You Read It Here First

And I stated it nearly a year ago, right here on Swamp Bubbles!
I have no special incite about Republican politics. It just seemed to me that the best qualified, most intelligent of the Bush family was being ignored by too many people in the discussion of who might be a strong Presidential candidate in 2016. In addition, members of the Bush family have established so many ties to so many political activists throughout the nation, how could Jeb be overlooked?
This does NOT mean I favor a Jeb Bush candidacy. It only means that my political instincts tell me that he would be a force to be reckoned with in 2016, if he chooses to run. There is little doubt in my mind that Jeb would be the toughest Republican to beat in 2016. The main problem he would face is obtaining the Republican nomination. Too many Republican "true believers" would rather lose in 2016 with a "true believer" heading the ticket, than win with someone who does not equate compromise with surrender.
Here's the link to the story posted on the Yahoo finance website:

No votes yet

Did you start your weekend a little early?

And I stop at one. How many for you?

I'm pretty offended at G-man's continued attacks against you because you have one drink a day. That's being a world-class asshole, right there. Though I bet G-man's anger and resentment is because he's restricted to zero per day due to some sort of legal issue like a probation agreement.

You want Jeb Bush to run so that the Republicans lose again.

You must think we're children or something.

face of contrary evidence. Bush #41, one win. Bush #43, two wins.

As I stated -- the toughest part for Jeb will be getting the Republican nomination.

You haven't got anyone who will appeal to much more than old white male angry voters on your side, so you might as well concede the election now. Rick Perry won't fly and is under indictment, Jeb Bush won't fly, Chris Christie is in the middle of a scandal, Mitt Rmoney's remarks will haunt him forever, and Rafael Eduardo (Ted) Cruz is ineligible to run due to being a foreign-born brown guy with a foreign-born communist-supporting dad.

Unfuck your head, AC. Your memory really blurs when you deal with Libertarians. My side is only about 5% of the voting population. We lose in every election, guaranteed. And we come from all walks of life. We're the nuts who want to REALLY cut the size of government... cut down or eliminate every program, and all borrowing.

Liberals and Conservatives who make it into public office always spend hugely. And they either tax to make up for it, or they borrow. That's not my "side", AC.

You partisans really shake the banana.

You're legally a Republican, GZ, you voted for them in the primary and in doing so you swore under the laws of Ohio that you truly believe in their principles and their party.

If you were REALLY a LLLLLLibertarian, you would have not voted in the primary because voting for the GOP just serves to entrench the two-party system further. Did you fucking miss the REPUBLICANS passing a bill to restrict ballot access for the LP and other "third party" candidates? Of course you did, because you're stupid and you vote against your own interests all the time.

Talk you way out of THAT one, GZ (R)-etard!

As we've noted many times elsewhere and elsewhen, you Liberals sure hate it when people vote... vote in ways you don't approve of.

I have the right to vote, which implies for anyone I desire, hence I voted. Party affiliated can't countermand my right to vote.

Shed some more tears.

I might vote for Hiliarity in the primary like I did before, oh Republican that I am!

Yes. You read it here first. Please note, George P. talking about Republicans broadening the party's appeal by engaging Hispanic voters (his mother, Jeb's wife, was born and raised in Mexico) and younger voters, and taking up the causes of fairness for women and alternative energy sources. May I remind you that HE'S RUNNING FOR OFFICE IN TEXAS!

Here's the interview:

Here's the Fox news coverage (since I know that many who read and post here only believe it if it's on Fox News):

BTW: George P. is a likely next governor of Texas 4 years from now, AND a likely candidate for POTUS himself after Jeb. Hmmm...Can you imagine Jeb vs. Hillary in 2016...then George P. vs. Chelsea in 2024?
Now, all of you who LOVE conspiracies...GO CRAZY!

I have no doubt he'll run. I do doubt he will win.

His candidacy will have to distance himself from the last 3 years of his brother's presidency. Also he'll be in a field of a lot of candidates. I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP has a brokered convention.


keep apologizing for W. and remember, W won TWICE as Governor of Texas, and TWICE for POTUS. HW won for POTUS once. There is a natural, nationwide constituency in place for the brightest of the Bush family, Jeb.

As I stated before, Jeb's biggest hurdle will be getting the Republican nomination. Many here and throughout the nation see Jeb as just another RINO. They want NO COMPROMISE. They would rather lose with a 100% "true believer," than win with someone with whom they only agree about 93% of the time. I feel that even Rand Paul and his "Republicans have to broaden our base or we'll never win again," statements had better change his conciliatory tone, if he wants to secure the Republican nod for 2016.
Speaking from a strictly political perspective, a large field of candidates would FAVOR someone like Jeb, who has the strongest name recognition among probable voters. And, remember, he DID win the governorship TWICE in Florida, our third most populous state, currently tied with New York in electoral votes. Second place belongs to Texas. Think Jeb has a shot there, especially with a wife who was born and raised in Mexico, and his and her son who will soon hold a statewide office there?

How about a Bush-Carson ticket for 2016? WOW! A candidate who is married to someone born and raised in Mexico, and who has an African-American running mate! You'd vote for that ticket in a heartbeat, Mikey, and you know it!

No apologies here. I voted for GWB twice and if I could vote for him a third time I would. He did move decidedly left in '06 since the political winds were blowing against him and that turned off many conservatives like myself. I still think he was a great leader and showed tremendous leadership, something we badly lack today.

There are only a few candidates I would say I would for sure vote for today I vote for candidates based solely upon how much I like their policies. Jeb is not one of them. Additionally I think if there ends up being a Black man on the ticket as VP a much better selection would be Tim Scott, but if he just wants a person of color on the ticket Condi Rice would be the logical choice. I don't think that is a given though. The GOP doesn't play identity politics the way the Dems do. The GOP tends to balance the ticket with whatever they're trying to emphasize. In '08 it was the budget so Rep. Ryan was the VP nominee.


and you know it. What else would you do? Vote for a -- heaven forbid -- Democratic ticket? NO WAY!! Sit out the POTUS election? Maybe...but that does not seem to be your way of doing things.

You are right, of course. The GOP would never place someone on the ballot just for political reasons. It was Sarah Palin in 2008. She was placed on the ballot because of her foreign policy expertise. After all, she could see Russia from her front porch, remember?
Ryan was placed on the ballot in 2012 because he had unquestioned conservative credentials, and many conservatives thought of Willard as just another RINO. Hence, Ryan was chosen to shore up the Republican conservative base. It also didn't hurt that he was relatively young and handsome. That could better appeal to the unmarried women's vote, which went to suave and handsome Obama in large numbers in 2008 -- 79 per cent in one exit poll!

If you recall in '08 the McCain campaign was trying desperately to distance itself from the Bush White House. The choice of Sarah Palin wasn't because she was a woman. It was because of two things. She was not a DC insider and thus couldn't be linked to GWB, and she was known for doing things her way as McCain had as well. They took on the moniker "Mavericks". That was the reason for her being placed on the ticket, distance from the White House and DC establishment. Not because she was a woman.

You actually make my point with Ryan. He was placed on the ticket to balance the ticket ideologically. Not because he was handsome. If handsome were the deciding factor we would have heard Scott Brown's name thrown in the hat, instead he wasn't widely discussed.

For the GOP the issue the campaign wants to push has always been priority, demographics come farther down the list and I've never seen them as the deciding factor for a GOP nominee, at least at the Presidential level.


Sarah Palin was chosen because the Dems had selected Obama over Hillary, and the Reps believed that if they placed a woman on the ticket, no matter how little she knew about national and international issues, the Reps would get many women to vote their way because they were so angry at the Dems for turning away from Hillary. It didn't hurt that Palin had strong conservative support since McCain was viewed by the true believers as a RINO. And, she was young and good looking, too; a stark contrast from their candidate for POTUS who looked older than he was. It was the news media that kept trying to label McCain a "Maverick." The true believers never bought that label.
And Scott Brown in 2012...REALLY? Remind whom did Brown lose his U.S. Senate seat in 2012?

BTW -- I both admire and like John McCain. To me, he is both a national hero and a national treasure. I don't agree with him on everything, but in the area of military matters, I respect his opinion greatly, just as I respect yours, Mikey.
McCain should have been the Republican candidate for POTUS in 2000! W supporters ran one of the sleaziest campaigns EVER against McCain. Among other things, they claimed that this true war hero had been brainwashed when he was a POW, and was a "Manchurian Candidate," who would sell out the United States to foreign powers! What a crock! That's one of the main reasons why I can't stand W. How could that draft-dodging underachiever allow this type of campaign to be perpetrated upon such a genuine war hero as John McCain? But you keep defending W, Mikey. BTW -- I respect HW, too, another true war hero.
And, unlike W, I did read HW's book about why he didn't remove Saddam from power in Operation Desert Storm. And we ARE still paying the price for W's nonsensical actions there. HW was right, and W was wrong!

You'll note I was talking about Scott Brown in '08 not '12. In '08 he was coming off the heels of a surprise victory and showed he could win in a blue state. He was on the list of some for VP, but like you and I both agreed, they balanced the ticket ideologically to push fiscal conservatism.

It was McCain who accepted the name "The Original Maverick" it was his campaign slogan for a time, so no, it was not the media. Once again you prove my point with Palin's "strong conservative support". McCain came from a very damaging primary. He was not endeared to the far right so his VP choice had to get the support of the far right hence Palin. They didn't choose her to fill a gender gap. Most of McCain's core supporters in the GOP were the GOP women who are more moderate on average then GOP men.

I disagree with your assessment of the 2000 primary. Mainly because GWB went into the primary as the frontrunner. The smear tactics have never been linked to the campaign and seeing how gracious GWB has been with other politicians before, during and after he was in office I don't believe it was something he sanctioned.


in 2010. Few knew him outside of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 2008. If Scott Brown had been considered as the VPOTUS choice by McCain in 2008, please cite your source.

As I stated, the term "Maverick" was primarily a media creation. Now I will not deny that the McCain camp encouraged -- maybe even orchestrated -- the use of that term, but, as I stated, this image was never accepted by many conservative activists and their followers. To them, McCain's "Maverick" image was built upon his willingness to work with Democrats to forge compromise legislation to move our nation forward. Such compromise is looked upon by many conservatives as the equivalent of surrender. So, when Palin was added to the ticket, the attempt was made to paint her as a "Maverick" too, to fit the image the McCain camp wanted to sell to, especially, conservative voters. Apparently, that did not work.

Mikey, you may deny the gender issue all you want, but you know that it was a strong part of the addition of Palin instead of someone like Rick Santorum, who had great conservative credentials and support, and was a tried and true nationwide candidate, who had won some Republican primaries, and actually understood most of the important national and international issues! The Palin pick was a "Hail Mary" by the McCain team. It was obvious to me, although this is strictly an opinion with nothing factual to support it, that McCain himself was never comfortable with the Palin choice. He was talked into it, mainly by close advisers who convinced him that it was the only way McCain could siphon away a significant percentage of the women who were disaffected by the Dems' denying to Hillary what almost all Democratic women, and most independent women, felt was Hillary's right to have the Democratic nomination for POTUS in 2008.
Face it, Mikey. The Palin pick was a cold, deliberate, political decision with little concern about what would happen if the Republican ticket actually won, and we would have such a poorly equipped person only a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Democrats and Republicans both play politics. I see this realistically. You just don't want to admit that Republicans are just as political as are Democrats.

BTW -- I always honor your military service. There are no two nationally well know Republicans I admire more than I admire John McCain and George H.W. Bush. And one reason why I admire these two great Americans, is that they are both genuine war heroes.

You're right Dale I meant 2010 and 2012. I was contrasting Paul with Brown for the '12 nomination, not the '08.

The Maverick thing appealed to the campaign because it contrasted him to the rest of DC. Santorum was an establishment Republican and establishment Republicans had a very low approval rating to the whole country. I agree that McCain was talked into it. That was a major problem of his campaign. His advisers weren't loyal to him or he didn't inspire loyalty from them.


won that election!
First, he should have picked a VPOTUS candidate with some gravitas, like Rick Santorum, who also had the advantage of being young and good-looking. I certainly will not argue with you about which group of Republicans formed the foundation of Santorum's base. I thought he was a conservative "darling", but what do I know about which Republican candidates are beloved by which Republican voters?
Then, McCain should have used the military background, and POW situation, for all it was worth. Who, after all, could handle a botched military adventure better, a career politician, or a career military man? Maybe the attacks by the W supporters in 2000 scared McCain off. I don't know. (BTW -- I cannot buy your claim that W had nothing to do with those attacks on McCain in 2000. They came hard during the South Carolina Republican Primary, right on the heels of McCain's big win in New Hampshire. And, no, I will never forgive W for those outrageous attacks on a man I consider to be a true American war hero!) But, to me, McCain's people should have made McCain look like the second coming of Ike -- a fatherly or grandfatherly figure who would make everything all right again. They underestimated just how bad things were getting for so many average Americans. Since McCain did not do enough to comfort people in increasingly tough times, they turned to the candidate who promised change, and showed (at least, seemingly) sincere concern. Obama played the (Bill) Clinton card well -- "It's the economy, stupid!" Obama also played the Nixon card, "I will get our young people home from an unpopular war." And he won!

well be a reality in 2016. read it here first!

Again, you read it here first. Here's an attachment to an article which includes Jeb's 2014 holiday greetings to his supporters and friends.
Will he win the nomination or the general election? I have no idea. Is he running? Barring some type of catastrophe, he sure is!

Here's the link:

the analysis in the article for which I will provide a link, does this well. Stating this, IMHO, we have a LONG way to go until the 2016 POTUS nominations start to clear up. It's not even 2015 yet!
For political junkies:

become a reality. Ben Carson is almost assuredly running for the Republican nomination in 2016. Why else would he be burnishing his foreign policy credentials by visiting Israel now?
Here is a link to the article about the Ben Carson foreign policy educational tour to Israel:
Note the headline of the article. Yes, Mikey, Ben Carson is a leading Republican for the POTUS nomination in 2016. We should all take him, and everything he says, seriously! Maybe that will be a Carson-Bush ticket? Biden is a lot older and more experienced than Obama, after all. Carson-Bush 2016 could happen.

I will include a link to the most recent poll among Republicans as to which candidate they would like as their standard-bearer in the 2016 election. I do not know why Willard is not included, just as I saw another recent poll which left out Dr. Ben. Why not include ALL probable candidates in these polls? You'd have to ask those who commissioned and/or prepared the polls. Seems like those whom conservatives label as RINOs abound in or near the leads in various polls: Willard, Jeb, Christie.
BTW, Mikey, Dr. Ben runs ahead, albeit VERY little ahead, of such traditional candidates as, Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, Rick Perry, and Scott Walker. So, I guess Br. Ben is hardly a "fringe" candidate. I still contend that a Bush-Carson ticket is a distinct possibility!'s the link to the article:

Ben Carson is number 5 on the Gallup poll's top 10 most admired men in America. Here's the link to the article:

Bush-Carson 2016?

Here's yet another sign that Jeb's running for POTUS is a done deal.
Here's a link to the latest information:

opens a little wider for Jeb. The field of moderates is narrowed, which definitely affects Jeb's ability to win primary votes, and win delegates to the 2016 Republican nominating convention. Meanwhile, more and more right-wingers seem to be preparing to jump in, potentially dividing the conservative voting block.
From the outset, I felt that Jeb would run and, barring some type of extreme error or personal problem, be the best Republican candidate to win in November, 2016; but that he would have a very difficult time winning the Republican nomination because of the nature of most of those who vote in Republican primaries. Willard's dropping out helps Jeb a LOT! But, it's still very early in the process.
Here's a link:

I believe that Jeb would be the best candidate that the Republicans could nominate for POTUS, if they actually want to win in 2016. However, I cautioned that many of those who vote in Republican primaries and at Republican caucuses see Jeb as a RINO.

It is early. And it is only one state. And, as is pointed out in the article, Mike Huckabee won the Iowa caucuses in 2008, and that win did not propel him to the Republican nomination.

Here's the link:

And, Mikey, FYI...Dr. Ben is actually slightly AHEAD of Jeb in this Iowa poll.

Dale you like hearing yourself talk don't you?

You keep posting things about Ben Carson. Just face it. His campaign is a non-starter. Sure, he gets a vote share in Iowa. Let's say he even wins Iowa. When was the last time the winner of the Iowa Caucus won the nomination when there were more than two credible candidates? I'll give you a hint... never.

Carson has to organize. He's never shown he could even govern. But I'm curious to see what states you think Carson would take. Because according to primary rules he has to win a majority (50.1%) of delegates in 8 states or more. What states are going to Carson? He won't get 50% in Iowa. He won't get 50% in NH. So he has to clearly win South Carolina but I can't see that happening if Huckabee runs which seems likely.

So he likely either drops out after Super Tuesday or stays in hoping for a brokered convention, his only real hope for the nomination.

Even if there is a brokered convention there are better candidates with more connections who will be able to deal. I'd be shocked if he makes it past 2nd ballot.

The poll you quote displays his vulnerability. At best he makes 3rd if you combine 1st and 2nd choice (not a guarantee). Plus do you think now that Romney isn't running they will go to Carson? I seriously doubt it. I believe Romney supporters from this poll will primarily go to Walker, Bush and Christie probably equally at 3% with the other 3% going to Jindal and Rubio. Carson benefits really only from Cruz or Paul dropping out, neither of which I can see happening.

TL/DR: Distant third in Iowa does not equal frontrunner. Ron Paul was a close third in Iowa in 2012 and he was not a front runner and he had a solid organization already in place.


I only say he's a player in the process. He IS a darling of the Republican right. And he's accomplished more with his life, from an exceedingly unlikely start, by having a great inner-city mother who emphasized education and training to her children, and becoming a world-renown pediatric neurosurgeon! It is an amazing, true story of enormous success. And, unlike some other darlings of the right, at least we know Dr. Ben is intelligent.

This is a new article online today. It makes all the points I have stated and more.

It's a small lead, but Jeb's ahead for now. BTW -- In this poll, Dr. Ben is polling almost equally with Mike Huckabee!

Here's the link:

The poll itself:

Polls are a snapshot in time. Carson struggles to get to 10%. He would need to break 15% consistently to have a chance( realistically it's more 20%).

As I showed you, because of the structure of the primary system Carson has little room for a path to the nomination. He essentially needs one major candidate to fall apart and the rest of the also rans to drop out. Even then his best chance is STILL a brokered convention.

Candidates who've never held office NEED strong polling support to gain enough traction, that is because they don't have a prebuilt organization like established politicians do.

So yes I still stand by my assertion he is not a front runner and he has little chance at the nomination.

Herman Cain had a similar candidacy and arose early with the aid of an "issue". He became the leader in several polls. However he did not remain and his organization was not refined enough to confront a scandal when it broke. That his a very good comparison as a case study for Carson but since he has yet to break away from the pack I still don't believe it.


the GOP nominating process. I never claimed he would win. However, if someone like Jeb or Christie, who are considered by many of the "true believer" conservatives to be RINOs, should get the nod for POTUS, the idea of adding Dr. Ben to the ticket as VPOTUS has a lot of traction. It would be similar to McCain having a little-known female governor from a state with little population added to the GOP ticket because she is a darling of the right-wing within the GOP. Has a familiar ring to it! No?

I am adding a link to an article I just read about the problem the GOP has in the religious area, particularly with Pope Francis. I believe that the writer is accurate when she states that the GOP was MUCH more comfortable with Pope John Paul II. Most of the GOP, especially the right-wingers, consider Pope Francis to be hopelessly far left politically.
Here's the link:

I know you don't think he will win. You've already said you think Jeb will be the nominee.

What I've said Carson doesn't have a chance at the nomination. You've posted several polls to prove me wrong.

Carson doesn't even have the "inside" track of being the VP choice with most of the candidates. He doesn't bring much to the table... at least at this point. If he does what Cain did and can set himself apart form the pack as an issue candidate he can be viewed as a breath of fresh air in order to become that candidate. If that happens though he'd have more success at just winning the nomination outright, which will be extremely tough to do.

If the GOP nominee wants "a black runningmate" it is far safer to get a guy like Tim Scott. Tim Scott is a solid Republican. Has high likability numbers within the party and his state. He keeps all the Southern states where there's a black majority from becoming possible swing states. He wouldn't have been bruised from attack ads in the primary. (Condi Rice too but I don't think she has any interest in politics anymore)

I still don't think the GOP nominee will take a black runningmate. If they go with a black runningmate chances are more likely they will take Rubio (assuming he doesn't win). Another close one would be Susan Martinez Governor of NM. Both are minorities. Both have states the GOP would greatly covet. And let's face it, immigration is a far bigger issue politically than any black issues.


I believe what I have consistently stated is that, IMHO, Jeb would have the best chance of winning in November, and that Jeb's greatest problems would be obtaining the Republican nomination. I do stand by that statement. The main problem Jeb has is that those who vote in Republican primaries and at Republican caucuses are more conservative than the average Republican, and MUCH MORE conservative than the average independent. Most of them are "true believers" who see Jeb (and Christie, and maybe Kasich, too) as a RINO. And, the greatest problem Jeb would have in the general election is the "true believers" voting for a third party candidate, or not voting for POTUS at all, rather than voting for someone they consider to be a RINO. I do believe that Jeb could get some of those votes back by choosing a conservative "darling." It doesn't have to be Dr. Ben; however, at least he is MUCH brighter than Sarah!
And, I also stated that if the Republican ticket turned out to be Jeb and Dr. Ben, you would vote for that ticket against any foreseeable Democratic ticket. And I stand by that statement, too.

After George and "W" it's clear that "Bush's" are bad for the USA.

The Terri Schiavo case was one where, as Governor of Florida, Jeb went out of his way to fight on the same side as most of the right-wing conservatives. According to the article, Jeb's fervor for this issue was enflamed by his Catholic faith more than any other single factor. Read the article and judge for yourself.
Here's the link:

I did find it interesting that Michael Schiavo, a registered Republican, has already committed himself to support and campaign for Hillary Clinton. What makes this most interesting is that, "Lawmakers, including then-Sen. Clinton, voted to give Terri Schiavo's parents legal standing to appeal anew in the federal courts, which then rejected their case." Why would Michael be so committed to Hillary? No one even knows if Jeb can secure the Republican nomination for POTUS in 2016. And, all speculation aside, Hillary hasn't officially announced her intensions to pursue the office. Talk about a "cart before the horse!"

neck. Can Hillary overcome America's prudishness over the moral standards to which it holds politicians, while America concurrently embraces some of the most immoral garbage that television and movies have ever produced? (Just look at the box office returns and the TV ratings.)
Now, if Bill is involved with underage girls, it is a crime for which he should be prosecuted. That's entirely different than mere infidelity.

Here's the link to the article:

It's still extremely early, no matter what those who are trying their best to boost ratings may say. However, this is an instructive poll. It is separated by partisan Republicans and partisan Democrats and their views.
First of all, with Willard dropping out, it appears that, at least for now, Mike Huckabee is picking up most of the former nominee's support. Jeb is still leading, but Mike is right on his heels.
Just to show how facts can be slanted to meet an agenda, I read an article about this same poll from a Green Bay newspaper, which touted how much Scott Walker has risen in this poll as compared to previous polls. According to the statistics, Walker has a little less support than does Dr. Ben, whom at least one person who regularly posts on this site seems to think has no chance to win the Republican POTUS nomination. Another fact, much more pertinent, is that both Walker and Dr. Ben have the lowest number of Republicans, about 10%, who state that they could not vote for that candidate. Chris Christie has the dubious "honor" of leading among possible Republican nominees for whom Republican voters could not vote, with 43% of Republicans answering that they could not vote for Christie.
It is no surprise that Hillary is FAR ahead among Democratic voters at this time. I do like to point out to all of those who are ready to hand her the 2016 nomination that Barack Obama was barely a glint in the polls back in early 2007. And Hillary has chosen to continue to carry that very heavy "Billstone" around her neck, wherever she goes.

OOPS! I almost forgot to give you the link to the CBS article and poll. My bad:

This poll is meaningless and let me tell you why.

This is largely showing growth potential not actual support. Walker and Carson both have the highest growth potential but that does mean they will get that support. This is a metric of name recognition. For example Christie has the smallest growth potential yet he has the lowest number of undecideds. That means people know him AND have made a decision about him. That, though. Doesn't mean people won't consider voting for him. At this point in 2008 Mitt Romney had a much larger growth potential than John McCain on name recognition alone.

Polls that matter at this point are not national polls but rather polls of Iowa, NH, Nev, Sc, etc. early state numbers.

Now you continue to lambast my characterization of Carson's campaign but no Republican campaign in the Implementation of Super Tuesday has gone on to win without winning a state prior to ST.

Right now Carson leads in zero states.

Now if you disagree with my analysis please tell me where the fallacy in my logic is. If not stop posting polls that show little about what actually affects the race.


point out the fallacy of placing too much faith in these VERY EARLY polls. Thirdly, I am not touting Dr. Ben, nor am I stating that he has a reasonable chance to win the nomination. He is, however, a very intelligent man. And he is a darling of the right-wingers, who do attend caucuses and vote in primaries in disproportionately high numbers. Remember, Obama was hardly mentioned in polls in early 2007, Mikey.

I do see the logic in your analyses of these polls. However, I will NOT stop posting polls. They are NOT useless. They ARE interesting.

but, here is one of the most recent ones. I know, Mikey. It is a national poll, and is not state-by-state, the way in which delegates to a Presidential Convention are selected, but it's still an interesting way to get the pulse of probable Republican voters. If you notice, while Scott Walker has a fair lead in this poll, Dr. Ben has moved up to second place, just ahead of Jeb.

I know I'm getting redundant with this statement, but IMHO, Jeb's biggest hurdle to becoming our next POTUS will be attaining the Republican nomination. Many Republican activists are in the ABJ, [Anybody But Jeb], mode already!

Here's a link to the poll:

Jeb's path is New Hampshire, close in SC, and a fight in Nevada and Michigan. Jen needs to out perform Walker in the southern states. If Huckabee drops out that will be easier for him.


You nave to scroll down about 12 "pages" to find the Republican poll totals. The poll was taken at the end of March, and Scott Walker had a slight lead over Jeb. Please note, Mikey, Dr. Ben was in third place in this poll!! You trust Fox News a lot, don't you?
Just sayin'...

Ugh when will you Liberals actually pay attention.

Let me break it down to you the way Barney does.


There did you understand that? Take a look at my citations and you'll see most of my news on politics comes from RealClearPolitics and Huffington Post. So stop with the FAUX NEWS trope.


Most conservatives LOVE Fox News. I, for one, try to avoid citing from Huffington, because I know that's usually a red flag to conservatives. I find RealClearPolitics to be a relatively unbiased source. They show a wide variety of polls. We can all chose our favorite one.

I don't really think that Dr. Ben has much of a chance of winning the Republican nomination for POTUS, but, in many polls, he runs ahead of others who are considered strong candidates for the nomination. And, keep in mind that those who vote in Republican primaries and go to Republican caucuses, are, overall, much more conservative than the average Republican voter.
Just don't be shocked if Dr. Ben gets on the ticket, One thing that comes over clearly in every poll which asks this, is that Dr. Ben has the lowest overall negative reaction among probable Republican voters; and that's something POTUS nominees look for in their running mates! And Dr. Ben's views are mostly within the thinking range of most of the leading Republican candidates for POTUS: anti-abortion; extremely conservative Christian; anti-immigration; anti-gay; cutting taxes the most for the richest among us; repeal Obamacare...I could go on.

It's ok Dale. I miss things sometimes too. I wasn't offended in the least.

For me the issue of media isn't with Fox or MSNBC. It's those who ONLY get their news from one source or one side of sources.

Carson is really running for 2020 at this point. I don't think he will be a VP candidate because he doesn't deliver any states. If they want a "black" running mate Tim Scott does more. He brings VA, GA, and NC back safely into the red column and he's not been very controversial. Even if it's a moderate Republican nominated I can't see them taking a guy like Carson. I think there's a stronger chance at seeing a Rubio (if he doesn't get the nom), Susan Martinez, or Jindal. They are in states that the GOP needs, delivery a portion of the minority vote, and two of them can win independents on the immigration issue. But all this is predicated on who does win the nomination. If Rubio gets it I could see him taking Paul or a guy like him as a mate.

Carson can win by losing. He should use these elections to become more well known to the GOP voters. Much like how Romney did in '08. FInd an issue and stick with it.


This poll matters very little for a variety of reasons.

The first, as I've explained before, is it's a national poll. The nomination is not decided in a national election so it's only as good as sticking your finger in the air to see where the wind is blowing.

Second, it's old. There's this poll. Taken much more recently that shows Carson in 7th. So either one of the polls is incorrect or the results have shifted in about 3 weeks.

But I still am standing on my assertion that Carson has no chance. Winning the nomination is about momentum, organization, and finally getting wins. Right now Carson does not have the momentum. You can see that on the charts at both Huffington Post and RCP. I have seen nothing showing that Carson has a good organization because the metric to rate that right now is money and he's not making headlines on that front. Finally, I have yet to find a state that Carson has a likelihood of winning in the early contests. Iowa, NH, SC, NV, FL all look like they will go to someone else. Don't win at least one and his support will abandon him hurting any future second attempt.

So unless he changes the STATE polls in the near future his candidacy doesn't look to survive to Super Tuesday.


nomination. He really believes in a diverse America. This position is not one I perceive to be held by the vast majority of those who vote in Republican primaries or attend Republican caucuses. So, while I admire this position myself, I find it not to be an effective way to attract voters. and thereby gain delegates, for the nominating convention in Republican primaries and caucuses.
Here's the link:

It is most interesting to me that, at this meeting of the National Christian Hispanic Leadership Conference, Marco Rubio, who is both Hispanic and Christian himself, and considered to be a leader in the Hispanic community and beyond, was invited to speak at this conference, but did not because of a "scheduling conflict." Hmmm...

joining the race for POTUS.
We'll see where his campaign goes from here. He is quite an intelligent man. It's hard to believe that he is running even though he feels that he has no chance of winning, but stranger things have happened. A lot depends upon whether the conservative right, which has so much clout within the Republican Party, is bombarded with positive stories about Dr. Ben on Fox News. The negative stuff from other media sources will mean little, since most conservative voters don't their get news from those sources.

As it states in the article to which I will give you a link, Dr. Ben is a darling of the conservative right. I do contend that a Jeb-Dr. Ben ticket is more than just a passing fancy.
Here's the link:

We will see if he gets a bump in the polls from the announcement. Those things are tricky and hard to predict.

Now that it looks like Huckabee is running it is going to hurt several candidates. Specifically Cruz and Carson (probably more Cruz) who I think were both hoping to pull out the win in SC based on the religious right.


I will link you to today's article:

If you click on the link to the actual poll numbers in the article, you will find that Dr. Ben has a VERY LOW level of dislike among all Iowa Republicans, AND among likely Republican caucus participants. Dr. Ben is ahead of Jeb as both the first AND second choice of Iowa Republicans. And, among self-labeled Tea Party members, Dr. Ben does better, and Jeb -- unsurprisingly -- does worse.

I still contend that, while far from a front-runner or likely POTUS nominee, Dr. Ben is a very real player in this contest. And, he could well end up as a VPOTUS candidate with quite a few of the more likely Republican POTUS nominees.

I am NOT a supporter of Jeb. Just as a political observation, I believe Jeb to offer the Republicans the best chance of winning in November. As I have clearly stated all along, I don't think that Jeb has the conservative credentials necessary to win the Republican nomination.
Iowa is just one state, I know, and a small one at that, and, it's still very early in the entire process. However, Jeb's problems attracting the type of voters who vote in Republican primaries and attend Republican caucuses must be taken into consideration, as Jeb takes his, unwavering, sincere, principled positions on social issues. IMHO -- Too many voters of every political persuasion place too much emphasis upon their leaders' positions on personal choice issues, and too little upon big issues such as, our economy, the war on terrorism, fairer taxes both for individuals and giant corporations, campaign finance, education for pre-K through college and beyond, etc.

Hey, Mikey...All I've ever said is that Dr. Ben is a player in the process. You keep pooh-poohing him. It is still VERY early, but Dr. Ben seems to be gaining ground. Quite a "bounce" it seems. Maybe the bounce is a little bigger than you thought?
OK...You've made it clear that you do not watch Fox News, Mikey, but this is a Fox News survey. If you click on the survey itself, you can see the basis for the survey. In addition, the Fox News headline on its survey says NOTHING about Dr. Ben whatsoever. As a matter of fact, it points out only a positive point about Mike Huckabee. Gee, I wonder which candidate, Fox News prefers? Hmmm...

Here's the link:

ugh this again.

Ok, Please read my post this time because you obviously haven't.

NATIONAL POLL. There is no national election in a primary. So you can ignore the national polls. They mean nothing.

Thus far he has no path to the nomination. He's not leading in Iowa or NH, in fact aggregate polling of those states he doesn't even place in the top 4. No one has won the nomination without being in the top 4 of either Iowa or NH (technically top 3).

Oh BTW, being the "second choice" in those states doesn't count. You can only vote once. The second choice question only comes up in later states when candidates start dropping out.

Carson has shown no real organization yet. On the flip side, Carly Fiorina has. I know I was shocked. I thought her campaign was a non-starter but she's pulling in good funding (that was expected) but the whole domain name flap got her some negative attention that she turned around. Maybe she does have a chance, state polling will tell eventually.

So again, Carson is STILL an also ran at this point. I still don't feel he's a VP choice because he does not do anything for the Electoral College map. He right now is expanding his name recognition for a 2020 run if the GOP nominee doesn't win the GE.


chances to obtain the Republican nomination for POTUS in 2016, I really do believe that you are far too dismissive of his chances. Dr.Ben does not need to build a national organization IF -- and this is a very big IF -- he becomes the candidate which the Tea Party folks feel gives them the best opportunity to secure the nomination over anyone whom they consider to be a RINO. The Tea Party ALREADY has a state-by-state organization in place. And they LOVE Dr. Ben!
I also believe that Dr.Ben would be an excellent VPOTUS candidate. He could limit the percentage advantage Democrats have among minority voters. If you look at the demographics of the 2012 POTUS votes, this can be a BIG deal. And Dr.Ben's negatives are still quite low. Remember, most VPOTUS candidates are chosen more for how little damage their choice can make to a ticket rather than how much they can add to a ticket.
And, as far as Dr. Ben building for 2020 is concerned, I seem to remember the same kind of supposition about another candidate back in 2007-08, when Hillary Clinton seemed to have the 2008 POTUS nomination sewn up. When Obama first showed interest in the 2008 nomination, innumerable pundits felt that he was building a base for running in 2012 if Hillary lost the General Election in 2008. Hmmm...

RealClearPolitics (as do I). Here's a very recent poll from an important southern state -- Georgia -- as it appears on the RealClearPolitics website. I do have two disclaimers. First of all, it is still VERY EARLY in the 2016 POTUS electoral process. Secondly, I have NEVER contended that Dr. Ben is one of the leading candidates to receive the Republican POTUS nomination. However, I have consistently maintained that he IS a legitimate force in the process. Now, since it is so early in the process, Dr. Ben could drop out all together, or he could become the "anybody but Jeb" choice of the far right, and stay at or near the top of national polls and at least some state polls. Only time will tell. But, he cannot be ignored.
Here's the link:

Georgia is not an important state for the primary. It is one of the last states to hold a primary. It has not decided the nominee in recent years because it is so late. Even 2008 primary didn't make it to Georgia.

Carson doed not have a path to the nomination. I've consistently said this.

If he does not finish in the top 4 of Iowa or NH his stock reduces SIGNIFICANTLY. Unless the state polling changes he will be out pre-Super Tuesday.


many polls, I still say the Tea Party might get behind him, and provide him with a state-by-state organization. Dr. Ben IS a player in the process!
You wanted a state poll; I gave you a state poll.
You wanted a credible source; I gave you a credible source.
If a Georgia poll shows this, what do you think a South Carolina poll will show?

I know. It's still VERY EARLY!!

People don't get behind a loser. Carson doesn't crack the top four of the first two primaries according to current polling. It could change but I see no sign yet. If he doesn't place in the top 3 of IA, NH, NV, or FL he's done. A strong showing in SC wouldn't even save him. The south east is his base. There are already two other "Tea Party" candidates doing consistently better than him. They will support them before they support a "regional" candidate.


I just feel as though you are too dismissive of his chances. And, you keep calling him a regional candidate. I presume you mean from the South. Dr. Ben grew up in Detroit. He practiced medicine mostly in Maryland. He may have a broader base of support than you think.
His chances hinge a great deal on his becoming the "Anybody But Jeb" alternative of the Republican right. He may not be the first choice of a majority, but his low negatives make it likely that he could pick up support as other right-wingers drop out.
Again, I add the disclaimer that this is still VERY early in the process, but Dr. Ben is a force among the large and growing field of Repubican hopefuls.

Of course I'm dismissive. His best shot is to win in the South. He's not competitive in Iowa or New Hampshire. Those two states dominate the news for almost a full month before they head to SC and NV. Now, Ben is expected to do well in SC but it's not about winning where you're expected to do well, it's about being able to win voters you aren't supposed to win.

"His chances hinge a great deal on his becoming the "Anybody But Jeb" alternative of the Republican right." No they don't. That's only if you believe Bush is the frontrunner and different from everyone else in the field. This is highly debatable. Bush is A front runner but he's not THE CLEAR frontrunner. I agree with you about his low negatives though he has to find a way to outlast the other candidates.

Right now Paul and Cruz, the other strong Tea Party candidates, are outpolling Carson in the early states(except for SC). If that holds he will drop out before they will. He needs to outlast them to build his base.


Jeb may not be the "front runner," but he gets his votes from the moderate/traditionalist, business-oreinted faction of the GOP. Once Willard dropped out, Jeb became their candidate, and the "true believers" don't trust anyone who "only" agrees with them on about 90% of the issues, and states a willingness to compromise in order to move the nation forward.
In my mind, it is far too early to be "dismissive" of any of the candidates who feature prominently in the polls. And Dr. Ben's low negatives make him likely to do just well enough to get through Iowa and New Hampshire, and win in SC. Others could well drop out ahead of him, further enhancing his chances to build delegate support.
Unlike many in the GOP field, Dr. Ben has distinguished himself in all educational settings, and in becoming perhaps the greatest pediatric neurosurgeon of modern times. Others in the GOP field seem to champion their own mediocrity as if mediocrity provides them with better credentials to be POTUS than do high intellect and professional achievements.
Truthfully, I don't really care that much. As I have pointed out repeatedly, IMHO Jeb would be the most difficult candidate for the Democrats to defeat in November. Jeb's greater challenge, electorally, will be to gain the Republican nomination for POTUS by garnering votes among very conservative primary voters and caucus attendees.

He needs to use the debates to set himself both apart and a cut above. In the past this has been traditionally been issues but he could do it by confronting gotcha questions which was what Newt did the last time around and it brought him back into being competitive.


That worked well for Ronnie!

Actually you're not far off. Ronald Reagan's outburst gained him a lot of respect and attention because he just wanted the time to give his answer and also to give all the other candidates a chance to debate. He was seen as fair. The same happened with Clinton when he criticized Sister Souljah's comments.

No one wants a lackey of a party or a special interest. They want someone who is fair and not afraid to speak.

Now if Carson finds a way to do that I think he will jump into the top. I just haven't seen it yet.

I've seen this type of brilliance in the campaign already though. Carly Fiorina, who is in the same boat as Carson, was criticized for not getting the domain name for her campaign. When she was questioned by Seth Myers and Chuck Todd she revealed she purchased their domain names and they redirect to her campaign site. She took a organizational negative and turned it into a communications positive.


for the POTUS nomination in Iowa!
I know that it is still VERY early in the process, but all I have ever maintained is that Dr. Ben is a legitimate player in the process. Unlike some other candidates and potential candidates, the more Dr. Ben travels and speaks, the better are his poll numbers. My source is RealClearPolitics. In their consensus poll, Dr. Ben is further down, but their consensus poll includes poll numbers from April. Looking at the two latest polls, both done in late May, Dr. Ben is well within the top 3 or 4.
Dr. Ben for VPOTUS? Just sayin'.

Here's the link:

Just sayin'. Dr. Ben is in the mix. And he retains VERY LOW negatives among Republican voters. I would predict that his negatives among Democratic voters would be quite low as well. It's still VERY early, but Dr. Ben's credentials to be the Republican candidate for VPOTUS continue to strengthen.

Here are two links. The first is to today's Fox interview with Dr. Ben:
The second link is directly to the Monmouth poll:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.