• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jeb Bush: Wife and Mother More Supportive of Potential Run

EnigmaO01 said:
Funny how you repubs are complaining about an Ebola czar when it was republicans in congress that first came up with the idea. The same holds true for the affordable health care act of which the mandate was first proposed by republicans and even your presidential candidate Romney had pushed to the same thing in his state.

Translation: We are not happy with anything Obama does even if it was our idea in the first place or our presidential candidate was a strong proponent for it.
Click to expand...

Translation: Get someone ****ing qualified for the job!
 
shrubnose said:
Jeb Bush will not be president of the USA, mainly because his last name is Bush.

Don't take my word for this, just wait and see.
Click to expand...

I think common sense is on your side, but common sense doesn't always win out in our elections. I can't imagine another Bush becoming president, but then again I couldn't imagine Bush winning reelection, I couldn't imagine Obama beating Hillary as handily as he did etc.
 
American said:
She isn't competent in the least. She has been insignificant except for her popular name and her treatment like a celebrity.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



That's your incorrect opinion, which you're entitled to.

We'll see what you think after she moves into the White House in 2017
 
roughdraft274 said:
I think common sense is on your side, but common sense doesn't always win out in our elections. I can't imagine another Bush becoming president, but then again I couldn't imagine Bush winning reelection, I couldn't imagine Obama beating Hillary as handily as he did etc.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



No GOPer will be moving into the White House after the 2016 election.

Wait and see.
 
shrubnose said:
No GOPer will be moving into the White House after the 2016 election.

Wait and see.
Click to expand...

You're crazy if you actually think there is 0% chance of GOP getting the white house. You simply just don't know this. And acting like you do is silly. You can say that you think it's unlikely but that's about it. You don't even know who the two candidates are, who they pick for VP, you don't know what kind of scandals are going to pop up, if someone runs a terrible campaign. But you're absolutely sure the GOP won't win? Crazy talk.
 
roughdraft274 said:
You're crazy if you actually think there is 0% chance of GOP getting the white house. You simply just don't know this. And acting like you do is silly. You can say that you think it's unlikely but that's about it. You don't even know who the two candidates are, who they pick for VP, you don't know what kind of scandals are going to pop up, if someone runs a terrible campaign. But you're absolutely sure the GOP won't win? Crazy talk.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Tell me that in 2017 after the Democratic party's candidate wins the election by a good margin and moves into the White House. :roll:

No one in the GOP has a chance of beating Hillary Clinton.

"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
 
Last edited:
shrubnose said:
Tell me that in 2017 after the Democratic party's candidate wins the election by a good margin and moves into the White House. :roll:

No one in the GOP has a chance of beating Hillary Clinton.

"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
Click to expand...

That was also supposed to be true in 2008, and she didn't even win the primary. Leave the unfounded guarantees to political hacks like Dick Morris.
 
disneydude said:
Yep....GWB destroyed whatever chance Jeb had of ever becoming President (Bobby Jindal has more of a chance). There won't be another Bush in the whitehouse for at least another generation.
Click to expand...

Another generation means one of the Bush twins might have a chance.
 
American said:
Translation: Get someone ****ing qualified for the job!
Click to expand...


Too bad there's just age and citizenship requirement. I'd like to see the qualifications or resumes, maybe including some military service.
 
fred68 said:
Another generation means one of the Bush twins might have a chance.
Click to expand...

If I had to bet, I would say that either one has a better shot at the Presidency than Jeb. By then....most people will have forgotten about the fiasco of GW.
 
Perotista said:
No, she is not personable. Neither was Nixon in 1968 or the first Bush in 1988. It all depends on what has happened between now and then and what the public is looking for. It also depends on whom the Republicans nominate as to her chances. As it stands today, the Democrats trustworthy states would put her very close to the 270 electoral votes needed to win.

Bill was a down home type of guy, his wife isn't. But unless the GOP finds someone like Eisenhower who appeals to the masses, not just the hard core right. She doesn't have to be. Maybe Jeb Bush could, I do not know. I think he would do better than Paul or Cruz. But there is also the possibility that the two candidates that will be running against each other in 2016 isn't even on our radar screen yet.
Click to expand...

I think she'll win mostly because Bill will be there campaigning and his charisma and campaigning abilities grabs a large swath of the "middle" ground voters.
 
poweRob said:
I think she'll win mostly because Bill will be there campaigning and his charisma and campaigning abilities grabs a large swath of the "middle" ground voters.
Click to expand...

Let's call the middle ground voters independents. Gallup puts their numbers at approximately 45% of the total electorate. I agree, most of these independents have fond memories of Bill's tenure as president. They wish they still had him as president. But I am not sure how much of Bill will rub off on his wife. I am not an independent, Reform Party member, but the fact that Bill would be behind the scenes directing his wife or at least giving her guidance is enough not to write her off my ballot. Not yet anyhow. I suppose there are quite a lot of others who feel the same way.

But still I have this gut feeling that she won't run. I can't give you a reason for that feeling, it is just there. Hillary is running way ahead in all polls dealing with the Democratic nomination in the 60's. That tells me unless something drastic happens, changes the nomination is hers hands down. Yet my gut says it won't happen. Bush or any other Republicans are around 10% or lower. Of course it is so early one wouldn't expect anything different.

At this point in time, I don't see how a Republican can win in 2016. Especially when states like Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia are trending blue. But one can never tell. 2016 can become a repeat of 2008 when the voters were not going to elect a Republican to the presidency no matter what. If they get as tired of Obama as they did Bush that is. But that is pure speculation and throwing in a what if. If I had to put money on the 2016 election today, I would place it on Hillary or any other Democrat. Just counting trustworthy states the Democrats have a 256 to 191 advantage. 270 to win.
 
Is Jeb Bush is such a ***** that he wouldn't run even if Mommy Dearest didn't approve?

That's pretty weak.
 
Perotista said:
Let's call the middle ground voters independents. Gallup puts their numbers at approximately 45% of the total electorate. I agree, most of these independents have fond memories of Bill's tenure as president. They wish they still had him as president. But I am not sure how much of Bill will rub off on his wife. I am not an independent, Reform Party member, but the fact that Bill would be behind the scenes directing his wife or at least giving her guidance is enough not to write her off my ballot. Not yet anyhow. I suppose there are quite a lot of others who feel the same way.

But still I have this gut feeling that she won't run. I can't give you a reason for that feeling, it is just there. Hillary is running way ahead in all polls dealing with the Democratic nomination in the 60's. That tells me unless something drastic happens, changes the nomination is hers hands down. Yet my gut says it won't happen. Bush or any other Republicans are around 10% or lower. Of course it is so early one wouldn't expect anything different.

At this point in time, I don't see how a Republican can win in 2016. Especially when states like Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia are trending blue. But one can never tell. 2016 can become a repeat of 2008 when the voters were not going to elect a Republican to the presidency no matter what. If they get as tired of Obama as they did Bush that is. But that is pure speculation and throwing in a what if. If I had to put money on the 2016 election today, I would place it on Hillary or any other Democrat. Just counting trustworthy states the Democrats have a 256 to 191 advantage. 270 to win.
Click to expand...

I think her chances of winning the dem nomination will be harder than the general election. If the GOP had any ship sinking surprises to down her we'd have heard it by now. She's had too many years to scrub those barnacles off her political career. I think any surprises coming her way will be her being unprepared for and getting blind sided from the left in the primary because of her economically centrist and war hawkish positions that don't sit too well with folks on the left.
 
poweRob said:
I think her chances of winning the dem nomination will be harder than the general election. If the GOP had any ship sinking surprises to down her we'd have heard it by now. She's had too many years to scrub those barnacles off her political career. I think any surprises coming her way will be her being unprepared for and getting blind sided from the left in the primary because of her economically centrist and war hawkish positions that don't sit too well with folks on the left.
Click to expand...

That's possible. We will just have to wait and see. But the Democrats have had a history of nominating someone with the best chances to win whereas the Republicans have been more ideological in their choice. This goes for not only the presidency, but the senate as well. We seen what happens when an Aiken, Mourdock, Angle etc. get nominated. They lose.
 
Perotista said:
That's possible. We will just have to wait and see. But the Democrats have had a history of nominating someone with the best chances to win whereas the Republicans have been more ideological in their choice. This goes for not only the presidency, but the senate as well. We seen what happens when an Aiken, Mourdock, Angle etc. get nominated. They lose.
Click to expand...

They get nominated because the koch brother funded tea party factions putting all those green-backs towards the most party purified ideological candidates. It's the insane $'s flooding into politics that's doing the damage. You see it on the rightwing what you are saying and it's so bad that the right wing lobby group US Chamber of Commerce is funding more centrist republican candidates to do battle with the koch brother funded tea party candidates.
 
US Conservative said:
Good thing cancellation works both ways. Thing is Im politically active and likely cancelled a few of your buddies as well. You are welcome.
Click to expand...

How'd that work out for ya? :lamo
 
poweRob said:
They get nominated because the koch brother funded tea party factions putting all those green-backs towards the most party purified ideological candidates. It's the insane $'s flooding into politics that's doing the damage. You see it on the rightwing what you are saying and it's so bad that the right wing lobby group US Chamber of Commerce is funding more centrist republican candidates to do battle with the koch brother funded tea party candidates.
Click to expand...

While I agree the money in politics is insane, it is not just the Koch brothers. It is the tens and hundreds of millions that come into the coffers of both sides. Koch may fund tea party types, but that tends to be to the detriment of the Republican Party as a whole. Now the Republicans will say the same about Soros. As a Reform Party member I find it amusing that the Democrats will condemn Koch but laud Soros and the opposite is true for the Republicans, they condemn Soros while lauding Koch. I suppose that is the way partisan politics is and the way partisans look at things.
 
Perotista said:
While I agree the money in politics is insane, it is not just the Koch brothers. It is the tens and hundreds of millions that come into the coffers of both sides. Koch may fund tea party types, but that tends to be to the detriment of the Republican Party as a whole. Now the Republicans will say the same about Soros. As a Reform Party member I find it amusing that the Democrats will condemn Koch but laud Soros and the opposite is true for the Republicans, they condemn Soros while lauding Koch. I suppose that is the way partisan politics is and the way partisans look at things.
Click to expand...

True but the dollar amounts and influence amounts aren't even close to one another. Soros is mostly a guy throwing big bucks into the game. Kochs are an almost infinite group of networks. Just to name a few...

ALEC
Tea Party Express (among many other tea party orgs)
Freedom Partners
Founded the Cato Institute
Financially fund Heritage Foundation
Financially fund American Enterprise Institute
The Federalist Society


The list goes on and on and on. They fund things up front and then filter other funding through their zillion front groups.

ALEC being the grossest of them all being that it is a lobby group that politicians are members of. I think it's a bit of a conflict of interest to be a a politician whose a member of the lobbying group that lobby's you then writing the legislation for you that you then submit into the legislative process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom