Where did Jeb! go ?

[Hypoxia]

A Bush-Clinton dynastic face-off would look a lot like any Verdes versus Rojas contest in a banana republic. Different clans of the same asswipe elites, that's all. Bernie vs Tromp would look more like the activist vs the clown. And the clown just won in Guatemala! Literally. But he was kewler than Tromp.

What are the Bush family dynamics? Why didn't Jeb run sooner, when he had some sort of fucking chance? (I don't really care.) Why did corporate suckers (some left over from the BCCI scandals) pour megabucks into Bush pockets? (It was someone else's money, of course.) Where will that money go now? Can this election still be bought?

If we follow the money, where does it lead us?

 

[MichaelinChina]

He went back home to Mom.

 

[sr71plt]

Bush wasted so much money, sort of a shame.... if you can't answer a question you know you are going to be asked, I don't want him as my President.

A side issue, but the money isn't really wasted. Much of it was sitting in an off-shore account doing nothing in the U.S. economy. When it went to pay for campaign expenses, it was being pumped back into the U.S. economy.

 

[Wrong Element]

What are the Bush family dynamics? Why didn't Jeb run sooner, when he had some sort of fucking chance? (I don't really care.)

I'll answer anyway.

If he had won his first race for governor in 1994, he might have run in 2000 instead of GWB, who did win in '94.

He couldn't have run in 2008 because he would have lost 47 states trying to succeed his failed brother -- assuming he could have even been nominated, which as we've just seen was certainly no sure thing. And I assume he decided that it would be easier to just wait till Obama was gone instead of running in 2012 against an incumbent.

 

[mark_j]

A side issue, but the money isn't really wasted. Much of it was sitting in an off-shore account doing nothing in the U.S. economy. When it went to pay for campaign expenses, it was being pumped back into the U.S. economy.

That may be true, but politically it was a waste. Jeb never really had a chance to start with.

 

[sr71plt]

That may be true, but politically it was a waste. Jeb never really had a chance to start with.

He was supposed to be the winner at the start; he's probably still the party preference. There's really no total loss politically to running for president, and the next few weeks could be very interesting. He has money, delegates, and meaningful endorsement (in his party position) to swing to someone. Chances are very good that margins of primary wins are going to narrow dramatically real soon--and it's the party big daddies (which still include the Bushes) who are going to swing a lot of clout if three candidates reach the convention with none with many more than a third of the total delegates by that time. The candidate, once this all gets back into the party control of a convention, just might be someone other than the three now standing. That's what the whispering about a brokered convention is all about. Do try to remember, as I've noted before, that the party can run whoever it wants regardless of primaries. This isn't subject to federal law. They could decide, at the convention, to run a Cocker Spaniel, if they wanted.

 

[mwmnpa]

They could decide, at the convention, to run a Cocker Spaniel, if they wanted.

Well, wouldn't be a bad choice. Glad we could finally agree. The dog would look one whole helluva lot better than Clinton, and would be a lot nicer.

 

[Hypoxia]

Well, wouldn't be a bad choice. Glad we could finally agree. The dog would look one whole helluva lot better than Clinton, and would be a lot nicer.

Alas, dogs are eligible for the federal judiciary but not for elected positions. If Tromp wins he can replace Scalia with his poodle. Look it up.

 

[mwmnpa]

Alas, dogs are eligible for the federal judiciary but not for elected positions. If Tromp wins he can replace Scalia with his poodle. Look it up.

Still might not be bad choice. And I don't even like poodles.

 

[sr71plt]

Well, wouldn't be a bad choice. Glad we could finally agree. The dog would look one whole helluva lot better than Clinton, and would be a lot nicer.

What does who the Republicans might nominate have to do with who the Democrats might nominate?

I declare that you are going to puff up and explode in your venom vomit today.

 

[dan_c00000]

His failure was not being able to answer the one question he knew he would be asked....and he had so much time to prepare.

I think that's only part of the reason. The other part is that the old line GOP has failed to realize just how much their teahadist monster has taken over the party (or at least the primary voting base).

The base doesn't want casual dogwhistle racists they want the real deal now. And they got it...in the form of a New York clown.

 

[mark_j]

He was supposed to be the winner at the start; he's probably still the party preference.

How did that work out eh? All that pre-caucus positioning and he never gained any traction. Jeb was done before Iowa but it took until SC for someone to finally stick a fork in him...

It's kinda looking the same way with Hills.. Presumptive nominate. Had all the media types ready for the coronation and now she's in a close fight with Uncle Bernie.. I mean come on, Bernie fucking Sanders?

You'd think the electorate would want to go with the middle of the road dem or rep.. But noooo... I guess this is the year of "go big or go home".

There's really no total loss politically to running for president, and the next few weeks could be very interesting. He has money, delegates, and meaningful endorsement (in his party position) to swing to someone. Chances are very good that margins of primary wins are going to narrow dramatically real soon--and it's the party big daddies (which still include the Bushes) who are going to swing a lot of clout if three candidates reach the convention with none with many more than a third of the total delegates by that time. The candidate, once this all gets back into the party control of a convention, just might be someone other than the three now standing. That's what the whispering about a brokered convention is all about. Do try to remember, as I've noted before, that the party can run whoever it wants regardless of primaries. This isn't subject to federal law. They could decide, at the convention, to run a Cocker Spaniel, if they wanted.

Do you think that either party has such a lock on things that they would take a chance of pissing off the base or those that support them by going with a nominee that flies in the face of the voter's choice?

 

[sr71plt]

Do you think that either party has such a lock on things that they would take a chance of pissing off the base or those that support them by going with a nominee that flies in the face of the voter's choice?

I don't think that's an issue with the Democrats. I think Hillary's about to pull away (unless she's indicted, which I see as a possibility) and she was the party choice to begin with. But if Bernie pulls it out, I think both the party and Hillary will support him (as he will support her when she gets it wrapped up and then will concentrate in selling his ideas to her). Bernie's only different from Obama in 2008 in color (offset by being Jewish) and age (he's likely to croak in office). They both have huge holes in their experience portfolio at this point in their candidacy, are promising thin air, and have dreamy-eyed voters with very little sense of what is possible backing them.

On the other hand, I don't think the Republican party will give more than lip service support to Trump he's pissed them off so badly. They don't even see him as a party member and if he wins the presidency, he can't expect genuine support from either the party or the Republican majority in Congress, if it holds. Nor, I think, will he pay attention to either of them either. It will just be a day-in-day out "muffed it" mess. And I think that the Trump, Cruz, and Rubio supporters are all so fractured and "I don't care; I just want to say no and screw the other guys" that there's little chance any of them or any of their supporters in the party will genuinely support any candidate but their own. So, I don't think any current candidate will get any more meaningful level of support from party workers than any brokered candidate is likely to get. It's all sort of a "shoot ourselves in the keister" Tea Party type of mess.

 

[mark_j]

I don't think that's an issue with the Democrats. I think Hillary's about to pull away (unless she's indicted, which I see as a possibility) and she was the party choice to begin with. But if Bernie pulls it out, I think both the party and Hillary will support him (as he will support her when she gets it wrapped up and then will concentrate in selling his ideas to her). Bernie's only different from Obama in 2008 in color (offset by being Jewish) and age (he's likely to croak in office). They both have huge holes in their experience portfolio at this point in their candidacy, are promising thin air, and have dreamy-eyed voters with very little sense of what is possible backing them.

Maybe so. On the other hand, I think anyone who is betting on conventional wisdom in this case are taking some big chances on some pretty dicey odds.

As they say, in this case, it ain't over til it's over....

On the other hand, I don't think the Republican party will give more than lip service support to Trump he's pissed them off so badly. They don't even see him as a party member and if he wins the presidency, he can't expect genuine support from either the party or the Republican majority in Congress, if it holds. Nor, I think, will he pay attention to either of them either. It will just be a day-in-day out "muffed it" mess. And I think that the Trump, Cruz, and Rubio supporters are all so fractured and "I don't care; I just want to say no and screw the other guys" that there's little chance any of them or any of their supporters in the party will genuinely support any candidate but their own. So, I don't think any current candidate will get any more meaningful level of support from party workers than any brokered candidate is likely to get. It's all sort of a "shoot ourselves in the keister" Tea Party type of mess.

Seems that everyone that the "establishment" has put their weight behind has gone down in flames. I'm thinking that if Rubio takes up the mantle of "the establishment guy" he's going to suffer the same fate.

Cruze is too TV evangelical to have broad appeal.

Trump is way too much of a loose cannon.

Interesting times. As others have said, I have never witnessed a political season like this. Sure is going to be interesting after the conventions when all the dust and blood have settled and we can really get down to business.

 

[sr71plt]

The establishment business is just flim flam. Cruz, Rubio, Trump, Kasich, Bush, Clinton, and Sanders are all elements of "what is." Carson is wandering around in the wings signing books.

"Establishment" is just a catch word to catch shallow thinkers--like "liberal" is.

 

[Beco]

Maybe the most interesting question now is where the votes that normally would have gone to Bush are going to redistribute. My guess is split between Rubio (with the two kissing and making up to the extent possible) and Kasich. I don't see any going to Trump or many going to Cruz. Looks like the upshot will be that Trump's leads aren't quite so big and Cruz habitually polls behind Rubio. A pretty notable adjustment to the current map.

Votes are going for Trump......thats the answer