April 21, 2015

"Indeed, we at FiveThirtyEight are mildly bearish on Bush relative to the consensus."

"If he’s not able to make a good electability case — and his favorability ratings don’t help — Republicans have little reason to pick him ahead of alternatives who are closer to the base ideologically."
But it’s Bush’s nomination chances we’re bearish about — in many ways, the nomination is the tougher hurdle since it’s a multi-candidate race. In analyzing the general election race, it’s only the conditional probabilities that matter. If Bush is good enough to win the primary, he’s probably good enough to give Republicans about a 50-50 shot of winning next November.
 That's from 4 days ago. So's this: Jeb eats pie.

28 comments:

Brando said...

I agree completely. Bush's numbers reflect Republicans preferring other candidates, not moderates and liberals opposing him.

The two-party vote hovers close around 50-50--we haven't seen a candidate get under 47% of the two-party vote since the '90s (and in the '90s, that was mixed up by having Perot in the mix both times). If Bush got the nomination, I suspect his window would be between 47% and 53%, as usual.

The nomination will be uphill for him, though. A lot of conservatives think of him as a liberal (due to Common Core and immigration alone, apparently?) and others are just tired of the Bush name. But if none of the others take off, he could win it by default as Romney did last time.

Fandor said...

Call me crazy (some will), but Bush is not going to be the presidential candidate in 2016.
Here is what is in the ether..."Jeb Bush has to win New Hampshire. It's a must-win for him, because he will lose Iowa. You've got to win one of them, particularly if [you're] considered to be something of a front-runner," James Carville, Democratic strategist and Clinton ally, offered in February.
"I will go further," Carville said. "If Jeb Bush loses New Hampshire, they'll get Mitt Romney back in the race."
Mitt Romney is the (paraphrasing now) 100 pound elephant in the room, nay, country.
Still in the news, still relevant, right then, right now.

lgv said...

I thought the consensus WAS mildly bearish on Bush.

If his name were Jeb Boyd, there would be a lot more support. I have to admit that it includes me. He is everything I would want in a candidate, but there is a visceral repulsion at the idea of a third Bush in the White House.

He can blame his well intentioned, doltish brother for ruining it for all of us.

Curious George said...

Hillary eats pie, too. At least that the rumor.

campy said...

"Mitt Romney is the (paraphrasing now) 100 pound elephant in the room, nay, country."

In other words, he's an absurd lightweight?

Phil 3:14 said...

Yes, its a race to see who can energize the conservative base.

The winner will then struggle to energize the soft middle, of which I am one.

I'm probably like a lot in that space, not interested in being energized (I vote out of duty) but truly want someone with skills.

And not just nunchuk skills.

Bay Area Guy said...

On political matters, 538 has earned my respect over the last few election cycles ( unlike Vox). Jeb has political baggage, Paul has baggage, Christie has baggage, all of them have some baggage.

I don't care though.

The sole objective is to deny Hillary a 3rd liberal, Dem presidential term. Really, that's how bad the national Democratic party has become.

So, even though I'm not a Gung Ho Conservative or Republican, every single GOP candidate is preferable to Hillary. She would be an absolute train wreck for the country. Pulling the lever for, say, Huckabee would be very awkward and counter-intuitive, but I would do it, if necessary.

If Walker or Paul wins the nomination, I would joyfully pull the level for either.

Larvell said...

But only Scott Walker sits on a throne made of the skulls of his enemies.

Sebastian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sebastian said...

If the consensus is mildly bearish and they are mildly bearish relative to the consensus, they are pretty bearish.

Bush will get a chunk of the base. If opposition solidifies, e.g. behind Walker, he's toast; if not, he may divide and conquer.

He should just change his last name to Garnica and be done with it.

Skyler said...

Oh, a democrat pollster wants Jeb to run for president! As if that were a good reason to continue a political dynasty more akin to the nation of George III than of George Washington.

Skyler said...

Dammit. I got bear and bull mixed up again.

I never understand economics people. Bears are very fast, very aggressive and eat people. Bulls toss people around, but rarely eat people. So why are bears the image of sluggishness in the economy?

They should have bears and slugs, or bulls and slugs. Or anything vigorous and slugs as their images. Okay, maybe sloths. Or drying paint.

But bears are not slow or weak.

Brando said...

The "consensus" is on Bush right now because of name recognition and access to donors--plus, he leads the GOP polls right now. But as we get closer to the end of the year, and we start seeing quarterly fundraising hauls and ad buys, we should get a better picture. If 2012 was a guide, the polls will take a lot of wild swings.

The difference between 2012 and now is then there was really no viable non-Romney alternative (at least once Perry flamed out). Newt and Santorum were protest candidates but could never do better than that, and Bachmann and "9-9-9" were jokes. Huntsman and Pawlenty were too bland, and never taken seriously. This time around, it's not crazy to imagine a stronger Perry, Walker or even Rubio getting traction. Cruz and Paul may have low cielings, and Christie probably isn't going to storm in on a white horse (not really sure which group he'd appeal most to, though I appreciate he's at least willing to talk about social security). Thus, Bush doesn't have the benefit Romney had in 2012 of being the only viable candidate.

Saint Croix said...

My hope is that Jeb keeps Christie out, and then Jeb implodes in spectacular fashion in Iowa and New Hampshire.

In one poll, 42% of Republican say they would not vote for Jeb Bush.

He's raising an insane amount of money, apparently. But how does that help when so many Republicans do not like you? You can't buy affection. All you can do is go negative, spend all that money trashing Cruz, Rubio, Paul, Walker. And how do you think the base will feel about that, Mr. Bush?

The very idea of Bush vs. Clinton gives me hives. Antipathy to Obama does not mean that I want to go back to same old shit.

Skyler said...

Even if Jeb doesn't run, his war chest will be used to make him a kingmaker, in his plan. The family must be in charge one way or the other.

A pox on the Bush family. They have destroyed the Reagan revolution.

traditionalguy said...

Things go better with Koch.

traditionalguy said...

Get a grip, Skyler. Remember, bears hibernate, which is what causes the stock market to fall: the investors are hibernating. Bulls charge ahead in bad times.

Skyler said...

Yeah, well I'm still going to go with slugs.

tim in vermont said...

Nate Silver is a Democrat operative. One has to interpret everything he says through that lens.

William said...

I watched Bush eat the pie. He's much better at nibbling snacks than Hillary. He has an easy way with people. After Rubio, he's the most personable candidate in the field......I'm sure over the course of a Presidency that he would get a lot of things wrong, but I don't think his decisions would generate a WTF response such has been the case with Obama. He's the least experimental of the Republican candidates.

tim in vermont said...

Support for my claim re Nate Silver being a Democrat operative.

retired said...

538 is another attempt to model and predict outcomes in a system that is too complex to forecast. As is the weather, both short and long term forecasts, and the economy where economists have quietly admitted they can't generate accurate forecasts. Not to mention the stock market where modern portfolio theory does not pick stocks or try and time the market.

Not to mention that Silver is a leftist tool.

machine said...

mebbe you should ask karl rove...or dick morris what they think.

Big Mike said...

I made the point weeks ago that Jeb Bush has not made -- seems not to believe that he has to make -- a case for voting for him. He raised lots of money. Big deal. What is the reason for someone to pull the lever for him? That a long time ago he was a popular governor? On that basis the Republicans should put up Joe Manchin, who at least has been busy in politics since being a popular governor. Politically not much distance between Joe and Jeb that I can see, outside of party registration that is.

retired said...

OTOH, if he had a different last name he could have won in '08 and/or '12. Or would you have stayed home anyway because ideological purity?
Walker/Rubio '16

Bruce Hayden said...

I watched Bush eat the pie. He's much better at nibbling snacks than Hillary. He has an easy way with people.

That is interesting because he is apparently considered the egg head, almost introvert, of the family. His father and esp. his brother, are considered much better at pressing the flesh and just connecting with people, at least on the retail level. Which is to maybe say that if Hillary! is that much worse than JEB, then she is pretty pathetic in that regard (which, I guess, we all knew).

machine said...

...but can he pretend to be a cowboy?

Todd Roberson said...

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz