Poll: Just 1 in 4 Republicans want Jeb Bush to run, many slam as 'RINO'

[jct74]

Poll: Just 1 in 4 Republicans want Jeb Bush to run, many slam as 'RINO'

BY PAUL BEDARD | APRIL 23, 2014 AT 9:40 AM

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, considering a 2016 presidential bid, does not have the support of his party's base, with just one in four Republicans eager for him to run and an even worse 18 percent of self-identified conservatives backing his bid.

With the GOP considering a slew of conservative potential candidates, including former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Sens. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, a new Economist/YouGov poll found that among the right, Bush is considered too moderate.

A word bubble produced by the poll showed the hurdles he faces entering the presidential race. The acronym RINO, or “Republican in name only,” is prominent, as is “legacy” and “Bush,” and the polling firm said that the public isn’t keen on having a third Bush presidency.

It is the latest from the polling duo that sizes up the standing of key 2016 candidates. It is a general poll of 1,000 Americans that included about 340 self-identified conservatives and 223 Republicans. While not a huge number, the pollster indicated that it was large enough to size up the candidates among the party faithful.

...

read more:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/poll-just-1-in-4-republicans-want-jeb-bush-to-run-slammed-as-rino/article/2547594

[jct74]

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2014-04-21/jeb3a.jpg

[jct74]

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2014-04-21/jeb1a.jpg

[erowe1]

1 in 4 seems uncomfortably high.

[jct74]

Bush’s problems with Republicans may be similar to those faced by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. A large minority of Republicans dislike both men. 25% of Republicans view Bush unfavorably, as do nearly four in ten Americans overall.

Christie is disliked by even more Republicans (37% in this week’s poll). By contrast, only 15% of Republicans see Rand Paul negatively.

https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/04/21/jeb-bush-reputation-audit/

[jct74]

Jeb Bush: ‘I’m thinking about running for president’

Cristina Corbin
April 23, 2014

Jeb Bush said Wednesday he's "thinking about running for president," in his most direct statement yet about a possible 2016 run.

The former Florida governor spoke at a Catholic school benefit in New York Wednesday morning. He previously has said he'll make a decision on whether to run for president before the end of this year, making clear that he was considering the possibility.

But his comments on Wednesday appeared to be more direct. Asked what his "immediate plans" were, he said, according to an attendee: "I'm thinking about running for president."

The answer was met with applause and a standing ovation, after which Bush said: "Can someone call my mother so she can hear this?" the source told FoxNews.com.

His mother, Barbara Bush, has previously dismissed the prospect of another son running for president, saying "We've had enough Bushes." She later backed off that view, and even seemed to tout a possible Jeb Bush candidacy in a recent Fox News interview.

...

read more:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/23/jeb-bush-im-thinking-about-running-for-president/

[acptulsa]

Christie is disliked by even more Republicans (37% in this week’s poll). By contrast, only 15% of Republicans see Rand Paul negatively.

Is this in spite of the liberal media's obvious efforts to marginalize Paul and play the others up, or because of them?

[CPUd]

With all the Reagan Republicans planning to run, he could have the distinction of being the first Bush Republican in the race.

[menciusmoldbug]

read more:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/23/jeb-bush-im-thinking-about-running-for-president/

This is fantastic news. Forcing Jeb Bush and Chris Christie to compete for the establishment vote is likely to offset some of the harm caused by having Ted Cruz fight Rand Paul for the Tea Party vote.

[Peace&Freedom]

Remember how Romney had only a weak 'roof' of 25-30% of Republicans wanting him to run? The establishment shill GOP candidate always has lukewarm support, so the mainstream/elite's technique is to always position him as the inevitable frontrunner, while diminishing and dividing the rest of the field so that they cancel each other out. This works through Iowa an NH. Watch for the MSM's drumbeat of, "X moderate is electable, maybe Y as well, but that's it, everybody else is second tier, or worse."

The leadership will then push social conservative candidates who divide that voting bloc such that the anointed moderate prevails in SC and other southern states, despite a low base vote. Bush is poised to repeat this process like Mitt and McCain before him, unless Rand can prevail over the media's coming soft blackout or "second tiering" of his candidacy.

[jtstellar]

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2014-04-21/jeb3a.jpg

lol

[erowe1]

This is fantastic news. Forcing Jeb Bush and Chris Christie to compete for the establishment vote is likely to offset some of the harm caused by having Ted Cruz fight Rand Paul for the Tea Party vote.

I don't see that as very much of a competition. If Bush runs, he'll be the consensus candidate for the establishment. Christie won't be able to compete with him for the big money and endorsements.

[acptulsa]

The leadership will then push social conservative candidates who divide that voting bloc such that the anointed moderate prevails in SC and other southern states, despite a low base vote. Bush is poised to repeat this process like Mitt and McCain before him, unless Rand can prevail over the media's coming soft blackout or "second tiering" of his candidacy.

It's as much our job as it is his.

The media likes to tell Republicans that Swing voters will only vote for Democrats and almost-Democrats. But voters never vote for almost-Democrats. If they want to vote for a Democrat they vote for the real thing. If they don't want to vote for a Democrat they get pissed when both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party give them Democrats to choose from. Never fails.

It's clearly up to us to make Republicans see that the winning Republican stands up for his principles, he doesn't run from them. McCain made a career of working with Democrats from Feingold to Kennedy. Reagan stood up to them and called them to task for their excesses. Which one got enough crossover votes to win a presidential election or two?

[ObiRandKenobi]

he is polling well at msnbc

[Peace&Freedom]

It's clearly up to us to make Republicans see that the winning Republican stands up for his principles, he doesn't run from them. McCain made a career of working with Democrats from Feingold to Kennedy. Reagan stood up to them and called them to task for their excesses. Which one got enough crossover votes to win a presidential election or two?

We know what we would like to see from the rank and file GOP, but they have fallen for the "divide the conservative base, so the milquetoast moderate wins the nomination" elite strategy pretty consistently. The only thing that went even slightly wrong with their basic scheme in 2012 was Gov. Perry, who ran such a awful campaign that by the time of the SC primary, the candidate could not split the socon vote enough with Newt to allow Romney to win SC. That loss put severe skids on Mitt's momentum that took him weeks to recover from, but with the media and GOP leadership drumbeat behind him, he did anyway. This is the severity and general effectiveness of the pattern that we are tasked to break.

[Cleaner44]

Bush won't get off the ground in the primaries. Just keep talking to other Republican voters about how he is a RINO and how McCain and Romney proved that doesn't work. We will own the primary discussion. Regular Republican voters are tired of losing and will gladly back Rand.

[Brian4Liberty]

Related:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?450420-Jeb-Bush-scandals-story-scrubbed-by-Mother-Jones!

[CPUd]

I could see a lot of Democrats voting for Jeb in open primary states.

[erowe1]

I could see a lot of Democrats voting for Jeb in open primary states.

No chance of that. If there's a big Dem crossover strategy, then it will be in hopes of sabotaging the presumptive nominee by voting for the 2nd place guy, not helping the establishment pick win. It will be the same idea as Operation Chaos, and other instances like it, such as McCain beating Bush in Michigan in 2000.

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

Holy shit, one in four Republicans view Jeb Bush as a RINO? Fuck...one in four Republicans are Republicans In Name Only. Allow me to offer the group a glimpse into the very near future: the 2016 GOP Nominating Convention.

"...It is the opinion of the Chair that Jeb Bush is the only candidate that can guarantee success in the 2016 Presidential Election."

Unless...is there a chance...a small one, that folks are waking the hell up? Or is this wishful thinking?

I mean, isn't that the kind of genius fucking thinking that gave us the Mittster in 2012?

[anaconda]

New York Times article from 3 days ago describes some pretty unflattering business dealings by the Jebster:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/21/us/politics/jeb-bushs-rush-to-make-money-may-be-hurdle.html?_r=0

[anaconda]

Holy shit, one in four Republicans view Jeb Bush as a RINO?

Where are you seeing that? I thought the "1-in-four" number was the per cent that want Jeb to run?

[DFF]

No more Bush's and no more Clinton's.

Or, yeah to both, to accelerate the collapse, then we can start rebuilding.

[acptulsa]

No chance of that. If there's a big Dem crossover strategy, then it will be in hopes of sabotaging the presumptive nominee by voting for the 2nd place guy, not helping the establishment pick win. It will be the same idea as Operation Chaos, and other instances like it, such as McCain beating Bush in Michigan in 2000.

I don't know why you're assuming Democrats are stupid, but to nominate Bush is to guarantee another four years of a Democrat in the White House, and Democrats know it as well as Republicans do.

[erowe1]

I don't know why you're assuming Democrats are stupid, but to nominate Bush is to guarantee another four years of a Democrat in the White House, and Democrats know it as well as Republicans do.

I don't agree. They will, probably rightly, see Bush as the most electable candidate. He definitely has the most fund raising potential.

[acptulsa]

Well, I think there will be more Democrats voting for Rand Paul, because they're as sick as we are of voting against people.

[menciusmoldbug]

I don't agree. They will, probably rightly, see Bush as the most electable candidate. He definitely has the most fund raising potential.

fund raising potential != electable

Bush is running TEN POINTS WORSE than Rand against Hillary in Colorado: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/colorado/release-detail?ReleaseID=2034

Romney consistently out-polled all other potential Republican candidates in hypothetical head-to-heads with Obama, which is a large part of the reason why the establishment rallied around him. They aren't going to throw their weight behind Bush if he looks like a sure loser, especially if there's another candidate in the wings (Rand) who looks to do much better.

[acptulsa]

Romney consistently out-polled all other potential Republican candidates in hypothetical head-to-heads with Obama except for He Who Must Not Be Named...

Fixed that for you.

[Peace&Freedom]

fund raising potential != electable

Bush is running TEN POINTS WORSE than Rand against Hillary in Colorado: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/colorado/release-detail?ReleaseID=2034

Romney consistently out-polled all other potential Republican candidates in hypothetical head-to-heads with Obama, which is a large part of the reason why the establishment rallied around him. They aren't going to throw their weight behind Bush if he looks like a sure loser, especially if there's another candidate in the wings (Rand) who looks to do much better.

More precisely, the media talked UP Romney as the main head-to-head guy versus Obama, much less about any others, so of course he out-polled the others. The estalishment rallied around him because he had been selected to have the inside track for the nomination, probably as payback for his agreeing to suspend his 2008 run so as not to further damage McCain. The establishment may want a sure loser to face Hillary in 2016, whereas Rand would certainly endanger that plan. They're not looking after the public or rank and file Republicans, they are looking after the interests of the establishment.

[Brian4Liberty]

Fox News spent a long time this morning (featuring Dana Perino) talking positively about the Jeb Bush run. They were talking about a race where the two candidates are known by their first names. Jeb vs. Hillary. The sheeple are being conditioned. The propagandists believe they can make it a lesser of two evils for everyone on the right who doesn't like Hillary. "Don't like Jeb? Too bad, it's either him or Hillary. Make your false choice, peons."

[acptulsa]

They were talking about a race where the two candidates are known by their first names. Jeb vs. Hillary.

LOLOLOL

Or, to put it another way, the Bushes and Clintons want to be emperors but they don't want us to think about the fact that they have established a duo-dynasty.

Don't think about the fact that the Clintons and Bushes are trying to set themselves up as royalty! Just be happy that these wonderful people are on a first name basis with a pitiful little mundane like you...

Anyone capture that vid? It should be required viewing for anyone who still thinks there's a difference between the Democratic and Republican Parties.

[Brian4Liberty]

Judith Miller was just on Fox and they did a ten minute piece talking about the wonders of Hillary Clinton. They are going to be pushing the Hillary vs. Jeb propaganda hard.

[acptulsa]

Judith Miller was just on Fox and they did a ten minute piece talking about the wonders of Hillary Clinton. They are going to be pushing the Hillary vs. Jeb propaganda hard.

Great!

All we have to do is keep saying, over and over, 'Bush vs. Clinton,' and we'll kill both birds with one stone.

[Brian4Liberty]

Fox is doing yet another segment pushing Hillary. :rolleyes:

[menciusmoldbug]

Fixed that for you.

No you didn't. Ron Paul consistently polled second-best of all Republican candidates against Obama. Romney did better than Paul, Paul did better than Gingrich, Gingrich did better than Santorum.

[menciusmoldbug]

More precisely, the media talked UP Romney as the main head-to-head guy versus Obama, much less about any others, so of course he out-polled the others.

Of course. You don't really expect me to deny the influence of the Cathedral, do you? All I'm saying is that regardless of the reason, Romney polled better against Obama than Ron Paul did. This is simply true. That Rand is polling five points better against Hillary than Christie - and TEN points better than Bush - is fantastic news.


The estalishment rallied around him because he had been selected to have the inside track for the nomination, probably as payback for his agreeing to suspend his 2008 run so as not to further damage McCain.

This was a contributing factor to his initial selection as the establishment candidate, almost certainly. But part of the reason for their continued support of him was that he really was the most electable Republican in the field.


The establishment may want a sure loser to face Hillary in 2016, whereas Rand would certainly endanger that plan. They're not looking after the public or rank and file Republicans, they are looking after the interests of the establishment.

Here you've gone off the rails into the fields of insanity. You are speaking of "the establishment" as an outsider with no intimate knowledge of the people that comprise it. There is NOTHING that establishment Republicans want more than to win. NOTHING. These people are desperately hungry to take back the White House by any means necessary - if they have to hold their noses and support Rand Paul to do it, they absolutely will. Before they'll do so, however, they must be FORCED to concede that he CAN WIN - and that no one else can. Hence Rand's trips into "enemy territory" for fundraising lately. What kind of conversations do you think he's having behind closed doors?

Don't misunderstand - the establishment wants Jeb Bush or Chris Christie, I know. But if they become convinced that they can't have them, they will grumpily settle for Rand - so long as he and his supporters are not overtly hostile to them. For God's sake, did you not see how Mitch McConnell and other establishment figures immediately rallied around Rand after he won the Senate primary? Expect the same thing to happen in 2016 - furious fighting to support somebody (anybody) else, followed by acquiescence and timid support. Just like the majority of grassroots conservatives put up a fight to try and get Paul/Gingrich/Santorum as the nominee, then mostly gave up and supported Romney when it came time for the general.

[menciusmoldbug]

Fox News spent a long time this morning (featuring Dana Perino) talking positively about the Jeb Bush run. They were talking about a race where the two candidates are known by their first names. Jeb vs. Hillary. The sheeple are being conditioned. The propagandists believe they can make it a lesser of two evils for everyone on the right who doesn't like Hillary. "Don't like Jeb? Too bad, it's either him or Hillary. Make your false choice, peons."

Any time you catch someone making this argument, point to the fact that he's running TEN POINTS WORSE than Rand Paul against Hillary in Colorado.

Jeb Bush = #unelectable

[Peace&Freedom]

Here you've gone off the rails into the fields of insanity. You are speaking of "the establishment" as an outsider with no intimate knowledge of the people that comprise it. There is NOTHING that establishment Republicans want more than to win. NOTHING. These people are desperately hungry to take back the White House by any means necessary - if they have to hold their noses and support Rand Paul to do it, they absolutely will. Before they'll do so, however, they must be FORCED to concede that he CAN WIN - and that no one else can. Hence Rand's trips into "enemy territory" for fundraising lately. What kind of conversations do you think he's having behind closed doors?

Don't misunderstand - the establishment wants Jeb Bush or Chris Christie, I know. But if they become convinced that they can't have them, they will grumpily settle for Rand - so long as he and his supporters are not overtly hostile to them. For God's sake, did you not see how Mitch McConnell and other establishment figures immediately rallied around Rand after he won the Senate primary? Expect the same thing to happen in 2016 - furious fighting to support somebody (anybody) else, followed by acquiescence and timid support. Just like the majority of grassroots conservatives put up a fight to try and get Paul/Gingrich/Santorum as the nominee, then mostly gave up and supported Romney when it came time for the general.

"The establishment" I speak of is not rank and file Republicans, but the rank and file elite special interests (and media or party leadership vassals) who control both parties, and represent the MIC, banksters, AIPAC, Big Biz, etc. THEY DO NOT WANT RAND. If he is winning the nomination, look for a billionaire (Bloomberg, et al) to spring up and make noises about an independent run, to split the non-Hilary vote enough to ensure Rand loses. In 2012, all during the time Paul was even a possible threat, an "independent" organization (forget the name) kept making announcements about running a substantial "independent" candidate for President. As soon as Romney appeared to have the nomination locked up, the organization folded---a sign it existed in the first place as an establishment front, to run a vote-splitting alternative to Paul had he won the nomination.

As for the grassroots, rank and file Republicans in 2012 either went on to vote for Romney, or STAYED HOME, and in fact fewer people voted for Romney than for McCain four years before. Milquetoast moderates are causing the GOP base vote to increasingly stay home, and NOT to provide that false choice their "timid support." The elite establishment doesn't care, so long as they get their pro-Fed, pro-war, pro-surveillance candidate in. Grassroots liberty people must persuade the rank and file GOP to ignore the elite's sing-song propaganda that only their milquetoast establishment candidates are "electable" (which is how they manipulate their obsession with winning during primary season) and go with Rand.

[erowe1]

There is NOTHING that establishment Republicans want more than to win. NOTHING. These people are desperately hungry to take back the White House by any means necessary - if they have to hold their noses and support Rand Paul to do it, they absolutely will.

I don't buy that. In a Rand versus Hillary race, winning for the Republican establishment would mean Hillary winning, unless they became convinced that Rand had been sufficiently corrupted to do a better job of pursuing the interests of those who fund them and of maintaining and increasing their power, as opposed to reducing it.

ETA: See this thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?450747-Politico-Wall-Street-backing-Hillary-Clinton-if-Rand-Paul-gets-the-nomination

[56ktarget]

Very scary stuff, reminds you of the red purges during the 1930s for not being "pure" enough.