General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCNN POLL: Jeb Bush, Favorable 34% Unfavorable 56%
http://www.pollingreport.com/A-B.htm#Jeb BushSo much for people here saying "Hillary would lose to Jeb on the basis of fav/unfav" blah blah blah. This guy's scandals haven't even brought to light yet. But that's a good sign: Hillary has the Clinton legacy, Jeb has the Bush legacy. I think we know who wins...
Especially after voters are reminded of his rather active role in "electing" his brother or keeping a brain dead woman alive to please Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell, etc.
Tommy2Tone
(1,307 posts)and is the dumb Bush.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)both Georges were than Jeb. They went to better schools, ran away with their primaries, won the most votes one time each, Jeb probably will go 0-3 vs. the Georges.
MADem
(135,425 posts)CanonRay
(14,104 posts)the whole Terry Schiavo mess, stealing the 2000 election for his idiot brother. Jebbie's got more that a few skeletons in his closets. I probably don't even know about most of them.
Response to ericson00 (Original post)
CanonRay This message was self-deleted by its author.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)The Clinton's and the Bush's can go vacation together in Italy or something
ericson00
(2,707 posts)and they're a one generational political family. The Kennedys and Bushes span multiple and their candidates ARE blood relatives. That's a dynasty. The Clintons were born poor and are enjoying the fruits of their success. Kennedy and Bush were born rich.
How about some honour for Democratic heroes.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)This really wouldn't look like a representative democracy
BUSH
BUSH
BUSH
BUSH
CLINTON
CLINTON
CLINTON
CLINTON
CLINTON
CLINTON
CLINTON
CLINTON
BUSH
BUSH
BUSH
BUSH
BUSH
BUSH
BUSH
BUSH
OBAMA
OBAMA
OBAMA
OBAMA
OBAMA
OBAMA
OBAMA
OBAMA
CLINTON
CLINTON
CLINTON
CLINTON
CLINTON
CLINTON
CLINTON
CLINTON
Gothmog
(145,321 posts)whatthehey
(3,660 posts)No household name political partisan has much of a shot at exceeding 50% favorability by a wide margin, or getting to <40% unfavorable.
How many Republican names would anyone of us respond to favorably? From Cruz to Collins on the loony scale or Trump to Boehner on the insider scale, the numbers would be so close to zero it wouldn't make a whit of difference. And as we often bemoan, Republicans are far better at lockstep. Doesn't matter if it's Sanders or Bashear, any Republican who knows who they are would respond as unfavorable. The differences we see are in knowledge not opinion. A nominated Sanders would jump to around 50% unfavorable overnight just as the Dem nominee as would a nominated Kasich or Carson on the right. Bush, and Clinton, are already there because they are known quantities.
Now this IS bad news for Bush, but the bad news is in the weaker than expected favorables for an establishment party golden boy. Part of that is the big money men syphoning off support for the puppets like Walker, and part of it is the reality show politainment crap with Trump.