It’s more that an awful lot of Republicans think they can win. I cited this in 2014 as evidence of Republicans having a good chance. Recruiting went well in 2014. When all your best candidates are interested, that means they believe the environment will be good for them. They could be wrong, but I doubt it. Has there ever been an election where all the best prospects of a party ran and then that party ended up losing?
The one were the best prospects were this gaggle of clowns?
1996 Republican Candidates for Nomination
Pete Wilson - California Governor and former U.S. Senator
Lamar Alexander - Former Governor of Tennessee and US Secretary of Education
Bob Dole - U.S. Senator from Kansas and former Senate Majority Leader (nominee)
Richard Lugar - U.S. Senator from Indiana
Phil Gramm - U.S. Senator from Texas
Arlen Specter - U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania
Robert K. Dornan - U.S. Congressman from California
Pat Buchanan - Former presidential advisor, from Virginia
Steve Forbes - media owner and publisher, from New York
QFT 
adaher, you are completely ignoring that and what I do notice: in a wave election good candidates can also be accompanied by very bad apples, and the immaturity and extremism observed already on many votes from the Republicans in congress should not be grounds for claiming that everything is peachy just because the environment was good for them.
It does not mean that it will be good for the rest of us,the reality is that many moderates and independents really made a mistake. A big mistake.
And the clowns in the current crop of Republican prospects just want to do more of the same mistakes.
I think that the point about the Republicans that are joining the race do think that they will be the exception to all those losers that declared their candidacy earlier stands.
Thinking that all others are losers except them is also what I think is going on for another reason: we are actually seeing the many factions in the Republican Party that are at odds with each other. They are pushing so many candidates because they do fear that their faction’s views will not be heard in the coming election. The huge number of candidates IMHO is really to me a result of the actual divisions in the party.
Those are not actually the biggest Republican names in 1996. Not a bad group, by any means, but not the biggest names in the GOP by a long shot. Gingrich and McCain both declined to run. Only two governors got into the race(John Engler and Tommy Thompson, two of the best GOP governors, both stayed out.) Then there’s the ultimate big name, Colin Powell.
It’s hard to think of any Republican with a snowball’s chance of winning that is NOT running.
Apparently since FOX has decided that only the top ten pollers will be admitted to their debates, the candidates are looking to pump up their polls nationally and aren’t paying attention to Iowa and New Hampshire. This has hurt the feelings of the Iowa and New Hampshire Republican stalwarts.
That’s actually a positive thing then. Although really I think a better option is to do it kind of like a game show. Select the first ten at random to take the stage, but everyone is invited. As soon as a candidate gives a non-answer to a question, the moderator boots them and they get replaced by another candidate.
John Kasich is the straight shooter in the race:
Until he actually gets in.
Then he can’t win the primaries.
This is how his speeches work too. And it’s not just initiatives and ideas, sometimes it’s just random babble.
I can’t wait until the national media gets to chew on one of his improv speeches.
Jeb: Unwed mothers should be publicly shamed.
OK, his views have probably “evolved” since 1995, but that’s out there.
Really? AFAICT, it’s pretty much strategy and tactics, rather than any major differences on issues.
Of course, now and then a candidate will find a way to be further to the right than the rest of the pack in a way that hadn’t occurred to anyone up until then. And when that happens, everyone else takes that same step to the ri-yi-yi-yi-yt. (No jump to the left, though, but you knew that.)
I wonder whether it’s an Ohio thing? I don’t suppose we’re fortunate in this brave new media age to get a review of a Kasich speech on the order of Mencken’s Gamalielese article…
It’s also a hard truth. Government can’t make society act a certain way. Jeb Bush has no proposals for making having children out of wedlock stigmatized. But children born out of wedlock is bad, m’kay? There’s just not a whole lot we can do about it, or should do about it. Other than defend people who speak out the obvious truth that it’s bad, rather than succumbing to PC nonsense.
1995 is still pretty late in the game for scarlet letters.
They should just invite all of the contestants, have trap doors under the lecterns, and give the audience thumbs-down buttons, so that if a speaker rates 60% negatives from them, sproing!
Alligators would be a nice touch as well. Nothing makes an audience happier than agonized screaming.
You say it’s not policy but policy can help this. Unfortunately the GOP (and Jeb) are against comprehensive sex education. They’re against making contraceptives cheap and accessible. They’re against safe and legal abortion. They’re against a lot of things that would result in less single parents.
They’re against pre-K education. They’re against helping with childcare. They’re against assisting families in many ways which would make it easier for families to stay together.
They’re against loving families adopting if heaven forbid the couple is of the same gender.
They’re for wars that break up families or worse have dad come home in a body bag.
If you feel that single parents are a burden to society but all of your positions only exacerbate the problem and your solution is that Americans rise up add one to slut-shame a lot of people who are in that situation to begin with at least in part because of your actions or inaction, you’re either a moron or a psychopath.
There was a time when we had none of those things you describe, yet illegitimacy was rare.