Does anybody here really think Jeb will be the nominee anymore?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

The Tea Party generated no new support for conservative causes. They did energize the few who supported their causes already, and they did manage to bully public officials into catering to them.

[ShadowRocket]

Jeb Bush really reminds me of what Hillary's 2008 campaign was where he is the party establishment's choice, raises a lot of money, and on paper seems like a shoe-in to win. The problem being him not clicking with voters and eventually being beaten.

His debate performance didn't change that for me. He's going to have to step up his game in the upcoming ones.

[dudeabides]

They have these ridiculous litmus tests that if you disagree with them on one issue, you are automatically a "RINO."

Dude

Christie on style and substance. Paul sounded more like a Democrat.

Cruz should ask Paul why he's so similar to Obama on foreign policy and criminal justice issues.

Your neo-con slurping is unnecessary. We get that you are a big government moderate

Your RINO comments are what is unnecessary. I get that you are a tofu eating, Volvo driving, Michael Moore loving leftist.

I love how the libertarian RINOs love to call everyone who believes in American leadership globally a neo-con.

Chris Christie (RINO-NJ) obviously has no respect for state's rights.

I'm glad you brought this up. Rand Paul opposed the Patriot Act, opposed Iranian sanctions, opposed the surge in Afghanistan, doesn't believe it's bad if Iran goes nuclear, he is for allowing felons to vote, he has cautioned GOP Governors on voter I.D. laws, he has reservations about capital punishment - these positions are not just one or even three issues where he disagrees with Republicans, they are a departure from Republican orthodoxy big time.

Chris Christie embraced the Obamacare medicaid expansion, he's thrown millions of dollars at expensive failing schools, he's presided over record corporate welfare, he's re-appointed liberal judges, he became upset when the NYPD conducted surveillance on terror suspects in New Jersey, again - these are issues where he has departed from the GOP in some major ways.

Perhaps on Christie, I did take it to far, Christie is a moderate Republican, you got me there.

I'm a loyal Republican and will be supporting the nominee unless it's Trump.

The problem with the Republican Party today can be summed up in two words. Tea Party. What I'm about to say does not apply to everyone in the tea party, but it does apply to the majority. The Republican Party was redefined in a sense in the 1980 election with Ronald Reagan. The party became the party that is pro-military, for free markets and limited government, and a party that was socially conservative. However, conservatives like myself recognized that there is always a give and a take. For example, conservatives like me believe that taxes should be low, regulations should be at a minimal, and the federal government should spend only on those things it is designated to be responsible for in the constitution, plus the safety net which is social security, medicare, and medicaid. My point being, we believe in limited government, but not no government. In response to Barack Obama and to a lesser extent, George W. Bush, the tea party was formed. In the beginning, the tea party was about opposing government over reach and out of control spending.

The tea party has become a joke. It's now not folks opposing big government, it's old white folks who buy into conspiracy theories, who believe that immigrants are taking over the country, and who oppose Common Core. They have these ridiculous litmus tests that if you disagree with them on one issue, you are automatically a "RINO." The tea party has recently become a parody of it's former self. They now are opposed to free trade and yet, they claim to be for free markets. The reality is, the majority of those in the tea party do not understand the world they live in. They don't understand trade policy or economic policy in general. They fear anyone who looks different than them.

In 2010, the GOP won control of congress because of Obamacare. The tea party prevented us from winning the U.S. Senate, and we lost ground in 2012 because of the tea party. By 2014, Republican leaders confronted the tea party and we did very well. In this election, you basically have four tea party candidates. The first is Donald Trump. He's old, angry, white, and stupid. He's everything the tea party is made up of. You then have Ben Carson. There are some in the tea party who want to prove that their dislike of Obama isn't based on race, so they support Ben and besides, they hate all politicians. Ted Cruz has sought tea party backing more than anyone else, and because he comes up with great talking points, he has been successful in gaining their support. Rand Paul has tea party support, probably less so than the other three, because his father's supporters who are libertarian are in the tea party.

So, here comes Jeb Bush. He's definitely a free market supporter, he reduced taxes and the size and scope of state government. He's pro-military, pro-life, and for traditional marriage. He wants the federal government to be limited and yet, he's for the safety net. Moderates like him, some conservatives don't completely trust him, and the tea party hates him. Why? Well, for many conservatives, his position on immigration is just not where they stand. For the tea party, his position means he wants more brown people in America and is for amnesty, despite him opposing amnesty consistently. Finally, he believes in Common Core. Look, I disagree with him on this, but to go crazy over one differing position? That's silly.

My point is not to rant here, it's to prove a point. Jeb's opposition does come from some mainstream conservatives, but it mainly comes from the crazies. The same can be said about multiple candidates. With the crazy vote divided, Trump, Cruz, and Carson have no chance at this nomination. Santorum, Pataki, Fiorina, Graham, Gilmore, Perry, and Jindal either aren't connecting with voters and or have no money. That leaves us with Bush, Christie, Walker, Rubio, Huckabee, Kasich, and Paul. Paul's base of support is very limited, most mainstream conservatives and moderates won't back him. Huckabee has the loyalty of many social conservatives, but that isn't as large a part of the party as it once was. Mainstream conservatives who are distrustful of Bush are likely to either go with Walker, Kasich, or Rubio. Ideologically, Kasich and Rubio are most similar to Bush. Therefore, Bush being in the race essentially hurts Kasich and Rubio the most, but the fact that moderates are backing him over Chris Christie hurts Christie as well. That is why I believe Scott Walker is Jeb Bush's biggest challenger for the nomination. If it comes down to a choice between them, I can tell you anyone who wants to win should support Bush because Walker is Romney 2.0

Were it not for the Tea Party, the GOP would be languishing in the wildness unlike any other time since the Great Depression, and it would entirely be because of Bush 43's time in office.

The rebellion against the GOP establishment began with the Immigration issue in 2007. We had passed a comprehensive bill before, but the enforcement never came to pass and there was never the firm desire to make it successful by enforcing the laws thereafter. There were legitimate concerns that one amnesty merely begets another either through intentional inaction or lack of concern for the matter. Either way, there was no desire to trust the same people who broke the system in the first place when they came back with the same promises. However, the real animating factor was the notion that Wall Street got rewarded for destroying the economy whilst middle class Americans who had not had a raise since the Clinton years, got left high and dry. The Tea Party in its first two years allowed for the running against both the Democrats who failed ot fix the economy and the Bush era GOP. The problem is that fringe, peripheral and perenial joke candidates like Angle and O'Donnel hopped on the bandwagon and hijacked the movement in several primaries costing us seats we should have won. The very thing that destroyed the Tea PArty was its inherent anger and mistrust of the people who got the country into the current mess.

I don't completely disagree with you. The tea party was started with good intentions. But I think they have strayed from what they originally were. You and I happen to disagree as to when the tea party began. The 2007 immigration bill had one major flaw, and that is that it had a pathway to citizenship as opposed to legal status, but I think that would have been better than the status-quo. In life, there are compromises. There is a time to fight for ideology, but also a time to govern. The tea party is only interested in ideology.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Jeb Bush really reminds me of what Hillary's 2008 campaign was where he is the party establishment's choice, raises a lot of money, and on paper seems like a shoe-in to win. The problem being him not clicking with voters and eventually being beaten.

His debate performance didn't change that for me. He's going to have to step up his game in the upcoming ones.

Jeb wishes he was as strong a candidate as Hillary was in 2008. Just look how many endorsements she had at that point back then.

[Mehmentum]

Jeb Bush really reminds me of what Hillary's 2008 campaign was where he is the party establishment's choice, raises a lot of money, and on paper seems like a shoe-in to win. The problem being him not clicking with voters and eventually being beaten.

His debate performance didn't change that for me. He's going to have to step up his game in the upcoming ones.

Jeb wishes he was as strong a candidate as Hillary was in 2008. Just look how many endorsements she had at that point back then.

Yeah, Clinton '08 was in a much better position than Bush right now.  In addition to the endorsement advantage, she held like a 10 point lead over her biggest challengers.  Obviously this was not insurmountable but also obviously a stronger position than anybody in the GOP field currently has.

[hopper]

I'm a loyal Republican and will be supporting the nominee unless it's Trump.

The problem with the Republican Party today can be summed up in two words. Tea Party. What I'm about to say does not apply to everyone in the tea party, but it does apply to the majority. The Republican Party was redefined in a sense in the 1980 election with Ronald Reagan. The party became the party that is pro-military, for free markets and limited government, and a party that was socially conservative. However, conservatives like myself recognized that there is always a give and a take. For example, conservatives like me believe that taxes should be low, regulations should be at a minimal, and the federal government should spend only on those things it is designated to be responsible for in the constitution, plus the safety net which is social security, medicare, and medicaid. My point being, we believe in limited government, but not no government. In response to Barack Obama and to a lesser extent, George W. Bush, the tea party was formed. In the beginning, the tea party was about opposing government over reach and out of control spending.

The tea party has become a joke. It's now not folks opposing big government, it's old white folks who buy into conspiracy theories, who believe that immigrants are taking over the country, and who oppose Common Core. They have these ridiculous litmus tests that if you disagree with them on one issue, you are automatically a "RINO." The tea party has recently become a parody of it's former self. They now are opposed to free trade and yet, they claim to be for free markets. The reality is, the majority of those in the tea party do not understand the world they live in. They don't understand trade policy or economic policy in general. They fear anyone who looks different than them.

In 2010, the GOP won control of congress because of Obamacare. The tea party prevented us from winning the U.S. Senate, and we lost ground in 2012 because of the tea party. By 2014, Republican leaders confronted the tea party and we did very well. In this election, you basically have four tea party candidates. The first is Donald Trump. He's old, angry, white, and stupid. He's everything the tea party is made up of. You then have Ben Carson. There are some in the tea party who want to prove that their dislike of Obama isn't based on race, so they support Ben and besides, they hate all politicians. Ted Cruz has sought tea party backing more than anyone else, and because he comes up with great talking points, he has been successful in gaining their support. Rand Paul has tea party support, probably less so than the other three, because his father's supporters who are libertarian are in the tea party.

So, here comes Jeb Bush. He's definitely a free market supporter, he reduced taxes and the size and scope of state government. He's pro-military, pro-life, and for traditional marriage. He wants the federal government to be limited and yet, he's for the safety net. Moderates like him, some conservatives don't completely trust him, and the tea party hates him. Why? Well, for many conservatives, his position on immigration is just not where they stand. For the tea party, his position means he wants more brown people in America and is for amnesty, despite him opposing amnesty consistently. Finally, he believes in Common Core. Look, I disagree with him on this, but to go crazy over one differing position? That's silly.

My point is not to rant here, it's to prove a point. Jeb's opposition does come from some mainstream conservatives, but it mainly comes from the crazies. The same can be said about multiple candidates. With the crazy vote divided, Trump, Cruz, and Carson have no chance at this nomination. Santorum, Pataki, Fiorina, Graham, Gilmore, Perry, and Jindal either aren't connecting with voters and or have no money. That leaves us with Bush, Christie, Walker, Rubio, Huckabee, Kasich, and Paul. Paul's base of support is very limited, most mainstream conservatives and moderates won't back him. Huckabee has the loyalty of many social conservatives, but that isn't as large a part of the party as it once was. Mainstream conservatives who are distrustful of Bush are likely to either go with Walker, Kasich, or Rubio. Ideologically, Kasich and Rubio are most similar to Bush. Therefore, Bush being in the race essentially hurts Kasich and Rubio the most, but the fact that moderates are backing him over Chris Christie hurts Christie as well. That is why I believe Scott Walker is Jeb Bush's biggest challenger for the nomination. If it comes down to a choice between them, I can tell you anyone who wants to win should support Bush because Walker is Romney 2.0

Were it not for the Tea Party, the GOP would be languishing in the wildness unlike any other time since the Great Depression, and it would entirely be because of Bush 43's time in office.

The rebellion against the GOP establishment began with the Immigration issue in 2007. We had passed a comprehensive bill before, but the enforcement never came to pass and there was never the firm desire to make it successful by enforcing the laws thereafter. There were legitimate concerns that one amnesty merely begets another either through intentional inaction or lack of concern for the matter. Either way, there was no desire to trust the same people who broke the system in the first place when they came back with the same promises. However, the real animating factor was the notion that Wall Street got rewarded for destroying the economy whilst middle class Americans who had not had a raise since the Clinton years, got left high and dry. The Tea Party in its first two years allowed for the running against both the Democrats who failed ot fix the economy and the Bush era GOP. The problem is that fringe, peripheral and perenial joke candidates like Angle and O'Donnel hopped on the bandwagon and hijacked the movement in several primaries costing us seats we should have won. The very thing that destroyed the Tea PArty was its inherent anger and mistrust of the people who got the country into the current mess.

You're sort of wrong(well like 25%) on the 1986 Immigration Reform. The illegal immigrant surge didn't start off till 1995 and lasted till 2007( a total of 8 million illegal immigrants were added to the population rolls during this time.) It wasn't right after the 1986 Immigration Reform that the surge of illegal immigrants started. There were 4 million illegal immigrants living in the US  still in 1994. I think in 1986 there were 3 million illegal immigrants living in the US.

True about the GOP languishing with or without the Tea Party like they did when FDR was President. The Dems languished under Reagan too and the GOP languishes under Obama. I think FDR, Reagan, and Obama are were just way too charismatic for the other side to beat. Obama did have a 50% approval rating on Election Day to boot.

As far as Angle goes she blew that race because she lost Latinos 92-8% to Harry Reid. Her anti-immigrant ad killed her with Latino's. O'Donnell was just a bad candidate. I doubt O' Donnell would have beat Castle in 2008 or 2014 but I also believe Castle would have been beaten in 2012 since the Tea Party was still as popular as it was in 2010.

[hopper]

Jeb Bush really reminds me of what Hillary's 2008 campaign was where he is the party establishment's choice, raises a lot of money, and on paper seems like a shoe-in to win. The problem being him not clicking with voters and eventually being beaten.

His debate performance didn't change that for me. He's going to have to step up his game in the upcoming ones.

Jeb wishes he was as strong a candidate as Hillary was in 2008. Just look how many endorsements she had at that point back then.

Jeb wishes he was Hillary in 2008? So he wishes he was a candidate that lost in 2008? Come on guys.

[dudeabides]

I'm a loyal Republican and will be supporting the nominee unless it's Trump.

The problem with the Republican Party today can be summed up in two words. Tea Party. What I'm about to say does not apply to everyone in the tea party, but it does apply to the majority. The Republican Party was redefined in a sense in the 1980 election with Ronald Reagan. The party became the party that is pro-military, for free markets and limited government, and a party that was socially conservative. However, conservatives like myself recognized that there is always a give and a take. For example, conservatives like me believe that taxes should be low, regulations should be at a minimal, and the federal government should spend only on those things it is designated to be responsible for in the constitution, plus the safety net which is social security, medicare, and medicaid. My point being, we believe in limited government, but not no government. In response to Barack Obama and to a lesser extent, George W. Bush, the tea party was formed. In the beginning, the tea party was about opposing government over reach and out of control spending.

The tea party has become a joke. It's now not folks opposing big government, it's old white folks who buy into conspiracy theories, who believe that immigrants are taking over the country, and who oppose Common Core. They have these ridiculous litmus tests that if you disagree with them on one issue, you are automatically a "RINO." The tea party has recently become a parody of it's former self. They now are opposed to free trade and yet, they claim to be for free markets. The reality is, the majority of those in the tea party do not understand the world they live in. They don't understand trade policy or economic policy in general. They fear anyone who looks different than them.

In 2010, the GOP won control of congress because of Obamacare. The tea party prevented us from winning the U.S. Senate, and we lost ground in 2012 because of the tea party. By 2014, Republican leaders confronted the tea party and we did very well. In this election, you basically have four tea party candidates. The first is Donald Trump. He's old, angry, white, and stupid. He's everything the tea party is made up of. You then have Ben Carson. There are some in the tea party who want to prove that their dislike of Obama isn't based on race, so they support Ben and besides, they hate all politicians. Ted Cruz has sought tea party backing more than anyone else, and because he comes up with great talking points, he has been successful in gaining their support. Rand Paul has tea party support, probably less so than the other three, because his father's supporters who are libertarian are in the tea party.

So, here comes Jeb Bush. He's definitely a free market supporter, he reduced taxes and the size and scope of state government. He's pro-military, pro-life, and for traditional marriage. He wants the federal government to be limited and yet, he's for the safety net. Moderates like him, some conservatives don't completely trust him, and the tea party hates him. Why? Well, for many conservatives, his position on immigration is just not where they stand. For the tea party, his position means he wants more brown people in America and is for amnesty, despite him opposing amnesty consistently. Finally, he believes in Common Core. Look, I disagree with him on this, but to go crazy over one differing position? That's silly.

My point is not to rant here, it's to prove a point. Jeb's opposition does come from some mainstream conservatives, but it mainly comes from the crazies. The same can be said about multiple candidates. With the crazy vote divided, Trump, Cruz, and Carson have no chance at this nomination. Santorum, Pataki, Fiorina, Graham, Gilmore, Perry, and Jindal either aren't connecting with voters and or have no money. That leaves us with Bush, Christie, Walker, Rubio, Huckabee, Kasich, and Paul. Paul's base of support is very limited, most mainstream conservatives and moderates won't back him. Huckabee has the loyalty of many social conservatives, but that isn't as large a part of the party as it once was. Mainstream conservatives who are distrustful of Bush are likely to either go with Walker, Kasich, or Rubio. Ideologically, Kasich and Rubio are most similar to Bush. Therefore, Bush being in the race essentially hurts Kasich and Rubio the most, but the fact that moderates are backing him over Chris Christie hurts Christie as well. That is why I believe Scott Walker is Jeb Bush's biggest challenger for the nomination. If it comes down to a choice between them, I can tell you anyone who wants to win should support Bush because Walker is Romney 2.0

Were it not for the Tea Party, the GOP would be languishing in the wildness unlike any other time since the Great Depression, and it would entirely be because of Bush 43's time in office.

The rebellion against the GOP establishment began with the Immigration issue in 2007. We had passed a comprehensive bill before, but the enforcement never came to pass and there was never the firm desire to make it successful by enforcing the laws thereafter. There were legitimate concerns that one amnesty merely begets another either through intentional inaction or lack of concern for the matter. Either way, there was no desire to trust the same people who broke the system in the first place when they came back with the same promises. However, the real animating factor was the notion that Wall Street got rewarded for destroying the economy whilst middle class Americans who had not had a raise since the Clinton years, got left high and dry. The Tea Party in its first two years allowed for the running against both the Democrats who failed ot fix the economy and the Bush era GOP. The problem is that fringe, peripheral and perenial joke candidates like Angle and O'Donnel hopped on the bandwagon and hijacked the movement in several primaries costing us seats we should have won. The very thing that destroyed the Tea PArty was its inherent anger and mistrust of the people who got the country into the current mess.

You're sort of wrong(well like 25%) on the 1986 Immigration Reform. The illegal immigrant surge didn't start off till 1995 and lasted till 2007( a total of 8 million illegal immigrants were added to the population rolls during this time.) It wasn't right after the 1986 Immigration Reform that the surge of illegal immigrants started. There were 4 million illegal immigrants living in the US  still in 1994. I think in 1986 there were 3 million illegal immigrants living in the US.

True about the GOP languishing with or without the Tea Party like they did when FDR was President. The Dems languished under Reagan too and the GOP languishes under Obama. I think FDR, Reagan, and Obama are were just way too charismatic for the other side to beat. Obama did have a 50% approval rating on Election Day to boot.

As far as Angle goes she blew that race because she lost Latinos 92-8% to Harry Reid. Her anti-immigrant ad killed her with Latino's. O'Donnell was just a bad candidate. I doubt O' Donnell would have beat Castle in 2008 or 2014 but I also believe Castle would have been beaten in 2012 since the Tea Party was still as popular as it was in 2010.

This idea that we are seeing more and more illegal border crossings is a myth. We doubled border patrol agents and have seen lower levels of illegal immigration. We are headed in the right direction, of course we can and should do more.

[hopper]

The Tea Party generated no new support for conservative causes. They did energize the few who supported their causes already, and they did manage to bully public officials into catering to them.

True points on the whole post.

[hopper]

I'm a loyal Republican and will be supporting the nominee unless it's Trump.

The problem with the Republican Party today can be summed up in two words. Tea Party. What I'm about to say does not apply to everyone in the tea party, but it does apply to the majority. The Republican Party was redefined in a sense in the 1980 election with Ronald Reagan. The party became the party that is pro-military, for free markets and limited government, and a party that was socially conservative. However, conservatives like myself recognized that there is always a give and a take. For example, conservatives like me believe that taxes should be low, regulations should be at a minimal, and the federal government should spend only on those things it is designated to be responsible for in the constitution, plus the safety net which is social security, medicare, and medicaid. My point being, we believe in limited government, but not no government. In response to Barack Obama and to a lesser extent, George W. Bush, the tea party was formed. In the beginning, the tea party was about opposing government over reach and out of control spending.

The tea party has become a joke. It's now not folks opposing big government, it's old white folks who buy into conspiracy theories, who believe that immigrants are taking over the country, and who oppose Common Core. They have these ridiculous litmus tests that if you disagree with them on one issue, you are automatically a "RINO." The tea party has recently become a parody of it's former self. They now are opposed to free trade and yet, they claim to be for free markets. The reality is, the majority of those in the tea party do not understand the world they live in. They don't understand trade policy or economic policy in general. They fear anyone who looks different than them.

In 2010, the GOP won control of congress because of Obamacare. The tea party prevented us from winning the U.S. Senate, and we lost ground in 2012 because of the tea party. By 2014, Republican leaders confronted the tea party and we did very well. In this election, you basically have four tea party candidates. The first is Donald Trump. He's old, angry, white, and stupid. He's everything the tea party is made up of. You then have Ben Carson. There are some in the tea party who want to prove that their dislike of Obama isn't based on race, so they support Ben and besides, they hate all politicians. Ted Cruz has sought tea party backing more than anyone else, and because he comes up with great talking points, he has been successful in gaining their support. Rand Paul has tea party support, probably less so than the other three, because his father's supporters who are libertarian are in the tea party.

So, here comes Jeb Bush. He's definitely a free market supporter, he reduced taxes and the size and scope of state government. He's pro-military, pro-life, and for traditional marriage. He wants the federal government to be limited and yet, he's for the safety net. Moderates like him, some conservatives don't completely trust him, and the tea party hates him. Why? Well, for many conservatives, his position on immigration is just not where they stand. For the tea party, his position means he wants more brown people in America and is for amnesty, despite him opposing amnesty consistently. Finally, he believes in Common Core. Look, I disagree with him on this, but to go crazy over one differing position? That's silly.

My point is not to rant here, it's to prove a point. Jeb's opposition does come from some mainstream conservatives, but it mainly comes from the crazies. The same can be said about multiple candidates. With the crazy vote divided, Trump, Cruz, and Carson have no chance at this nomination. Santorum, Pataki, Fiorina, Graham, Gilmore, Perry, and Jindal either aren't connecting with voters and or have no money. That leaves us with Bush, Christie, Walker, Rubio, Huckabee, Kasich, and Paul. Paul's base of support is very limited, most mainstream conservatives and moderates won't back him. Huckabee has the loyalty of many social conservatives, but that isn't as large a part of the party as it once was. Mainstream conservatives who are distrustful of Bush are likely to either go with Walker, Kasich, or Rubio. Ideologically, Kasich and Rubio are most similar to Bush. Therefore, Bush being in the race essentially hurts Kasich and Rubio the most, but the fact that moderates are backing him over Chris Christie hurts Christie as well. That is why I believe Scott Walker is Jeb Bush's biggest challenger for the nomination. If it comes down to a choice between them, I can tell you anyone who wants to win should support Bush because Walker is Romney 2.0

Well weird you compare the Trump Demographic to the Tea Party Demographic. Trump has equal support from both Moderates and Conservatives.

I myself like you would never support Trump. My issue with him is because of what he said about Mexicans illegal immigrants. His debate performance didn't strike me as Presidential Material either the other night either. He was just flat performance wise.

Yeah I don't get why the Tea Party dislikes Jeb because of a couple issues that they disagree with him on. Ronald Reagan once said if you agree with me 80% of the time you are a friend. Reagan didn't expect Republicans to agree with him 100% of the time.

True about the Tea Party that their cause started out good but they become so idealogical. Look at the 2011 Debt Ceiling Fit and the 2013 Government Shutdown. They are pretty much to blame for both. The Democrats did play politics though with the 2013 Government Shutdown like Harry Reid not letting bills to the floor for things that had to be funded anyway just to play politics.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'm a loyal Republican and will be supporting the nominee unless it's Trump.

The problem with the Republican Party today can be summed up in two words. Tea Party. What I'm about to say does not apply to everyone in the tea party, but it does apply to the majority. The Republican Party was redefined in a sense in the 1980 election with Ronald Reagan. The party became the party that is pro-military, for free markets and limited government, and a party that was socially conservative. However, conservatives like myself recognized that there is always a give and a take. For example, conservatives like me believe that taxes should be low, regulations should be at a minimal, and the federal government should spend only on those things it is designated to be responsible for in the constitution, plus the safety net which is social security, medicare, and medicaid. My point being, we believe in limited government, but not no government. In response to Barack Obama and to a lesser extent, George W. Bush, the tea party was formed. In the beginning, the tea party was about opposing government over reach and out of control spending.

The tea party has become a joke. It's now not folks opposing big government, it's old white folks who buy into conspiracy theories, who believe that immigrants are taking over the country, and who oppose Common Core. They have these ridiculous litmus tests that if you disagree with them on one issue, you are automatically a "RINO." The tea party has recently become a parody of it's former self. They now are opposed to free trade and yet, they claim to be for free markets. The reality is, the majority of those in the tea party do not understand the world they live in. They don't understand trade policy or economic policy in general. They fear anyone who looks different than them.

In 2010, the GOP won control of congress because of Obamacare. The tea party prevented us from winning the U.S. Senate, and we lost ground in 2012 because of the tea party. By 2014, Republican leaders confronted the tea party and we did very well. In this election, you basically have four tea party candidates. The first is Donald Trump. He's old, angry, white, and stupid. He's everything the tea party is made up of. You then have Ben Carson. There are some in the tea party who want to prove that their dislike of Obama isn't based on race, so they support Ben and besides, they hate all politicians. Ted Cruz has sought tea party backing more than anyone else, and because he comes up with great talking points, he has been successful in gaining their support. Rand Paul has tea party support, probably less so than the other three, because his father's supporters who are libertarian are in the tea party.

So, here comes Jeb Bush. He's definitely a free market supporter, he reduced taxes and the size and scope of state government. He's pro-military, pro-life, and for traditional marriage. He wants the federal government to be limited and yet, he's for the safety net. Moderates like him, some conservatives don't completely trust him, and the tea party hates him. Why? Well, for many conservatives, his position on immigration is just not where they stand. For the tea party, his position means he wants more brown people in America and is for amnesty, despite him opposing amnesty consistently. Finally, he believes in Common Core. Look, I disagree with him on this, but to go crazy over one differing position? That's silly.

My point is not to rant here, it's to prove a point. Jeb's opposition does come from some mainstream conservatives, but it mainly comes from the crazies. The same can be said about multiple candidates. With the crazy vote divided, Trump, Cruz, and Carson have no chance at this nomination. Santorum, Pataki, Fiorina, Graham, Gilmore, Perry, and Jindal either aren't connecting with voters and or have no money. That leaves us with Bush, Christie, Walker, Rubio, Huckabee, Kasich, and Paul. Paul's base of support is very limited, most mainstream conservatives and moderates won't back him. Huckabee has the loyalty of many social conservatives, but that isn't as large a part of the party as it once was. Mainstream conservatives who are distrustful of Bush are likely to either go with Walker, Kasich, or Rubio. Ideologically, Kasich and Rubio are most similar to Bush. Therefore, Bush being in the race essentially hurts Kasich and Rubio the most, but the fact that moderates are backing him over Chris Christie hurts Christie as well. That is why I believe Scott Walker is Jeb Bush's biggest challenger for the nomination. If it comes down to a choice between them, I can tell you anyone who wants to win should support Bush because Walker is Romney 2.0

Were it not for the Tea Party, the GOP would be languishing in the wildness unlike any other time since the Great Depression, and it would entirely be because of Bush 43's time in office.

The rebellion against the GOP establishment began with the Immigration issue in 2007. We had passed a comprehensive bill before, but the enforcement never came to pass and there was never the firm desire to make it successful by enforcing the laws thereafter. There were legitimate concerns that one amnesty merely begets another either through intentional inaction or lack of concern for the matter. Either way, there was no desire to trust the same people who broke the system in the first place when they came back with the same promises. However, the real animating factor was the notion that Wall Street got rewarded for destroying the economy whilst middle class Americans who had not had a raise since the Clinton years, got left high and dry. The Tea Party in its first two years allowed for the running against both the Democrats who failed ot fix the economy and the Bush era GOP. The problem is that fringe, peripheral and perenial joke candidates like Angle and O'Donnel hopped on the bandwagon and hijacked the movement in several primaries costing us seats we should have won. The very thing that destroyed the Tea PArty was its inherent anger and mistrust of the people who got the country into the current mess.

I don't completely disagree with you. The tea party was started with good intentions. But I think they have strayed from what they originally were. You and I happen to disagree as to when the tea party began. The 2007 immigration bill had one major flaw, and that is that it had a pathway to citizenship as opposed to legal status, but I think that would have been better than the status-quo. In life, there are compromises. There is a time to fight for ideology, but also a time to govern. The tea party is only interested in ideology.

I didn't say the Tea Party began with the immigration issue in 2007, I said the Conservative Revolt began in 2007. For the first time, an organized reaction had opposed the Bush era GOP establishment and won. For the first time, the base was not going to defer to the same old broken promises. When they saw the bailouts, when they saw the stimulus, which was structured to divide up the tax rebate instead of sending lump sum checks, meanwhile Paulsen was handing out blank lump sum checks to Wall Street investors, there was not only a lack of deference, it was going to be war. Huckabee mocked this on his TV show illustrating just how lame the tax rebate was.

There is never a time for compromise for the sake of compromise. There is time for principled, result oriented compromise, and most of these so called packages rest on the same people to carry out the same promises they made and failed before. What incentive do Democrats have to end cyclical amnesty when they can just legalize them next time and get new voters? What incentive to COC oriented Republicans have when they can rebuild the supply of cheap slave labor? All that to gain and all you have to do is fail to adequately enforce the laws. That is why the comprehensive model failed in 1986 and why some many Republicans don't trust that the promises will be kept now. They want reform, as in an actual fix to the real problem, not a compromise that solves a political problem temporarily for a group of people who cannot appeal to anyone with a net worth below six figures. The same people who have deluded themselves into thinking that merely by turning the illegals into non-voting un-person "legal" laborers who will slave away (or more likely be undercut by the next wave who comes in and works under the table), they will be hailed as their saviors and rewarded with 70% of their relative's votes. Not gonna happen, because the next question will be, where do you stand on a $10 minimum wage and citizenship.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The moderates supporting Trump, I would assume are the same group of moderates that were attracted to Romney in 2007. Middle Class, Northern/Midwestern and Southwestern, Ancy about getting boned by free trade and/or hostile to illegal immigration, but maybe moderate on one or two of the social issues like abortion and/or guns. There is a parallel group of Conservatives with the same demographics and similar concerns, but are pro-life, pro-gun etc, but they prioritized the economy and immigration.

Remember, there was a debate in late 2007 where Romney criticized free trade agreements and called for a form of fair trade where workers got a better deal. He added to this a critique of Chinese currency manipulation and that is how he got Trump's support in 2012. There is definately a good bit of overlap between the two's bases simply because all the other candidates hoped on the legalization bandwagon and that left a good 15% to 25% without a candidate because these types are not conservative enough for Cruz.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Its not the fault of people like Fuzzy Bear that (to use NJ as an example) Kean and Wittman made deals since "it was a time for compromise" based on faulty assumptions (that the stock market would continue to increase like it was in the 1990's) and thus they could drastically boost benefits, not raise taxes and reap the political rewards in the short term and never have to face the long term consequences.

The sad part is that people like fuzzy bear are probably going to end up being boned not because of Chris Christie, but because Kean and Wittman f..... them twenty and thirty years ago. On the state level, you can only tax so much from the rich or they will move to TN, FL or TX, and Rick Scott, Greg Abbott, and/or or Bill Haslaam would love nothing more for them to move down to ole Dixie. Then you end up boning the middle class, which itself has not had raises since the 1990's, talent will flee and companies will locate where the educated workforce is. The end result, you end up with less money then you started with, and yep you guessed it, the state employees still eat it in the end. There is no taxing your way out of the municipal and state debt/pension crisis.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

This isnt the Democratic party of Kerry & Gore anymore that lost im two close elections to Dubya; and its time for the GOP party to get that. Or the GOP party will be further left behind.  This is a Democratic party of Latinos, Blks and women that can do well in the electoral college period; established by Obama's landslide victories.

The Bushes established that the mismanages the economy in both administrations. I dont think voters wants to entrust them with another four years.

[dudeabides]

This isnt the Democratic party of Kerry & Gore anymore that lost im two close elections to Dubya; and its time for the GOP party to get that. Or the GOP party will be further left behind.  This is a Democratic party of Latinos, Blks and women that can do well in the electoral college period; established by Obama's landslide victories.

The Bushes established that the mismanages the economy in both administrations. I dont think voters wants to entrust them with another four years.

President Bill Clinton is also to blame for the financial collapse in 2008. President Bush gets blame for not reversing Clinton's policies. The collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as Lehman Brothers, was the beginning of the of the domino effect that led to what happened in the fall of 2008. President Clinton created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It was President Clinton who originally pushed to expand credit to people who really shouldn't have gotten credit.

[hopper]

This isnt the Democratic party of Kerry & Gore anymore that lost im two close elections to Dubya; and its time for the GOP party to get that. Or the GOP party will be further left behind.  This is a Democratic party of Latinos, Blks and women that can do well in the electoral college period; established by Obama's landslide victories.

The Bushes established that the mismanages the economy in both administrations. I dont think voters wants to entrust them with another four years.

I think the GOP gets that the country is changing demographically. Some of their voters don't get that though. They are still stuck in the same country demographically that they grew up in as teens in the 1960's and 1970's and graduated HS. That's just my opinion on the issue. I do think the people who grew up as teens in the 1980's and beyond get the changing demographic issue.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Anyone who think Bush did well at the debate is kidding themselves. But... as I've been stressing for a while now, his positive is that the money-men want him. As long as that holds, and he doesn't balls it up too badly, he'll likely be the nominee.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Bush did terribly at the debate, the only way that I can see him winning the nomination is if the many other conservative candidates stay in the race post-NH and Jeb could use that to rally the more establishment Republicans around him while Cruz, Huckabee, Paul, Trump, etc., divides the conservative/not establishment vote.

Christie, Kasich and Rubio would have to perform poorly so that Jeb can shore up the moderate/establishment vote and support behind him.

He will also have to do moderately well in NH and SC at least.

[Likely Voter]

Team Bush's next move has to be to figure out a way to get rid of the other 'establishment' friendly candidates. When you look at last cycle, Romney pretty much had that space to himself but Bush has to deal with Rubio, Kasich, Christie (and some others), all of whom can hart his chances in NH where Bush needs a win.  

Rubio is especially problematic as he is growing in support and seems to have universal good ratings with GOPers. Team Bush needs to figure out a way to drive up Rubio's negatives but without being seen as the attackers. I suspect there is going to be some strategic leaking to the media of anti-Rubio oppo in the coming weeks. We could even see some leaking to other campaigns, like how Romney's campaign leaked things to Bachmann's campaign to get her to attack Perry in the debates.

[xavier110]

Team Bush's next move has to be to figure out a way to get rid of the other 'establishment' friendly candidates. When you look at last cycle, Romney pretty much had that space to himself but Bush has to deal with Rubio, Kasich, Christie (and some others), all of whom can hart his chances in NH where Bush needs a win.  

Rubio is especially problematic as he is growing in support and seems to have universal good ratings with GOPers. Team Bush needs to figure out a way to drive up Rubio's negatives but without being seen as the attackers. I suspect there is going to be some strategic leaking to the media of anti-Rubio oppo in the coming weeks.

Yeah. I suspect this will happen sooner than the Bush people thought it would.

Rubio/Walker MUST be ready to go on the total offensive, since the Bush team has no qualms about playing dirty. Rubio/Walker have to basically say that the country is not ready for a third Bush and accuse him of being a moderate hero. If they do go this far, we basically have to accept that Bush won't be the nominee, since (A) I doubt he can withstand such attacks and (B) they wouldn't go that far without eliminating the chance of them being VP to Bush (so they themselves accept he probably won't be the nominee)

[Bull Moose Base]

Team Bush's next move has to be to figure out a way to get rid of the other 'establishment' friendly candidates. When you look at last cycle, Romney pretty much had that space to himself but Bush has to deal with Rubio, Kasich, Christie (and some others), all of whom can hart his chances in NH where Bush needs a win.  

Rubio is especially problematic as he is growing in support and seems to have universal good ratings with GOPers. Team Bush needs to figure out a way to drive up Rubio's negatives but without being seen as the attackers. I suspect there is going to be some strategic leaking to the media of anti-Rubio oppo in the coming weeks.

Yeah. I suspect this will happen sooner than the Bush people thought it would.

Rubio/Walker MUST be ready to go on the total offensive, since the Bush team has no qualms about playing dirty. Rubio/Walker have to basically say that the country is not ready for a third Bush and accuse him of being a moderate hero. If they do go this far, we basically have to accept that Bush won't be the nominee, since (A) I doubt he can withstand such attacks and (B) they wouldn't go that far without eliminating the chance of them being VP to Bush (so they themselves accept he probably won't be the nominee)

Bush and Rubio have already been hitting each other obliquely for months. We only have a single (online) poll published post-debate but PPP suggests Fiorina is moving up fast in Iowa, Kasich's spending in NH gave him a bit of a boost in NH even before the debate and both got good coverage post-debate. That said, I don't think there's an urgency necessarily. Romney (and Paul) didn't destroy Gingrich until December 2011 if memory serves, and he did it again in Florida in about a week.

New Hampshire is pretty wide open but Bush has a pretty good chance to take it.

That said, even if Trump implodes, whatever is driving his appeal poses serious hurdles for Bush.

[Likely Voter]

The problem is Rubio is a sleeping giant. Look at his favorable ratings. Everyone loves him. That is the danger. A few more good debate outings and he could easily be the establishment frontrunner once he passes the gravitas test.  Team Bush can't wait until they are trailing Rubio, they need to start driving up his negatives now. But as I said, they have to figure out a way to do it without getting their fingerprints on the weapon.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Yeah, in some ways I could see Rubio being a major threat to Bush, but right now he is not polling too well, but he has his high favorables to work with.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Remember the last time Rubio was facing an establishment candidate. Once he fell behind Rubio, it was curtains, Rubio just soared up and up and Crist eventually bolted because it was hopeless. So there is definately that history present.

[Simfan34]

Yes, but that was Charlie Crist. Jeb Bush may be many things, but at least he's Charlie Crist.