No more Bushs!!!

[livecoug]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

At least according to a recent poll. 63% of Americans polled said they would "definitely vote against Jeb Bush" if he ran for president in 2006. It appears our collective intelligence is rising!

Only 9% said they would definitely vote for Jeb Bush.

Hillary had somewhat mixed results. While slightly more than 50% said they would never vote for her, she also had, among the candidates listed, the highest number of people say they definitely would vote for her. This pretty much confirmed what we already knew- Hillary is a very divisive candidate. You either love her or hate her. Very few people taking a measured approach to her candidacy.

you say our collective intelligence is rising and then in the next paragraph, you give a stat that says 50% of america would consider voting for billary.. there goes your intelligence rising theory! that's a lot of dumb people right there who would consider voting for billary

[Jeff Lebowski]

Technically, I believe it should be "No more Bushes".

Carry on.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by homeboy

Technically, I believe it should be "No more Bushes".

Carry on.

lol! Touche. But such a statement would run counter to my pro-environment beliefs!

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Interesting. I'm not sure if that should be taken at face value. Lots of politicians deny interest just to get people clammoring for them to run. Perhaps he is serious. I don't see why including him in the poll is simply an attempt to take a swipe at the Bushs, though, given a very broad perception that he is a serious candidate.

He gives you the source you ask for then question whether it should be taken at face value.

You were wrong. He was right. Simple as that.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

You were wrong. He was right. Simple as that.

Not so fast. It's not uncommon to include people who have been mentioned as possible candidates whether they have personally denied such aspirations or not. I remember Colin Powell being included in many a poll when he CLEARLY was not going to run.

[ChinoCoug]

What's Mark Warner like? I'm new to Virginia, but I know he oversaw Virginia as the best-managed state. Is he a tough-minded progressive in the mold of Bill Clinton?

[stonewallperry]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

Not so fast. It's not uncommon to include people who have been mentioned as possible candidates whether they have personally denied such aspirations or not. I remember Colin Powell being included in many a poll when he CLEARLY was not going to run.

I know it's not uncommon, but my point was it was another swipe at the Bushes (sp?). There are a million 'potential' candidates out there, why pick Jeb Bush who has said that he won't run? My point is, it wasn't just some random person they selected that lots of people wanted or talked about (if you remember correctly, MANY people wanted Colin Powell to run), they pick a Bush just to show, one more time, how much they hate George.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by stonewallperry

I know it's not uncommon, but my point was it was another swipe at the Bushes (sp?). There are a million 'potential' candidates out there, why pick Jeb Bush who has said that he won't run? My point is, it wasn't just some random person they selected that lots of people wanted or talked about (if you remember correctly, MANY people wanted Colin Powell to run), they pick a Bush just to show, one more time, how much they hate George.

LOL!!! For the SAME reason they included Colin Powell! LOTS of people want him to run too.

It is kind of like when Urban Meyer was coaching (pick your location) and said he loved (pick your location) and wasn't interested in a job elsewhere. Politicians (and coaches) say all the time that they aren't interested in running for a particular office when, in fact, they are keenly interested in running.

You don't want to announce too early because it gives people more time to mobilize against you. You don't want to announce too late because you can't mobilize your own people fast enough. You need a right balance. Jeb's statements mean nothing at the moment. Intelligent pollsters understand that fact and included him in the poll, knowing many would support his candidacy.

[stonewallperry]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

LOL!!! For the SAME reason they included Colin Powell! LOTS of people want him to run too.

It is kind of like when Urban Meyer was coaching (pick your location) and said he loved (pick your location) and wasn't interested in a job elsewhere. Politicians (and coaches) say all the time that they aren't interested in running for a particular office when, in fact, they are keenly interested in running.

You don't want to announce too early because it gives people more time to mobilize against you. You don't want to announce too late because you can't mobilize your own people fast enough. You need a right balance. Jeb's statements mean nothing at the moment. Intelligent pollsters understand that fact and included him in the poll, knowing many would support his candidacy.

9% would vote for him...sounds like he's extremely popular. I think you're up in the night on this one.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by stonewallperry

9% would vote for him...sounds like he's extremely popular. I think you're up in the night on this one.

Let me get this straight. You oppose conducting a poll to see if Jeb would be a viable candidate because you don't feel there is sufficient groundswell to get him to run. In support of your argument, you refer to the poll you opposed which indicates he carries about a tenth of the population's support.

A bit circular, don't you think? What if that poll revealed he had a 90% favorability rating? Then would you favor taking the poll?

Exactly how would the pollsters have been able to guess what his favorability rating is before taking the poll?