[quote]Bismark wrote:
Your posts are always a pleasure to read. Did you take any SIPA courses during your graduate studies? I’ve been an admirer of the faculty from my undergraduate years. [/quote]
That’s very kind of you! The admiration, as you know, is more than mutual. I have learned a great deal from your posts.
I didn’t get to take any SIPA courses – if I recall correctly, they gave us a very hard time if we wanted to go outside our school for coursework, mainly because our program was very rigidly structured. I did know a bunch of people from SIPA, though, because they had the curricular wiggle room to head over to CJS for the odd class.
I was, however, lucky enough to have had a great professor – old school, “buy you a scotch after you’re done with 14 straight hours of work” kind of guy – who insisted that we read everything we could about the Iraq War. Every report, every document. The logic being that if we weren’t going to truly understand this most important development of our time, we didn’t belong anywhere near a newsroom (this logic didn’t appeal to those who wanted to do sports or entertainment stuff, but most of us were sold). He actually ran out of time but kept on sending us readings even after we’d graduated.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
So long as Democrats can use the “look who got us into the war” card, it would be best for Republicans to not remind people any more than they already might (by their last name).
Even if Jeb feels the way he does, he should have the political savvy to not be so outspoken about it. [/quote]
If Jeb wants to be President, he has to embrace it and accept it and say it, talk about it, wear it out. Distancing himself will only make him look dishonest. He has to turn a negative into a positive and there are some positives. There was and is only a lose-lose proposition with Iraq, you either had a brutal evil dictator in place or risk sectarian violence under a weak government. The latter was more controllable, but we bailed. Lots of people thought removing Saddam was a good idea. Timing was the issue. Clinton signed the ‘Iraq Liberation Act’ calling for Saddam’s ouster in 1998. A more sound policy, better planning and better timing and better intelligence would have all been better. But Jeb is a Bush, distancing himself is a bad idea lest he change his name.
Nevertheless, I think it’s too soon for another Bush. I would only vote for him if he’s running against Hillary, otherwise I prefer new blood. But that goes for Hillary as well. She comes off as a bitch, still. Her name too, is tied with old politics. I don’t favor the democrat’s chances with her, which is why I want her to be the candidate. She’s not likable. If Republicans can find someone likable, they have a good shot. I don’t think it’s Jeb. I really don’t see a scenario in this election where Jeb wins. He may just be greasing the wheels for 2020.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
So long as Democrats can use the “look who got us into the war” card, it would be best for Republicans to not remind people any more than they already might (by their last name).
Even if Jeb feels the way he does, he should have the political savvy to not be so outspoken about it. [/quote]
Great point Maximus. That’s why we’d be far better off with a candidate whose last name is not Bush. On the other hand the country would be far, far better off without a President whose last name is Clinton. So…if it is Bush/Clinton I am voting for Bush. I won’t like it much but I’m certainly not going to play any part in electing Hillary.[/quote]
Me neither, but I don’t see Jeb winning the nomination no matter what he does, not this time.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
So long as Democrats can use the “look who got us into the war” card, it would be best for Republicans to not remind people any more than they already might (by their last name).
Even if Jeb feels the way he does, he should have the political savvy to not be so outspoken about it. [/quote]
Great point Maximus. That’s why we’d be far better off with a candidate whose last name is not Bush. On the other hand the country would be far, far better off without a President whose last name is Clinton. So…if it is Bush/Clinton I am voting for Bush. I won’t like it much but I’m certainly not going to play any part in electing Hillary.[/quote]
Me neither, but I don’t see Jeb winning the nomination no matter what he does, not this time.[/quote]
I agree with you for the most part. But, keep in mind that he is very well funded and in politics money is one very important ingredient. So, while I’d love to count him out I can’t do that just yet.
Personally, I feel our best chance of winning is if Marco Rubio gets the nomination.
Hispanic vote
Youth vote (they are not voting for the old bag Hillary)
Captures the electoral votes in Florida- a must have state for a republican to win the White House.
Then as I’ve stated before if he picks John Kasich as his VP the republicans will get the other state that is a must have in order to win, Ohio. Sure anything can happen in politics but a Rubio/Kasich ticket is the closest thing to a lock!
If it was Jeb against Hillary Jeb would win. He is the former Gov of Florida so he too could pick Kasich and have a similar “lock”. Not nearly as strong as Rubio however.
Me neither, but I don’t see Jeb winning the nomination no matter what he does, not this time.[/quote]
My only hope is that they focus on bringing down hillary and not each other. [/quote]
When you have a field of 20 some candidates at least one of them will most certainly attack another one. In fact, it will probably be an all out war between them before it’s over.
But not to worry in the mean time they will all be attacking Hillary. In the end I just don’t think there is much that Hillary can do to pull this one off.
She’s too old and damaged with several scandals. She has no likability factor. And she’s tied to Obama who is without question the worst modern day President. In addition to those things, she’s all about yesterday and not tomorrow.
Sure anything can happen in politics. But if I were a betting man I’d bet the farm she loses to just about any of the republican candidates if the republicans run even a reasonably good campaign.
Me neither, but I don’t see Jeb winning the nomination no matter what he does, not this time.[/quote]
My only hope is that they focus on bringing down hillary and not each other. [/quote]
You’re giving the republicans too much credit. Their typical MO is stanch defeat from the jaws fo victory. [/quote]
Eh I think you’re being just a tad harsh there beans.
Presidential elections are about many things not the least of which are natural cycles.
Look at history:
Reagan took out a sitting President Carter and then his VP after four years. Bush Sr. who had little charisma beat Dukakis who had even less charisma. Sure we lost to Bill Clinton twice but keep in mind Independent Ross Perot took millions of votes in two elections cycles drawing mostly from republicans giving Bill Clinton two victories with less than 50.1% of the vote. We then ran a candidate who had a difficult time communicating GW Bush and defeated Al Gore and then John Kerry…not bad. We ran John McCain against a wildly popular (because he had no record and lied a whole bunch) Barackatack Obama. We gained 3 million more votes when we ran Romney. Keeping in mind that he ran against Obama and the press.
So all things considered over the past 35 years I think the republicans have held there own quite nicely. We have beaten sitting Presidents and we’ve won with less than stellar candidates.
I think this Presidential race is going to have a republican winner and I don’t think it will be all that close maybe over the top by 6% to 8%. The only way it becomes a squeaker is if Jeb or Christie manage to win the nomination. Most of the rest of the field will take Hillary out in fine fashion.
I’m just not so sure that it will be as strong and decisive as it was in the last two elections, especially 2008.
“Youth leans Left” (for the most part); and they loved President Obama in 2008 and still do (albeit without as much of the enthusiasm).
Rubio will have to be more than just “young” to excite youth.
His message must touch them and be delivered in a way that inspires them.
Mufasa[/quote]
Yeah, I don’t disagree with that (but the youth vote didn’t turn out in near the numbers for Obummer in 2012 as they did in 2008. He burst their little bubble by being a shady lying sack of crap). But, when you look at the alternative (Hillary) Rubio will be looking mighty good. Youth and exuberance over creaky joints and scandal. In most polls those under the age of 25 dislike scandal more than any other (age) demographic. Many in this age group still believe that if you wish hard enough lollypops will drop out of the sky (harsh?). But sure she will get the college feminists.
If nothing else this at least nullifies the pull that the dems have with the youth vote. And if that’s the case it could make all the difference.
I don’t see the dems winning this one Mufasa, not with Hillary.
I’m just not so sure that it will be as strong and decisive as it was in the last two elections, especially 2008.
“Youth leans Left” (for the most part); and they loved President Obama in 2008 and still do (albeit without as much of the enthusiasm).
Rubio will have to be more than just “young” to excite youth.
His message must touch them and be delivered in a way that inspires them.
Mufasa[/quote]
Yeah, I don’t disagree with that (but the youth vote didn’t turn out in near the numbers for Obummer in 2012 as they did in 2008. He burst their little bubble by being a shady lying sack of crap). But, when you look at the alternative (Hillary) Rubio will be looking mighty good. Youth and exuberance over creaky joints and scandal. In most polls those under the age of 25 dislike scandal more than any other (age) demographic. Many in this age group still believe that if you wish hard enough lollypops will drop out of the sky (harsh?). But sure she will get the college feminists.
If nothing else this at least nullifies the pull that the dems have with the youth vote. And if that’s the case it could make all the difference.
I don’t see the dems winning this one Mufasa, not with Hillary.[/quote]
