Many sources around former Florida Governor Jeb Bush indicate there is a “30 percent chance” he launches a presidential bid in 2016. Apparently his decision hinges on how well Chris Christie plays in Republican circles outside the northeast.

Report from Politico:

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is getting all the attention as the flavor of the month for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. But there is growing chatter in elite New York financial circles that former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is giving more serious consideration to getting in the race, especially if it appears at any point that Christie is not drawing big national appeal beyond the northeast.

Several top GOP sources on Wall Street and in Washington said this week that Bush has moved from almost certainly staying out of the 2016 race to a “30 percent chance” of getting in. Several sources mentioned the precise 30 percent odds as up from closer to zero just a few months ago.

These sources said Bush is reconsidering as the Republican Party seeks to recover from political damage done to its brand by the recent government shutdown, which was engineered by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and the tea party wing of the GOP. A spokeswoman for Bush declined to comment on the Wall Street chatter and pointed to recent comments from Bush. Asked about a run at an event in Wisconsin, the former governor said he would make a decision next year.

Potentially this could setup a battle for establishment support between Jeb Bush and Chris Christie. On the other end, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz will be battling for Tea Party support. The winners of those division titles head to the championship hoping to become the nominee. Seems simple enough, especially since nothing unexpected ever happens in politics.


  1. I’m not a fan of dynasty’s. I would hate for the Bush name to be for republicans like the Kennedy name is for democrats. That’s just not healthy. Being objective though, name shouldn’t *disqualify* either – that’s just as unhealthy. I say let him have his say for what he stands for.

    JFK wasn’t exactly a traditional Kennedy as we know them today. He might have become pretty leftist, but he didn’t reflect the democratic party of today. He talked about the definition of a liberal being quoted as saying:

    ‘I do not believe that Washington should do for the people what they can do for themselves through local and private effort,’

    but was also quoted as defining a liberal as someone who:

    ‘cares about the welfare of the people—their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties,’ and under that definition, he said, ‘I’m proud to say I’m a ‘liberal.’

    Conservatives and liberals and libertarians *care* about these things. The difference between them is the mechanism by which they would go about addresses the welfare of the people.

    His governing style was more conservative. If JFK wasn’t a traditional Kennedy, maybe JEB won’t be what’s expected either.

  2. Bush needs to sit out. That is a sure loss for the GOP. Christie needs to stay in NJ doing what he must for NJ. He is against the 2nd Amendment, despite his flip-flopping support. GOP needs to stop ‘hand-picking’ cndidates (like McCain & Romney) and allow the people to choose. If they want to win – they better start putting pressure on the voting precincts and the fraud that takes place in them. Do it NOW while the momentum is against failing the democrats with this ‘signature’ piece of legislation. They also need to push the fact that democrats ran on a ‘protect the middle class’ while they planned to dismantle the middle class. They are forcing a 2 class system in the US. That is not what we were founded upon. Stay out of the race JEB, you are just dividing the ranks and have no way of winning. People are tired of the ‘Bush’ family selling the people out!

  3. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. . .

    The way I figure it, Hillary can be president for eight years and Jeb can be president for eight years, and by then, Chelsea will be old enough to run, and by then, we’ll have a whole “litter” of Bushes to run. Maybe we’ll find some of Bills “love children” for after that. . . .

    We should eliminate elections and just have those two families run things. Better yet, they can take turns being president and vice president at the same time.

    And Congress is so unpopular, we can save a lot of money by eliminating them. . . .

  4. I’m curious – no Clinton, no Bush, no RINO, no TeaParty, from a different thread Cruz and Rubio (Latino) are out and yet a different thread a black conservative is way too soon, and i say a candidate should stay out of Personal Liberties (1st A.)

    So what candidate is really out there??

      • Brown’s biggest issue is notoriety outside of CA. he’s run for Senate once and Pres three times unsuccessfully. In CA he has a little better than a 50% approval but has <50% approval to run for Gov again. He does have a CA Latino approval of about 80%.

        Walker is a new Gov (2 yrs) he has told Dem. truths about his budget – apples and oranges. He has successfully outsmarted the teacher's union but i don't really think he is prepared to take on DC politics, or can command the necessary expertise to pick the necessary experts for a cya cabinet to be the most important man in the world.

        Neither one is capable of bringing the U.S. back from world disapproval and stature.

  5. If the Crown Prince runs, there is a 100 percent change he will be the Republican nominee, and a near 100 percent chance Hillary will be the first female president.

Comments are closed.