The Shrine

Theory:
The Republicans always select the oldest-whitest-guy or the son-of-the-oldest-whitest-guy as their candidate. "oldest-whitest-guy" meaning the person who's upheld the orthodoxy the longest and has paid the most dues. I.e.: the next in line to the throne. "whitest" being used very tongue in cheek here (don't be offended).

1988 & 1992: Papa Bush was the oldest-white-guy having served as Reagan's VP.
1996: Bob Dole was the oldest-whitest-guy
2000 & 2004: W was the son-of-the-oldest-whitest-guy (although McCain was actually older than Papa Bush, Papa Bush had served as president making him more "senior")
2008: With no Bushes running, McCain became the oldest-whitest-guy and was nominated
2012: Romney was the son-of-the-oldest-whitest-guy

They might toy with the idea of electing an ideologue (remember Herman Cain and Rick Santorum?) but when push comes to shove, they *are* the conservative party and generally favor aristocratic heritage. My theory thus predicts the GOP will nominate Jeb! Bush for the 2016 presidential election.

I mean I said this in the other thread, but does anybody seriously expect anyone other then Bush to get the nomination?

Given how terrible Bush jr. was: destroyed the economy, destroyed the Middle East and destroyed he US's reputation throughout the world, wouldn't Jeb's relationship to the Bush family be a serious detriment to his chances? Not to mention that he's a slow guy from the south named Jeb. It's an incredibly long shot, and I don't think he has the bow to even fire that distance, I don't see it happening.

At this point, it looks like it will probably be Trump. He's fiery, famous, and he says what Republicans think but don't have the guts to say... except when they're saying it anonymously on reddit and YouTube

Julius Seeker wrote:Given how terrible Bush jr. was: destroyed the economy, destroyed the Middle East and destroyed he US's reputation throughout the world, wouldn't Jeb's relationship to the Bush family be a serious detriment to his chances?

No, the US doesn't really care how the world views us, we're awesome, and the narrative has already started that he's not his brother. I remember you were shocked and appalled when Bush got a second term.

Not to mention that he's a slow guy from the south named Jeb. It's an incredibly long shot, and I don't think he has the bow to even fire that distance, I don't see it happening.

I know it's foreign to people outside the US(pun!), but Southern politicians despite their name/appearance do quite well with the general population of the US IF they're not talking crazy bible thumping racist crazy. It was a long time ago but Bill Clinton's campaign was southern as fuck.

At this point, it looks like it will probably be Trump. He's fiery, famous, and he says what Republicans think but don't have the guts to say... except when they're saying it anonymously on reddit and YouTube

As amusing as Trump has been, the GOP will never put him on the ticket, they don't like him. The general population will never vote for Donald Trump for President, he's a celebrity, we all know it. The GOP primaries are entertainment to anyone who's not a hardcore Republican voter.

Remember when Romney, early after the nomination, took a trip to Europe where he just took a shit on things like UK's preparedness for the Olympics? Yeah, that only clocked negatively with those of us who already weren't going to vote for him.

Republican voters who are the type to vote for Cruz/Trump because of their Tea Party darling statuses, actually like the idea of the United States being hated - they want us to use our power as bullies and not being liked means we're doing that correctly. To these people, Obama being liked by other countries (especially in comparison to Romney) was a HUGE positive for Romney.

The crazy thing here is that Jeb would almost certainly have a better presidency than his brother, and HE got two terms. Also Republicans still defend Bush Jr and basically blame Obama for the problems he obviously inherited.

I suppose it depends on how the party's candidates are selected. Are they elected by all membership of the Republican party through a vote? Or is it through some much smaller council? This is the important question, as polling indicates that Jeb is not as popular as other candidates, and no where near as popular as Trump.

On republicans choosing celebrities: Ronald Reagan.

Looking at the polling for President: only Ben Carson and Trump currently poll well against Hillary.

I think Joe Biden needs to throw down his jar on the democrat side, he polls much better against Republicans than Hillary does. If he enters his candidacy for the nomination, I think he will win.

Biden is still mourning his son and his heart just doesn't seem to be in it. I'd recommend his Colbert interview in Colbert's new show. By laying low he also gets to avoid the mud slinging.. if anyone were insane enough to sling mud at him. He's also too close to the Obama administration (obviously) which'll hurt him, but those people were probably going to go Republican any ways.

AFAIK people registered to vote, vote in primaries. Candidates win said primaries and as people lose enough they drop out. Like the electoral college, the Republican primaries have voters voting indirectly, instead voting for people who are bound (or, y'know, fuck that if they feel like it) to vote for the candidate who won in their state.

I think the Democrat primaries work a little differently but same song different tune, basically.

Ronald Reagan was involved in politics for like 25-30 years and the governor of California and lost a Presidential Election before he was elected President.

Donald Trump has 0 political experience, he's rich, and says things like Obama is a Muslim not born in the US, that's about the extent of his political career heh.

Polling for primaries is ridiculously fickle, I think Scott Walker was #1 two months ago, and he dropped out last week. We're still 14 months from the actual election before people get concerned/serious about who's running and become more vocal.

Ronald Reagan was involved in politics for like 25-30 years and the governor of California and lost a Presidential Election before he was elected President.

Exactly. Reagan certainly was the oldest-whitest-guy in the 1980 GOP primaries.

Shrinweck wrote:Biden is still mourning his son and his heart just doesn't seem to be in it. I'd recommend his Colbert interview in Colbert's new show.

Man that was hard to watch, he seemed really damn tired. I wanted to give him a hug.

Even though it's known that Republicans suck when it comes to creating policy that will lead to economic growth, Jeb seems to be a true economics dunce. He's proposing trickle down economic policy that we know will fail - it's been repeatedly proven to fail for decades; sometimes with very destructive consequences. His justification, despite both historical and mathematical disproof: "That's just the way it is." - it will expand the US deficit by gigantic amounts.
If even Fox News thinks Jeb is a fool, what will other Republicans think?

I dunno, given how the entirety of human civilization has had super rich and super poor, I'd say that human civilization as a whole has proven that trickle down is horse shit.

Even Trump wants to cut out the 'death tax'. Fuck Republicans and their tax plans. They talk a big game about helping the middle and working classes out with taxes but in the end it's SO CLEAR they're out for themselves and corporations with that shit. Hell, the so-called death tax's entire existence is to prevent the upper class from becoming a permanent aristocracy. It literally doesn't get more pro-working class than having a healthily big estate tax.

Hell, the so-called death tax's entire existence is to prevent the upper class from becoming a permanent aristocracy.

yep

Jeb's campaign is running out of steam. He's slipped back into fifth place behind Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. The real telling story is that he's running out of money, and is cutting campaign staff wages by 40%, cutting media spending by 45%, and downsizing headquarters by 50%. He is encouraging people to volunteer for his campaign to fill in the positions that are no longer being paid for.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/j ... ign-215106

It's only a matter of time before he drops. He's been made to look too foolish too often. Either way, the whole Republican primary is an exercize in futility, there's no way any of these guys can actually win a Presidential election against Hillary Clinton or even Bernie Sanders.

Jeb's dropped down to 4%, Trump up to 42% - http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TR130/ ... 3/type/day

On the bright side, all Democratic candidates poll favorably against Trump. Even socialist Bernie Sanders is ahead. If Joe Biden would run, polling shows that he would win by a distant margin.

I'd like to see a Biden v Trump debate.. The Biden debates were fun to watch.

It's completely unacceptable for a politician to post any kind of statistics to profile against identifiable groups of people. What else could his motivation be other than racism?
It's made much worse when the post is of FALSE statistics.
And much much worse when the source of the post is a Neo-Nazi.

It's fucked up that Trump seems to be getting away with posting this.

Gotta pander to the base.

Now he's mimicing the disabled to mock them. Just trash. It's no wonder he polls so horribly against the Democrats.

So Trump wants to ban all Muslim immigration to the US and surveillance on all Muslims in America as well as mosques.

I'm waiting on him to come up with the "Final Solution" to the "Muslim Problem" here in America.

Honestly if it wasn't for his entire birther debacle with Obama I'd have thought his entire campaign was a troll to show America and anyone supporting him that they're awful. Unfortunately I've flipped to the side of "he's fucking serious", and kinda dangerous to boot because the people supporting him are just as scary/nuts.

Ironically at this point you have to hope that the GOP would rather fall on the sword then support him. He can't actually win without GOP support, but the people that fund the GOP aren't going to want to back Trump.

I appreciate Trump for one thing: showing who the GOP "base" really is. For years the GOP has portrayed itself as the party of limited government and low taxes, strong national defense, pro-religion, etc. Conservative but civilized, wealthy and powerful.

...but really, the party base is and has been white nationalists. Trump is saying what they really feel: America is and should remain a white Christian nation. They don't want immigrants, they don't trust non-whites receiving government benefits, they distrust and fear Muslims. Even Dubya presented the sanitized GOP image that the wealthy donors want to curate (albeit a dumbed-down version).

Trump is a business man (also a sociopath). He's analyzed the "market" for Republican votes, sees that a huge segment of this market isn't being served and (thanks to lack of scruples) proceeds to exploit it with bravado.

I'm definitely not saying that all or even most Republicans are white nationalists, just that they are the most vociferous, most active members of the party and a plurality of its membership.

The direction the United states is going in worries me. Too much civil strife right now, with indications it will only get worse. Electing Trump would be like adding a nuclear bomb to a mild grass-fire.....

I'm not saying a Trump election is likely, but the fact that it is a possibility kinda hurts my brain.

Haha the Pentagon has said that Trump's remarks embolden IS militants.. Which is true. He's basically playing into their plans. The more we alienate Muslims inside and outside of our country, the more powerful and plentiful extremists will get.

The Star Wars "strike me down and I'll become more powerful than you can imagine' defense only works in Star Wars. Extremist movement don't become stronger when you kill them. I see this argument repeated over and over and it's just not true. Yes if you didn't do the job right it potentially can get worse but it's still unlikely to be any worse than not doing anything about it. ISIS is powerful because they actually control land that can generate resources instead of hiding in a cave somewhere like typical terrorists. For one thing, if you want to become a terrorist you know there's a place you can go to sign up, whereas in the past you'd have to try to start looking in random caves and hope you find the right one. All the talk about how invading is not right or it's exactly what they want us to is just people who don't want to put up with the gruesome realities of an invasion. Now obviously an invasion is a ton of commitment and likely far more than any nation is willing to commit, which is why nobody's actually doing it. If Trump become president and actually did bomb ISIS back to the stone age, it'd almost certainly be far more effective than any other guy would be doing as the POTUS. Now he'd probably be on trial for crimes against humanity if he actually did the stuff he claimed he will do, but it'll definitely work.

The wars US fought in is only difficult because they're really nation-building exercises because 'wipe them out completely' is no longer an acceptable form of warfare, but if someone is really willing to do that, it's actually pretty easy to pull off. I remember they interviewed one of Saddam's henchman about whether they think taking out the ISIS is hard, and the henchman is like 'US wiped our army out easily back then and I'm pretty sure our army is better than what the ISIS has.' He also said that if US gave them advanced weapon they know how to use them just fine and can get the job done. Now of course they're not getting those weapons because the US doesn't trust them, but the military dimension of the conflict is actually pretty simple.

Russia will finish off ISIL. It would be best if the US stayed away from the Middle East. Accept the fact that the US is extraordinarily villainous in the eyes of the common people in the region; and there is absolute justification for the view given all the political manipulation, death, and destruction delivered by the US for decades.

Russia have done what no one else was able to do and gathered extensive intel on their infrastructure and sources of income. Russia provided a huge amount of photograph and video evidence of their oil pipeline network to UN. They are in the process of dismantling it.

Also Russia has made some serious allegations toward Erdogan and his business associates, and have provided some damning evidence against them. They've aligned with the Kurds to fight their enemies. It's much more possible the Kurds may actually get their nation with the help of Russia.


Anyway, back over to US politics.

Trump is definitely a good barometer, and he won't win unless through cheating or the rest of the US just decides not to vote in the next election. Trump plays with his hand shown, whereas guys like Jeb keep it close to their chest, even though they hold the same cards. In addition, I don't think this marks a decline in the American way of thought, but rather a revelation of just how many crazy racists are left in the country. As great as Eisenhower is considered, is Trump all that different in his views? Both are pro-defunding the military industrial complex, both were anti-immigration, and Eisenhower was probably the first US President to make a push into Middle Eastern politics by overthrowing democratically elected governments with dictators, setting in motion the revolutions that led to the state the Middle East is in today. Trump is that guy that these racist pigs will help bring back their fantasy idealized 1950s.

I do think that the US has become much less terrible in even the last 10-15 years. The whole country is under a microscope right now, and aspects of the culture are being ridiculed worldwide; specifically the gun stuff and the racism. With the gun stuff, 15 years ago Michael Moore made a documentary that many Americans, even on the left, felt was a biased exaggeration; today, the general consensus of America's gun problem makes Michael Moore's documentary look like a tame criticism compared to the reality.

That said,Cruz and Rubio are coming up; Rubio is interesting because he is what passes for a moderate, and may be the only one left with Walker out of the picture; and is the most sane choice out of the current 4. Sorry Manaman, Jeb is done, he's about to fall below Chris Christie.


But anyway, looks like a big part of the Republicans have turned on Trump:


The problem is that if they leave Trump, they'll just go over to Cruz, who is probably even worse than Trump.

Well, Putin seems to not care as much about bombing the wrong guys and if you take a hardline approach it's not that hard. It's kind of funny since US was making fun of Russia using dumb bombs (not laser guided etc) but now reports saying US is running out of bombs though of course this is more to do with stuff like sequestration as opposed to US somehow not being able to get enough smart bombs.

ISIS has a lot of financial muscle though it's really not that surprising for an organization that owns land. Yes they're not prime estate land but it's also not a bunch of caves. A famous advisor of Genghis Khan said that you can only pillage once but if you own the land you can tax its citizens for a lifetime and that's pretty much what ISIS is doing on the land it is able to hold. Realistically terrorism just isn't that big of a problem for the US even though it gets headline. After all far more people die to say gun deaths attributed to workplace violence than what can be attributed to terrorism. If the San Bernardino shooting was instead done by two guys that just snapped like the usual shootings it would just be business as usual but somehow being related to ISIS made this a national security issue even though the result is exactly the same.

That said,Cruz and Rubio are coming up; Rubio is interesting because he is what passes for a moderate, and may be the only one left with Walker out of the picture; and is the most sane choice out of the current 4. Sorry Manaman, Jeb is done, he's about to fall below Chris Christie.

That very well may be but we can't say for sure until the GOP primaries.

There is a possibility that if enough of the GOP leadership starts pushing back against him, he might run as an independent. This would leave Jeb an opening to rally support and win the GOP nomination.

Don wrote:The Star Wars "strike me down and I'll become more powerful than you can imagine' defense only works in Star Wars. Extremist movement don't become stronger when you kill them.

That's not what people who say what I said mean. It's about treating people like shit and alienating them. Happy people (non-radicalized moderates) with futures and families that aren't getting put into camps or murdered on a regular basis typically don't shoot up concert halls or strap explosives to themselves. When Trump says cartoonishly evil shit that targets all Muslims, it plays into the idea that IS wants Muslims to believe, that the world is turning on them and the only rational decision is extremism.

There are still plenty of people who are just radicalized through traditional methods (born into it, brainwashed, idiots, etc.), but we basically recruit moderates for extremists the more and more we alienate and degrade them.





McCain and (to a much lesser extent Romney) were still arguably not going to win at this point. The polls are meaningless. In 2011 Herman Cain, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich were all polling better than Romney during significant portions of the pre-Primary polling process. These people with flashy ideas that people can grab onto for a month because of 'smart' sound bites are all the rage, but the second someone else comes up with something flashy to say the polls just shift to that person. In 2007 McCain was behind basically everyone. The people leading the polls were fucking Giuliani (and this was for MONTHS AND MONTHS) and Fred Thompson. McCain basically came out of nowhere in the middle of December.

Cruz and Bush are probably the main contenders here. Cruz gets to share a certain amount of the spotlight since so much of his shit lines up with Trump (Cruz is easily the person Trump would back if he actually did bow out of the race and didn't run on his own (something he said he wouldn't do but lol who would trust him on that?)). Bush is smart enough not to jump in front of the popularity train, but still has plenty of time to get back into things.

I do hope the Democrats, even if they win and get another two termer in, are looking towards the future. Who do they even have other than Clinton and Sanders.. both of whom probably won't want to run again in 4-8 years (if one or the other wins or if a Republican gains office). The next Democrat nominees are going to have to basically be unknowns - the only Democrats that come to mind have basically ruined their reputations by being attached to the almost unanimously hated Congress.

I like to think (using "like" very liberally here) that the currently empty field of Democratic nominees is basically in part of the political powerhouse that is the Clinton family. That they basically cashed in on two decades of political/financial favors and cleared the field of everyone who could have been a threat except for Sanders who clearly give no fucks.

I kind of worry that the future Democratic party brings another John Kerry. A Democrat who can say things we want to hear but otherwise has zero "It" factor.

Shrinweck wrote:

Don wrote:The Star Wars "strike me down and I'll become more powerful than you can imagine' defense only works in Star Wars. Extremist movement don't become stronger when you kill them.

That's not what people who say what I said mean. It's about treating people like shit and alienating them. Happy people (non-radicalized moderates) with futures and families that aren't getting put into camps or murdered on a regular basis typically don't shoot up concert halls or strap explosives to themselves. When Trump says cartoonishly evil shit that targets all Muslims, it plays into the idea that IS wants Muslims to believe, that the world is turning on them and the only rational decision is extremism.

There are still plenty of people who are just radicalized through traditional methods (born into it, brainwashed, idiots, etc.), but we basically recruit moderates for extremists the more and more we alienate and degrade them.

If all it takes is nice words to stop ISIS it wouldn't be such a headache, and if all it takes is people saying dumb things to make a movement happen then ISIS should've just hired some guy bashing Muslims. The ISIS problem comes from the fact that they actually have land and can consolidate their power. It's not like America suddenly discovered xenophobia as a concept just now. Sure it might be useful propaganda to say 'yeah those guys hate us' but that's actually not that effective simply because if it was that easy then everyone would've already tried.

People like Trump make it sound like the United States is at war with Muslims which is exactly the kind of thing rhetoric that makes people hate us. Yeah there are people who actually believe that and hating people who are different for whatever dumb ass reason is not new to American culture. There's a major difference between the fly over states being partially full of assholes and the president (or potential presidents) going around saying shit like this.

The point isn't being all sunshine and daffodils to the Middle East, the idea is having policy that doesn't spit in their face. Refugees are almost entirely as a whole never embedded terrorists, but if you treat them like shit every second of every day then some of them are going to become criminals at best. The more poor you make a group of people and the less of a chance you give them to scrape out an acceptable way of life, the more of a chance they're going to become undesirable.

If all it takes is someone prominent saying dumb things to start a major war you'd just have people hire guys to say bad things about them. You probably don't even need to do that because there's nothing stopping prominent people saying dumb things. For example there are a lot of guys in fairly prominent positions saying Putin is dumb but that hasn't started a world war yet either. People have been saying dumb things far earlier than Trump and that didn't lead to some kind of massive crusade. All this talk about how to word things carefully around ISIS is stupid. ISIS didn't get to its position of power because someone said something nasty about Islam. It seems like Obama and the politically correct guy is hoping that if we say Islam is cool the guys in the region will magically overthrow ISIS without US having to do anything. That isn't happening. Honestly if the Republican guys actually carried out their warmonger talks that'd actually work, though I suspect it's just all talk.

If you look at the combined arms doctrine it is actually very hard to have an effective campaign from just the air when you're not just wiping everything out and there certainly doesn't look like there's any support on the ground. Well, there are plenty of guys fighting the ISIS but obviously nobody is sure who they can even trust.

For what it's worth if there's an attempt to sneak guys in the US as refugees all they'd need to do is have people come in as totally legitimate guys (no hidden anything) and just buy have them buy 10 guns once they get in because that's apparently totally normal in the US. At any rate I think the refugee situation is more about the cost you need to shelter and provide for so many people, but that's more of a European issue since some European countries are much smaller and can get overwhelmed.

I'm not saying it starts a war, I'm saying it sends a very public message that could easily feed into things in the short term. And no one is saying that being nice is some kind of magic wand. It's just another thing flung onto the shit heap.

Obama being politically correct is a political move not to look like just another MURICA douchebag. It isn't going to prevent war, it's just not being a shitty person. It's a public image problem that people like Trump feed and people like Obama try to fight. It's the idea that Americans are fat, racist, wasteful, simpleminded idiots which makes us much easier targets than people who are struggling to understand their role in a changing world. Trump saying it publicly while polling so well makes all foreign people think (because foreign journalism is becoming garbage as well) that this is how Americans as a whole think.

The American states that are bitching about refugees don't care about the cost, they 100% used the Paris attack as a reason to be xenophobic. On the plus side, the federal government doesn't have to even tell the state that it has moved Syrian refugees into the state. Last week I read an article in the paper that two Syrian families had already been moved into Georgia and the governor's comment was that he didn't even know lol.

I have a great deal of distaste for my governor but incompetence/stupidity isn't really a part of that - the federal government is just going above their heads. And they should.

Well I think the whole 'don't call it radical Islam' political correctness thing has a backlash because obviously radical Islam is causing the bulk of the problem here. To be fair the warmonger guys are probably just talking too as I don't really see Trump ordering an invasion into ME even if he becomes president. There are some really backwards stuff people talk about in the name of PC, like one of them is like we shouldn't invade ISIS because that'd play exactly into their hand. No it's like we shouldn't invade ISIS because invasion is costly (financially and in terms of human death), but if you could wipe them all out and be assured it wouldn't cost you any lives that'd definitely take care of the problem. Heck, I'm pretty sure US will take only a costly (money-wise) invasion if they can be assured nobody is going to die, especially if the cost is just the war itself not nation building since all the money you pay for the defense guys is still mostly within America's own economy, so sure maybe Boeing and Lockheed makes a ton of money but the guys work there are still your own guys.

Yes there are probably some other psychos that will take over after ISIS is gone but they're probably slightly less psychotic than the current batch one. Of course nobody can guaranteed an invasion is going to be painless let alone deathless (for the attacker) and I think it's hypocritical both sides are coming up with fake logic instead of just saying 'no we can't afford the backlash of a protracted invasion and we're not allowed to just bomb them to the stone age (but maybe Russia can, because they don't seem to care about that kind of stuff).'

I do agree that the refugee situation as far as America is concerned is pretty silly. America is obviously not going to be overwhelmed by the number of refugees unlike the smaller European countries that legitimately may lack the size/infrastructure/economy, and from a security point of view due to the lax gun laws anybody can legally come here and buy 10 guns anyway. If the San Bernardino shooting isn't related to ISIS people will just chalk it up as 'stuff happens'. I get this image of Dr. Evil as the head of a terrorist organization and he'd be like, "I got this plan we'll somehow sneak in a guy into America and buy a bunch of guns and shoot people and sow chaos!" and his henchman will inform him that this already happens once every month from random guys that went crazy.

Shrinweck wrote:I kind of worry that the future Democratic party brings another John Kerry. A Democrat who can say things we want to hear but otherwise has zero "It" factor.

Rambling reply...
Your two party system sucks. Our three party system sucks. I think we can invent a better system for representative democracy. I like to think, probably entirely incorrectly and naively, that Trump's popularity is driven by folks like me who just want to watch the system crash and burn by exposing the sheer absurdity through a Trump victory...but even if I am wrong about the driving force, the end result would be beautiful.

Go Trump, go. Make America great again!

Your two party system sucks. Our three party system sucks. I think we can invent a better system for representative democracy

Any more I think that a random selection of qualified people (like Jury duty) with set term limits would be a better system.

You'd have to have some basic level of understanding of economics, law, accounting, ethics, labor, science, etc. (maybe a high-school diploma?) to be a legislator. To be an executive (President, governor, premier, etc) you'd need a certain level of management & executive experience along with education.

It would still be a representative democracy. Instead of being run by the egotistical power-hungry narcissists with money, it's be run by ordinary people.

My hypothesis:
1. The establishment republicans don't want Trump or Cruz to win.
2. Marco Rubio, while a moderate, is more electable than any establishment candidate, and also a candidate the establishment can get behind.

Therefore, I think soon they will all throw their support behind Rubio, before the end of January.

Julius Seeker wrote:My hypothesis:
1. The establishment republicans don't want Trump or Cruz to win.
2. Marco Rubio, while a moderate, is more electable than any establishment candidate, and also a candidate the establishment can get behind.

Therefore, I think soon they will all throw their support behind Rubio, before the end of January.

It could be that the establishment rallies around Cruz as Trump has made him seem to be reasonable and moderate by comparison. They could figure "fine, the base wants crazy? let's at least have *our* crazy guy win".

Conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg covered this topic in his latest column:

According to conventional wisdom, the GOP nominates the guy whose turn it is, while the Democrats look for a savior. As Bill Clinton once said, "In every presidential election, Democrats want to fall in love. Republicans just fall in line."

George H.W. Bush came in second to Ronald Reagan in 1980. As the sitting vice president, it was Bush's turn for the nomination in 1988, and he got it. Sen. Bob Dole came in second to Bush in 1988, so in 1996 it was his turn. In 2000, there was no obvious line of succession, but George W. Bush came closest as the heir to the Bush dynasty. Sen. John McCain came in second to W. in 2000. In 2008, McCain got the nomination. Mitt Romney: Second in 2008, he got his turn in 2012.

There's a chance the power of love will still triumph in the Democratic primaries. Right now, Hillary Clinton is running like a Republican, insisting that it's her turn. That's the real meaning of "Ready for Hillary," after all. But all the love is for long shot Bernie Sanders.

On the Republican side, however, the conventional wisdom is dead. The so-called establishment GOP candidates look like they're re-enacting the fight scene in the movie "Anchorman," attacking one another at every turn.

What's going on? In the GOP race, the real culprit isn't Donald Trump, it's Jeb Bush.

The next-in-line tale is correct, but the moral of the story isn't what people think. The Bushes, Dole, Romney and McCain didn't defeat their primary opponents because voters simply accepted their right to the nomination. (Voters aren't that compliant.) They won because they took advantage of their solid starting positions to broaden their support.

He goes on to say that, basically, Jeb had this one in the bag but he didn't do the necessary pandering to the right wing of the party. Instead he positioned himself as the "moderate" in the race and Trump, etc. swooped in to take his right flank.

Every time I glance over this topic, I read "My theory on GOP Presidential Primates"

Here's mine:



Should Donald Trump be nominated, his birth certificate (long form) should be examined. While he claims to be American, research shows that he may have been born in the jungles of Sumatra or Borneo. He eats a diet primarily of bark and insects, generally prefers solitary life, and is intelligent enough to fashion umbrellas out of sticks and leaves. But as GOP candidate, don't expect a lot of monkey business, because while he may spend most of his time in the trees, he is a form of ape which shares 96.8% of your human DNA.

Jeb was only #1 early on because he was the only guy running that anyone knew anything about. Then once the others jumped in there was no way he would win. His immediate ties to the Bush family, and his dull-witted intellect immediately disqualify him in the public eye. If he went any more right, he still has the Bush factor going against him; that is dumb, corrupt, and part of the establishment - republicans hate the establishment right now. His derpy name "Jeb" doesn't do him any favours either.

Here's an interesting favourable ratings poll compiled from across the results of different pollsters. Interesting to note that Trump's popularity, while high among republicans, is by a wide margin significantly the lowest among traditional democrats and independents. Jeb is scores weakly among republicans, is second worst among independents, and close to the second worst among democrats: Jeb is second worst overall, Trump is worst overall. Interestingly enough, Ben Carson has the best shot among the republican potential nominees to win the presidency.