Posted on 06/15/2005 8:53:15 AM PDT by areafiftyone
Is a McCain-Jeb Bush 2008 ticket in the offing?
Some Washington insiders think so.
If McCain is to get the Republican nomination for the 2008 election, he’ll need the support of President George Bush.
Recently, NewsMax reported that President Bush’s top media adviser had signed on with McCain for his expected 2008 run.
Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne writes that before McKinnon announced his support of McCain, got wind of the McCain-Jeb possibility.
Dionne says "a shrewd and loyally Democratic political operative with personal ties to the McCain” told him that choosing Florida Gov. Jeb Bush as his running mate could be the key to McCain’s success.
McCain was estranged from George W. Bush after the Arizona senator ran against him in the 2000 primaries. But then in 2004, McCain brushed aside unofficial offers from John Kerry to run as his vice presidential candidate, and gave a speech at the Republican National Convention that was strongly supportive of Bush’s policies in Iraq.
And Bush would like to hand over power to a Republican, like McCain, who is committed to his Iraq policy.
Other front-runners for the Republican nomination are Rudy Giuliani and Condi Rice. But Washington Republicans don't fully trust Rudy -- who had a history of bucking the party as Mayor of New York.
And Condi Rice is said to be preferred by the White House as Bush's successor. But so far, Rice has indicated she won't run.
That leaves McCain.
"The president could well come to see McCain as the only Republican with a chance to push a Republican era forward,” says Dionne. "McCain, in turn, knows that his only way around the Republican right is to run with Bush’s open blessing, if not his outright endorsement.”
Bush’s brother could be the "deal-closer,” according to Dionne. "If picking Jeb is the price of winning over George W., McCain will pay it.”
And to further clarify what I am saying
Remember the experience of Bobby Jindal when he went before the whole of Louisiana.
He lost to Blanco because he couldn't get Acadiana (that was expected) and because he did worse than Republicans usually do in North Louisiana (which, could have been expected, but alot of people had thought they'd moved past that)
North Louisiana also furnished the primary base for Duke back in the 90s for his state level campaigns.
Experience dictates, Condi would have real problems in Louisiana, experience further dictates she'd have a real problem in this state.
I never liked saying this, but, 40% of the people in this state voted to keep the unenforceable interracial marriage ban in the state constitution. There was no muddled issue of taxes or anything else, that was a clear cut vote, and we still had 40% voting to "preserve the past"
And I would be willing to bet that 60-70% of that "preservation vote" would vote against Condi if she was on the ballot (moreso if she was at the top)
So, right there, you're looking at 22-23% of the statewide vote (probably wouldnt be that drastic, but still bad) which would either vote against her, or just not vote at all, and unlike Colin Powell, she has very little popularity in the black community, I doubt she could get more than 20% of the black vote if she was lucky, sad but true.
And the other important thing. The following counties voted against repealing the interracial marriage ban (which in 2000 was State Constitutional Amendment 2):
Bibb, Blount, Cherokee, Chilton, Choctaw, Clay, Cleburne, Coosa, Covington, Cullman, DeKalb, Escambia, Fayette, Franklin, Geneva, Jackson, Lamar, Lawrence, Marion, Pickens, Randolph, St. Clair, Walker, Washington, Winston.
Now compare this to election results from 1998, 2002 (Governor) and to Presidential results in 1996, 2000 and 2004, and you will understand why this would be such a big problem
Gov. Allen/Condi is a ticket that would be very appealing to me. I don't particularly like McCain, but ANYONE is better than Hillary. She would destroy this nation. Let's see how many on this thread are going to teach the Republicans a lesson and allow Hillary to ruin the country if McCain is nominated. Yeah, that will show 'em good. It is incredibly foolish.
Because, simple truth of Southern electoral math
Arkansas and West Virginia are not exactly Republican states (look at their local officials and you see this, these were also Gores 2 closest non-Florida Southern states in 2000)
The reason, the only reason, Bill Clinton was able to win, Louisiana for example, is because Clinton did better than Democrats are supposed to do in Northern Louisiana
And both times, Clinton was running against tickets that were composed of non-Southerners (well, 1992 is a wash because of Perot and because HW technically was from Texas)
However, when the Southern Democrat ran against the Southern Republican, it was a Republican sweep
Thats the demographical truth the GOP has to face, if the Democrats actually put a moderate Southerner (or someone percieved as such) and they have a ticket where a Southerner is not on top, then they lose anyway where between 3-5% of the total vote, which in states like WV and AR (Florida for that matter, as the Big Bend area, which Bush won both times, is still heavily Dixiecratic, its the only area of Florida McBride carried)
It should also be noted, in 1992, 3 of Clinton's states had been Wallace states in 1968, in 1996, that number was 2, but he had improved his margins in other Wallace states (came within 40,000 votes in Mississippi)
And if you look at the map of 1980, granted Reagan won all these states, but where were his closest margins, which states, and what part of the country were they in.
Southern voters (particularly rural voters, who in the South, comprise the swing vote, though many still lean Democratic) in general place more of an importance on regional issues than do other constituencies. It's why Perdue is in real trouble in South Georgia (flag)
When David Beasley (Religious Right Governor of South Carolina) stated in 1996 that the rebel flag should come down, the state responding by electing the first Democratic governor since Dick Riley.
To rural Southern voters, things like this do matter, and we have to be cognizant of that. Until the WWII generation is dead, this is a salient issue, and it's even kind of an issue for our generation, though it's not our primary concern.
Wrong.
The reason they, and I, will not vote for McCain is because we see him at very least comparable to Hillary.
You are free to dissent from that view. Do not label it other than what it is on the part of those that disagree.
You feel dizzy? You should have been in my skull while that was being written........need asperin.....
Yes, but aren't there a lot more electoral vote heavy states right on the cusp in the Midwest: Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, perhaps Michigan (Illinois is probably a lost cause).
I don't know that putting a Midwesterner at the top of the ticket would actually get a Midwestern voting bloc going, because I am not so sure the regional identity is all that strong there. Still, if it were, it would seem to me that having a Midwesterner at the top - if it would push over those bigger states with their mother lode of EVs - would more than compensate for the (possible) loss of Arkansas and West Virginia.
Whenever I look at the EV totals, I see all the regions pretty solid one way or the other, except for the Midwest, closely divided, with the states going one way or the other by small margins. If there is Midwestern regionalism...and again, I am not sure that Midwesterners are all that regional in outlook. I think they are more economic and national in viewpoint...then having a Midwesterner at the top of the ticket might actually tip the one region that is still divided over into the GOP camp.
(In truth, I don't think it would work. I think that Midwesterners are the most focused on the bottom line and the train of dollars, and the least likely to be swayed by populist rhetoric or single-issue politics of all of the regions. But that's me. I am interested in your thoughts.)
I would never EVER vote for Hillary - I would hold my nose and vote for McCAin rather than Hillary. BUT if we are going to have a RINO run then I would rather have RUDY than McCain. At least with Rudy he's not a coward and you know where he stands right off the bat! But Hopefully we will have a good Republican running that we can all back!
I wouldn't vote for McCain under any circumstance, but if Rudy made it past the primary (unlikely) I would vote for him.
I agree it is unlikely he will get past the primary so I doubt that we will have to vote for Rudy. I think there will be a good conservative candidate, it's just the stupid media throwing these guys at us.
Agreed.
The MSM couldn't choose the candidate in '00, they certainly cannot choose it eight years later as alternative news networking expands.
It's evident why they wish McCain to run. He doesn't command the support of the base necessary to win, but in unlikely event he could, he would be as good if not better than the Democrat in their eyes. The MSM likes McCain. They tolerate Hillary only because of Bill.
Check!
;^)
This ain't happening.
I agree!
Puke alert!
It would make more sense to join Hillary and McCain, than McCain and Jeb Bush!
Jesus himself could be McCain's running mate and I would STILL never vote for McCain.
I will never vote for McCain...He betrayed the vets of this Nation.
I am a conservative Republican and Have voted every time.
But I will never give my vote to that Scumbag McCain.
Politics can't be always subdivided by region. Iowa by all rights is a Republican state, because that's who controls the machinery of government, the problem is, getting that to carry in leap year elections.
And one truth is, what strength the Democrats still have in the South, is concentrated amongst blacks and rural whites. Rural whites are more likely to respond to regional issues than are urban or suburban whites.
My guess is, to a degree this is true in Missouri, I know this is the case in Eastern NC, Western and Middle TN, the Big Bend of Florida as well as some of Seminole Country, the Low Country of SC, South GA, North AL and North MS, rural Louisiana parishes (and the constitution for that always changes) and of course, Cajun Texas
Now of those states, there are only a few the Democrats could actually pick off, but, the killer is in fact Florida. Look at the 1996 map of Florida, the 2000 map of Florida, and McBrides map. (the Dave Leip site has all this crap).
If Kerry had done as well in Northeast Florida as Clinton had, he could have very well picked off that state. One of these counties in question is "Dixie". These people are very strong when it comes to Southern identity, and so they respond to Southerners on the ballot, especially if the alternative is a Yank (or in the case of Jeb, not one of them)
You have to look at a Presidential election on a state by state basis, because the electoral college is where they are decided. And in dealing with Southern states, you have to know, rural voters will give more credence to an accent than will urban voters, and as the urban areas split to basically 50/50, we need more of those rural voters.
I'm for Condi Rice, and of course she has not voiced interest. Much better to do it in a year or two, and have the full attention of the press and public. Too early now for sure !!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.