On Rachel Maddow talking about Jeb Bush and the 2016 election

[davidpdx]

I was watching Rachel from last night when she was talking about Jeb Bush raising a ton of money through his brother and father. While these other idiots (Crusty Cruz, Man on Dog Santorum, No Brains Perry, Donald's Toupee, etc.) run or talk about running I am not seeing anyway that can match or beat Bush. Yes, the Republicans and the nation should have "Bush fatigue", but I think they are going to decide he is their best shot.

On our side, I'm not optimistic. Same song different verse. A well known candidate with strong connections all over the place who can raise money like crazy. I have said that I think Clinton will have raised (or have promises for contributions) in excess of a billion even before she announces and will raise at least a billion more before the end of the campaign. I'll go one more and say the two nominees will combined spend over $5 billion this time around.

These are the only two candidates that can raise the funds to run at the presidential level. This leads me to my other prediction and unfortunately I can't see it going any other direction at this point. It is going to be Bush vs. Clinton. Some may cheer at that prospect, but I think it is bad news. Between 1980 and today there has been only one election where a Bush was not on the ballot (1996) and when a Bush was on the ballot they have only lost once (1992).

I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but I have a bad feeling about this.

[misterhighwasted]

1. The one they lost was to Bill Clinton. And one they just stole.

Supreme Court picks are in play. Knowing how the GOP, namely Reagan/Bush, have stacked the political deck in their financial favor, THIS is probably one of the greatest reasons the Bush's see 2016 as a Must Win.

They will not allow a Dem to be selecting the SCourt.
Bush criminals need to be eyeballed closely on every underhanded move they make in this next year.

They have once before turned the election into a selection to their certain benefit, and they have no problem with doing so again.

[Cosmocat]

2. Yeah

Honestly, you are simply stating the obvious here.

It is the money and sadly is also is our electorate.

Name means so much.

What I have learned over time, to my dismay, is that we are not a particularly deep thinking electorate.

We tend to have very simple and very superficial tendencies at the polls.

These two blow everyone away simply based on name.

I tend to to THINK Hill wins out, cause there will be a sense that after the first place president it is time to have the first woman president.

But, who knows, this country is absolutely stupid enough to buy whatever bullshit the republicans will spin to try to get Jeb over the finish line.

Assuming it breaks this way, which again, is the most likely scenario.

[craigmatic]

3. You're wrong the other election where there was no bush or Clinton was 2012.

[davidpdx]

5. Partially wrong, yes

I was talking about a Bush being on the ballot, not a Clinton.

[lame54]

4. the kochs want walker...

and they have a way getting what they want$$$$$

[davidpdx]

6. I think Walker's arrogance will be his own undoing

He'll sink his own ship and no amount of money will save him.