Here is a scenario being put forward by an unnamed “top Republican.”
If Romney loses in Michigan, he’ll be too damaged to be a credible nominee.
Santorum is unacceptable. He would lose 35 states.
So there’s no alternative but for JEB BUSH to enter the late contests and pick up enough delegates to guarantee the brokered convention.
The top Republican also expressed some confidence that Romney would find a way to win in Michigan. (But he may not have seen the poll showing Romney down 18 in Ohio.)
I assume the top Republican says JEB and not MITCH because he’s the guy most likely to step up.
My own perception is that top Republicans are getting pretty fatalistic about the election.
February 19th, 2012 | 8:38 am
How does Jeb Bush poll with Independents?
That is the question that matters.
February 19th, 2012 | 11:47 am
My own perception is that top Republicans are getting pretty fatalistic about the election.
The only thing in your field of vision is your own naval.
February 19th, 2012 | 12:32 pm
What part of NO ESTABLISHMENT or their PUPPETS do the GOP not understand?? Don’t ya think we have a big enough mess?? God help us!!
February 19th, 2012 | 1:00 pm
this is a plausible scenario. Perhaps it could be helped along by a quick name change: Jeb Bushstein.
February 19th, 2012 | 4:13 pm
“The only thing in your field of vision is your own naval.”
Getting that feeling.
February 19th, 2012 | 5:00 pm
If we are looking past Daniels, wouldn’t the tax cutting, spending cutting, public services maintaining, socially conservative governor of Louisiana be at least as good a choice as Jeb Bush as a matter of pure politics.
February 19th, 2012 | 6:09 pm
None of these men are going to want to step into the race at in August just to be the sacrificial lamb and damage their own careers.
February 19th, 2012 | 7:52 pm
There are all kinds of good reasons why a mentally stable person with a happy private life would not want to run for President, but Mitch Daniels is term limited as governor of Indiana and Jeb Bush is no longer in office. If Jeb Bush had wanted to be Senator he could have run in 2010 or this year’s race. I don’t get the sense that either of them is holding back to run in 2016. Jindal is a different case on that level. I also don’t think that a competent Republican campaign would necessarily be “sacrificial.” Maybe it would if we see strong job growth from here on and gas doesn’t reach the projected highs of over $4.25 a gallon. Maybe we have a kind of ambivalent environment where candidate and campaign quality are decisive. That isn’t out of the question or even all that unlikely. But then again I’m not betting the next 8 months of my life (and 4 years of maybe being President) on that interpretation.
February 19th, 2012 | 9:56 pm
Pete, my belief in Romney as a viable general election candidate has collapsed over the past few weeks, and I am now praying that someone like Daniels gets nominated. I am mystified, however, by your belief in Jindal as someone who could conceivably win in November. I have nothing against him, and I’m sure he was as good a governor as you say, but when has he ever demonstrated the rhetorical skill that would enable him to connect with the “persuadables” in swing states – you know, the people who, as you frequently say, are (unfortunately) going to decide this election? As I recall, Jindal’s one attempt to speak on a national stage was a complete flop. My intuition, for whatever it’s worth, is that Jindal is a brand that is not going to sell very well outside the South.
February 20th, 2012 | 8:45 am
Jindal is more promising than Romney at this point, although all djf’s observations make sense.
February 20th, 2012 | 9:53 am
DJF, I wouldn’t read too much into one speech where a politician has a few minutes to repsond to a one hour or more presidential address. I saw his speech as CPAC this year and it was fine. It didn’t set the room on fire, but compare it to Romney’s speech at the same venue. Yikes. I think he is at worst, only a somewhat better speaker than Santorum and Romney (I think the difference is bigger than that), and has none of Romney’s authenticity weaknesses and I don’t hold my breath every time he gets asked a less-than-friendly questiuon the way I do with Santorum. He was popular enough with Louisiana voters that the Democrats didn’t even bother putting up a real candidate against him last year. He also has the enormous strategic advantage of being able to say that he cut government spending down to a sustainable level while maintaining government services (so does Daniels.)
Though Daniels did give a far better response to the President than did Jindal. Both Daniels and Jindal, given their earlier work, have a familiarity with national issues that someone like Rick Perry didn’t have and chose not to earn, so their learning curves would be a lot less steep. If I had to pick one or the other, I’d pick Daniels, though Jindal would face less skepticism from social conservatives.
February 20th, 2012 | 1:27 pm
Pete, in response, I would just make two points (both of which I’m sure occur to you): (1) CPAC is not a forum for swing voters; and (2) New Orleans notwithstanding, Louisiana is, by and large, a socially conservative Southern state, and Jindal’s success there says little or nothing about his potential appeal to swing voters in swing states. That said, I hope you’re right that Jindal has a future in national politics, since we seem to have so few good prospects.
February 20th, 2012 | 1:59 pm
DJF, I agree that CPAC is not a forum for swing-voters, but try listening to those speeches as a swing voter rather than someone looking for conservative authenticity. Which candidate comes across as someone who seems basically honest, competent, and informed and you might trust to level with you about the country’s problems and develop a reasonable plan to deal with them and then follow through? It doesn’t seem like a tough choice to me. Good point about Louisiana, though running on and bringing a reformist conservative politics to Louisiana is impressive.
February 22nd, 2012 | 9:54 am
The key here is Peter’s 35 state claim. Where is the data or the reasoning that supports that?
Nothing else matters to me. I say we know Santorum would be a much better president than Romney. His social conservatism and his hawkishness are far from being as out there as people have suggested…moreover, the type of Republican Congress we are likely to get in victory’s case would easily restrain him on both issues.
And we know that Romney’s ability to win is also shaky. A case can be made that it is even more shaky.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact