Trump would fare as well as Bush in the general, so why not Trump?

Consider the source:

"Matt Latimer is a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush."

And what does Mr. Latimer write for Politico magazine?

[T]he Clintons want Jeb Bush to be the GOP nominee…. [T]he Clintons want to "elevate" him, Trump [has] charged, because they know they can beat him….

Donald Trump is right.

Remember the source.

Any number of political observers have expressed dismay at Bush’s seeming inability, or reluctance, to answer the most obvious question he could possibly be asked as a candidate: Did he support his brother’s invasion of Iraq? For those mapping it out on charts at home, the ever-evolving answer is currently: The war was a good idea, but mistakes were made, but we shouldn’t have gone in at all, but it’s a good thing that we did and anyway that terrible Obama screwed it up. Clear enough, for you?

Bethink the source.

The Democrats aren’t finished asking about Iraq. And they will find umpteen million ways to ask an understandably and obviously uncomfortable Jeb about his brother’s record on Hurricane Katrina, the Great Recession and the Wall Street bailouts…. When the Democrats are finished, poor Jeb Bush will be in more defensive postures than Amazon’s PR department.

Again, remind yourself of the source.

[Jeb's] family seems determined not to help matters. George W. already has threatened to campaign for his brother—the Clintons might even offer to pay for his trips.

Latimer may have (as has been alleged) an anti-Bush bug up his butt as big as a ballot box, but his analysis of the (widely presumed) general-election matchup defies mere prejudice. Hillary may be a loser, as she so competently demonstrated in 2008; but Jeb, as he has demonstrated so consistently for several months now, is even more competent at Loserdom than Hillary.

Still, does it really make any difference whom Republicans nominate?

The latest poll to pit Hillary Clinton against the running smorgasbord of Republican opponents was Fox News' (whose polling grades range from a "B" to a "C+," according to schoolmarm Nate Silver; not great, but not bad). In that poll, concluded Aug. 13, Clinton lost to Bush 42-44, although Clinton beat Trump 47-42 — all margin of error stuff. Yet it's that last number — 42 — that astounds, though it shouldn't.

More than 4 out of 10 American voters were willing to support an absolute assclown merely because an "R" preceded his name. The official tally of November 2016 will reveal roughly the same, whether it's Clinton vs. Trump, Clinton vs. Bush or Walker, or … or … or. The GOP could nominate Herman Cain or Louie Gohmert or Charles Manson in abstentia and the official tally would reflect a Republican loser somewhere in the neighborhood of America's populated percentage of madness: the mid-40s range. The nominee will simply make no difference; partisanship is now utterly unpersuadable and wholly immovable.

The only reason to cheer for Trump over Bush is that the general-election party would be far more fun, and the hangover much worse.

 

Comments

[Peter G]

First let me savor the alliteration of "... anti-Bush bug up his butt as big as a ballot box,". Mmm, so tasty.

I've been casually examining various poll because, well, I like numbers. The most interesting by far was the Fox News poll for it contains interesting meta-data on what Fox thinks is the proper strategy. And it isn't in what they polled but what they didn't. They did not explore all potential Clinton match ups, possibly because the pollees might expire before they got the job done. On who would be qualified they asked ,in order, about Trump, Walker, Cruz, Rubio and Fiorina. On Bush nothing. The order itself is irrelevant but who they asked about and who they did not tells me something about how they would shape the field if they could. Have at'er Fox.

[Peter G]

Btw, it has been my observation that the Republicans, for the last few election cycles, always go for their least likely loser. And so we had McCain and Romney and they were relatively easy to spot once the field shook out. That's why polls ask for second choices. But I am stumped now as to whom the least likely loser of this current crop might be. I think some pundits on the right may have made a simple spelling error. What they seem to have is a deep trench.

[Bob]

I agree the nominee will make no difference, at least at this point. The Clinton campaign has done the most oppo on Jeb and would be most comfortable running against him, but the others are at least as vulnerable. The Republican Party has been toadying to oligarchs at the exclusion of nearly all else, and it's impossible to hide from anyone but low information or delusional voters. The Democrats should just keep attacking Republican ideas and recent history.

[The Raven]

One devoutly hopes that Trump runs as an independent.

[[email protected]]

dat dar is a good kweshtion PM ... would jjjjiiiieeeeeeebb ax his broder to compain for hiiiim ...