politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: NEW POLL: 60% OF REPUBLICANS WILL NOT VOTE IN 2016 IF BUSH IS THE NOMINEE
Source:
Game Changer PAC
URL Source: http://gamechangerpac.com/new-poll- ... n-2016-if-bush-is-the-nominee/
Published: May 9, 2015
Author: Timothy Core
Post Date: 2015-05-09 11:13:52 by Hondo68
Keywords: None
Views: 19172
Comments: 65
In a poll by Game Changer PAC, surveying 2,226 likely Republican voters, 59.66% of respondents said that if Jeb Bush ends up as the 2016 Republican Presidential Nominee… they won’t vote at all in the 2016 General Election.
The poll shows that Republican voters are tired of holding their noses and will no longer vote in lock-step with the party.
Bush is seen as a fundraising powerhouse and is on track to raise over 100 million dollars by the end of May. This fact is causing the establishment wing of the Republican party to salivate more than Pavlov’s Dogs in a fire drill. The sad fact is that throughout recent history BOTH major parties have decided which perspective nominees will be endorsed by the full weight of their parties primarily on fundraising successes.
The Republican party has been dealing with push-back from this model for the last few years with the rise of the Tea Party- and has seen some positive results and an energized base- though this is not the party’s doing or desire.
The Democrat party has maintained this model and used the rise of the Tea Party as fodder for negative campaign ads. With some candidates and strategists even going so far as to brand Republican candidates with ZERO tea party support as “Tea Partiers” or “Tea Baggers” in the hopes that by branding them in that way the Democrat’s low-information segment will become energized due to a stigma that has been unfairly attached to all members of the Tea Party due to the actions of a few of them.
While it is still too early to tell if the establishment wings of both parties will get the message that simply running candidates that share 90% of the same views, just with a different letter behind their name, doesn’t work anymore. The American people are doing their best to try to get that message across.
However, when you listen to most pundits, the race has already been fought. Most have declared that in the 2016 general election Jeb Bush will be pitted against Hillary Clinton and that Clinton will come out ahead, ultimately becoming the 45th President of the United States.
But in reality we still have no clue who the nominees will be much less the next President. Currently there are over 300 people who have filed with the FEC to run for President in 2016, with more added all the time.
One thing is for sure though: If Jeb Bush is the Republican Presidential Nominee, whoever the Democrat Presidential Nominee is will be the next President.
UPDATE (5/8/2015):
A large number of people have accused Game Changer PAC of lying about the results, Of making the whole thing up as a hit piece against Jeb Bush, Of not using a random sample for our poll, et cetera ad nauseam.
This update is to clarify some of those misconceptions.
- The plain and simple truth is that it was a scientific poll, open to all likely Republican Primary voters. The respondents had to answer YES to the question “Are you likely to vote in the Republican Presidential Primaries” in order to be counted.
- There were no incentives to be part of the poll and there were no restrictions such as liking our facebook page, following us on twitter, or being subscribed to our newsletter.
- We took great pains when crafting the poll to be fully impartial and not show favoritism to ANY candidate over another. No candidates’ names were listed as part of the text of a question, and in answer sections that listed candidates’ names, as possible answers, all candidates were listed in alphabetical order.
- The question “SELECT THE CANDIDATES -IF ANY- , THAT, IF THEY BECAME THE NOMINEE, WOULD CAUSE YOU TO NOT VOTE IN THE 2016 GENERAL PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.” was an optional question that respondents were not required to answer.
- We included this question because of what we saw in the 2014 California Gubernatorial Election. In that election you had 3 main candidates.
Jerry Brown (Democratic incumbent)
Neel Kashkari (“Establishment” Republican candidate)
Tim Donnelly (“Tea Party” Republican candidate)
Kashkari was seen by many Tea Party Republicans as more liberal than Brown due to his management of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Donnelly was a founding member of the “Minute Men” civilian border patrol and an unabashed right winger. Kashkari was a late entry, to replace Able Maldonado who dropped out, with a lot of money behind him.
Because of Kashkari’s perceived liberalism many far right Republicans publicly stated that they would skip the General Election if Donnelly wasn’t the nominee -Since write-ins aren’t allowed in partisan General Elections in California due to Prop 14.
Kashkari went on to beat Donnelly in the Primary and then those who said that they wouldn’t vote in the general, didn’t. The 2014 California Gubernatorial General Election had a turnout rate of 21.4% which was not only a record low but less than half of the turn out seen in the 2010 midterms.
- We were very surprised by the result of the poll, which is why we wrote about it. If a different candidate had seen a similar result then it would be their name in the title of this article, not Jeb Bush’s.
- Game Changer PAC has not endorsed or backed any Current or Potential 2016 Presidential Candidate from ANY political party.
We understand that this is not a favorable poll result for Jeb Bush. We understand why so many have reservations about believing the results. However, those were the results.
Thank you for reading.
UPDATE 2 (5/8/15)
For those of you that are complaining about the Margin of Error.
We calculated margin of error using the z*-Value for 95% confidence (standard) which is 1.96 we used the proper equation of : Z√P(1-P)/n=1.96√(0.5966)(.4034)/2226 =(1.96)(0.010397) = 0.02037812
Which means a 2% margin of error
Poster Comment:
Even more despised than Willie-Mitt? (1 image)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
NEW POLL: 60% OF REPUBLICANS WILL NOT VOTE IN 2016 IF BUSH IS THE NOMINEE
Opinion pools and the media don’t always get things right.
The voting public may be paying too much attention to swinging public opinion polls when they should be focusing on the issues.
While the polls can be illustrative and useful, they need to take a back seat to considering actual issues.
It does not matter how encouraging a point or two shift in polls might be, there is really one thing that matters.
And that is the results on Election Day.
Right, Harry …
#2. To: Gatlin (#1)
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul#3. To: hondo68 (#2)
Very accurate political cartoon !
Si vis pacem, para bellum
#4. To: hondo68 (#2) (Edited)
Mine is a real newspaper headline, yours is false newspaper headline.
That is always the big difference us....being real and false.
But that has nothing to do with polls or mediate reporting.
#5. To: Stoner (#3)
Mitt Romney was the man who defeated himself.
#6. To: hondo68 (#0)
We're already into the anybody-but-Bush phase of the 2016 race, in many ways a replay of the 2012 anybody-but-Romney campaign.
If the GOP base wants any chance to stop Bush, they have to do it early on in IA and NH and SC. Not fritter votes and delegates away on hopeless longshot candidates (Carson, Huckabee, Fiorina, etc.).
There are only three, maybe four GOP candidates that have any real potential to defeat Bush for the nomination. The Tea folk and conservatives and Religious Right had better find some one candidate to unite behind sooner than later. Otherwise, the huge advantages of an elite-backed and tycoon-backed candidate like Bush (or Romney) will gradually overcome all other candidates in Florida and beyond, exactly as it did in 2012 and many other GOP primaries.
#7. To: hondo68 (#0)
60% OF REPUBLICANS WILL NOT VOTE IN 2016 IF BUSH IS THE NOMINEE
Reaganites have been pushed aside and treated with disdain and disgust because they are an inconvenience. In return, as a display of temper, Reaganites have refused to vote. In so doing, they have made themselves irrelevant. Knowing they will not vote has left corrupt mindless politicians with the opportunity to appeal primarily to Mexicans and negroes in order to win elections. Everybody has screwed up. Reaganites should have voted for Virgil Goode of the Constition Party and Perot in mass to show they still had a voice instead of Bushs and Romney. Now you can say hello to president Hillary, the commom people's champion and say good-bye to the country!
#8. To: Gatlin (#5)
" Mitt Romney was the man who defeated himself. "
No sh*t Sherlock.
Thats why I said the cartoon was so accurate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
#9. To: TooConservative (#6)
Too, you're right: the Tea Party better unite behind one man at once.
Most of the folks here are right wingers who don't like Bush.
So, who is acceptable to you all?
If not Bush, then who?
Will Walker do? Paul? Perry? Is there somebody else viable out there who seriously has any shot that I'm forgetting.
CAN Tea Partiers unite on a candidate from that list? I doubt it.
And IF the Tea Partiers unite on a candidate, will the Establishment support that candidate?
I don't think that the Establishment will accept Paul. So I think it comes down to Walker or Perry.
That might not be a bad ticket, actually: Walker/Perry; Wisconsin and Texas.
#10. To: Vicomte13 (#9)
That might not be a bad ticket, actually: Walker/Perry; Wisconsin and Texas.
Yep.
#11. To: hondo68 (#0)
I won't vote for a Democrat, I won't vote for Jeb,
(another Bush, God help us), and I won't vote for Rand.
So who the heck am I supposed to vote for?
I could write in myself - if I wanted the job -
which I absolutely don't.
So I don't think I'll vote either.
It just grants semi-legitimacy to the criminal
actions of whatever idiot gets in there.
#12. To: TooConservative (#6)
The Tea folk and conservatives and Religious Right had better find some one candidate to unite behindhopeless longshot candidates (Carson, Huckabee, Fiorina, etc.)
Yeah, they all say that but really mean switch to MY candidate. That never seems to work.
Jeb is probably contributing to them, to split the vote.
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul#13. To: Vicomte13, TooConservative, All (#9)
So, who is acceptable to you all?
Who can beat the Billaries and the MSM in the general election?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
#14. To: SOSO (#13)
Noone. The political fabrick of America is "bankrupt," to coin a phrase.
#15. To: SOSO, Satnic GOP candidates, reliable losers, *The Two Parties ARE the Same* (#13)
Who can beat the Billaries and the MSM in the general election?
Will the GOP once again demand a candidate worse than Hillary and closer to Satan, like Romney and McCain?
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul#16. To: hondo68, Vicomte13 (#15)
" Will the GOP once again demand a candidate worse than Hillary and closer to Satan, like Romney and McCain? "
Most likely. I & my family will probably for the Constitution Party.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
#17. To: Stoner (#16)
Most likely. I & my family will probably for the Constitution Party.
What do you think shall occur with the "Constitution Party" once they achieve a level of high esteem within the US political system? Here, I shall tell you: the same ol' BS.
We need to keep the political system on their tippie-toes at all tymes and it is not based political party commaradrie or agreement. The goal is based upon driving the political machine back to individual rights and determinism.
#18. To: buckeroo (#17)
" the same ol' BS. "
True. But continuing to vote for establishment candidates is not going to change things. Look how it has turned out for the last umpteenth years.
As long as they think we have no where else to go, they are not going to change.
We can either try, or wait for TSHTF. I am trying to be optimistic.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
#19. To: Stoner (#18)
We can either try, or wait for TSHTF. I am trying to be optimistic.
Back in the good 'ol days of yesteryear, politicians were both educated and had principals so you could "try" to believe in certain ideals with little remiss. Voting today is a waste of tyme as politicians have neither principals or education irrespective of their publick costumes they proudly prance around under.
Waiting for "TSHTF" seems a bit boring to me as these publick charlatans are going to milk the system for all they can get. Think of it like this: they have already received 18 trillion bucks; this process took decades. The USA is going for 100 trillion and no end is in sight.
#20. To: Vicomte13, redleghunter, Pericles (#9)
CAN Tea Partiers unite on a candidate from that list? I doubt it.
It's rare that the various wingnuts can unite to prevent the party elite from imposing a nominee. Reagan was a notable exception where the party base imposed a candidate on the GOP that they didn't want. The party elite wanted a Bush back in 1980, not Reagan.
And IF the Tea Partiers unite on a candidate, will the Establishment support that candidate?
Only if the candidate is strong enough as a politician to carry the vote. If the GOP money men think the candidate is lousy, they won't cough up much. But you saw Romney manage to raise just under a billion in 2012. Bush can raise that much. So can a number of others.
For both the base voters and for the GOP elite, you pretty much have to support the party's nominee as that is the only game in town for a lot of factions like the pro-military and the pro-lifers and so on. They are the only game in town for some voters, pro-lifers being just one example.
Chances are, if the base managed to impose a conservative nominee, say Cruz or Paul, against the party elite's choice, the money men would likely demand a VP pick they like. Much as they demanded that Reagan accept Bush as his VP back in 1980. That was the price of their support.
To answer your other question, as soon as people start talking about a conservative unity candidate, Walker's name keeps coming up. It seems to be an election Thing with Iowa voters already.
So you have IA/NV/NH/SC. NV doesn't count for much but someone will pick up a few delegates there. Someone like Walker (or Paul or Cruz) will have to win at least two of those early primaries to build up delegate counts and support (including financial) in order to compete in Florida against Bush and Rubio who will be splitting the Florida vote with both of them gearing up to fight it out in Florida.
Florida in 2008 and 2012 flouted RNC rules and went winner-take-all, despite RNC rules that winner-take-all contests only occur earlier in states like NH and SC. So if the Florida GOP can be restrained by the RNC and award its delegates proportionally by the rules, the primary battle can continue somewhat longer, giving other candidates a better chance. So how and when the FL GOP primary is conducted is important to the outcome. Florida GOP naturally want to be seen as the GOP kingmaker. And Florida is one of 8 must-win competitive states for the GOP in 2016.
#21. To: hondo68 (#12)
Yeah, they all say that but really mean switch to MY candidate. That never seems to work.
One of Walker's strengths is that he ranks high as the second-pick of so many GOP voters.
So a lot of people seem willing to settle on him if their fave fails (Fiorina, Huck, Carson, etc.).
So Walker may be the anti-Bush in 2016, much as Santorum ended up as the anti-Romney in 2012.
I think the Tea folk and conservatives are pretty aware of how Romney outlasted and outspent them as they jumped from Gingrich to Herman Cain (WTH?) to Santorum. Romney just outspent them and hung on and prevailed almost inevitably. So I think more GOP voters are thinking hard about who can stop Bush in 2016 before he gains almost unstoppable momentum and party elite backing.
#22. To: hondo68 (#0)
The poll shows that Republican voters are tired of holding their noses and will no longer vote in lock-step with the party.
Damn shame we weren't all doing this when that evil bastard Poppy was first running.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#23. To: rlk (#7)
Reaganites have refused to vote. In so doing, they have made themselves irrelevant.
Better to be irrelevant than to be a traitor to your own beliefs.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#24. To: sneakypete (#22)
Damn shame we weren't all doing this when that evil bastard Poppy was first running.
Poppy?
You should go all the way back in tyme and refreshyour recollection for the study of Abe Lincoln, the first US President of GOP creation. It was an abortion then and the GOP is an abortion now.
#25. To: Vicomte13 (#9)
Will Walker do? Paul? Perry? Is there somebody else viable out there who seriously has any shot that I'm forgetting.
It's too early to tell. Lots of people "look good" in theory,but then fall apart once they start campaigning and start compromising their principles.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#26. To: Chuck_Wagon (#11)
So who the heck am I supposed to vote for?
You could always vote for me. That way I would get two votes.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#27. To: sneakypete (#26)
You could always vote for me.
What is your political stand on snapping turtles
versus painted turtles?
#28. To: Chuck_Wagon (#27)
#29. To: TooConservative (#20)
the various wingnuts
Yeah, wingnuts who believe in things like Constitutional republics vs. oligarchies run by false messiahs (whether they be of the R or D variety). Imagine that.
Both branches of the ruling party have their wingnuts. But since the natural flow of self governance is to move ever leftward and to devolve into socialism, statism and then finally dictatorship, the D branch wingnuts have an advantage.
Their "stuff" gets done. So it doesn't matter whether they back an Obozo, a Xlinton, a Sanders or a Warren. Just as sure as water finds its level, the fedgov is going to devolve faster and faster.
So the only disappointment the D wingnuts ever experience is thinking their person didn't "go far enough".
The R branch wingnuts, however, are constanty lied to by those who pander to them. Because those wingnuts not only want gov't to stop growning and stop taking away freedoms, but they actually want it to go back to some semblance of abiding by the Constitution.
Something that's never, ever going to happen.
So THIS wingnut - who's finally woken up to the fact that it doesn't matter whether a D or an R is dictator - has decided not to play anymore.
#30. To: Rufus T Firefly (#29)
So THIS wingnut - who's finally woken up to the fact that it doesn't matter whether a D or an R is dictator - has decided not to play anymore.
You could have saved yourself a lot of keystrokes by just admitting you're politically irrelevant.
Is that whole I'll-get-even-with-them-all-by-not-voting thing really working out so well for you? Keeps you warm at night?
Voting may be almost pointless but not voting is complete irrelevance.
#31. To: TooConservative (#30)
You could have saved yourself a lot of keystrokes by just admitting you're politically irrelevant.
I am, and I know it. You are too, but apparently you do not know it.
Is that whole I'll-get-even-with-them-all-by-not-voting thing really working out so well for you? Keeps you warm at night?
How's that 2014 mid term working out for you? Boy that Boehner and McConnell - really kicking Zero's butt, eh?
Voting may be almost pointless but not voting is complete irrelevance.Yeah, they had voting in the old USSR, too.
#32. To: Gatlin (#1)
I will never vote for Bush. He is a piece of shit. People who vote for Bush are pieces of shit.
#33. To: Gatlin (#10)
That might not be a bad ticket, actually: Walker/Perry; Wisconsin and Texas. Yep.
Nope. Perry isn't that great. Walker changed his position on immigration.
#34. To: Chuck_Wagon (#11)
and I won't vote for Rand.
I would vote for Rand if he gets the nomination.
#35. To: A K A Stone, Gatlin (#32)
I will never vote for Bush. He is a piece of shit. People who vote for Bush are pieces of shit.
How do you reconcile your vote for a popular GOP candidate a few years back? Let's jerk your memory into the forefront of thought: Johnny McCain.
#36. To: A K A Stone (#34)
All Jeb will do is split the non KILLARY voters. He stands no chance.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
#37. To: buckeroo (#35)
How do you reconcile your vote for a popular GOP candidate a few years back? Let's jerk your memory into the forefront of thought: Johnny McCain.
I'm not dumb enough to believe that Obama is as bad as McCain.
You just complain no matter what. That is apparently your purpose on earth.
#38. To: A K A Stone (#33)
Who are you looking at now?
#39. To: A K A Stone, Chuck_Wagon (#34)
and I won't vote for Rand.I would vote for Rand if he gets the nomination.
Same here....of course.
#40. To: Gatlin (#38)
Ted Cruz. Then Rand Paul. Maybe Walker.
No Bush
No Christie
No Huckabee
Maybe just Maybe Perry
#41. To: buckeroo (#28)
...Turtle Sex...
Every summer a pair of box turtles mate in my back
yard under the azalea bushes. I'm convinced it's
the same pair. The AVERAGE lifespan of the things
is 50 years.
.
.
.
Comments (42 - 65) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]