Will it be Rand vs Jeb in 2016?

[boneyard bill]

Any list of potential candidates for the GOP nomination in 2016 would come to more than a dozen possibilities, but it is doubtful that that many will actually declare and far fewer are likely to be viable once they do. Mike Huckabee would certainly be viable, but his plans for starting his own news show are not very consistent with a presidential bid. So we will start to limit the field by suggesting that Huckabee will not run.

Jeb Bush could be another story. So far he is keeping his own counsel. He has been active, but not necessarily in the way that most presidential aspirants have been. In particular, he has avoided the limelight. But the Washington Post is now reporting that establishment Republicans, and particularly among the donor class, are urging Bush to run.

Concerned that the George Washington Bridge traffic scandal has damaged New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s political standing and alarmed by the steady rise of Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), prominent donors, conservative leaders and longtime operatives say they consider Bush the GOP’s brightest hope to win back the White House.

Apparently, Bush would immediately emerge as the favorite of the GOP donor class:

Many if not most of 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s major donors are reaching out to Bush and his confidants with phone calls, e-mails and invitations to meet, according to interviews with 30 senior Republicans. One bundler estimated that the “vast majority” of Romney’s top 100 donors would back Bush in a competitive nomination fight.

“He’s the most desired candidate out there,” said another bundler, Brian Ballard, who sat on the national finance committees for Romney in 2012 and John McCain in 2008. “Everybody that I know is excited about it.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...e33b06-b5f2-11e3-8cb6-284052554d74_story.html

It is this last factor that could have a decisive impact on the race. If Bush is in, how many others would see their prospects diminish drastically? First among them would Marco Rubio who would likely drop to second place even in his home state of Florida. But equally as important would be the probable loss of very significant money-men to the Bush candidacy. The same goes for Chris Christie who already has a serious question hanging over his candidacy due to "Bridgegate" and other possible scandals in a state not known for its squeaky-clean politics.

The same could apply to Paul Ryan and other "establishment" candidates. Jeb is simply too big a figure both in fund-raising and organizational appeal for such candidates to compete without undertaking a really hard-fought campaign from an under-dog position. This is enough to scare a lot of people off.

Rick Santorum will likely run regardless, and Rick Perry may also be in a quixotic state of mind. But Santorum is running at 3% in most polls, and his fund-raising prospects are probably pretty limited even with Jeb not in the race.

So the point is that a Jeb Bush candidacy could pretty much pre-empt the establishment field. The big money and the big names could line up behind him pretty quickly.

But, of course, not all prospects are on the establishment side. Rand Paul won't be seeking the support of John McCain or Lindsay Graham, and Ted Cruz has probably alienated the establishment completely. But Cruz' base is on the fringe while Paul has consistently sought to expand his voter appeal. Moreover, Paul can expect to inherit his father's grass-roots organization around the country, and the Ron Paul national organization was every bit as good as Mitt Romney's so Paul also has an inner circle of experienced national operatives.

But then there's the question of money. Mitt Romney held his own in the small and medium-sized states in 2012, but it was his come-from-behind victories in Florida, Michigan, and Ohio that proved to be decisive. Those wins were largely the result of PACS which outspent Romney's opponents by 5 and 6 to 1.

Ron Paul's small-money donor base will probably give Rand plenty of seed money to get his campaign going, but where is he going to get the kind of money to compete in the big states that vote later in the campaign?

The younger Paul’s nationwide organization, which counts more than 200 people, includes new supporters who have previously funded more traditional Republicans, along with longtime libertarian activists. Paul, 51, of Kentucky, has been courting Wall Street titans and Silicon Valley entrepreneurs who donated to the presidential campaigns of George W. Bush and Mitt Romney, attending elite conclaves in Utah and elsewhere along with other GOP hopefuls.

For the rest of this year, his national team’s chief duties will be to take the lead in their respective states in planning fundraisers and meet-ups and helping Paul’s Washington-based advisers get a sense of where support is solid and where it’s not. This is essential in key early primary battlegrounds, such as Iowa and New Hampshire, and in areas rich in GOP donors, such as Dallas and Chicago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...8b06de-b50d-11e3-b899-20667de76985_story.html

While Ron Paul relied largely on personal contributions and had the support of only a few hastily organized PACS, Rand is definitely going after big money and is seeking to bring it in early if possible. And unlike the other well-known candidates, his donor base won't necessarily overlap heavily with the establishment donors who are likely to rally around Bush if he decides to run.

It would make for an interesting race. Rand currently leads Bush in the RCP average by a couple of points, but Huckabee currently tops everyone. If Huckabee doesn't run, which seems likely, his voters would be up for grabs. The latest poll, however, by CNN, had Rand in the lead with Ryan a close second and Huckabee and Bush well down the list.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep..._republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

Bush's big advantage is his name, but it also appears to be his biggest disadvantage.

In any campaign, Bush would have to grapple with the legacy of his brother George W. Bush and his unpopular wars. A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found that almost half of all Americans surveyed say they “definitely would not” vote for Jeb Bush for president.

Meanwhile, Paul would likely stress his "party building" appeal in reaching out to young voters and minorities with his attacks on the NSA and his stand on eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug offenders.

Few would be surprised if the 2016 race evolved into a battle between the Tea Party and the Republican establishment, but it Jeb Bush enters the race, that could narrow the field very quickly, and lead to a direct confrontation between the two groups from very nearly the beginning go of the campaign until the end.

 

[laughing dog]

Any list of potential candidates for the GOP nomination in 2016 would come to more than a dozen possibilities, but it is doubtful that that many will actually declare and far fewer are likely to be viable once they do. Mike Huckabee would certainly be viable, but his plans for starting his own news show are not very consistent with a presidential bid. So we will start to limit the field by suggesting that Huckabee will not run.

Jeb Bush could be another story. So far he is keeping his own counsel. He has been active, but not necessarily in the way that most presidential aspirants have been. In particular, he has avoided the limelight. But the Washington Post is now reporting that establishment Republicans, and particularly among the donor class, are urging Bush to run.



Apparently, Bush would immediately emerge as the favorite of the GOP donor class:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...e33b06-b5f2-11e3-8cb6-284052554d74_story.html

It is this last factor that could have a decisive impact on the race. If Bush is in, how many others would see their prospects diminish drastically? First among them would Marco Rubio who would likely drop to second place even in his home state of Florida. But equally as important would be the probable loss of very significant money-men to the Bush candidacy. The same goes for Chris Christie who already has a serious question hanging over his candidacy due to "Bridgegate" and other possible scandals in a state not known for its squeaky-clean politics.

The same could apply to Paul Ryan and other "establishment" candidates. Jeb is simply too big a figure both in fund-raising and organizational appeal for such candidates to compete without undertaking a really hard-fought campaign from an under-dog position. This is enough to scare a lot of people off.

Rick Santorum will likely run regardless, and Rick Perry may also be in a quixotic state of mind. But Santorum is running at 3% in most polls, and his fund-raising prospects are probably pretty limited even with Jeb not in the race.

So the point is that a Jeb Bush candidacy could pretty much pre-empt the establishment field. The big money and the big names could line up behind him pretty quickly.

But, of course, not all prospects are on the establishment side. Rand Paul won't be seeking the support of John McCain or Lindsay Graham, and Ted Cruz has probably alienated the establishment completely. But Cruz' base is on the fringe while Paul has consistently sought to expand his voter appeal. Moreover, Paul can expect to inherit his father's grass-roots organization around the country, and the Ron Paul national organization was every bit as good as Mitt Romney's so Paul also has an inner circle of experienced national operatives.

But then there's the question of money. Mitt Romney held his own in the small and medium-sized states in 2012, but it was his come-from-behind victories in Florida, Michigan, and Ohio that proved to be decisive. Those wins were largely the result of PACS which outspent Romney's opponents by 5 and 6 to 1.

Ron Paul's small-money donor base will probably give Rand plenty of seed money to get his campaign going, but where is he going to get the kind of money to compete in the big states that vote later in the campaign?



http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...8b06de-b50d-11e3-b899-20667de76985_story.html

While Ron Paul relied largely on personal contributions and had the support of only a few hastily organized PACS, Rand is definitely going after big money and is seeking to bring it in early if possible. And unlike the other well-known candidates, his donor base won't necessarily overlap heavily with the establishment donors who are likely to rally around Bush if he decides to run.

It would make for an interesting race. Rand currently leads Bush in the RCP average by a couple of points, but Huckabee currently tops everyone. If Huckabee doesn't run, which seems likely, his voters would be up for grabs. The latest poll, however, by CNN, had Rand in the lead with Ryan a close second and Huckabee and Bush well down the list.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep..._republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

Bush's big advantage is his name, but it also appears to be his biggest disadvantage.



Meanwhile, Paul would likely stress his "party building" appeal in reaching out to young voters and minorities with his attacks on the NSA and his stand on eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug offenders.

Few would be surprised if the 2016 race evolved into a battle between the Tea Party and the Republican establishment, but it Jeb Bush enters the race, that could narrow the field very quickly, and lead to a direct confrontation between the two groups from very nearly the beginning go of the campaign until the end.

I wish the GOP would run a Paul-Cruz ticket which would give the Democrats a real chance to keep the White House and finally disabuse the GOP of the notion that they need to run more conservative candidates in order to win: a double win for the America electorate.

 

[dockeen]

My spider sense is thinking we might see a Bush-Paul ticket.

Yes, I am psychotic, and out of my meds.

 

[arkirk]

My spider sense is thinking we might see a Bush-Paul ticket.

Yes, I am psychotic, and out of my meds.

That would only be because the Republican party has clarified its position as being unfriendly to anything not rich...and they have so few recognized people who have not yet blown their cover. They are psychotic and are taking pro-psychotic drugs I suspect. Hang in there. Maybe that will keep them out of the white house.

 

[dockeen]

That would only be because the Republican party has clarified its position as being unfriendly to anything not rich...and they have so few recognized people who have not yet blown their cover. They are psychotic and are taking pro-psychotic drugs I suspect. Hang in there. Maybe that will keep them out of the white house.

How I got to that insanity was that I can see a sizable fraction of the party in "win at all costs mode", with Bush being their candidate. Having the Veep be a " reliable conservative" to keep Bush in line, and mobilize the base would be a winner to enough of the party to make it happen.

I think Jeb will be sold as the smart brother, ready to take on the "mess that Obama made".

Don't know if it would sell to the GE, but I can see it happening.

I can also see myself as not old, fat and senile too, so you make the call (to the men in the white coats)

 

[boneyard bill]

How I got to that insanity was that I can see a sizable fraction of the party in "win at all costs mode", with Bush being their candidate. Having the Veep be a " reliable conservative" to keep Bush in line, and mobilize the base would be a winner to enough of the party to make it happen.

I think Jeb will be sold as the smart brother, ready to take on the "mess that Obama made".

Don't know if it would sell to the GE, but I can see it happening.

I can also see myself as not old, fat and senile too, so you make the call (to the men in the white coats)

I don't think Rand and Jeb mesh very well as a ticket. Rand wants to take the Republican Party in a whole new direction, and Bush is very much for more of the same. It could happen, as the saying goes, politics makes strange bedfellows, but I think Bush would prefer someone more conventional than Rand, even if it is someone from the Tea Party. Meanwhile, I find it even harder to imagine Rand picking Jeb as his VP. The only way it could happen, I suspect, is if Jeb thought that Rand as VP was the only way he could possibly win.

 

[wufwugy]

Rubio would be the overwhelming favorite to be Bush's VP. Cruz might be the favorite to be Rand's VP (they can play the "outsider, non-establishment, youth/minority" thing well)

 

[dockeen]

I don't think Rand and Jeb mesh very well as a ticket. Rand wants to take the Republican Party in a whole new direction, and Bush is very much for more of the same. It could happen, as the saying goes, politics makes strange bedfellows, but I think Bush would prefer someone more conventional than Rand, even if it is someone from the Tea Party. Meanwhile, I find it even harder to imagine Rand picking Jeb as his VP. The only way it could happen, I suspect, is if Jeb thought that Rand as VP was the only way he could possibly win.

I think that last sentence is what I was thinking about. I think Bush would have to do something like that or have the right wing sit it out. Whether Paul would have any part of it depends on who they are trying to beat.

 

[Bronzeage]

Rubio would be the overwhelming favorite to be Bush's VP. Cruz might be the favorite to be Rand's VP (they can play the "outsider, non-establishment, youth/minority" thing well)

Traditional political wisdom would overrule a ticket with both candidates from the same state. Beyond that, Rubio is not going to get near the nomination, in either place until the GOP comes to term with its Tea Party insurgents. They will make it impossible for Rubio to hold any viable position on immigration reform which would bring Latino voters to the GOP. There is one thing to remember about Rubio, and his Latino appeal. He is from the Cuban community. There is not a lot of love lost between the Cubans and the continental Latinos. Cubans have been given many advantages when it came to immigration and there is resentment among the Mexican community and the others. Rubio would have to make a grand gesture, which would bring down all the fire and brimstone the Tea Party can manage.

 

[boneyard bill]

Rubio would be the overwhelming favorite to be Bush's VP. Cruz might be the favorite to be Rand's VP (they can play the "outsider, non-establishment, youth/minority" thing well)

You have a problem with a Bush/Rubio ticket because they are both from Florida.

I doubt very much that Rand would pick Cruz as his running mate. Cruz is too controversial and too much on the fringe. People who support Cruz aren't going to vote for a Democrat anyway. I think Rand would look to the moderate wing of the party for a running mate. If he wanted a soul-mate as his VP, Cong. Justin Amash would probably be a better choice than Cruz.

- - - Updated - - -

I think that last sentence is what I was thinking about. I think Bush would have to do something like that or have the right wing sit it out. Whether Paul would have any part of it depends on who they are trying to beat.

Yes. I think it depends very much on the circumstances. I think Rand is very ambitious, but I'm not sure he would feel comfortable in a Bush administration dominated by neo-cons and Wall Street bankers. So it might also depend on the kind of campaign Bush runs. But there's also the question of winability. If it looks like it might be tough race, Rand might decide that he'd rather keep his Senate seat and try again in four years.

 

[dockeen]

Is there any way the Republicans get any segment of any "minority group" while keeping the right wing? I think not, even if the nominee is of that group. It looks to me like they are stuck with hoping to turn out their base better that the Democrats. Which doesn't seem like a winner...

 

[boneyard bill]

Traditional political wisdom would overrule a ticket with both candidates from the same state. Beyond that, Rubio is not going to get near the nomination, in either place until the GOP comes to term with its Tea Party insurgents. They will make it impossible for Rubio to hold any viable position on immigration reform which would bring Latino voters to the GOP. There is one thing to remember about Rubio, and his Latino appeal. He is from the Cuban community. There is not a lot of love lost between the Cubans and the continental Latinos. Cubans have been given many advantages when it came to immigration and there is resentment among the Mexican community and the others. Rubio would have to make a grand gesture, which would bring down all the fire and brimstone the Tea Party can manage.

You've also got a legal problem since the constitution bars the president and the VP from coming from the same state. I agree that Rubio's appeal to Mexicans and Puerto Ricans may not be that great, but I also think that there are other issues besides immigration that can appeal to Latinos, especially jobs! Remember Cesar Chavez was a staunch opponent of the guest worker program for Mexicans and got Johnson to end it. It is big business, not the Latino community, that is behind the push for more amnesty and immigration. Of course, Dems will claim opponents of their plan are racists, but they always do that.

John Kennedy probably won in 1960 because he was Catholic, but in general, I haven't seen where a VP choice has a whole lot of impact on voters for ethnic or religious reasons.

 

[dockeen]

Because he was Catholic? Interesting. I was always told the opposite.

 

[boneyard bill]

Is there any way the Republicans get any segment of any "minority group" while keeping the right wing? I think not, even if the nominee is of that group. It looks to me like they are stuck with hoping to turn out their base better that the Democrats. Which doesn't seem like a winner...

It depends on what you call a "minority group." A generation ago Democrats could pretty well count on winning a majority among Italians, Polish, Czechs, Hungarians and other Southern and Eastern European immigrant groups. Today, I don't think that is the case. Blacks definitely vote Democrat because of the civil rights movement, but I'm not sure others vote that way because of racial identification. Latinos vote about 2/3 Democrat, but how does that break down by income and social class? Italians voted Democrat because they were in a low income bracket, but today they are not and are not so reliable for Democrats anymore. Chinese are now the richest ethnic group in the country and they tend to lean Republican. Japanese, who haven't moved up the income ladder as quickly, still give most of their votes to the Dems.

Romney lost to Obama by 4%. Much of that margin was because many evangelicals stayed home. Apparently, they didn't like Romney's Mormonism. Meanwhile, Romney picked up a surprising 20% of black males under 30. Lack of employment opportunities is just about the only reason anyone can think of for that anomaly. The state of the economy is likely to have a very significant impact on the election in 2016, and at this point the Dems don't have any reason to be optimistic on that front. Dems need a real recovery between now and then. This 1% growth shit ain't gonna cut it.

 

[boneyard bill]

Because he was Catholic? Interesting. I was always told the opposite.

I haven't seen actual data but from what I understand, Catholic Republicans seemed to have crossed party lines in significant numbers to vote for Kennedy. Only about a third of Catholic voters were Republican, but in a race as close as 1960, it doesn't take too many defectors to change the outcome.

Catholic Republicans almost certainly made the difference in the Wisconsin primary which has an open primary that allowed Republicans to vote in the Democrat contest. If Kennedy had lost Wisconsin to Humphrey, it would have changed the dynamic of the nominating contest significantly.

 

[dockeen]

By "minority group" I was thinking of just about any non-angry-white guy group.

- - - Updated - - -

I haven't seen actual data but from what I understand, Catholic Republicans seemed to have crossed party lines in significant numbers to vote for Kennedy. Only about a third of Catholic voters were Republican, but in a race as close as 1960, it doesn't take too many defectors to change the outcome.

Catholic Republicans almost certainly made the difference in the Wisconsin primary which has an open primary that allowed Republicans to vote in the Democrat contest. If Kennedy had lost Wisconsin to Humphrey, it would have changed the dynamic of the nominating contest significantly.

Interesting, thanks!

 

[boneyard bill]

By "minority group" I was thinking of just about any non-angry-white guy group.

- - - Updated - - -



Interesting, thanks!

Given your definition of a minority group, there certainly are a great many that vote Republican. Married women, for example. You make a big mistake by stereo-typing Republican voters so narrowly. How would any Republicans ever get elected if their appeal was as narrow as you suggest? If you're going to stereo-type how about this:

People who work for the government or receive government checks: Democrats

People who don't work for the government and depend of private employment: Republicans.

Now this is certainly a stereo-type. Many people who receive government checks, especially social security checks, still vote Republican and many who work for the government (especially military personnel) also tend to vote Republican.

But, as stereo-types go, it is probably as accurate as the models that you are using.

But keep in mind that nowadays independents are the biggest voting bloc (if you can really call them a bloc). They are the ones who decide elections and economic issues are usually the most important ones in these voters minds. Foreign policy usually plays the dominant role only when it is bad as when we got bogged down in wars in Vietnam and Iraq.

 

[Underseer]

I don't care. I just hope that it is half as entertaining as the last primaries.

Which candidate will openly declare that he still believes in the birther conspiracy? Which candidate will try to warn people about Obama's secret weather machine? Will any of the candidates come up with something as crazy and stupid as the "death panels"? Will any candidate declare belief in platygaeanism in an effort to out-creationist the other creationist candidates? Will any of the candidates manage to avoid further alienating Latino voters, or will all of them offend Latinos again?

I need more popcorn!

 

[boneyard bill]

It appears that some big money people are already getting worried about Rand Paul:

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is hard at work laying the groundwork for an almost certain presidential campaign in 2016, but as he broadens his support among libertarian and younger voters, there’s a budding countercampaign to take him down if he becomes a threat to actually win the nomination.

At the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) meeting in Las Vegas this weekend, Paul was nowhere to be found, but his presence was felt in the form of a straw man — and frequent worry. Speaker after speaker, from former Florida governor Jeb Bush to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, laid into Paul’s more isolationist views on foreign policy. They never mentioned the lawmaker by name, but the message came across loud and clear.

If Jeb Bush was in attendance at this meeting it certainly suggests that he is very seriously considering a run for the presidency and his low profile policy may soon be coming to an end.

It also appears that if Paul seeks the nomination, he will face a barrage of negative ads financed by Republican contributors, not Democrats. But it also seems likely that these same contributors would want to join together is support of a single opponent for Rand and the candidate best positioned to way-lay Rand Paul would probably be Jeb Bush.

But several donors who have had private conversations with Paul about his foreign policy said those talks have not assuaged their concerns. And unlike his father, whose intensely supportive base was fairly contained, they worry that Paul’s smoother approach could make him a contender. “Can he win Iowa, yes. Can he win New Hampshire, yes. Can he win the nomination, maybe — and that’s scary,” says one former Mitt Romney bundler at the conference who did not want to be named.

On the margins of the conference, where attendees heard from four potential 2016 candidates who advocated for a strong American foreign policy and support for Israel, five donors huddled with a reporter pledged to reach into their deep pockets to ensure Paul doesn’t win the GOP nomination.

http://time.com/43216/rand-paul-2016-rjc-sheldon-adelson/

 

[Bronzeage]

You've also got a legal problem since the constitution bars the president and the VP from coming from the same state. I agree that Rubio's appeal to Mexicans and Puerto Ricans may not be that great, but I also think that there are other issues besides immigration that can appeal to Latinos, especially jobs! Remember Cesar Chavez was a staunch opponent of the guest worker program for Mexicans and got Johnson to end it. It is big business, not the Latino community, that is behind the push for more amnesty and immigration. Of course, Dems will claim opponents of their plan are racists, but they always do that.

John Kennedy probably won in 1960 because he was Catholic, but in general, I haven't seen where a VP choice has a whole lot of impact on voters for ethnic or religious reasons.

That is a misconception about the Constitution. It goes back to the days when the Electoral College actually selected the President and Vice-president, instead of representing the popular vote of their state. The Vice-president was the second place candidate. The rule stated that an elector could not vote for two candidates from his own state. In today's system, where the ticket is a matched pair, it is irrelevant.

Chavez was a union organizer. The only way his union could succeed was if the labor pool could be restricted. Opposing the guest worker program was an economic decision. Big business wants immigrant labor, especially agricultural labor. This is one of the landmines of GOP campaigning. The candidate who opposes immigration looses big business support and the one who calls for immigration reform loses the Tea Party. This is one of the more humorous aspects of Tea Party politics. The TP was created by the Koch brothers as an astroturf anti-tax party, but was quickly co-opted by the anti-immigration faction. The Tea Party could cost the Kochs billions of dollars if their policies make it into law and drive up wages.

The first rule of Vice-presidential selection is, "Do no harm." There is always some justification about what the candidate brings to the ticket, but in reality, they want someone who will not become a liability.

Whether Kennedy was helped or hurt by his Catholicism is hard to say. Either way, he won. I believe it was actually a non-issue, about which only political professionals really cared. Kennedy was the perfect candidate for the time. He was young, handsome, eloquent, and a war hero at a time when the people of WW2 were now in charge. It was his to lose. He ran a good campaign and avoided things like Nixon's Checkers speech. Some genius coined the question, "Would you buy a used car from this man?" about Nixon, which shows how superficial deciding factors can be. Kennedy was the cool kid.