So, he’s running on his record. Bad move, Jeb, says this Floridian.
And – get this – the Establishment-Republican son of one POTUS and brother of another says he will run as a political outsider. 
At any rate, Heb, with his Mexican-born wife and fluency in Texas-accented Spanish, probably has more appeal to Hispanic voters than Rubio or Cruz. He’s really the GOP’s best shot at getting any significant share at all of the Latino vote in 2016.
Vote for me! I’m just like you! And I met my first president when I was born and the second when I came home from the hospital!
I think he has the nomination pretty well sewn up, he just has to play whack-a-mole with the unBushes as they each take a turn being the un-Bush Flavor of the Month.
Always bet on the money. If the money wants El Jebe to be the nominee, they’ll get the word out to Fox et al. and that’s what will happen, just like last time.
And Election Night coverage will be just like last time, too.
He says he’s his own man, but is using a lot of the same advisors his family used:
Also, one of his top advisors on Israel is George W. Bush:
I don’t know what Republicans will think of that. Some who may think Obama is the worst might have nostalgia for George W. Bush and think that’s great. But I would think some would be put off.
I literally just guffawed. Comedy gold!
I don’t mean to hijack, but just for comparison’s sake, has Hillary listed Bill as her go-to guy on any potential advisory needs as President?
But, does the money want Jeb to be the nominee? Whom are Sheldon Adelson and the Koch Bros. favoring right now?
Not the go-to guy, but he will be an advisor:
There are definitely people who dislike Bill Clinton, but it has been more time since he’s been president, so some of that dislike has mellowed. And I’ve read some people saying he wasn’t as bad, mainly to compare how bad Obama is now.
Also, Hillary is arguably more prominent in people’s minds right now than Bill, while Jeb is still somewhat less prominent than George. If I say Clinton, a lot of people would first think of Hillary, but if I said Bush, a lot of people would first think of George. So George W. Bush advising Jeb would possibly have more of an impact on voters minds than Bill Clinton advising Hillary.
Of course, the difference between Hillary using Bill as an advisor and Jeb using W as an advisor is that Bill has a much, much better track record as POTUS.
This election will basically come down to how far right Bush has to go to win the GOP primaries. If he courts the nutjobs, he’ll lose to Hillary. If he maintains a centrist approach, he’ll win.
He’s got too much pandering in his history to get away with that. And not only his history, either, as his failure to settle on a single story in response to the Iraq question demonstrates.
Yeah, but his social conservative pandering has historically been on the down-low. For instance, he didn’t want anyone to know he was intervening in the Terri Schiavo case; he pretended the state legislature was directing him to take action, rather than admitting that he was working hand-in-glove with them. Now that I think about it, Schiavo could wind up being a big campaign issue. Nobody on the right came out of that without a strong whiff of bullshit about them.
Jeb “I’m my own man” Bush.
Whose campaign just so happens to be made up of nothing but people who worked for his father and brother.
There’s no way this doesn’t blow up in his face.
It’ll all be in the Clinton ads if it needs to be.
There was also his active direction of stalling the vote count in Florida in 2000, while lying that he wasn’t involved at all, no sir.
I’ll say no, because mentioning it won’t affect as many people as viscerally as all of his near-misogynist pronouncements.
How important is it to Republicans that they nominate someone who can make the “dynasty” argument against Hillary? Because if it is…
Not very, I don’t think. It was always weak tea anyway.
I just don’t see it. To a lot of voters, the question will basically be, which administration do you want to see over, Bill Clinton’s, or some amalgam of both Bushes’ (with more weight on GWB’s, since he served two terms, and they were more recent.) I think Clinton wins that hands-down. Between the historicity of Clinton’s campaign, the Dems’ structural advantage in the Electoral College, and Clinton’s advantage with low-information voters, I think a lot of things out of his control would have to break right for Bush.
That advantage belongs to the GOP in most races – what makes Clinton different?
I don’t think that’s really true, IIRC. Democrats have advantages with those that pay the least attention to current events and politics. How much of that is a proxy for class and education level is kind of hard to tease out.
Cite?