[WVdemocrat]

Fox News Republicans want to lose, being in the opposition helps with ratings.

God, we're going to have to listen to that conservative persecution bullsh*t for the next 8 years, aren't we?

[CountryClassSF]

The Republicans threw the 2012 race, so it wouldn't surprise me if they throw 2016 too. Many in the establishment are fanatics for amnesty and gay marriage over anything else. About the only difference the establishment has with the Democrats is tax policy.

After Romney won 1st debate, he essentially wilted. Handlers probably told him, no no, you aren't supposed to win.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

2012 Senate map was perfectly laid out for Obama and Biden. The economy coming off the worst recession was in a strong recovery.

Although, unemployment has gone down, the underemployed is still too high, as too many employee hire part time workers to get around mandated insurance. As wages continue to stagnate.

[The Other Castro]

The Republicans threw the 2012 race, so it wouldn't surprise me if they throw 2016 too. Many in the establishment are fanatics for amnesty and gay marriage over anything else. About the only difference the establishment has with the Democrats is tax policy.

After Romney won 1st debate, he essentially wilted. Handlers probably told him, no no, you aren't supposed to win.

Once Huntsman was out, Romney was the best possible candidate by far on the Republican side. Who would you have preferred? Santorum? Bachmann? They would've lost in landslides.

The 2012 Republican platform itself calls for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and opposes amnesty in any form whatsoever. By many in the establishment, you might be talking about the 17 or so liberal Republicans out there.

You sure it didn't have anything to do with Romney debating someone that was asleep in the 1st debate? No, you're right, he definitely went easy on Obama by only interupting him 274 times instead of 275.

[HillOfANight]

2012 Senate map was perfectly laid out for Obama and Biden. The economy coming off the worst recession was in a strong recovery.

Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, and Montana should easily have went to the Republicans.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

2012 Senate map was perfectly laid out for Obama and Biden. The economy coming off the worst recession was in a strong recovery.

Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, and Montana should easily have went to the Republicans.

Well, women turned out really we for Obama, so female candidates won in MO and ND. And IN had an Akin moment.

I was referring to OH, Va and Pa which had dems running inclose races.

This time toomey, Ayotte, Kirk and Johnson are in danger.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

The Republicans threw the 2012 race, so it wouldn't surprise me if they throw 2016 too. Many in the establishment are fanatics for amnesty and gay marriage over anything else. About the only difference the establishment has with the Democrats is tax policy.

After Romney won 1st debate, he essentially wilted. Handlers probably told him, no no, you aren't supposed to win.

Once Huntsman was out, Romney was the best possible candidate by far on the Republican side. Who would you have preferred? Santorum? Bachmann? They would've lost in landslides.

Huntsman was intentionally not given any good coverage by FNC.
Christie was beloved back then, and he refused the Draft Christie movement. That would've been perfect. Daniels would've been the same as Romney likely, but those first two were the only ones with a chance.

[HillOfANight]

2012 Senate map was perfectly laid out for Obama and Biden. The economy coming off the worst recession was in a strong recovery.

Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, and Montana should easily have went to the Republicans.

Well, women turned out really we for Obama, so female candidates won in MO and ND. And IN had an Akin moment.

I was referring to OH, Va and Pa which had dems running inclose races.

This time toomey, Ayotte, Kirk and Johnson are in danger.

Overall though, Democrats had to defend 23 seats compared to 10 for Republicans, so I didn't understand what you meant by the "2012 Senate map was perfect for Obama".

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Rand Paul has no chance of getting the nomination, so talking about his electability is pointless.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Rand Paul has no chance of getting the nomination, so talking about his electability is pointless.

No Chance is overkill - if he just drops a little in the polls, and then the first debate is hit by a meteor that wipes out all the participants, he'll be the frontrunner! (And that's about what I think it would take for him to win the nomination. At best, he puts up a Santorum-style fight.

[BaconBacon96]

I don't think they want to lose but for many keeping their ideological purity is more important than winning.

[HAnnA MArin County]

I don't think they "want" to lose insomuch as they KNOW they're going to lose, which is why I think so many crazies are running (unless all the crazies are running to split the teabagger vote into tenths so that an establishment candidate a la Mitt Romney can emerge as victorious). They know (or should know) that the Electoral College map is stacked against them, and with their cheating/rigging tactics gone awry (Electoral College votes awarded proportionally by congressional districts, voter ID laws, restricting early voting, etc.), they know they don't stand a chance against the neoliberal warmongerer. They're probably going to devote more of their resources to holding the Senate, which is more likely than them winning the White House. Their strategy is probably something like, "Okay, we know we are going to lose to Hillary, so let's just focus on keeping Congress in our hands so we can obstruct everything she does and make her a one-term president to increase our odds at winning in 2020." 

[RR1997]

Of course not.

[pbrower2a]

If the Democratic winner of 2016 gets saddled with a debacle in foreign policy or a military disaster, or presides over an economic meltdown, then the Republicans will be in great shape in 2018 and 2020 to consolidate overwhelming dominance in the United States government, perhaps even putting the Democratic Party into a marginal position in American politics indefinitely.
 
That's nearly what they got in 1976 and what they expected in 2008. 


America would become much like the People's Republic of China in having a pantheon of deceased political leaders whose personalities are admired but whose agendas are no longer followed. OK, it is a good thing that China has basically eviscerated Marxism and Maoism. Unfortunately we Americans will have gutted Jefferson and Lincoln.

[Rockefeller GOP]

If the Democratic winner of 2016 gets saddled with a debacle in foreign policy or a military disaster, or presides over an economic meltdown, then the Republicans will be in great shape in 2018 and 2020 to consolidate overwhelming dominance in the United States government, perhaps even putting the Democratic Party into a marginal position in American politics indefinitely.
 
That's nearly what they got in 1976 and what they expected in 2008. 


America would become much like the People's Republic of China in having a pantheon of deceased political leaders whose personalities are admired but whose agendas are no longer followed. OK, it is a good thing that China has basically eviscerated Marxism and Maoism. Unfortunately we Americans will have gutted Jefferson and Lincoln.

Want to explain your last sentence?  When did we sell Louisiana back and reinstate slavery?  Lol...

[Maxwell]

It's called an announcement bump. This is all statistical noise at this point.

Best answer here.

[Simfan34]

Jeb is running because Hillary is running, and this way, no one can shout "DYNASTY!".

It's not really equivalent. For one thing, there's only been one Clinton, whereas there's been two Bushes. Secondly, Hillary is Bill's wife, not his daughter. It's not really a "dynasty", at least not until Chelsea runs for office...

IMO a spouse or sibling looks even more suspect than a child from the political machine angle.

Or from most professional angles, actually- although it depends.