Dirty Laundry for 2016 Candidate Christie

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

And what is it with the continual Palin hatred?

Who said they hates her? It would be very easy to hate here. She's a fundamentalist Christian, she's anti intellectual and she has no problem telling outright lies to further her own agenda. I'm fairly sure as an Atheist and a Socialist she'd hate me if we ever met.

However I don't hate her and I doubt Black Swan hates her.

She did enormous damage to the McCain campaign. That's the debate.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

And what is it with the continual Palin hatred?

Because she's still spewing the same garbled uneducated rubbish.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

And what is it with the continual Palin hatred?

What is it with feigning ignorance, after all this time, as to why people hold Palin in contempt?

InTheTrees

Mjollnir wrote: »

What is it with feigning ignorance, after all this time, as to why people hold Palin in contempt?

Is it any wonder that in a country of low education standards the red states have the lowest?

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

Is it any wonder that in a country of low education standards the red states have the lowest?

Hmmm... Yet in a study by the Roper Center, provided by Brian? in another topic, those with the lowest level of education (only some High School education) voted overwhelmingly in 2012 for Obama over Romney by a margin of 64% to 35%. Go figure! :eek:

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Hmmm... Yet in a study by the Roper Center, provided by Brian? in another topic, those with the lowest level of education (only some High School education) voted overwhelmingly in 2012 for Obama over Romney by a margin of 64% to 35%. Go figure! :eek:

I conclusively rebutted that point. It's within the margin of error. No wonder you don't want to answer my posts you actually ignore anything you disagree with.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

I conclusively rebutted that point. It's within the margin of error. No wonder you don't want to answer my posts you actually ignore anything you disagree with.

I honestly don’t recall you conclusively giving a rebuttal that such a vast difference was within the margin of error of how the undereducated voted. What would the margin of error be... something like 40%? Can you provide your reasoning here?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

I honestly don’t recall you conclusively giving a rebuttal that such a vast difference was within the margin of error of how the undereducated voted. What would the margin of error be... something like 40%? Can you provide your reasoning here?

You know what? I couldn't be bothered.

It's a waste of time if I have to constantly repeat myself. You win, well done. I give up.

Memnoch

Brian? wrote: »

You know what? I couldn't be bothered.

It's a waste of time if I have to constantly repeat myself. You win, well done. I give up.

Sometimes it is not possible to have a reasonable discussion. Some people will insist that 2 + 2 = 5 and no matter what you say you will never convince them otherwise.

How do you think someone like Sarah Palin can stand for vice president of the USA on a ticket that got 40%+ of the vote?

Brian?

Here's what I said.

Also the the "some high school" demographic is 3% of the electorate, so whatever way the poll turned out is statistically in the margin for error i.e. no conclusion can be drawn from it.

I'd also say that education can be dismissed as a factor with the "some high school" voters because they are more likely to be minorities. Minorities went in huge numbers for Obama. This is actually opinion though, not fact, so I won't try to present it as fact.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

And you beg caution because of the exclusion of voters that may have stayed at home, or voters that did vote for other offices but not for president/VP, sampling errors, etc. Isn’t it a bit disingenuous to use these factors to insinuate that the data is suspect regarding their assertion of the negligible effect of the VP selection?

Exercising "caution" is called science. When we conduct research, analyze results, and draw conclusions from "studies," or review the researches of others, we proceed with "caution," often cautioning the reader about the limitations of the study when we present our data, analytic methods, findings, interpretations, and published results. To do otherwise would be "disingenuous," unlike the spin you are attempting to make here to discredit what is common to the scientific approach.

What I find interesting in your reply to my post that exhibited "caution," is that you completely ignored the "cautions" made by the authors of the one study you cited by Grofman and Kline. Where they too being "disingenuous" by your standards when they stated:

...cautious in interpreting our overall findings... our findings may understate the impact of vice presidential selection on choice because voters modify their views of the president based on vice presidential selection, and thus the data we report may be “contaminated” by unmeasured effects of vice presidential choice.

Then again, their "cautions" did not suggest support for the point you were attempting to make earlier, so perhaps that suggests why you ignored their "cautions" in the one study you cited?

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Here's what I said.

Also the the "some high school" demographic is 3% of the electorate, so whatever way the poll turned out is statistically in the margin for error i.e. no conclusion can be drawn from it.

I'd also say that education can be dismissed as a factor with the "some high school" voters because they are more likely to be minorities. Minorities went in huge numbers for Obama. This is actually opinion though, not fact, so I won't try to present it as fact.

Thank you. I do remember that, but I find it far from being a conclusive argument. So help me to understand... That if the "some high school" demographic is 3% of the electorate, and I’m assuming the margin of error might also be 3% (you didn’t mention a number) of the entire sampling population, that the entire margin of error has a high probably of being entirely in the "some high school" demographic, and therefore conclusive evidence that the there can be no conclusion of the data presented?

And although you might very well be correct that the "some high school" voters are more likely to be minorities, it doesn’t negate the fact that the uneducated voted overwhelmingly for Obama in 2012, correct (assuming the data to be correct that is)?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Thank you. I do remember that, but I find it far from being a conclusive argument. So help me to understand... That if the "some high school" demographic is 3% of the electorate, and I’m assuming the margin of error might also be 3% (you didn’t mention a number) of the entire sampling population, that the entire margin of error has a high probably of being entirely in the "some high school" demographic, and therefore conclusive evidence that the there can be no conclusion of the data presented?

And although you might very well be correct that the "some high school" voters are more likely to be minorities, it doesn’t negate the fact that the uneducated voted overwhelmingly for Obama in 2012, correct?

There is no proof that the "some high school " group voted overwhelmingly for Obama. The sample is too small to prove anything conclusive.

It's that simple. The is no conclusion either way.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Exercising "caution" is called science. When we conduct research, analyze results, and draw conclusions from "studies," or review the researches of others, we proceed with "caution," often cautioning the reader about the limitations of the study when we present our data, analytic methods, findings, interpretations, and published results. To do otherwise would be "disingenuous," unlike the spin you are attempting to make here to discredit what is common to the scientific approach.

What I find interesting in your reply to my post that exhibited "caution," is that you completely ignored the "cautions" made by the authors of the one study you cited by Grofman and Kline. Where they too being "disingenuous" by your standards when they stated:



Then again, their "cautions" did not suggest support for the point you were attempting to make earlier, so perhaps that suggests why you ignored their "cautions" in the one study you cited?

Are you saying that the since the authors state: ". cautious in interpreting our overall findings... our findings may understate the impact of vice presidential selection on choice because voters modify their views of the president based on vice presidential selection, and thus the data we report may be "contaminated" by unmeasured effects of vice presidential choice.," you believe it is their contention that their conclusion of the study is suspect or invalid? If that’s the case, one would have to wonder why did they even bother? Why do any study whatsoever if any level of caution negates any of the findings?

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

There is no proof that the "some high school " group voted overwhelmingly for Obama. The sample is too small to prove anything conclusive.

It's that simple. The is no conclusion either way.

Okay I think I better understand what you're trying to say now. I just don't buy it.

Mjollnir

Oopsie.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/chris-christie-bridge-traffic-jam-emails#wildstein2

UPDATE 12, Friday, Jan. 31, 3:52 p.m. EST: The New York Times reports that Wildstein has evidence that Christie knew of the lane closures as they were happening, which the governor has consistently denied. Specifically, a letter released by Wildstein's attorney Friday, says Wildstein has evidence "tying Mr. Christie to having knowledge of the lane closures, during the period when the lanes were closed, contrary to what the governor stated publicly in a two-hour press conference" three weeks ago. Read the letter here.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Are you saying that the since the authors state: ". cautious in interpreting our overall findings... our findings may understate the impact of vice presidential selection on choice because voters modify their views of the president based on vice presidential selection, and thus the data we report may be "contaminated" by unmeasured effects of vice presidential choice." So you believe it is their contention that their conclusion of the study is suspect? If that’s the case, one would have to wonder why did they even bother? Why do any study whatsoever if any level of caution negates any of the findings?

It's called science. Science proceeds with caution; i.e., the scientific method. You will often find cautions and/or limitations stated in grants, research proposals, scholarly presentations, and peer-reviewed publications. Exercising caution does not negate the value that is often produced by a scientific approach towards theory, method, and practical applications. By noting cautions, the reader and decision maker are in a better position to make an informed choice; e.g., when conducting a cost-benefits analysis, cautions can be factored-in when assessing risk.

The study cautions noted by Grofman and Kline in the article you cited were important to the informed consumer of research literature (e.g, informed voter, etc.), as well as to informed political campaign decision makers. If anything, it suggests that more research is needed before we go off and start spouting their conclusions as facts, when in reality they may be useful suggestions toward a greater understanding of the very complex big picture of elections.

The self-proclaimed cautions of Grofman and Kline did cause me to pause, making me wonder if their study was sufficiently "contaminated" to toss it out as being too flawed, or if their measurements "understate(d)" the explained variances associated with the effects of Vice President running mate selection on campaign outcomes, and still having some value.

InTheTrees

Mjollnir wrote: »

Oopsie.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/chris-christie-bridge-traffic-jam-emails#wildstein2

UPDATE 12, Friday, Jan. 31, 3:52 p.m. EST: The New York Times reports that Wildstein has evidence that Christie knew of the lane closures as they were happening, which the governor has consistently denied. Specifically, a letter released by Wildstein's attorney Friday, says Wildstein has evidence "tying Mr. Christie to having knowledge of the lane closures, during the period when the lanes were closed, contrary to what the governor stated publicly in a two-hour press conference" three weeks ago. Read the letter here.

This really could be the end for Christie. WIldstein was one of the people who we assumed was so close to Christie (even though christie said otherwise!) that he would remain loyal. But this shows cracks are appearing.

Black Swan

Christie continues to successfully fund raise for the Republican Governors Association, apparently reaching record numbers for January.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Christie continues to successfully fund raise for the Republican Governors Association, apparently reaching record numbers for January.

In My Opinion:
Becasue it's no big deal... as people have come to realize the "Christie Scandal" is a non-issue for the most part. After the release of thousands of emails, we have learned Christie had no knowledge of his staff’s shenanigans (Damn!). But what has become more interesting is the media’s "Christie Crucifying Crusade," led by CNN and MSNBC, and is far more entertaining and representative of what is wrong with journalism today. Christie has dropped less than 10% in approval ratings since the media fixation began to bring the big guy down. It seems they can’t stand the fact that he maintains a approval rating around 60%, outstanding for a governor, while the approval ratings for journalists is less than 30% (Oh The Humanity!). Someone should tell the medial that perhaps it’s time to move on to more important issues. We do have a presidential election coming up in 2016 and there are far more interesting things to concentrate on from the prospective candidates you know, like why would someone keep a "hit list" on enemies from a failed past campaign maybe.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

In My Opinion:
Becasue it's no big deal... as people have come to realize the "Christie Scandal" is a non-issue for the most part. After the release of thousands of emails, we have learned Christie had no knowledge of his staff’s shenanigans (Damn!). But what has become more interesting is the media’s "Christie Crucifying Crusade," led by CNN and MSNBC, and is far more entertaining and representative of what is wrong with journalism today. Christie has dropped less than 10% in approval ratings since the media fixation began to bring the big guy down. It seems they can’t stand the fact that he maintains a approval rating around 60%, outstanding for a governor, while the approval ratings for journalists is less than 30% (Oh The Humanity!). Someone should tell the medial that perhaps it’s time to move on to more important issues. We do have a presidential election coming up in 2016 and there are far more interesting things to concentrate on from the prospective candidates you know, like why would someone keep a "hit list" on enemies from a failed past campaign maybe.

It's a non issue for Christie supporters, hence the fund raising. I don't thin it'll be a non issue if he gets the nomination. Fair enough, he didn't know about it but that can be spun quite easily to undermine his leadership skills.

Give over with the media bias nonsense. It never holds up.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Give over with the media bias nonsense. It never holds up.

Hmmm... Even Bill Maher, flaming liberal extraordinaire, in this instance thinks so.

http://www.real-time-with-bill-maher-blog.com/index/2014/2/14/msnbc-ya

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

In My Opinion:
Becasue it's no big deal... as people have come to realize the "Christie Scandal" is a non-issue for the most part.

No, rational and intellectually honest people have come to realize (actually they've known this all along) that there's an ongoing investigation and that no conclusion can be arrived at yet, pending the continuation and/or conclusion of said investigation.

I see you don't number amongst that august body of folk.

After the release of thousands of emails, we have learned Christie had no knowledge of his staff’s shenanigans (Damn!).

Oh, we've learned a LOT more than just that, and even more documents are due that judges are compelling Christie's associates to release. Or doesn't that fit into your narrative?

But what has become more interesting is the media’s "Christie Crucifying Crusade," led by CNN and MSNBC, and is far more entertaining and representative of what is wrong with journalism today.

There is no such crusade. Again, why are you lying?

Christie has dropped less than 10% in approval ratings since the media fixation began to bring the big guy down.

Utterly and wholly irrelevant to the investigation and what results it may render. And, again, you're lying: it's fallen 19%

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/02/04/chris-christie-still-denies-knowing-about-bridgegate

It seems they can’t stand the fact that he maintains a approval rating around 60%, outstanding for a governor, while the approval ratings for journalists is less than 30% (Oh The Humanity!).

Yawn. More lies. See link above.

Someone should tell the medial that perhaps it’s time to move on to more important issues. We do have a presidential election coming up in 2016 and there are far more interesting things to concentrate on from the prospective candidates you know, like why would someone keep a "hit list" on enemies from a failed past campaign maybe.

No, I think a more useful use of time would be you trying to distort things less, lie less about easily disprovable statistics and mischaracterize almost everything you attempt to address less.

That, and the media can 'concentrate' on all sorts of various topics and stories.

Why, even a cursory visit to the front page of the MSNBC website, the one that apparently has you living in fear, will immediately show that your trepidation is unfounded, and they're going after all sorts of stories.

But perhaps I ask the impossible of the incapable.

Wouldn't be the first time.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Hmmm... Even Bill Maher, flaming liberal extraordinaire, in this instance thinks so.

http://www.real-time-with-bill-maher-blog.com/index/2014/2/14/msnbc-ya

Brilliant. You've actually argued my point for me. The media is not biased, individual organisations within te media are though.

The fact that Bill Maher has a go at MSNBC is a very good thing.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Brilliant. You've actually argued my point for me. The media is not biased, individual organisations within te media are though.

The fact that Bill Maher has a go at MSNBC is a very good thing.

I noted CNN and MSNBC. Some would consider CNN and MSNBC are pretty representative of the media. Now if you want to parse words, well have at it. The Maher piece is just an example of how even some on the left believe a faily good represenation of the media is biased in the Christie saga. What Maher is telling the medial outlet MSBNC is that they have "jumped the shark" in their so-called reporting on Christie, which has become overly obsessive to the point of ridiculousness .

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

I noted CNN and MSNBC. Some would consider CNN and MSNBC are pretty representative of the media. Now if you want to parse words, well have at it. The Maher piece is just an example of how even some on the left believe a faily good represenation of the media is biased in the Christie saga. What Maher is telling the medial outlet MSBNC is that they have "jumped the shark" in their so-called reporting on Christie, which has become overly obsessive to the point of ridiculousness .

One network runs the Christie story for a while, therefore there's a media witch hunt. Got you now.

CNN and MSNBC are completely different organisations with very different editorial bias.

MSNBC are not a "fairly good representation of the media". "Some people" may say they are, but this doesn't make it true.



Although I don't think you understand what "jump the shark" really means.

jank

MSNBC are the fox news of the left only that they are pretty crap at what they do.

Brian?

jank wrote: »

MSNBC are the fox news of the left only that they are pretty crap at what they do.

That's an unfair characterisation of MSNBC. There is no way they are as far left as Foxnews are right for a start.

They could do with one or 2 more GOP talking heads though to get some balance.

Black Swan

The 2016 presidential election is a bit too far off to call in terms of whom will be the Republican candidate. Some think that the American voter has a short memory, and if this is a valid observation, then Gov Christie may still have a chance to win the GOP ticket. For now the focus will be on the November 2014 mid-terms. After that, who knows?

Black Swan

The RCP average for the period 12 January to 10 March 2014 shows Hillary Clinton ahead of Chris Christie by 12.2 points for the November 2016 presidential election.

**Poll cautions: RCP averages across many different polling organisations that often have different methodologies; plus, such polling data is descriptive and not inferential.

Mjollnir

Great news! Christie cleared himself of any wrongdoing with his own probe!

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/03/gov-christie-clears-himself-bridgegate

Mjollnir

Oh, dear.

Oh, my.

Wheels starting to come of the Christie narrative. Qu'elle surprise!

http://www.motherjones.com/documents/1097754-here-is-the-full-bridge-gate-report

Mjollnir

Oh, I guess there's nothing to see here after all.

Just a Federal Grand Jury convening.

But, hey, no biggie, right?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bridge-scandal-grand-jury

Brian?

Mjollnir wrote: »

Oh, I guess there's nothing to see here after all.

Just a Federal Grand Jury convening.

But, hey, no biggie, right?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bridge-scandal-grand-jury

Federal grand juries are typical of the liberal lame stream media aren't they ?

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

That's an unfair characterisation of MSNBC. There is no way they are as far left as Foxnews are right for a start.

They could do with one or 2 more GOP talking heads though to get some balance.

I think that to most of those that bother to watch both networks, MSNBC is much farther left then Fox News is right. At least Fox News does offer some balance to their shows. MSNBC doesn’t even seem to try.

And other than Joe Scarborough, I wasn’t aware they had ANY other GOP talking heads. And it appears they don’t much allow anyone from the GOP to even appear as guests on MSNBC’s evening shows, except on the rare occasion.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

I think that to most of those that bother to watch both networks, MSNBC is much farther left then Fox News is right. At least Fox News does offer some balance to their shows. MSNBC doesn’t even seem to try.

They're not left wing. I've explained this before, the actual left wing is tiny in the US. MSNBC push a progressive and liberal agenda.

Liberals are not left wing.

And other than Joe Scarborough, I wasn’t aware they had ANY other GOP talking heads. And it appears they don’t much allow anyone from the GOP to even appear as guests on MSNBC’s evening shows, except on the rare occasion.

This is nonsense. What about Steve Schmidt? He had almost a full time job on MSNBC.

In fairness I no longer watch either, so it could have changed.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

They're not left wing. I've explained this before, the actual left wing is tiny in the US. MSNBC push a progressive and liberal agenda.

Liberals are not left wing.

That may be true by European standards, but by American political standards, MSNBC is considered far left.

This is nonsense. What about Steve Schmidt? He had almost a full time job on MSNBC.

In fairness I no longer watch either, so it could have changed.

Watch any of the current evening lineup and get back to me.

I’ve seen Schmidt occasionally appear on the Morning Joe show, but almost never in their evening lineup unless he was there to bash Sarah Palin. Chris Christie also made regular appearances on the Morning Joe show, but since MSNBC has become the Anti-Christie network, I haven’t seen him on much.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

That may be true by European standards, but by American political standards, MSNBC is considered far left.

No, it's not. Why are you lying?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

That may be true by European standards, but by American political standards, MSNBC is considered far left.

Anyone who "considers" MSNBC far left it wrong.

You realise that these parties exist in the USA don't you:

http://www.cpusa.org/
http://socialistparty-usa.net/

These are the left wing parties, not the Democrats. So given that they exist within the American political system it is a complete falsehood to classify MSNBC as far left. They have a progressive and liberal agenda.

I can see how your perception is skewed, so it's ok, I'll give you a pass. Because you're a far right conservative you think anyone to the left of you is left wing. It's not how it works in reality though.

I am indeed far left. I don't call liberals far right though because they are to the right of my political views.

Watch any of the current evening lineup and get back to me.

I’ve seen Schmidt occasionally appear on the Morning Joe show, but almost never in their evening lineup unless he was there to bash Sarah Palin. Chris Christie also made regular appearances on the Morning Joe show, but since MSNBC has become the Anti-Christie network, I haven’t seen him on much.

I can't comment as I no longer have access to MSNBC. I can still get Foxnews though and that hasn't stopped being a sewer of hate and vitriol.

Black Swan

MOD REMINDER: The topic and focus of this thread pertains to 2016 Candidate Christie, not the political orientation of various news media sources.

EDIT: If members want to discuss and debate the potential political bias of American news media, please see this new OP.

Amerika

Fair enough BS, but the label of liberal bias is germane to MSNBC’s particular obsession and crusade to discredit Chris Christie. And I’m referring to the television network, not the website, which I feel is pretty fair and accurate, and sadly can’t devoid from one another.

20Cent

More bad news for Christie.
David Wildstein, the former Port Authority operative who received the email and organised the bridge incident and his former deputy chief of staff Bridget Kelly are now cooperation with investigators after initially refusing to testify. They have been offered immunity from prosecution.
He threw them under the bus maybe time for some payback.


EXCLUSIVE: CHRISTIE PROSECUTOR GETS ITS STAR WITNESS TO START TALKING
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/wildstein-christie-feds?src=spr_TWITTER&spr_id=1456_52017908

Amerika

Wouldn’t it be a hoot if the prosecution in their haste to damn Christie just gave immunity to Wildstein and Kelly for their sinister behavior, and it turns out Christie had no knowledge of any shenanigans over the bridge closure? Oh the humanity!

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Wouldn’t it be a hoot if the prosecution in their haste to damn Christie just gave immunity to Wildstein and Kelly for their sinister behavior, and it turns out Christie had no knowledge of any shenanigans over the bridge closure? Oh the humanity!

You think it'd be funny that people committed criminal acts, lied to get immunity and wasted the time of federal prosecutors? That's a strange sense of humour.

As far as I know, the deal wouldn't have been made without some foreknowledge of the evidence that would be provided.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

Wouldn’t it be a hoot if the prosecution in their haste to damn Christie just gave immunity to Wildstein and Kelly for their sinister behavior, and it turns out Christie had no knowledge of any shenanigans over the bridge closure? Oh the humanity!

You're not to familiar with how prosecutors actually work, are you?

Black Swan

New Jersey potential voters sampled in a recent Quinnipiac University Poll show a 82% job approval rating by Republicans for Gov Chris Christie (Independents 54%; Democrats 23%). Job approval appears to follow party lines in NJ for Christie, with Independents roughly in the middle.

**Caution should be exercised when interpreting these poll results, given that they were obtained from telephone samples only; i.e., some telephone-only surveys have been problematic in the past.

Brian?

Black Swan wrote: »

New Jersey potential voters sampled in a recent Quinnipiac University Poll show a 82% job approval rating by Republicans for Gov Chris Christie (Independents 54%; Democrats 23%). Job approval appears to follow party lines in NJ for Christie, with Independents roughly in the middle.

**Caution should be exercised when interpreting these poll results, given that they were obtained from telephone samples only; i.e., some telephone-only surveys have been problematic in the past.

I'm not surprised by the support from Reps, the 54% is little shocking though. If he survives this without criminal prosecution does this support imply he still has a chance?

Black Swan

Brian? wrote: »

I'm not surprised by the support from Reps, the 54% is little shocking though. If he survives this without criminal prosecution does this support imply he still has a chance?

Does the GOP have any popular candidates near the middle of the political spectrum for the 2016 presidentials other than Chris Christie? I can't name one, but then again there is still plenty of time for a dark horse candidate to emerge after the 2014 November mid-terms (e.g., like Obama did during the 2008 Democrat primaries).

If they nominate a candidate that's ultra-conservative, it may be problematic for such a candidate to draw enough Independents and potential cross-over Democrats to win against Hillary in 2016. I believe that it would take yet another recession to hit just before the 2016's for an ultra-conservative Republican to win, which is subject to speculation at this time given the gradual national economic recovery since the Great Recession began 2007-2008.

Former Florida governor Jeb Bush is somewhat close to the middle-of-the-road politically; perhaps slightly to the right of center fiscally. But I doubt that 2016 will be enough years to distance himself from brother GW Bush's 2007-2008 Great Recessionary image, or his being the CIC of the two longest wars in US history. I do anticipate Jeb Bush to run in the 2016 GOP primaries, but I doubt he will be selected by the Republicans.

Amerika

So what is the status of Bridgegate? I haven't got a chance to watch MSNBC lately as they seem to be the only network carrying on the crusade to lynch him.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Former Florida governor Jeb Bush is somewhat close to the middle-of-the-road politically; perhaps slightly to the right of center fiscally. But I doubt that 2016 will be enough years to distance himself from brother GW Bush's 2007-2008 Great Recessionary image, or his being the CIC of the two longest wars in US history. I do anticipate Jeb Bush to run in the 2016 GOP primaries, but I doubt he will be selected by the Republicans.

"...GW Bush's 2007-2008 Great Recessionary image..." LOL, where do you get this stuff?