Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Jeb Boasts of His Endorsement by… Eric Cantor?
A few days ago I recommended that Jeb Bush drop out of the primary. After sitting out the Obama years, Jeb’s political instincts are rusty, he’s far out of step with GOP voters, and he’s making the whole party look bad with his constant mistakes.
Little did I know Jeb was just warming up:
Eric Cantor, former House majority leader, will endorse Jeb Bush on Thursday evening and will be named a Virginia state co-chair of his presidential campaign, Republican sources tell POLITICO.
Cantor was courted intensely by other candidates. Cantor retains a strong political network in Virginia, a key primary and swing state. And he has enviable connections among Jewish business leaders who can be key supporters and donors.
“This is a big deal for Eric, and a big deal for Jeb,” said a top Republican involved in the negotiations.
A Cantor source said: “They have known each other for a long time, speak regularly and have great mutual respect for one another. Eric believes he is the only candidate with a real long-term vision for the country who can also actually implement it – not just talk about it.”
Eric. Cantor. The once-promising conservative who soon succumbed to the Beltway machine. The avatar of the self-interested, double-dealing GOP establishment. The target of the Republican base’s wrath who was tossed on his ample ear by unknown Tea Party candidate Dave Brat, despite the latter being down 30 points and many millions of dollars. Eric Cantor, who answered these anti-crony critics by immediately taking a job with massive investment bank and running their DC office.
Let me close with a quote by my favorite writer:
Published in GeneralJeb seems like a nice man. He had an excellent tenure as governor many years ago. But it’s obvious that his heart is not in this race, he doesn’t understand our Alinskyite political climate, and he is confused by both his base and modern media. The longer he vies for the nomination, the more he hurts himself and the GOP.
For the good of his country and his party, Bush needs to sit 2016 out.
I do not howl about Cruz. My husband is an active Cruz supporter, and my husband and I are never very far apart in political matters. Cruz is my second pick right now. In a field this big, that’s a pretty high ranking.
It is only a fallacy if it proves to be false. Of course, with Trump in the race, we may never get proof either way. Even so, hope is not dead. Politics is a game of likelihoods, not certainties, especially this far out.
Numbers USA says that Walker is more conservative on immigration than Cruz. Why is Walker not acceptable on immigration if Cruz is?
For that matter, why is Cruz acceptable on immigration? I thought you opposed amnesty.
Never said Walker was unacceptable on immigration. I chose the highest-polling conservative candidate with a reasonably well-established record. That’s currently Cruz. If Cruz is forced out of the race, the Trump haters will find something wrong with Walker, or whoever is the next most plausible conservative alternative to Jeb. And the next. And the next.
You see, I’ve seen that movie, too.
That is only true if all “Trump haters” are secretly for Jeb!
The reality is that many of us are for Walker, or Cruz, or someone else who’s neither Jeb! nor Trump. Ricochet’s own internal polling data should provide plenty of evidence for that: neither Jeb! nor Trump is polling very high among the membership; other people are.
I’m already hearing that Cruz “can’t win the general election” from Trump haters. They’re going after the guy that’s beating all their guys put together and they’re starting to go after the guy most likely to inherit Trump’s support.
If Trump craters, they’ll go after whoever inherits Trump’s support full blast. First Trump, then Cruz, then Walker, then whoever else is a threat to the GOP establishment’s Certified Pre-Owned Moderate™, whether that’s Jeb or Rubio or Kasich.
Just like in 2012, when they systematically destroyed the top non-Romney candidates until there was nobody left but Santorum, who was arguably the most obnoxious “conservative” in the race.
The only reason they’re not going after Cruz full blast is that they’re still busy trying to destroy Trump. You ought to be thanking God that Trump’s taking the GOP establishment’s heat. Every day Trump stays in the race is one more day your guy doesn’t face the Jebbernaut.
And every day Trump stays in the race is another day your guy doesn’t have to face the Jebbernaut. But don’t worry. If you do manage to force Trump out of the race, your guy’s time will come.
Be careful what you ask for. You just might get it.
I’m also hearing that Cruz can’t win the general from Trump cheerleaders – indeed, that’s a reason given for cheering on Trump rather than someone like Cruz. For example. That there are things about Cruz which may not make him electable is a generally-held opinion, not confined to any one faction.
At any rate, it may make sense to pay your fellow Ricochet members the compliment of believing them when they say they’re supporting someone who’s neither Jeb! nor Trump. Is it really so harmful to suspect that fellow Ricochetians might actually mean what they say?
NumbersUSA gives Ted Cruz a rating of “Very Good” on amnesty. Oops.
Obviously, if someone other than Trump becomes Jeb!’s main competition, then someone other than Trump becomes Jeb!’s main competition. Of course it won’t be easy, but anyone who thinks that the best bet against Jeb! – and the Democrat nominee – is someone other than Trump is also looking forward to that day, difficult as it may be. Such a day is obviously necessary for someone other than Jeb! or Trump to be the nominee.
Did you read the article? It’s a defensive piece trying to justify why they rate him that way despite his explicit support for amnesty. He says it’s not amnesty if they don’t get citizenship, which was McCain’s position, too, but is untrue whoever says it. His Gang of Eight Amendment combined more border security with amnesty. They say that it’s an immigration enforcing mechanism because of all the border stuff, but it was still amnesty, and if they weren’t politically close to Cruz, Cruz’s rating would be lower.
You read Adios, America, right?
Have you seen the Jebbernaut accomplish much? Jeb, at this stage, would much rather campaign positively and is having to be dragged into fights with Trump. Even then, Trump is a very small part of the Jeb campaign message. Later, when the field is narrowed down a little, Jeb may roll out some spending on the issue, but for now there’s no upside to it except fundraising opportunities.
Since Trump is Jeb’s chief hope for success, it’s unlikely that he’ll ever get particularly invested in taking him down, or, at least, not until Super Tuesday or later. He’ll talk about it some, because the Trump v Jeb narrative is good for Jeb, but he’s not going to go much further. What’s the upside? He’s not going to steal Trump’s votes for himself.
How do you plummet from single digits? I’d say the impact has already been felt and will continue, with what support Bush has remaining around its current anemic level but gradually declining until he gets out of the race. There won’t be a turn-around. That’s what Trump means to the Bush campaign. For the early-in, $120 million dollar man with that last name to be in single digits nationally, in Iowa, and in New Hampshire . . . it’s hard to plummet from that.
Bush’s numbers aren’t far off where they were a year ago. The betting markets still have him as the overwhelming favorite. He is being pretty effective, with Trump’s help, at rounding up endorsements and bringing institutions onto his team.
Bush has a lot of money, but he isn’t spending it on moving polls, so it’s not surprising that it isn’t resulting in big gains. In New Hampshire, he does face some apparently serious competition from Kasich, but that’s chiefly because Kasich has been spending freely in his effort to remain in the race (he needs to make whatever cut-off applies to the October 28 debates).
Anyway, as I understand it, your claim is that Trump’s devastating “low energy” put down will be so effective that Jeb doesn’t rise in the polls again from here on out? I agree that that would be a contribution.
Right — a year on he’s made no progress. This is a positive is the argument? Endorsements (and betting markets) matter more than voters voting for you? I was under the impression that votes counted for something more than, say, Eric Cantor’s blessing. But I may have that backwards, as you suggest. Yet, apparently not spending on “moving polls” in New Hampshire isn’t helping either, while doing so does help Kasich. Perhaps it’s all just too subtle for me. After all, the establishment does seem to keep winning, regardless of what voters want. Except then the establishment candidate loses. Which, I guess, is actually a victory, because the Trumps and ‘unelectable’ types are defeated. Leaving us with Obama and perhaps Hillary. Which I thought to be the opposite of the goal. Maybe that’s my misunderstanding.
Close. The “‘low energy’ put down” is actually the prelude. It’s the “can’t get it done” part that leaves the indelible mark, framing Jeb! as ineffectual. That’s a tag that sticks whether because he prefers not getting anything done (e.g, securing our border, ending Common Core) or because he’s just a less intelligent and less talented Romney. Which is to say, unable or unwilling to get dirty fighting by street rules—a deadly disadvantage when up against street fighters like Obama and Hillary.
The argument is that steadily applying this tag for months on end will soften his support to the point that it denies him an early strong primary showing, which he needs to seem viable / maintain ‘inevitability.’
If there’s a better strategy for defeating Jeb!, I’d be interested to hear it. I think I’ve heard mostly about how to defeat Trump, which seems to me of secondary importance. Trump is likely to defeat himself; I only wish for him first to defeat Jeb!
I’m pretty sure the GOP donor class would prefer Obama or Hillary to anyone who would actually reform governmental abuses and make the scope of government even a teensy bit smaller. They want “growth,” i.e. more of the same that we have now. You won’t get much growth under Obama or Hillary, but at least you won’t get any downsizing of government and its abuses.
Pretty much. A year ago, he was the favorite to win. Today, he’s the favorite to win, and with a somewhat improved position. That’s pretty much what I’d want if I were on the Bush team or a Bush donor. It was the fear that the second would be Rubio, who would take a lot of his funding and be hard to beat, or Walker, Perry, or (back then) Christie. Now his second and third are Trump and Carson, neither of whom seems like a plausible overall winner, meaning that viable candidates are struggling for fundraising.
Obviously, voters voting is the important thing, but that hasn’t happened yet. The betting markets have some advantages over polls, although they have their own problems, too. The endorsements and fundraising totals are independent metrics, too. Bush’s dominance in all of the non-poll metrics is a big deal.
Well, sure. Cantor’s blessing probably won’t come up in histories of this cycle, but the professionalism and effectiveness of the campaign will, and Cantor is a symptom of, and will in the future help with, that.
Is that not obvious? You get boosts when you spend. Bush is, so far, keeping his powder dry, as are most others. Kasich can’t, because he’s on the edge of dropping out. This has resulted in a boost in the polls at a time that isn’t meaningful to most people, but is meaningful to Kasich, for that reason.
Well, okay. So, just to be clear, the claim is that the “can’t get it done” zinger means that Bush will not climb in the polls over the coming months?
Your model apparently has the critical variable as “spending,” yes? Voters are somewhat like automatons, responding to whomever places the the most ads (or perhaps the ‘best’) closest to the election. That might be, I suppose. Presumably there’s research demonstrating this. I imagine some theorize voters as a little more engaged and discerning; as having principles and issues that resonate with them and able to align those preferences with a fairly well thought-out sense of ‘expected outcome’ from candidates A thru Z. But, I guess we’ll see!
Why deny yourself the best part! [:-)
Voters aren’t automatons, but they respond to information. Kasich is informing the public about his views and record, and thus getting a bump. I’m not sure if you’re arguing that the marketing industry in general is a scam, or just that the correlation between spending and results in politics is coincidental.
In Vincent’s immortal words in Pulp Fiction, “That’s a bold statement.”
Especially bold on a news day abuzz with poll results showing two political neophytes together claim a majority of GOP voter support. Not a plurality; a majority. Two guys who’ve never run for anything. One—named “Trump”—has nearly one-third all to himself.
Meanwhile a guy with name recognition, mega-donor$, a solid track record, can’t get into double digits. But Jeb!, you say, has’m right where he wants ‘em. His single digit poll numbers apparently distract me from his winning strategy.
Maybe. The Empire knows how to fight back, that’s for sure.
That’s a correlation which exists, except when it doesn’t. In other words, it’s meaningless. In those cases where it does exist, you cannot establish causation with electoral outcomes. As a point in a sales pitch by political consultants, however, it has a strong emotional appeal to those who desperately want to win an election.