The Numbers Don’t Lie: Jeb Bush Can’t Beat Hillary Clinton - By Michael Tomasky

[DonViejo]

If he gets into the 2016 race, he’ll immediately be crowned the GOP favorite. But with his poor poll numbers and no longer golden establishment ties, he’s not the most formidable.

As we know, the search for an “establishment” candidate has been on in the GOP for a while now, a savior who can rescue the party from Rand Paul or Ted Cruz. That man, of course, is Jeb Bush. Last week on Hardball, Kathleen Parker said he is definitely running. She’s a conservative columnist but not a wacko, has establishment GOP credentials and Florida ties to boot. And she spoke with the air of someone who had had this nugget leaked to her specifically so that she would go out on national TV and blurt it out.

So take the idea of a Bush candidacy seriously. He’ll get many of the biggest donors and most plugged-in operatives, and he’ll immediately be spoken of by the media as a, if not the, GOP front-runner.

So far, so normal. But here’s where things get interesting. Historically, “establishment” in this context also basically means “most formidable” and “most electable.” Look at the track record. Mitt Romney was the establishment candidate in 2012, John McCain in 2008, Jeb’s brother in 2000. Two of these three never became president, but there’s no doubt that all three were the best the GOP had to offer in their given years. Who would have run better than McCain in 2008? Maybe, possibly Romney himself. But not Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul. And 2012’s lineup besides Romney was comic relief. Any one of them couldn’t have topped 200 electoral votes. And Dubya, of course, won. (Well, “won,” but that’s a different column.)

It’s an iron law of presidential politics: The establishment candidate is, almost by definition, the most formidable candidate. Well, I guess iron ain’t what it used to be, because here’s the funny thing: Jeb Bush is not any stronger against Hillary Clinton than any of the rest of them. Establishment no longer means most formidable.

-snip-

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/05/the-numbers-don-t-lie-jeb-bush-can-t-beat-hillary-clinton.html

[tavernier]

1. The numbers don't lie

but the people who count the votes do.

[blkmusclmachine]

2. You can always go to the SCOTUS to get the results reversed in your favor, you know.

[TBF]

3. Do we really think republicans are still "the establishment" -

I think an argument can be made that Hillary Clinton is establishment - but I grant you that is partly because she was part of a former administration. Great name recognition, people associate her with the prosperity of the 90s, she was a good Sec of State. I think your numbers may show that moderate dems are the new establishment. You have to admit the repugs are little more than a (bad) comedy act at this point. Except for their hold at the Supreme Court they really have little else going for them.

A better question is whether Elizabeth Warren has a chance - but I'm willing to table that until after the midterm for obvious reasons.

[Jim Lane]

4. The author meant the Republican Party establishment

There is indeed an ongoing split in the Republican Party. The hard-core RWNJ's consider people like Romney and McCain to be RINOs. In fact, some of them would label Romney a socialist (!) because of Romneycare. They denounce the "GOPe" (GOP establishment or GOP elite) for foisting such candidates on the party.

It's certainly accurate to say, taking 2012 as an example, that Romney was favored by most of the Republican leadership. Those people or their successors would be likely to line up behind Bush or, pre-Bridgegate, Christie. The more conservative elements in the Republican Party, who supported Santorum or the like in 2012, would back Cruz or the like in 2016.

The GOP establishment has argued that a more centrist candidate, like McCain or Romney, will be more electable. My guess is that that's true. Romney got 47% of the vote; Bachman/Cain/Gingrich/Perry/Santorum would have done worse. Nevertheless, the conservatives respond that these "more electable" candidates have been losing. They argue that the party should try nominating a true conservative who will motivate the base. This conflict will play out again in 2016.

[TBF]

5. That makes more sense -

thanks.

[Dawson Leery]

6. There is a reason the GOP are bringing Monica back into the picture.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251362647

I won't work.

[Joe Magarac]

7. IMO Jeb Bush can't beat any likely Democrat.

Run Jeb run!

[Jim Lane]

8. He'd have a better shot than any of the others.

I'd rather run against Christie or Cruz or Palin or Paul or Perry or Walker than against Jeb. Maybe Rubio would be a stronger candidate for them than Jeb. Overall, though, there's nobody who jumps out at me as being a real tough opponent. (I'm not counting Huntsman, who might well be their strongest candidate but who has no chance of being nominated.)

[Hippo_Tron]

9. Rubio would have an extremely difficult time making it out of the primaries

His support for immigration reform isn't going to be palatable with the whackjobs.