CNN/ORC Poll: Bush surges to 2016 GOP frontrunner

[nodoginnafight]

He has the lead, but it's a post-announcement surge. Christie and Rubio and Cruz and Santorum will all get one too. Exception might be Paul, whose base is probably pretty much tapped until he campaigns.

rand paul sure has done a number on the conservatives and republicans.

rand paul is the guy who went on Rachel Maddow's show and proclaimed he doesn't support and would not have voted for the civil rights act or the voting rights act.

That's not even close to moderate. That's far right.

Paul (much like his father) is weird. He has a mix of extreme far right policies, libertarian policies, and even a few progressive ones. This is why I think his room for growth is smaller than just about any other candidate. Iowa has a libertarian streak though, with a win there and some establishment/moderate splintering (say, Romney, Bush, and Christie all run) he could contend for the nomination.

Given his history and his current positions - I'd be surprised to see him EVER poll more than about 15% nationally. He maybe could win a few crowded primaries, but I don't see him as a serious contender at all. I guess we will see..

Ron Paul came close to winning Iowa last time. And between his loyal base there and the knee-jerk bump one always gets from winning Iowa, winning New Hampshire could have very well happened. Then who knows?

That is the main thing that keeps me from writing him off.

Winning a crowded primary like Iowa is not surprising when you have the ultra-motivated supporters (you know, the ones who are hacking internet polls in order to create the appearance of more support). But he's not a national candidate imho.

 

[Synthaholic]

Poll Bush surges to 2016 GOP frontrunner - CNN.com

SUUUUURRRE he does... because the poll only polled DEMOCRATS!

What a farce.

Exactly, beware the republican candidate that the leftist media favors. The same thing happened with Romney, the media elevated him above the others, and then pulverized him once he became the candidate.

Show an instance of the media elevating Romney.

 

[Synthaholic]

Exactly, beware the republican candidate that the leftist media favors. The same thing happened with Romney, the media elevated him above the others, and then pulverized him once he became the candidate.

The polls elevated him above everyone else and the media follows the polls

I think the problem was, the Republican base didn't really want Romney. and you had a series of times in 2007 when they took a look at everyone else. There was even a point where Herman Cain was leading Romney in the polls. They were willing to give him a look.

The problem was every time "someone else" got a look at, we saw them. When they looked at Perry, the realized he was kind of stupid. When they looked at Cain, we found out about all the women he played grab-ass with. When they looked at Gingrich, they remembered who he was... oh, yeah, THAT guy!

There's an old saying that Democrats fall in love with their candidates, but Republicans fall in line. The GOP hasn't been in love with a candidate since Reagan.

Republicans went into an "Anybody but Romney" frenzy

Trump, Perry, Cain, Gingrich.....all surged at some point

You are correct in that they looked attractive when nobody knew them but faded under the spotlight

Bachmann actually won the Iowa straw poll.

Santorum was leading the pack for a while.

Those two tidbits tell you all you need to know about Romney's attractiveness - he had run in 2008, so it wasn't like he was the new guy that they didn't know. They knew. They didn't like.

 

[Synthaholic]

Things in Jeb Bush's favor:

He has name recognition
He has a good record as Gov of Florida
He can do well with the Hispanic vote
He can win in swing states, especially Florida and Ohio

Things working against him:

He is a rather dull speaker
He has the stink of Bush

Again the Romney plan where you all loved him as the center candidate who can reach across party lines in the primaries then he became a radical reactionary in the general election.

Why are you depending on The Left to elect your candidate?

Strawman

If so, you introduced it.

It makes no difference which Republican candidate the Democrats favor. It's irrelevant to who the Republican voters eventually pick.

 

[Synthaholic]

I voted for Reagan and Bush four times. I spent twenty years as a Republican until the mid nineties when the Gingrich revolution turned me against them for good.
I am not alone.

No, you are not alone. Lots of other liberals lie they used to be a Republican. It's a very odd thing liberals do, as if it's supposed to be persuasive when you say after voting for Republicans you suddenly realized you were a Marxist and it suddenly dawned on you that Republicans aren't Marxists so you left the party. You're even left in the Democratic party, but you were a Republican. And I used to be Diana Ross, but not anymore.

No reason to lie

I grew up in New York in a Republican family. Nelson Rockefeller and Jacob Javits Republicans. They actually cared about people.
The party changed. They completely abandoned any semblance of doing what is right for the people they represent
I, and millions like me, left the party

Right, the Republican party used to be Marxists, but they aren't now so you had to go to the Democrats. I'm convinced. Sure you were.

So to you, "caring about people" = Marxist?

No wonder you occupy the fringe and have no influence.

 

[Dana7360]

He has the lead, but it's a post-announcement surge. Christie and Rubio and Cruz and Santorum will all get one too. Exception might be Paul, whose base is probably pretty much tapped until he campaigns.

rand paul sure has done a number on the conservatives and republicans.

rand paul is the guy who went on Rachel Maddow's show and proclaimed he doesn't support and would not have voted for the civil rights act or the voting rights act.

That's not even close to moderate. That's far right.

Paul (much like his father) is weird. He has a mix of extreme far right policies, libertarian policies, and even a few progressive ones. This is why I think his room for growth is smaller than just about any other candidate. Iowa has a libertarian streak though, with a win there and some establishment/moderate splintering (say, Romney, Bush, and Christie all run) he could contend for the nomination.

I don't know many moderates who would vote for a man who proudly stated he doesn't support nor would he have voted for the civil rights act or the voting rights act.

I consider myself a moderate liberal. There's absolutely no way I would ever vote for that man. The man is right wing trying to convince people he's moderate. He's another republican liar.

 

[Synthaholic]

That makes no sense. We do know that the Dems took the popular vote 5 times and 4 times; the Pubs took the popular vote once and won two times. Had the Pubs not taken the center and left of center they would not have won what they did take.

So Gore was running for the popular vote? Wow, he was too stupid to be President.

Your babble didn't contradict me. W while not being a Conservative motivated them. The first time because he lied that he was Conservative. The second time it was a combination of Iraq and that the Democrats ran a gag candidate, John F'ing Kerry.

The other four, Republicans ran center/left candidates who were clearly center/left who were disliked by the right and lost. The problem with center left is they like you can't decide which party you support while the leftists in the Democratic party don't have that split and then the conservatives stay home.

Stop babbling. Your take on the history of it is perverted and senseless.

The cons won twice, because they had the right and took the center once and SCOTUS the other time.

We have no candidate other than Bush who can take the center. None.

Jeb being a Bush is as much of a weakness for getting the center as Romney's negative caricatures. If anything I'd say Romney has the edge on Bush when it comes to center appeal, it's his Mormonism that he really hurts his appeal to most (not all) Christian conservatives, which is something Jeb doesn't have to deal with when appealing to that crowd

I thought it was going to sink Mittens, since it's written into the Southern Baptist creed/bylaws that Mormonism is a cult.

But no. Apparently their Party comes before their Christianity. Southern Baptists turned out huge in 2012.

So Republicans are Christian bigots who want their God in government, but no wait, they are hypocrites because they voted for the candidate they like better. You're flip flopping more than Romney.

I didn't say "Republicans". I said Southern Baptists were hypocrites - not bigots - for voting for Romney when their covenants specifically call Mormonism a cult.

Now, if you want to argue that they are bigots for feeling that way about Mormonism, that's another topic. I think they are dead on. But I believe Southern Baptists belong to a cult, also.

 

[Dana7360]

He has the lead, but it's a post-announcement surge. Christie and Rubio and Cruz and Santorum will all get one too. Exception might be Paul, whose base is probably pretty much tapped until he campaigns.

rand paul sure has done a number on the conservatives and republicans.

rand paul is the guy who went on Rachel Maddow's show and proclaimed he doesn't support and would not have voted for the civil rights act or the voting rights act.

That's not even close to moderate. That's far right.

Paul (much like his father) is weird. He has a mix of extreme far right policies, libertarian policies, and even a few progressive ones. This is why I think his room for growth is smaller than just about any other candidate. Iowa has a libertarian streak though, with a win there and some establishment/moderate splintering (say, Romney, Bush, and Christie all run) he could contend for the nomination.

Paul has been toning down his message and moving more towards the center

He will do better than his father but his libertarian outreach will limit his popularity

He's doing what the bush boy did in 2000. Pretend he's a moderate when really he's a right winger.

I sure hope that Americans see through his lies.

 

[Synthaholic]

There is no far right viable candidate, except maybe Paul.

Ted Cruz, Jeff Sessions, Trey Gowdy, Mike Lee, Dr Carson, Alan West... shall I go on?

How did you ever get so full of shit?

Hence the word "viable"

See, it was a clown question bro. You are defining viable. Who gives a shit what a Marxist considers "viable?"

Well, then the vast majority of Americans are Marxist. Ted Cruz has no political future other than holding his Senate seat. And I bet he gets voted out when he's up. Texas is turning purple rapidly.

You think RW is representative of a "vast majority of Americans?" Seriously? LOL, that's classic.

On the issue of Havana Ted's viability? Absolutely.

 

[Synthaholic]

Hence the word "viable"

See, it was a clown question bro. You are defining viable. Who gives a shit what a Marxist considers "viable?"

Viable means a chance to win

Ted Cruz, Jeff Sessions, Trey Gowdy, Mike Lee, Dr Carson, Alan West have no chance

Reagan had no chance either, remember?

Ted Kennedy had a lot to do with Reagan's win.

And?

And what? It's indisputable.

 

[Synthaholic]

The evidence shows that conservatives DID NOT stay home as you suggest.

In 2012 conservatives made up 35% of the electorate.
In 2008 conservatives made up 34% of the electorate.

(In 1980 - "the Reagan Revolution" - Conservatives made up 28% of the electorate)

So this narrative that "Conservatives stayed home in 2008 and 2012" is false - and proven false by the numbers.

2004 - 34%
2000 - 29%
1996 - 33%
1992 - 30%
1988 - 33%
1984 - 33%

Mitt Romney gave you the highest turnout among conservatives in at least 32 years!

I'm sorry if it goes against what you'd LIKE people to think but the numbers don't lie. The GOP has maxed out on what they are going to get from the far right. The only ground they can make up is among moderates where a Republican has NEVER won without getting at least 45% of the moderate vote since 1980. Romney and McCain lost the moderate vote by more than that.

THAT is why they lost.

Every narrative you guys try to trot out to try to justify a shift to the right:

"Conservatives stayed home" or "Romney won the moderates and STILL lost"

Has been proven false by the actual numbers. Who is telling you this crap?

Would you rather lose on Fantasy Island or win in the real world?

Hillary Clinton called herself a "fiscal conservative." I reject your definition of self described. Jake says he's a Republican. Self described is meaningless.

Doesn't matter what you accept and it's not MY definition (as I think you are probably aware - not sure why you tried to attribute it to me).

The numbers don't lie. You can continue to lose where you live on fantasy island - or you can make the journey to the real world where you may be more successful.

You think that anyone who thinks government shouldn't make our choices for us lives on fantasy island? I wouldn't be lecturing anyone on the "real world." In the real world, government are power hungry and unaccountable and make crappy choices.

Why aren't you addressing the numbers?

I did, I said they are irrelevant.

Why is data irrelevant?

 

[bendog]

He has the lead, but it's a post-announcement surge. Christie and Rubio and Cruz and Santorum will all get one too. Exception might be Paul, whose base is probably pretty much tapped until he campaigns.

rand paul sure has done a number on the conservatives and republicans.

rand paul is the guy who went on Rachel Maddow's show and proclaimed he doesn't support and would not have voted for the civil rights act or the voting rights act.

That's not even close to moderate. That's far right.

Paul (much like his father) is weird. He has a mix of extreme far right policies, libertarian policies, and even a few progressive ones. This is why I think his room for growth is smaller than just about any other candidate. Iowa has a libertarian streak though, with a win there and some establishment/moderate splintering (say, Romney, Bush, and Christie all run) he could contend for the nomination.

I don't know many moderates who would vote for a man who proudly stated he doesn't support nor would he have voted for the civil rights act or the voting rights act.

I consider myself a moderate liberal. There's absolutely no way I would ever vote for that man. The man is right wing trying to convince people he's moderate. He's another republican liar.

Randian Paul has yet to meet an issue he won't flip flop upon. This presents no problem for him.

 

[Synthaholic]

So why did Romney lose you ask? Simple, BECAUSE HE DIDN'T GET THE ***CONSERVATIVE*** VOTE.

Are you seriously saying that the Right-Wing stayed home in 2012? Because that's easily disproven with the numbers, compared with past elections.

Also, what Right-Winger missed the chance to get the Kenyan Usurper out of office?

More conservatives voted for Romney than any other Presidential candidate.

Just look at the exit polls.

In 2012, 35% of the electorate was conservative, and Romney won 82% of the conservative vote. 129 million people voted. Do the math 129mm x 35% x 82% = 37 million conservatives voted for Romney.

If you do the same math for 2008 and 2004, 35 million conservatives voted for both McCain and Bush while 25 million conservatives voted for Bush in 2000.

There are some on the far right who can't accept it, but you and I have both provided all the data. The GOP has clearly maxed out on what they can get from the far right. Trying to appease this group further makes absolutely NO sense and if they demand it, they will cost themselves the White House. In at least 32 years, no GOP candidate has won the White House without getting at least 45% of the moderate vote.

Exactly.

Here's how many conservatives voted for the Republican candidate (in millions), and the percent of the electorate who said they were conservative.

2012 37mm, 35%
2008 34.8mm, 34%
2004 34.9mm, 34%
2000 24.8mm, 29%
1996 23.6mm, 34%
1992 20mm, 30%
1988 24.5mm, 33%
1984 25.1mm, 33%
1980 17.7mm, 28%
1976 17.7mm, 31%

So not only did Romney win more conservative votes than any other candidate in history, conservatives made up more of the electorate in at least the last 10 elections. So the idea that Romney and McCain lost because conservatives stayed home is pure fiction.

The only election where this seems to be the case was in 1992 when Bush only won 64% of conservatives, the lowest in at least the last 10 elections.

And Bush can thank Gingrich and Pat Buchanan for Clinton's election.

 

[bendog]

So why did Romney lose you ask? Simple, BECAUSE HE DIDN'T GET THE ***CONSERVATIVE*** VOTE.

Are you seriously saying that the Right-Wing stayed home in 2012? Because that's easily disproven with the numbers, compared with past elections.

Also, what Right-Winger missed the chance to get the Kenyan Usurper out of office?

More conservatives voted for Romney than any other Presidential candidate.

Just look at the exit polls.

In 2012, 35% of the electorate was conservative, and Romney won 82% of the conservative vote. 129 million people voted. Do the math 129mm x 35% x 82% = 37 million conservatives voted for Romney.

If you do the same math for 2008 and 2004, 35 million conservatives voted for both McCain and Bush while 25 million conservatives voted for Bush in 2000.

There are some on the far right who can't accept it, but you and I have both provided all the data. The GOP has clearly maxed out on what they can get from the far right. Trying to appease this group further makes absolutely NO sense and if they demand it, they will cost themselves the White House. In at least 32 years, no GOP candidate has won the White House without getting at least 45% of the moderate vote.

Exactly.

Here's how many conservatives voted for the Republican candidate (in millions), and the percent of the electorate who said they were conservative.

2012 37mm, 35%
2008 34.8mm, 34%
2004 34.9mm, 34%
2000 24.8mm, 29%
1996 23.6mm, 34%
1992 20mm, 30%
1988 24.5mm, 33%
1984 25.1mm, 33%
1980 17.7mm, 28%
1976 17.7mm, 31%

So not only did Romney win more conservative votes than any other candidate in history, conservatives made up more of the electorate in at least the last 10 elections. So the idea that Romney and McCain lost because conservatives stayed home is pure fiction.

The only election where this seems to be the case was in 1992 when Bush only won 64% of conservatives, the lowest in at least the last 10 elections.

And Bush can thank Gingrich and Pat Buchanan for Clinton's election.

Or Greenspan for saying rising deficits mean higher interest rates. Back when inflation was thought to be tied to deficits .... and when the fed had no role in policing mortgages.

 

[S.J.]

See, it was a clown question bro. You are defining viable. Who gives a shit what a Marxist considers "viable?"

Viable means a chance to win

Ted Cruz, Jeff Sessions, Trey Gowdy, Mike Lee, Dr Carson, Alan West have no chance

Obviously, they are the ones you fear the most. If they weren't, you would be urging us to vote for them instead of dismiss them.

Vote for them! I'm urging! Get Poor Sarah in there, too! And Bachmann! Maybe you can bring back Pat Robertson, Gary Bauer, Pat Buchanan, and David Duke, too!

No, I think you're afraid of Cruz, Sessions, Gowdy, Lee, Carson, and West. Your mention of Palin and the others is your attempt at distraction. You fear the ones you mentioned first, especially Cruz.

curz has dual citizenship with Canada.

I don't know about you but most Americans want a president who has citizenship to one nation. America.

Speaking for myself, cruz isn't even an American. I don't consider a man who was born in Canada and has citizenship to Canada an American citizen with the ability to be our president.

On top of that he's stupid and has a god complex. If you think that anyone is afraid of cruz being president I've got a wonderful bridge to sell you right in the middle of the Mojave Desert.

But you consider a communist, born in Kenya, an American citizen with the ability to be our president. There goes your credibility.

 

[Synthaholic]

More conservatives voted for Romney than any other Presidential candidate.

Just look at the exit polls.

In 2012, 35% of the electorate was conservative, and Romney won 82% of the conservative vote. 129 million people voted. Do the math 129mm x 35% x 82% = 37 million conservatives voted for Romney.

If you do the same math for 2008 and 2004, 35 million conservatives voted for both McCain and Bush while 25 million conservatives voted for Bush in 2000.

There are some on the far right who can't accept it, but you and I have both provided all the data. The GOP has clearly maxed out on what they can get from the far right. Trying to appease this group further makes absolutely NO sense and if they demand it, they will cost themselves the White House. In at least 32 years, no GOP candidate has won the White House without getting at least 45% of the moderate vote.

Exactly.

Here's how many conservatives voted for the Republican candidate (in millions), and the percent of the electorate who said they were conservative.

2012 37mm, 35%
2008 34.8mm, 34%
2004 34.9mm, 34%
2000 24.8mm, 29%
1996 23.6mm, 34%
1992 20mm, 30%
1988 24.5mm, 33%
1984 25.1mm, 33%
1980 17.7mm, 28%
1976 17.7mm, 31%

So not only did Romney win more conservative votes than any other candidate in history, conservatives made up more of the electorate in at least the last 10 elections. So the idea that Romney and McCain lost because conservatives stayed home is pure fiction.

The only election where this seems to be the case was in 1992 when Bush only won 64% of conservatives, the lowest in at least the last 10 elections.

Hillary Clinton says she is a fiscal conservative.

What says she isn't?

LOL, she's a tea partier, big guy. You people are funny.

Teabaggers aren't fiscal conservatives, they are anarchists willing to expose the nation to enormous damage based on half-baked ideas.

 

[Synthaholic]

More conservatives voted for Romney than any other Presidential candidate.

Just look at the exit polls.

In 2012, 35% of the electorate was conservative, and Romney won 82% of the conservative vote. 129 million people voted. Do the math 129mm x 35% x 82% = 37 million conservatives voted for Romney.

If you do the same math for 2008 and 2004, 35 million conservatives voted for both McCain and Bush while 25 million conservatives voted for Bush in 2000.

There are some on the far right who can't accept it, but you and I have both provided all the data. The GOP has clearly maxed out on what they can get from the far right. Trying to appease this group further makes absolutely NO sense and if they demand it, they will cost themselves the White House. In at least 32 years, no GOP candidate has won the White House without getting at least 45% of the moderate vote.

Exactly.

Here's how many conservatives voted for the Republican candidate (in millions), and the percent of the electorate who said they were conservative.

2012 37mm, 35%
2008 34.8mm, 34%
2004 34.9mm, 34%
2000 24.8mm, 29%
1996 23.6mm, 34%
1992 20mm, 30%
1988 24.5mm, 33%
1984 25.1mm, 33%
1980 17.7mm, 28%
1976 17.7mm, 31%

So not only did Romney win more conservative votes than any other candidate in history, conservatives made up more of the electorate in at least the last 10 elections. So the idea that Romney and McCain lost because conservatives stayed home is pure fiction.

The only election where this seems to be the case was in 1992 when Bush only won 64% of conservatives, the lowest in at least the last 10 elections.

Hillary Clinton says she is a fiscal conservative.

That's nice.

Didn't get it, huh? Self reported conservatives as the standard for conservatives is deeply flawed and proves nothing. Liberals often call themselves conservatives when they support confiscatory tax rates to pay for their spending. That isn't conservative, and they aren't the ones who stayed home.

Jake calls himself a Republican, RW calls himself an Eisenhower Republican. You can call yourself anything you want.

Jake is a Republican. I've never seen him refer to himself as a conservative, though.

Just like Zander. He's a Republican, but his only issue is his personal financial well-being. He could care less about boys kissing, or reproductive rights, or prayer in schools.

There are all sorts of Republicans. The conservatives are not the standard by which to be measured.

 

[rightwinger]

He has the lead, but it's a post-announcement surge. Christie and Rubio and Cruz and Santorum will all get one too. Exception might be Paul, whose base is probably pretty much tapped until he campaigns.

rand paul sure has done a number on the conservatives and republicans.

rand paul is the guy who went on Rachel Maddow's show and proclaimed he doesn't support and would not have voted for the civil rights act or the voting rights act.

That's not even close to moderate. That's far right.

Paul (much like his father) is weird. He has a mix of extreme far right policies, libertarian policies, and even a few progressive ones. This is why I think his room for growth is smaller than just about any other candidate. Iowa has a libertarian streak though, with a win there and some establishment/moderate splintering (say, Romney, Bush, and Christie all run) he could contend for the nomination.

Given his history and his current positions - I'd be surprised to see him EVER poll more than about 15% nationally. He maybe could win a few crowded primaries, but I don't see him as a serious contender at all. I guess we will see..

Ron Paul came close to winning Iowa last time. And between his loyal base there and the knee-jerk bump one always gets from winning Iowa, winning New Hampshire could have very well happened. Then who knows?

That is the main thing that keeps me from writing him off.

Iowa is good for four delegates and Iowa is not the same demographic as New Hampshire
Like his father, Rand will have the financing to run in all the primaries. Like his father, he will steal some of the caucuses but not be able to win nationwide primaries

 

[Synthaholic]

More conservatives voted for Romney than any other Presidential candidate.

Just look at the exit polls.

In 2012, 35% of the electorate was conservative, and Romney won 82% of the conservative vote. 129 million people voted. Do the math 129mm x 35% x 82% = 37 million conservatives voted for Romney.

If you do the same math for 2008 and 2004, 35 million conservatives voted for both McCain and Bush while 25 million conservatives voted for Bush in 2000.

There are some on the far right who can't accept it, but you and I have both provided all the data. The GOP has clearly maxed out on what they can get from the far right. Trying to appease this group further makes absolutely NO sense and if they demand it, they will cost themselves the White House. In at least 32 years, no GOP candidate has won the White House without getting at least 45% of the moderate vote.

Exactly.

Here's how many conservatives voted for the Republican candidate (in millions), and the percent of the electorate who said they were conservative.

2012 37mm, 35%
2008 34.8mm, 34%
2004 34.9mm, 34%
2000 24.8mm, 29%
1996 23.6mm, 34%
1992 20mm, 30%
1988 24.5mm, 33%
1984 25.1mm, 33%
1980 17.7mm, 28%
1976 17.7mm, 31%

So not only did Romney win more conservative votes than any other candidate in history, conservatives made up more of the electorate in at least the last 10 elections. So the idea that Romney and McCain lost because conservatives stayed home is pure fiction.

The only election where this seems to be the case was in 1992 when Bush only won 64% of conservatives, the lowest in at least the last 10 elections.

Great points. But in '92 conservatives were still 30% of the electorate - just about 3 points behind normal. So I don't think they stayed home in droves or anything. But Perot siphoned off about 18% of them and Clinton got 18% of the conservative vote too.

Yup.

I do think conservatives can make a very good argument that the Bush tax increases cost Bush the election as enough of them stayed home or switched to Perot. But otherwise, the conservatives-staying-home-caused-them-to-lose-the-election is mythology.

Perot pulled conservative votes away from Bush and allowed little known Clinton to win

He pulled my vote too, and I'm a Liberal!

 

[Synthaholic]

The media always tries to pick out candidates for us.

Only problem is, with as many stupid people as we have on both sides of the aisle, it often works.

Look at McCain and Romney.

Precisely... it's an election tactic, and it's had a reasonable amount of success.

That's why we see the left continue to use it.

Yep , Republicans are so stupid that they let the media select their candidate for them.

The Media is the ones who picked Obama.

No, Americans picked Obama.

No, the media picked him and then Americans went along with the hype.

Tell that to all those who voted for Hillary. I myself voted for Biden.