ADVERTISEMENT

With many Chris Christie supporters cooling after the “bridgegate” scandal erupted and continues pouring out tidbits of information, some in the establishment have begun looking elsewhere on the GOP bench. Enter the possibility of renewed hope in Jeb Bush launching a campaign.

ADVERTISEMENT

Report from CBS News:

From a list of five high profile Republican Party leaders, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul capture the most interest among self-identified Republicans; 41 percent of Republicans say they would like to see Bush run (27 percent say no to a Bush bid) while 39 percent say yes to a Paul candidacy (21 percent say no).

Republicans are less enthusiastic about New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie: more say they would not like him to run for president (41 percent) than say they would (31 percent). More Republicans would like to see Sens. Marco Rubio (32 percent yes, 14 percent no) and Ted Cruz (24 percent yes, 15 percent no) run for president than not, but most don’t know enough about these two politicians to say.

Rand Paul’s status continues rising slowly but surely, I’m prone to wonder if he might peak too soon before the 2016 process officially begins. On the other hand, he continues trying to build solid support on which to launch a campaign. Jeb Bush would have a good level of support no matter when he decides to declare. That is, if he even decides in favor of a run. The latest rumblings indicate Bush is leaning toward not running in 2016.

33 COMMENTS

  1. Bob: Yeah, it’s like the parties are afraid that if people don’t see either “Bush” or “Clinton” on the ballot that they won’t remember for whom they are supposed to vote.

    And, yeah, Dems are making no secret of their ceding the House and their chances don’t look great to keep the Senate. Maybe they think if they can arouse interest in 2016 that it might project back to this year.

    If she is smart, Hillary will run around the country, stumping for locals as if she were pitching herself–because she would be. That might raise some interest in these contests, as well as pile up some chits.

  2. To really stop Obama and his cohorts, we need to take the House and Senate by a 2/3 rds majority. How can we do that with massive voter fraud and conservatives attacking each other? If you join in the myth that “they are equal” you are delusional. I agree some candidates are more conservative than others but not equal. By making those statements you are a shill for Obama. Think about what you are doing!

    Continuing to attack every one of our candidates only gives the voting public NO trust that we can handle the country any more than Obama can.

    • Ev:

      Thanks to the 22nd Amendment, Obama can’t run again, so nobody can “shill” (are you really another Surfisher/Gulag/Oblivious identity??) for him.

      And nobody is “attacking” Bush here. We’re saying we are sick of Bush-Clinton. Why don’t they just run on the same ticket and forget the election process?

      Anyway, if his name were “Jeb Hensarling” or something, he’d be attractive. He was always called “the smart Bush.” He’s attractive, intelligent, witty, and he knows how to present himself. But he’s the “crown prince”–and that ain’t what we do here. After Teddy and Franklin, the Roosevelts knew when to quit…

      The parties otta get together and agree that if the Dems dump the wife the Reps will dump the brother/son.

    • Evelyn – The RINOs are confused – they want to be Republicans but they want the MSM and Low-Info’s to like them so they are dancing however they think they will be most popular. TeaPartiers should minimize the bitching, just pointing out lies and project their leadership and goals and setting the country solvent again and once more internationally strong leaders.

      If the Low-Info’s haven’t got it right yet, they never will until the U.S. crashes and burns then we will be Obama’s 2nd rate nation run like an Monarchy.

  3. Bob…in your own words, please define Low Information Voters. I know it was coined by Samuel Popkin in his 1991 book The Reasoning Voter: Russ Limbaugh brought it back in style in the 2008 presidentlal election and has overworked the phrase ever since. Most striking to me, is the way these “low-information folk” (whoever they may be) are blamed for political problems that are not of their making.

    What makes you think Democrats are conceding 2014 elections? Democrats officially took control of the State Senate. and Governor’s office in the state of Virginia in those elections.

      • Tess:

        In the immortal words of philosopher Julius Henry (“Groucho”) Marx–

        I refuse to join any club whose standards are so low that they would accept me as a member!

    • Bob..reread your post. You ask a question “Has anyone else noticed that the Democrats seem to be conceding the 2014 election and are focusing on 2016 elections? You did not mention House or Congress, therefore I responded to you question.. Your second sentence was just an observation …not an explanation.

  4. Tess – Popkin’s definition was correct at the time: “Popkin’s analysis is based on one main premise: voters use low information rationality gained in their daily lives, through the media and through personal interactions, to evaluate candidates and facilitate electoral choices.” But since then, when only Liberal Main Media (Alphabet stations) and most Liberal newspapers existed,the Internet, fiber, and satellite are now a daily part of our lives, and there has been an increase in Conservative media, and advertising, Unfortunately – the Low information Voter is still the people who watch only the alphabet stations and ads – no newspapers or cable or research for both sides. Their otherwise busy lives have no room for the politics or the state of the nation other than what is published by the Liberal Main Media. What is even worse is that media even admits it leans left and so what, “we’re the good guys”.

    Bush should not run – specifically because, like Palin, and Cain, The Liberal Main Media has demonized the Bush’s forever. It will be the MSM that elects our next Congress and President.

    • Well, you’re after me again, Sam. But you do make me think and evaluate…and think it all over again. First of all Popkin wrote the book in about 1991. In that time belt, candidates still knocked on your front door and ask for your vote (personal interaction), candidates didnot buy so much airtime so we stopped and listened intently to what they said when on the air. I think “low infomation voter” is currently being used as a “put down” to give another the feeling of superiority. It is impossible for anyone to know what radio or TV stations another watches, it is impossible to even guess if they read publications, watch who on cable, or if they do research. I have a lot of friends truly hung up on Fox.That is their choice and I respect it.

      To make this post a little more cordial….I do think Jeb Bush is not only a good man but a smart politician but I don’t think he can overcome his brother’s legacy. Same for Hillary and McCain.

    • Bob – I truly like LiberalLogic101 posting on my facebook – can’t go to their homepage cause I have AdBloc but i can see the .jpg’s. You (and they) have defined the very LoInfo ‘We The People’ – it is so true.

      Goethe and Tess – I stand by my earlier definition of a LowInfoVoter. Tess, if your friends only watch FNC and don’t read or watch other media, they don’t know what is fair and balanced or as Conservative as Liberals say. With the amount of Democrat reporters and opines now on FOX there are some real battles. And there ain’t no “softballs” or alliance probes like ALL other visual media.

      If a person can’t even name the candidates or know anything about them, let alone vet them personally; and not just listen to a media or friend run their mouth.- then declare your party and go vote the party ticket. If you are a ,legal citizen and can prove it then you are obligated to vote, regardless who you vote for. It is possible we can lose that privilege and right.

      Oh BTW, Obama is throwing our military and warriors directly under the bus and the Liberal love it.

      • Sam:

        I mostly agree with your definition of “low-information voters.” They’re busy people who are trying to keep their own lives together, so they don’t have time to do a lot of research.

        But the reason they are “low information” is NOT that they get news from TV. It’s that they watch only entertainment. There are only minutes per day of “news” on the “alphabet” outlets, and “low-info” people don’t watch news, anyway.

        They do get a little from radio, but three minutes an hour doesn’t do much, and “low-info” people are likely to change channels to find Britney on a different station, anyway. (And, of course, if they’re on the AM dial, they only get conservative views.)

        I repeat that it’s elitist to criticize those who do not have time to do research. The “silent majority” is low-info, and as you say, they have a duty to vote.

  5. I haven’t wanted to comment on “low information voters,” because it’s just a code word, but it has been thrown around increasingly, so I’ll weigh in.

    I am offended.

    Anyone who complains about “low information voters” (no matter what side you’re on) is an elitist, who doesn’t want the “rabble” to participate in the holy activity of politics. (Of course, what most people really mean by “low information voters” is that “those people” just don’t happen to “know” what you “know.”)

    Sorry, but in every election–EVERY ELECTION–the overwhelming majority of voters are “low information”–including a majority of the people who DO agree with you.

    MOST people are not zealots. They just need to eat, and they want to be left alone. If they think one candidate will help them or at least not hurt them, that’s who gets the vote.

    It’s called DEMOCRACY, and if you don’t like that, you need to fight for a dictatorship, theocracy, monarchy, or anarchy.

  6. it’s way too early to talk about presidential favs 2016

    must concentrate on wining in a few months as many Tea Party and Libertarians to office in 2014, that will replace The True American-hating Dems, Rhinos and Liberals.

    this is the MAJOR step to save our nation, and set up a win for a Real American come 2016!

    end of story — since it is apodictic!

  7. Sam: I haven’t watched TV for a long time, but Fox entertainment/broadcast struck me as far more destructive of the ideals that are promoted on Fox news/cable than any of the other “alphabet networks.”

    Have you noticed that? If so, what’s up with that?

    • Goethe – I don’t think I watch more than an hour or two a week max on Fox Entertainment cause i don’t think much of their general programming. You are probably quite correct – I think it is two different management chains – Even Fox Sports spun off a cable channel.. \

      I think GM’s have a free reign, but don’t make margin – – – (Adios My Friend) 🙂 🙂

      • Sam:

        I don’t think it’s about managers.

        Murdoch originally started Fox Entertainment because he thought American TV was crap. The early programming was highbrow–and died in the ratings.

        Then he realized the old adage, “nobody every lost a nickel by underestimating the taste of the American public.” So Fox dove DEEP into the gutter (“Married with Children” et al). The ratings went through the roof, and it became the cash cow that allowed him to build Fox News.

        • Goethe:
          Murdoch has his fingers in so many pies that he couldn’t focus on two little entities like FOX Entertainment and FNC. when the MSM got the Public to believe FNC was hard right wing he hired many Dems as consultants on the shows and enforced a more balanced REPORTING, not necessarily the opines.

          But because he has so much, all of News Corp (many media subsidiaries), 21 Century Fox, Dow Jones (WSJ, etc), he really can’t get down in the dirt with CEO’s unless someone screws up and doesn’t make margin or tips scales negatively.

          Both FNC & FOX sports spun off to focus on different vertical market segments. FNC has done well in capturing a good max of the REAL politics but i don’t think FOX Sports will be as successful. And I will be surprised if FOX Entertainment goes to a very low SOM (Share Of Market)

          • Sam:

            “Crime in Italy!” (well, that’s how it sounds, usually spelled–criminitly.)

            I’m not saying Murdoch sharpens pencils for the anchors. Of course he has managers.

            But all these divisions you’re talking about didn’t exist when the decision was made to give up on the idea of upgrading American television–and going for the cheap laughs (and big bucks).

            I would bet that THAT decisions was Rupert’s alone. And it paid off, which brought in the cash to do the other stuff.

            And again, my original point was the IRONY that Fox Entertainment violates every ideal that Fox News promotes. I just find that odd.

            • Sam:

              DOH!

              I think it’s funny that Christian churches protested the Simpsons at first, but they have more recently praised the cartoon–for its family values.

              http://www.christiantoday.com/article/pastor.uses.simpsons.to.preach.christian.values/600.htm

              –to which, I’m sure, Bart would say, “eat my shorts!”

              –and Homer would repeat his famous line from episode 15 of their 11th season, “I don’t even believe in Jebus.”

              It’s the same episode in which Homer is away, so he promotes Bart to “the man of the house”, Lisa to “boy”, Maggie to the “brainy girl” and the toaster to “Maggie”, making Marge a consultant.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionary:_Impossible

              Who says Nate’s site ain’t got culture?

            • I absolutely loathe the series and dumbass voices, and have never watched any of the offshoot animations either – thanks for the updates and i guess there are some politics, etc on those shows. I don’t watch any reality shows or contest shows either. Guess i’m the LowInfo. I do watch watch Almost Human series on FOX and Revolution and Person of Interest, and Suits whatever channel they are on.

            • Sam: Yeah. That’s why I dropped cable years ago, and only use my TV as a computer monitor.

              Now, when I go to someone’s house, and they’re watching TV, I cannot believe I ever watched that stuff. The plots are unimaginative. The characters are really caricatures, and the dialogue simplistic and predictable. And I’m not a prude, by any stretch, but I do disdain the extent of juvenile sexual innuendo for a cheap laugh.

              As for “reality shows,” I watched the first one–“The Real World” on MTV. It was a curiosity then. But the whole concept of “reality” TV is unreal–just a crass belief that they don’t need actors, script, plot, scenery, theme, or anything. Just prop up a camera in front of egomaniacs and let them babble. Practically free, and they think we’ll watch even that–and we do.

  8. It is very easy to be the Saturday morning quarterback. To critique and complain.

    For over five hours, hostile senators ask Hilary Clinton questions over and over, hashed and rehashed and rehashed some more, haranguing her over whether it was this group, or that group of the other group, or was it a protest or a riot. Who sent what cable to whom, and who signed it, or whether she spoke to the evacuees, and when, etc. etc. It was quite simply a rather successful political assassination of Hilary Clinton. To take one sentence and make it a sermon is clearly disingenuous.

    The entire quote is:

    “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.

    Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out.

    But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.”

    Congressional Hearings didn’t change anything that happened that night in Libya. It didn’t bring out the truths that Benzhai was a full CIA mission (inside the Ambassador”s compound) to funnel arms to the Rebels. Congress is very careful to hide their secrets.

Comments are closed.