Prospects of a Contested Convention in a Trumpless primary
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 08:09:58 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Prospects of a Contested Convention in a Trumpless primary
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Prospects of a Contested Convention in a Trumpless primary  (Read 1211 times)
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 16, 2017, 10:52:02 AM »

If you believe that Trump's win was due to his Free Media dollars...Wouldn't that logically suggest Jeb should've won a Trumpless race?

Jeb's fundraising machine was way better than Hillary '08. Hillary '08 was actually running slightly behind Obama, Jeb was 3x over any of his nearest competitors. So, anytime a competitor would get close to Jeb, Jeb would be able to shut them down by spraying them w/ his cash hoard.

Trump was able to uniquely attack Jeb because of his Free Media, and third-party style attacks. E.G. the argument that GWB kept Americans safe would've been Jeb's defense of his brother if any other republican tried to Jeb for GWB, Trump used a set of third-party style attacks that disrupted the narrative.

Even if you think Jeb isn't strong enough to get 1237 in his own right, with his cash hoard, at the very least he should be able to block any other candidate from hitting 1237. So, in that scenario it would go to the convention, where really, only Cruz (knowing what we know now) was prepared to engage in a delegate fight.
Logged
Holy Unifying Centrist
DTC
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,201


Political Matrix
E: 9.53, S: 10.54

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 16, 2017, 11:44:58 AM »

I don't think Jeb Bush would win because the GOP base is pretty anti immigration and anti establishment. Cruz or Walker would probably be the nominee.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 16, 2017, 11:48:51 AM »

I don't think Jeb Bush would win because the GOP base is pretty anti immigration and anti establishment. Cruz or Walker would probably be the nominee.

In such a scenario it would suggest Jeb having enough pull to be a major player, even if he didn't win outright, he could've demanded the VP position under the candidates you mentioned at the convention.
Logged
bagelman
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,602
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -4.17

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 16, 2017, 12:22:43 PM »

Jeb Bush is so bad he would lose outright against Rand Paul in a 1on1 race.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 16, 2017, 12:47:58 PM »

Jeb Bush is so bad he would lose outright against Rand Paul in a 1on1 race.

But it wasn't just Jeb, every single candidate that attacked Trump collapsed in a similar short order. The only candidate that showed some resilience to Trump's attacks was Cruz.
Logged
60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED
ahugecat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 868


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 20, 2017, 05:04:09 PM »

In a Trumpless race, either Walker, Rubio, or Jeb! wins. No contested convention.

Cruz benefited by Trump's presence. Without Trump, Cruz IMO isn't even the Huckabee/Santorum of the 2016 race.

Walker would have likely won the Iowa caucuses, so we know what that means in a GOP race - death of a candidacy. However, Walker's gimmick was that he was able to "bridge the gap" between the Establishment and Tea Party. The question is - could he?

Jeb! of course had the money. The question for Jeb! is without Trump in the race, can he win New Hampshire? Jeb! would have got destroyed in Iowa (not as bad as he did, but likely 4th or lower) so IMO he'd have to win New Hampshire. He'd have to win too and not just come in second.

Rubio would have had a similar run as he did. He'd likely surge in Iowa and come in second. The question is does he meltdown like he did in real life?

Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, etc. etc. wouldn't be much of a factor. Ben may have had the surge he had in October 2015 but it'd end up the same way (I am assuming ceteris paribus - thus things like the Paris and San Bernardino terrorist attacks still happen). Rand Paul couldn't generate the excitement his father did.

IMO it comes down to Florida - if Jeb! won New Hampshire, survived Super Tuesday, and won Florida he'd win the nomination. If Rubio won Florida either he or Walker wins the nomination. Ohio would also be important - Kasich likely drops from the race if he loses New Hampshire.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 20, 2017, 05:59:08 PM »

In a Trumpless race, either Walker, Rubio, or Jeb! wins. No contested convention.

Cruz benefited by Trump's presence. Without Trump, Cruz IMO isn't even the Huckabee/Santorum of the 2016 race.

Walker would have likely won the Iowa caucuses, so we know what that means in a GOP race - death of a candidacy. However, Walker's gimmick was that he was able to "bridge the gap" between the Establishment and Tea Party. The question is - could he?

Jeb! of course had the money. The question for Jeb! is without Trump in the race, can he win New Hampshire? Jeb! would have got destroyed in Iowa (not as bad as he did, but likely 4th or lower) so IMO he'd have to win New Hampshire. He'd have to win too and not just come in second.

Rubio would have had a similar run as he did. He'd likely surge in Iowa and come in second. The question is does he meltdown like he did in real life?

Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, etc. etc. wouldn't be much of a factor. Ben may have had the surge he had in October 2015 but it'd end up the same way (I am assuming ceteris paribus - thus things like the Paris and San Bernardino terrorist attacks still happen). Rand Paul couldn't generate the excitement his father did.

IMO it comes down to Florida - if Jeb! won New Hampshire, survived Super Tuesday, and won Florida he'd win the nomination. If Rubio won Florida either he or Walker wins the nomination. Ohio would also be important - Kasich likely drops from the race if he loses New Hampshire.


Bush won IA in 2000 and lost NH
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 21, 2017, 12:29:30 PM »

In a Trumpless race, either Walker, Rubio, or Jeb! wins. No contested convention.

Cruz benefited by Trump's presence. Without Trump, Cruz IMO isn't even the Huckabee/Santorum of the 2016 race.

Walker would have likely won the Iowa caucuses, so we know what that means in a GOP race - death of a candidacy. However, Walker's gimmick was that he was able to "bridge the gap" between the Establishment and Tea Party. The question is - could he?

Jeb! of course had the money. The question for Jeb! is without Trump in the race, can he win New Hampshire? Jeb! would have got destroyed in Iowa (not as bad as he did, but likely 4th or lower) so IMO he'd have to win New Hampshire. He'd have to win too and not just come in second.

Rubio would have had a similar run as he did. He'd likely surge in Iowa and come in second. The question is does he meltdown like he did in real life?

Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, etc. etc. wouldn't be much of a factor. Ben may have had the surge he had in October 2015 but it'd end up the same way (I am assuming ceteris paribus - thus things like the Paris and San Bernardino terrorist attacks still happen). Rand Paul couldn't generate the excitement his father did.

IMO it comes down to Florida - if Jeb! won New Hampshire, survived Super Tuesday, and won Florida he'd win the nomination. If Rubio won Florida either he or Walker wins the nomination. Ohio would also be important - Kasich likely drops from the race if he loses New Hampshire.

Jeb would've taken NH, he was the only moderate GOPer of the candidates you mention, making him suitable to the NH primary demos.

Almost all of Kasich's vote would've gotten behind Jeb, as Jeb would've been able to consolidate Moderate GOPers.


As far as Cruz goes, Cruz actually had support from the evangelical/religious network and had a comprehensive ground game, his fundraising was also pretty decent. He actually had a decent grassroots campaign at a decent cost.

It's underappreciated to the extent that Cruz was able to defang Huckabee/Santorum, the latter two wanted a federal ban on gay marriage, Cruz had to work very carefully to consolidate those voters. Cruz would've had a large niche in the South.

If any candidate was inflated by Trump's presence it was Rubio. The only reason why the establishment kept constantly trying to rehabilitate rubio after his many issues was due to being the primary alternative to Cruz/Trump.

It's critical to determine where Trump voters would've gone. Rubio & Trump had polar opposite bases. Rubio's supporters were conservatives who lived in urban areas, Trump supporters were rural voters + moderates who lived in urban areas. W/O Trump, his rural voters would've mainly gone Walker & to some extent Cruz, while Trump's moderate pro-PP/pro-universal healthcare type liberal republican voters would've rallied behind the main GOP moderate candidate, which would've been Jeb.

So Jeb gets the NE + West Coast, Cruz gets the South, and the midwest is split 3-ways with the bullk of Midwestern support going to Walker, it's easy to see how there would've been a contested convention.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 21, 2017, 02:57:26 PM »

Without Trump, Jeb begins his slide in December instead of earlier. Cruz and Carson are very close in Iowa, Kasich wins NH, thus gaining the endorsement of Sandoval and Graham, and Kasich gets second in SC and first in NV. Rubio wins SC and gets second in NV.

From there, I think Kasich wins.
Logged
60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED
ahugecat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 868


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 22, 2017, 03:50:02 PM »

Without Trump, Jeb begins his slide in December instead of earlier. Cruz and Carson are very close in Iowa, Kasich wins NH, thus gaining the endorsement of Sandoval and Graham, and Kasich gets second in SC and first in NV. Rubio wins SC and gets second in NV.

From there, I think Kasich wins.

Assuming ceteris paribus sans Trump - so meaning things like the Paris attacks happen, Carson would have been doomed no matter what.

Walker would have been duking it out with Cruz for Iowa. The one thing though is Cruz really used Trump's candidacy to his advantage, so Walker likely would have won Iowa.
Logged
60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED
ahugecat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 868


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 22, 2017, 03:57:04 PM »

In a Trumpless race, either Walker, Rubio, or Jeb! wins. No contested convention.

Cruz benefited by Trump's presence. Without Trump, Cruz IMO isn't even the Huckabee/Santorum of the 2016 race.

Walker would have likely won the Iowa caucuses, so we know what that means in a GOP race - death of a candidacy. However, Walker's gimmick was that he was able to "bridge the gap" between the Establishment and Tea Party. The question is - could he?

Jeb! of course had the money. The question for Jeb! is without Trump in the race, can he win New Hampshire? Jeb! would have got destroyed in Iowa (not as bad as he did, but likely 4th or lower) so IMO he'd have to win New Hampshire. He'd have to win too and not just come in second.

Rubio would have had a similar run as he did. He'd likely surge in Iowa and come in second. The question is does he meltdown like he did in real life?

Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, etc. etc. wouldn't be much of a factor. Ben may have had the surge he had in October 2015 but it'd end up the same way (I am assuming ceteris paribus - thus things like the Paris and San Bernardino terrorist attacks still happen). Rand Paul couldn't generate the excitement his father did.

IMO it comes down to Florida - if Jeb! won New Hampshire, survived Super Tuesday, and won Florida he'd win the nomination. If Rubio won Florida either he or Walker wins the nomination. Ohio would also be important - Kasich likely drops from the race if he loses New Hampshire.


Bush won IA in 2000 and lost NH

Iowa doesn't have a good track record for the GOP nominee. In 1980 they chose Bush. In 1988 they chose Dole. Then of course Huckabee, Santorum, and Cruz the last 3 times.

Cruz was done the second he won Iowa which is why I focused on Rubio over Cruz.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 23, 2017, 06:15:13 AM »

In a Trumpless race, either Walker, Rubio, or Jeb! wins. No contested convention.

Cruz benefited by Trump's presence. Without Trump, Cruz IMO isn't even the Huckabee/Santorum of the 2016 race.

Walker would have likely won the Iowa caucuses, so we know what that means in a GOP race - death of a candidacy. However, Walker's gimmick was that he was able to "bridge the gap" between the Establishment and Tea Party. The question is - could he?

Jeb! of course had the money. The question for Jeb! is without Trump in the race, can he win New Hampshire? Jeb! would have got destroyed in Iowa (not as bad as he did, but likely 4th or lower) so IMO he'd have to win New Hampshire. He'd have to win too and not just come in second.

Rubio would have had a similar run as he did. He'd likely surge in Iowa and come in second. The question is does he meltdown like he did in real life?

Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, etc. etc. wouldn't be much of a factor. Ben may have had the surge he had in October 2015 but it'd end up the same way (I am assuming ceteris paribus - thus things like the Paris and San Bernardino terrorist attacks still happen). Rand Paul couldn't generate the excitement his father did.

IMO it comes down to Florida - if Jeb! won New Hampshire, survived Super Tuesday, and won Florida he'd win the nomination. If Rubio won Florida either he or Walker wins the nomination. Ohio would also be important - Kasich likely drops from the race if he loses New Hampshire.


Bush won IA in 2000 and lost NH

Iowa doesn't have a good track record for the GOP nominee. In 1980 they chose Bush. In 1988 they chose Dole. Then of course Huckabee, Santorum, and Cruz the last 3 times.

Cruz was done the second he won Iowa which is why I focused on Rubio over Cruz.

You're assuming as if IA is some kind of omen, it really isn't. Romney was initially assumed to have won IA in 2012 until weeks later the final count had Santorum winning.

Cruz's path was based on Bush's path, that's the kind of religious strategy he was running. It was also Obama's path in '08. As for rubio, rubio's voters just ended up being shown to be a subset of a certain type of Cruz voter - Neoconservatives. In addition, Cruz also had religious voters.
Logged
The Govanah Jake
Jake Jewvinivisk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,234


Political Matrix
E: -2.39, S: -5.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 25, 2017, 07:27:43 PM »

I could see Cruz very easily riding the anti-establishment wave (though on a more tea party style populism) and winning the nomination. Jeb! is proven to be a weak candidate and was not in the right climate for any Bush to win and would still get crushed. Rubio and Kasich are the wildcarda and could hamper Cruz's efforts. I do see however that Rubio and Kasich do better then with Trump and Kasich could take some more Midwesten and northern states and Rubio would have a better chance at South Carolina and Florida.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 25, 2017, 09:02:29 PM »

I could see Cruz very easily riding the anti-establishment wave (though on a more tea party style populism) and winning the nomination. Jeb! is proven to be a weak candidate and was not in the right climate for any Bush to win and would still get crushed. Rubio and Kasich are the wildcarda and could hamper Cruz's efforts. I do see however that Rubio and Kasich do better then with Trump and Kasich could take some more Midwesten and northern states and Rubio would have a better chance at South Carolina and Florida.

Every single candidate that attacked Trump collapsed. The Jeb='weaker than everyone else' assessment ignores that rubio/cruz refused to attack Trump until late and especially rubio when he attacked he collapsed as quickly as Jeb did.
Logged
The Govanah Jake
Jake Jewvinivisk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,234


Political Matrix
E: -2.39, S: -5.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: October 25, 2017, 09:20:51 PM »

I could see Cruz very easily riding the anti-establishment wave (though on a more tea party style populism) and winning the nomination. Jeb! is proven to be a weak candidate and was not in the right climate for any Bush to win and would still get crushed. Rubio and Kasich are the wildcarda and could hamper Cruz's efforts. I do see however that Rubio and Kasich do better then with Trump and Kasich could take some more Midwesten and northern states and Rubio would have a better chance at South Carolina and Florida.

Every single candidate that attacked Trump collapsed. The Jeb='weaker than everyone else' assessment ignores that rubio/cruz refused to attack Trump until late and especially rubio when he attacked he collapsed as quickly as Jeb did.

That is indeed true. When major republican opponents did attack Trump like in the case of Cruz of and Rubio, it almost instantly backfired and flipped on that person causing there campaigns to falter. Jeb!, unlike Rubio or Cruz, went on the offensive against trump early on in the late 2015, early 2016 campaign season and due to this his campaign never made it anywhere besides a hundred million dollars wasted money. Though his demise this quickly should show his quality as a candidate and the mood of the electorate. Such a well funded, well recognized republican like Jeb! should of endured such Trump attacks was the prevailing theory, but that failed to get the mood of the base of such republican types and he faltered. I see what you mean that without Trump, Jeb! would not have been attacked as hard (unless Cruz went on the offensive early) and as early and may have lasted longer as a viable candidate, but he would fail due to the anti-establishment mood the republican primary base felt and showed which led to the rose of Trump. And as said, I believe Cruz could easily fit that mantle. I'm not saying Jeb! is weaker then everyone else (there are certainly weaker candidates, Paul comes to mind) but such a well managed and funded campaign should of much bettered handled attacks from candidates while taking into account the mood of the primary's. I don't see why this changes without Trump and would repeat the same mistakes and fail. Which in my opinion made Jeb! a weak candidate in this cycle and in a cycle without Trump.
Logged
Lechasseur
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,757


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: October 26, 2017, 08:00:17 AM »

I don't think there would have been a contested convention. I think without Trump, Walker would win the nomination because he would have been about the only candidate who I think would have gotten significant support from both the Establishment and the populist/Tea Party types. The only reason I'd have any doubt about this is because Walker doesn't have much charisma (but when you get down to it, except maybe for Trump, none of the serious contenders for the nomination did). Well that's my prediction, with or without a contested convention, I think the GOP nominee would have been Scott Walker. And I could see him going on to defeat Clinton in November (minus Michigan).
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 26, 2017, 11:02:23 AM »

I don't think there would have been a contested convention. I think without Trump, Walker would win the nomination because he would have been about the only candidate who I think would have gotten significant support from both the Establishment and the populist/Tea Party types. The only reason I'd have any doubt about this is because Walker doesn't have much charisma (but when you get down to it, except maybe for Trump, none of the serious contenders for the nomination did). Well that's my prediction, with or without a contested convention, I think the GOP nominee would have been Scott Walker. And I could see him going on to defeat Clinton in November (minus Michigan).

The problem is as you say, you have doubts. In such in an event, at a convention, Walker's rivals may have been able to pool their delegates together for a joint ticket to usurp Walker, such as the Cruz & Jeb example I mentioned above. Walker would take the bulk of the 'populist' type vote, but if a Jeb/Kasich-type took on a sizable portion of the moderate vote, that might've hampered Walker's prospects going into a contested convention. Walker likely would've been a major player, but the danger for him is that he wouldn't be the only major player.

Imagine it's mainly a Jeb/Kasich v. Walker v. Cruz, instead of a one-on-one. Walker may have beaten any of those candidates for the reasons you mentioned (establishment + tea party friendly) in a one-on-one, but in the likely event that it wouldn't be a one-on-one, pressure would've been put on Walker's campaign.
Logged
Lechasseur
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,757


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 26, 2017, 11:04:33 AM »

I don't think there would have been a contested convention. I think without Trump, Walker would win the nomination because he would have been about the only candidate who I think would have gotten significant support from both the Establishment and the populist/Tea Party types. The only reason I'd have any doubt about this is because Walker doesn't have much charisma (but when you get down to it, except maybe for Trump, none of the serious contenders for the nomination did). Well that's my prediction, with or without a contested convention, I think the GOP nominee would have been Scott Walker. And I could see him going on to defeat Clinton in November (minus Michigan).

The problem is as you say, you have doubts. In such in an event, at a convention, Walker's rivals may have been able to pool their delegates together for a joint ticket to usurp Walker, such as the Cruz & Jeb example I mentioned above. Walker would take the bulk of the 'populist' type vote, but if a Jeb/Kasich-type took on a sizable portion of the moderate vote, that might've hampered Walker's prospects going into a contested convention. Walker likely would've been a major player, but the danger for him is that he wouldn't be the only major player.

Imagine it's mainly a Jeb/Kasich v. Walker v. Cruz, instead of a one-on-one, Walker would beat Cruz for the reasons you mention (establishment friendly) in a one-on-one, but in the likely event that it wouldn't be a one-on-one, pressure would've been put on Walker's campaign.

That's true, but at that point there may have been a compromise candidate, I have a hard time seeing Bush being acceptable to populists or vice versa for Cruz, at anyrate I think if either of those two got the nomination they'd probably lose in November.
Logged
60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED
ahugecat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 868


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: October 26, 2017, 03:22:54 PM »

I never understood why the Establishment backed Jeb! so much. Not nearly as much as Romney, but he was the clear Establishment favorite. The "Romney" of 2016.

With Romney, he at least ran a national campaign just 4 years earlier, and was relevant from 2009-2011 in terms of the "fight" against Obama.

Not only that, but he was the runner-up and the runner-ups always get a second chance in the GOP. Romney also got lucky and ran against a bunch of clowns as well. I like Ron Paul but he's just not a national candidate, and Santorum focused way too much on social issues.

However, it should have been clear that despite the clown car, the success of random candidates (Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, etc. etc.) showed that the GOP base DIDN'T want a typical establishment nominee. They eventually were forced to settle on Romney, but only after everything else had been tried.

So my question is why the hell did the Establishment not only double down, but select JEB BUSH of all people?

- The Bush name is toxic
- As Establishment as Romney was, a Bush makes him look like a full blown outsider
- Jeb Bush did nothing but insult GOP primary voters
- They gave him literally $130 million and they were clearly expecting Jeb! to buy his way into the nomination/Presidency
- He did NOTHING for the 8 years Obama was President. He campaigned a little bit in 2014 to set up for 2016, and he did some speech about education in 2012 but other than that he was gone. He wasn't there for the fight against Obama and he just shows up expecting a semi-coronation?
- He hasn't had a campaign since 2002, and never a national one. It was clear he was super rusty in 2016

It's just so insulting they ran him. What did they expect? They were so arrogant to think they could just buy the nomination. They didn't even want to fight for it in 2016 like they did in 2012. Funnily enough they made Florida winner-take-all in order to make it easy for Jeb! to win the nomination, but instead backfired on them and helped accelerate Trump's path. Glorious!

Should've backed Rubio, but I think Rubio has some dirt on him.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: October 26, 2017, 08:48:27 PM »

I never understood why the Establishment backed Jeb! so much. Not nearly as much as Romney, but he was the clear Establishment favorite. The "Romney" of 2016.

With Romney, he at least ran a national campaign just 4 years earlier, and was relevant from 2009-2011 in terms of the "fight" against Obama.

Not only that, but he was the runner-up and the runner-ups always get a second chance in the GOP. Romney also got lucky and ran against a bunch of clowns as well. I like Ron Paul but he's just not a national candidate, and Santorum focused way too much on social issues.

However, it should have been clear that despite the clown car, the success of random candidates (Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, etc. etc.) showed that the GOP base DIDN'T want a typical establishment nominee. They eventually were forced to settle on Romney, but only after everything else had been tried.

So my question is why the hell did the Establishment not only double down, but select JEB BUSH of all people?

- The Bush name is toxic
- As Establishment as Romney was, a Bush makes him look like a full blown outsider
- Jeb Bush did nothing but insult GOP primary voters
- They gave him literally $130 million and they were clearly expecting Jeb! to buy his way into the nomination/Presidency
- He did NOTHING for the 8 years Obama was President. He campaigned a little bit in 2014 to set up for 2016, and he did some speech about education in 2012 but other than that he was gone. He wasn't there for the fight against Obama and he just shows up expecting a semi-coronation?
- He hasn't had a campaign since 2002, and never a national one. It was clear he was super rusty in 2016

It's just so insulting they ran him. What did they expect? They were so arrogant to think they could just buy the nomination. They didn't even want to fight for it in 2016 like they did in 2012. Funnily enough they made Florida winner-take-all in order to make it easy for Jeb! to win the nomination, but instead backfired on them and helped accelerate Trump's path. Glorious!

Should've backed Rubio, but I think Rubio has some dirt on him.

The whole GOP autospy was inspired by Jeb's political model. Jeb basically built the GOP's Latino outreach strategy & he also built up the FL GOP. RNC made a collective decision after 2012 to outreach to Latinos w/ Gang of 8, which obviously failed. Jeb had plans to run in 2016 since 2009, Rubio was actually a Jeb loyalist back then and Jeb was offered Martinez's seat, Jeb built up Rubio's career and assumed that a loyalist placeholder would be taking over that seat; had Jeb known Rubio was going to run, he never would've let Rubio take it.

Donors in general like experienced governors with track records who have delivered on their results, that's why Mccain was always on shaky ground, most of the establishment tacitly backed Romney early on in '07/'08, but Mccain was able to use his 'maverick' status to his advantage.

Romney had the advantage of being the founder of Bain Capital; donors were easily able to level with him. Romney was also exploring another run, until Jeb formally announced.

Could you imagine Rubio in a meeting with high-profile donors? He would be regurgitating overly simplistic memorized lines in response to serious detailed questions, which from their perspective would reflect a lack of professionalism, experience, qualification and respect. Rubio isn't on the intellectual caliber of the donors, he is also slightly more socially conservative than they would like. So, Jeb had the latino outreach card combined with experience combined with their preferred level of moderation.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: October 26, 2017, 08:58:36 PM »

Also, people should keep the context in mind- George W. Bush  had an 88% approval rating amongst republicans right before Jeb launched.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/03/politics/george-w-bush-favorability-ratings/index.html

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/06/02/obama,.economy.poll.pdf

Trump used third party style attacks against Jeb which a normal republican wouldn't have been able to utilize, such as Trump's attacks on Bush for 9/11.
Logged
Lechasseur
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,757


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: October 27, 2017, 09:16:04 AM »
« Edited: October 27, 2017, 09:18:37 AM by Lechasseur »

I never understood why the Establishment backed Jeb! so much. Not nearly as much as Romney, but he was the clear Establishment favorite. The "Romney" of 2016.

With Romney, he at least ran a national campaign just 4 years earlier, and was relevant from 2009-2011 in terms of the "fight" against Obama.

Not only that, but he was the runner-up and the runner-ups always get a second chance in the GOP. Romney also got lucky and ran against a bunch of clowns as well. I like Ron Paul but he's just not a national candidate, and Santorum focused way too much on social issues.

However, it should have been clear that despite the clown car, the success of random candidates (Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, etc. etc.) showed that the GOP base DIDN'T want a typical establishment nominee. They eventually were forced to settle on Romney, but only after everything else had been tried.

So my question is why the hell did the Establishment not only double down, but select JEB BUSH of all people?

- The Bush name is toxic
- As Establishment as Romney was, a Bush makes him look like a full blown outsider
- Jeb Bush did nothing but insult GOP primary voters
- They gave him literally $130 million and they were clearly expecting Jeb! to buy his way into the nomination/Presidency
- He did NOTHING for the 8 years Obama was President. He campaigned a little bit in 2014 to set up for 2016, and he did some speech about education in 2012 but other than that he was gone. He wasn't there for the fight against Obama and he just shows up expecting a semi-coronation?
- He hasn't had a campaign since 2002, and never a national one. It was clear he was super rusty in 2016

It's just so insulting they ran him. What did they expect? They were so arrogant to think they could just buy the nomination. They didn't even want to fight for it in 2016 like they did in 2012. Funnily enough they made Florida winner-take-all in order to make it easy for Jeb! to win the nomination, but instead backfired on them and helped accelerate Trump's path. Glorious!

Should've backed Rubio, but I think Rubio has some dirt on him.

The whole GOP autospy was inspired by Jeb's political model. Jeb basically built the GOP's Latino outreach strategy & he also built up the FL GOP. RNC made a collective decision after 2012 to outreach to Latinos w/ Gang of 8, which obviously failed. Jeb had plans to run in 2016 since 2009, Rubio was actually a Jeb loyalist back then and Jeb was offered Martinez's seat, Jeb built up Rubio's career and assumed that a loyalist placeholder would be taking over that seat; had Jeb known Rubio was going to run, he never would've let Rubio take it.

Donors in general like experienced governors with track records who have delivered on their results, that's why Mccain was always on shaky ground, most of the establishment tacitly backed Romney early on in '07/'08, but Mccain was able to use his 'maverick' status to his advantage.

Romney had the advantage of being the founder of Bain Capital; donors were easily able to level with him. Romney was also exploring another run, until Jeb formally announced.

Could you imagine Rubio in a meeting with high-profile donors? He would be regurgitating overly simplistic memorized lines in response to serious detailed questions, which from their perspective would reflect a lack of professionalism, experience, qualification and respect. Rubio isn't on the intellectual caliber of the donors, he is also slightly more socially conservative than they would like. So, Jeb had the latino outreach card combined with experience combined with their preferred level of moderation.

Yeah I agree with your analysis.

Also, people should keep the context in mind- George W. Bush  had an 88% approval rating amongst republicans right before Jeb launched.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/03/politics/george-w-bush-favorability-ratings/index.html

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/06/02/obama,.economy.poll.pdf

Trump used third party style attacks against Jeb which a normal republican wouldn't have been able to utilize, such as Trump's attacks on Bush for 9/11.

That's true, Trump managed to lower George W. Bush's approval rating with Republicans but I don't think that's what wrecked Jeb's campaign; I think what doomed Jeb was his position on immigration. Had Jeb's views on immigration been more in line with those of Republican voters he would almost certainly have been the nominee (even had he been at the same level as Romney on the question, but supporting full blown amnesty wasn't going to cut it).

The irony is I remember at the time I thought Jeb would have been the most electable establishment candidate but in hindsight I think Romney would have been their best bet out of ''pure'' establishment candidates. I think Romney could have won against Clinton (but it would have still been risky to run him again), not convinced for Rubio but it would still be possible but Jeb would have almost certainly lost.

I still think the establishment's best bet would have been Scott Walker, despite his flaws, he was friendly to the establishment but had appeal to the populist wing of the party, and it should have been clear that no establishment candidate who didn't have some populist appeal of some sort wasn't going to have problems in terms of electability.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.068 seconds with 13 queries.