Cam and other political aficionados

All-In [28802]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 58393

Joined: 11/14/03

I don't think most think he's ready

Sep 3, 2015, 3:42 PM

He's much preferred to Trump, because he's at least serious and admirable. The problem is that, for as smart as the guy is supposed to be (and is... within his field), he comes off as a demagogue when talking policy. I, and a few other people I've read, would probably prefer that he run for a lower office- like Mayor of Baltimore- before running for president. But I don't think there'd be a push for a third party candidate like there would be if Trump somehow were nominated (and he won't be).

However, despite current polling, don't forget that Republicans have tended to nominate more moderate (or, at least more moderate sounding) candidates than Democrats have. The loudmouths and the oddballs get more attention at the beginning of things, but when it comes to get serious and whittle the candidates down, there are usually enough people against the loudmouths and oddballs to unite behind a better candidate.

This year, I don't think that necessarily means we're going to get a moderate, since most of the so-called "establishment" candidates (Rubio, Walker, Cruz, Fiorina [I call her "establishment" because she was the pick of the Republican Party in California to run for a previous office], Jindal) are actually pretty conservative. The three more moderate candidates- Bush (who I'm not really sure is all that moderate), Christie, and Kasich- don't actually seem to have much going for them right now. Bush is really sharp, but he can't win because of Bush Fatigue. Christie has squandered whatever momentum he had. Not enough people know who Kasich is, and I don't think he'll appeal to the base much.

In the end, I'll be kind of surprised if it's anybody other than Rubio, Walker, Cruz, or Fiorina. But I suppose I could also see formerly more popular people like Christie, Jindal, Perry, or Paul getting a bump from something.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

In July, he said that “people need to work longer hours” as part of an economic recovery. Then he said his remarks had been misinterpreted.

A couple of weeks later he said “we need to figure out a way to phase out” Medicare. Then he complained that critics were taking his remarks out of context.

A week or so after that, he proclaimed that “I’m not sure we need half a billion dollars for women’s health issues.” Then he said he misspoke.

That controversy hadn’t died down when he started another by using the term “anchor babies” to describe the children of immigrants — and before long he was complaining that people were misconstruing these remarks, too.

Add to this the four different answers he struggled to give during a single week this spring about whether he would have invaded Iraq, and it’s quite possible that no other person who aspires to occupy the bully pulpit has himself been bullied quite so much by the English language.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jeb-bushs-foot-in-mouth-problem/2015/08/28/b87c780c-4d80-11e5-902f-39e9219e574b_story.html

Admittedly most Republicans probably don't understand what's wrong with the term "anchor babies."

Snarky response followed up by serious answer

I don't think most think he's ready

Kasich may not have a shot at the nomination, but wouldn't

Might go well with Rubio

I've said all along some combination of Bush/Rubio/

JEB's not unpopular because of Bush fatigue.

I haven't heard of any gaffes from him

Re: I haven't heard of any gaffes from him

TigerBoard POTD