"The Numbers Don’t Lie: Jeb Bush Can’t Beat Hillary Clinton"

[applegrove]

The Numbers Don’t Lie: Jeb Bush Can’t Beat Hillary Clinton

the Daily Beast

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

"SNIP......................



In general, he appears to fare no better against Clinton than any of the other Republicans, and in some polls worse. Look at some of the numbers amassed at the Real Clear Politics site. In a recent Colorado poll, Bush did worse against Clinton than Paul, Mike Huckabee, and Chris Christie. (Paul even led Clinton by five points in this poll, suggesting that the libertarians stoners are all in for him.) In a Wisconsin survey, Clinton led Huckabee by 12 and Bush and Paul both by 11. In a national Marist poll from April 15, Clinton led Paul Ryan by eight, Christie by 11, Huckabee by 13, Paul by 14, Cruz by 15, and Bush by 16. That’s right—dead last. Behind Cruz. Yes, we’re talking margin of error stuff here, but still, when they crunched the numbers, Bush was dead last.

In almost every head-to-head poll against Clinton you look at Bush is down there with the pack—a couple of points better than Marco Rubio, a couple worse than Christie, and so on. All of them are typically anywhere from eight to 15 points behind her.

Bush doesn’t have problems just against Clinton. The NBC/Journal survey found that among “animated partisans,” 58 percent liked Paul and only 44 percent viewed Bush favorably. A WMUR New Hampshire poll recently found Bush in a distant fourth place behind Paul, Christie, and Ryan. More typically in GOP primary polling, Bush is in the first tier—but he is never clearly in front, the way an establishment candidate is supposed to be.

He’s ham-handed, and he’s been terrible at generating any positive attention for himself in the last couple of years.

So what’s the problem? For one thing, Bush has real liabilities. He hasn’t been in office for eight years. He’s simply a little out of practice. His interventions over the past year—his book, for example—just haven’t done for his profile what he hoped. That statement about undocumented immigrants coming to America illegally as an “act of love” was all right by me, but I’m not a GOP primary voter. And even I thought that was kind of an odd way to put it. He’s ham-handed, and he’s been terrible at generating any positive attention for himself in the last couple of years. For a rich guy who doesn’t have to work, that shouldn’t be so hard. Remember how back in the mid-2000s, GOP operatives speaking on background used to drop quotes in the press averring that he was “the smart one”? Well, lately I’ve been thinking maybe George was the smart one.



.....................SNIP"

[Dawson Leery]

1. Unless something goes wrong in 2016 (a major crisis)

Democrats are likely to hold the Whitehouse.

[liberalmike27]

28. These Absolute

Statements make me very uncomfortable. If the media wants the Republican to win, it's still pretty much going to happen. Sadly, we're all still a bunch of sheep to be herded, and most voters only tune-in for a week or two around the election, most Americans don't pay attention to the primaries, and a lot of people who should be maniacally voting for Democrats in every election, don't even bother to vote.

And we slide to the right, to the right, to the right, and eventually Democrats seem almost as right-wing as Republicans of the 1970s and 1980s.

[misterhighwasted]

2. ...That explains the recent dredging up of Benghazi. Its all they have left. Just like Jeb.

Beat that old Benghazi drum. Orders from the Kochligarchy

[SummerSnow]

3. They know this that's why they need to Benghazi the country

[PeteSelman]

4. And in the end it'll be 52-48.

I'll piss and moan but will still vote for Hillary and the baggers will piss and moan but still vote for Jeb.

And in the end we all lose no matter what.

[TrollBuster9090]

17. Sadly true. In this age of BRAND LOYALTY and hyper partisanship, both the Dems and the GOP have

voter FLOORS of around 40% each, even if they run a turnip and a pumpkin as their respective candidates. It's kind of depressing.

[Egnever]

5. Way too early to state any of this with any sort of confidence.

Great way to get people to look at the page though.

[doc03]

6. Nobody can beat Hillary. Isn't that what they were all saying back in

2008? Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

[wyldwolf]

8. this is specifically referring to Republican contenders

You got that, right?

[totodeinhere]

10. Yes, but many of us are more interested in how a real progressive like

Warren would do against the Republican contenders. And what we really don't need IMO is another Clinton-Bush election.

[wyldwolf]

11. Yes, but many of us are not interested in yet another definition of "real progressive"

And many of us are very interested in how Clinton will perform against Republican contenders and really want to see a Clinton-Bush matchup.

See how that works?

[doc03]

21. You think Hillary can't be beat by a Republican? A lot can happen between now

and 2016, I think it is dangerous to think Hillary can't be beat. Myself I don't care to have any more Clinton's or Bushes. Well maybe Chelsea some day.

[wyldwolf]

22. Again, the OP is specifically referring to Republican contenders

How you read anything else into that or my comment is just bizarre.

[doc03]

25. How you think that op is Gospel is bizarre. I don't care what some poll says two years out

a Republican can beat Hillary. Karl Rove still can't figure out how President Romney lost. This Benghazi bs isn't over yet if they keep digging they may just find
something. Myself I am not so excited about another Clinton, I guess that is better than a Bush if that is our choice. Bill Clinton took a major part in the demise of the middle class with his NAFTA and banking deregulations, will Hillary be any better?

[wyldwolf]

26. Where did I say it was gospel? On the other hand, I have no reason to discount the poll

Last edited Wed May 7, 2014, 08:26 AM - Edit history (1)

And frankly, I don't give a rat's ass whether you care about the the poll.

I think you have a problem with the poll which is why you're grasping at straws, reading different things into the poll and the people responding to the OP and using it as an opportunity to spew the same "progressssssiiiivveee" lines about the Clintons like it's original or something. Guess what? VERY FEW PEOPLE CARE.

Your reactions are pretty much like the conservative reactions to the presidential polls in 2012.

[doc03]

44. Gee don't get your blood pressure up, ok Hillary is a shoe-in let's just anoint her

president and skip the election. Frankly I would be more concerned about 2014 than some fictitious match up
two years from now. A big part of our problems today came from the Clintons, I would much rather have a real
Democrat myself.

[TrollBuster9090]

16. Interesting point, but in 2007 there were three Dem candidates who all had similar approval ratings

from the start.

Clinton had an 88% approval rating among Democrats, but Obama and Edwards also had approval ratings of nearly 70%. Then they were all followed by a gang of circus midgets with approval ratings of around 20% (Dodd, Biden, and Richardson having the highest scores), but there were essentially three giants.

(http://www.people-press.org/2007/08/23/clinton-and-giulianis-contrasting-images/)

Thus, Clinton was the front runner in a three way race. In a triangular race like that, anything can happen (and did).

This time around it's different, because Clinton is ahead of all other possible contenders by nearly 50 points. I can't see anything happening but a coronation.

[TheNutcracker]

7. Kerry was at 6% in Iowa! Then he "retooled for the real deal"

[jimlup]

9. Perhaps true

but why have we become a nation where the main qualification for the presidency is family legacy? I'd vote for Hillary were she the democratic nominee but I don't necessarily see why she should be.

[wyldwolf]

12. We haven't

"why have we become a nation where the main qualification for the presidency is family legacy?"

We haven't. What makes you even ask that question?

[Armstead]

13. Jeeze I wish we could dredge up relatives of Carter, Reagan, Nixon, Humphrey or Mondale

If we have to keep retreading then same damn families, Monarchy style, at least that'd be a change from Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush

[TrollBuster9090]

15. I agree, but at least Hilary Clinton is a Clinton by MARRIAGE, rather than a birth entitlement.

When you've got a Senator father, who has a son and possibly two grandsons who became Presidents (and governors), THAT'S a freaking MONARCHY. Even the Kennedy's couldn't top that one. The only country that can top that is North Korea, with the Kim dynasty of useless twits inheriting their father's throne.

[wyldwolf]

27. How is this "Monarchy style?"

A monarch is "the sole and absolute head of a state, either in reality, symbolically or in an encumbered manner. A monarch typically either inherits sovereignty (often referred to as the throne) by birth or is elected monarch and typically rules for life or until abdication"

A Clinton v. Bush campaign doesn't remotely resemble that, there is no law barring members of the same family from running for president.

[raindaddy]

29. Try Oligarchy....

That's where ordinary citizens have little to no influence on the on the decisions their government makes.

Electing a president is more like being given the opportunity to choose the hood ornament of the limousine driven by the real monarchs who finance our elections.

As far as hood ornaments, I'm for Hillary. I picture her in a long flowing dress, perched on one foot her hair flowing in the breeze..
Who wants an old paunchy Jeb Bush on the hood of a limo? Besides his head is way too big. He'd make a better bobble head, made in China of course and placed on the dash.

[wyldwolf]

30. Neither Clinton or Bush are a part of the government - It isn't Oligarchy, either.

This isn't about who is running the government. It isn't even about who is getting elected. It's about who people prefer is elected. Citizens have plenty of influence on who gets elected.

Sorry man, Hillary is the frontrunner at this moment. No other Democrat, progressive, liberal, whatever even runs close. That isn't some dark conspiracy.

[raindaddy]

31. In the last 30 years we've witnessed the greatest transfer of wealth..

from what was once the middle class to the ultra-wealthy in modern history and it hasn't really mattered who occupies the White House.

Other than the obligatory populist campaign rhetoric it's been years since we've had a Democratic President who was willing to use his position to change the balance of power in this country.

"Dark conspiracy" gives the impression that anyone who questions our current political system is imagining that the deregulation of Wall Street, corporate friendly trade agreements, unlimited political corporate monetary influence, two tier justice system, years of unpopular wars, etc hasn't had a major effect on our lives.

Sorry man, but it's the media who has the major roll in who becomes the "front runner" in this country and who owns the media? If you haven't noticed by now what passes as network news in this country is nothing much more than entertainment and a distraction then enjoy the show.

[wyldwolf]

32. So? That has nada to do with who voters prefer in Florida.

[raindaddy]

33. As long as the stus quo is accpetable to you enjoy the show...

[wyldwolf]

34. As long as you continue to be entertained by dark agendas in everything...

[NCTraveler]

36. As long as you are fine with Tony Blair interfering...

with the US chocolate industry. Hard to believe but that is what I am getting from your posts. Wait.....where did this all start?

[wyldwolf]

37. BREAKING! Hillary eats ravioli, signals her allegiance with corporate Italian canned food PAC

[raindaddy]

42. Thanks for the inside information.

I don't know if I can bring myself to vote for a candidate who's made millions from her public service and still chooses to eat "canned" ravioli.. Kind of shows a general lack of judgement and good taste don't you think?

I think I'll hold out until we find out what Elizabeth Warren has for supper..

[Armstead]

38. A handful of families have battled for thrones over time

So yes there are similarities.

And regardless of how you technically define it, in a nation of millions of people, we can't look beyond two families who are entrenched in the Oligarchy to run?

[wyldwolf]

40. Nope, not even close.

In a nation of millions of people, we can definitely look beyond two families. And in 38 presidential elections, we have. And we can in 2016. Vote for who you like.

[TrollBuster9090]

14. Actually, Paul's support comes from both stoners AND racists who want to repeal the Civil Rights Act

My guess is that they hate the idea of having to eat lunch next to African Americans at the Woolworth Counter worse than they hate the idea of hippies toking on doobies, and boys kissing each other. I'm not terribly surprised.

[LuckyTheDog]

18. I'll vote for Hillary if she is nominated...

... but I will be looking at other candidates in the primaries.

[skepticscott]

19. The election isn't for two and a half freaking years!

There are no "numbers" that mean squat right now. There is no "can't". Just pollsters and pundits needing to grab attention and justify their existence.

[Aerows]

20. Pardon my french

But I fucking well hope not. The day a Bush gets back into office is the end of our nation, and we are already on shaky ground.

[7962]

23. Hell, I wrote about this 6 months ago

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024006552
Yes, I'm tooting my horn. But my opinion hasnt changed--the GOP cannot and will not band together to support their nominee. Either the far right will stay home, or they will run a candidate who will not appeal to independents.
You see people here on DU who do NOT like Hillary, but WILL vote for her over a GOP candidate

[krawhitham]

24. Unless he changes his last name he is not beating anyone

[Orsino]

35. Unfortunately, this frees her to tack as far to the right as she wants.

Left, too, but I am not encouraged.

[Initech]

39. Definition of insanity: electing the same leaders over and over and expecting different results.

[Octafish]

41. Didn't work out for Gore, 5-4.

And he had millions more votes than Baby Doc Bush.

[Fearless]

43. I have doubts that he could beat eggs. N/t

[tofuandbeer]

45. Whoever it is, there's going to be A LOT of money behind the next Republican candidate.

So, I don't want to relax.