What's Jeb waiting for?

[BmorePat87]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/jeb-bush-to-bob-schieffer-no-decision-yet-118457.html


Is it wise for Jeb to let the parade of long shots come out first before announcing or is he hurting himself by acting as a candidate one day and then suggesting he isn't one the next day?

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(05-31-2015, 04:06 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/jeb-bush-to-bob-schieffer-no-decision-yet-118457.html


Is it wise for Jeb to let the parade of long shots come out first before announcing or is he hurting himself by acting as a candidate one day and then suggesting he isn't one the next day?

I'm not sure on all the legalities of campaign fund raising, but can't he continue to raise funds through channels that would not be available to him if he were to officially announce his candidacy?  I really think Ol' Jeb is trying to by the White House.  I've heard there's not really a candidate that can really touch him on fund raising.

[*bfine32*]

He has nothing to gain by announcing until he has to do so. He doesn’t need to “get his name out there”, it make him appear to be more concerned about his current duties than his aspirations to be President, it gives his opponents less time to “dig up dirt” while he’s an official candidate, and there is nobody that is a threat to him .

[Yojimbo]

(05-31-2015, 04:13 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I'm not sure on all the legalities of campaign fund raising, but can't he continue to raise funds through channels that would not be available to him if he were to officially announce his candidacy?  I really think Ol' Jeb is trying to by the White House.  I've heard there's not really a candidate that can really touch him on fund raising.

It's about money. It's always about money.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(05-31-2015, 08:06 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: It's about money. It's always about money.

Oh absolutely.  I am really curious as to who the repubs are going to nominate though. I really think if they go with the candidates who pander to the evangelical religious right, they'll lose the general election before it even starts.

[Benton]

lf he announces he has to have more of a paper trail. Right now he can collect for the scotus approved smear efforts of a super pac. Its better for him to break campaign finance laws and collect on the pacs behalf, that way he doesn't have to wage an actual smear campaign.

[*bfine32*]

(05-31-2015, 08:47 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Oh absolutely.  I am really curious as to who the repubs are going to nominate though. I really think if they go with the candidates who pander to the evangelical religious right, they'll lose the general election before it even starts.

What exactly is pandering to the evangelical religious right?

[treee]

(05-31-2015, 09:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What exactly is pandering to the evangelical religious right?

Proclaiming that they're Pro-life and/or against Marriage Equality are the two biggest ones I'd say.

[*bfine32*]

(05-31-2015, 09:55 PM)treee Wrote: Proclaiming that they're Pro-life and/or against Marriage Equality are the two biggest ones I'd say.

I do not know of a legitimate Republican candidate that doesn't fall in line with that. 

[treee]

(05-31-2015, 09:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I do not know of a legitimate Republican candidate that doesn't fall in line with that. 

Their stances slightly differ. Some just are more extreme in the degree to which the fall in that line.

Edit: Also, contraceptives are another big one that is usually a divide within the republican party.

[Benton]

(05-31-2015, 09:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I do not know of a legitimate Republican candidate that doesn't fall in line with that. 

you don't consider rand Paul Legitimate?

[*bfine32*]

(05-31-2015, 10:17 PM)Benton Wrote: you don't consider rand Paul Legitimate?

Sure I do and as far as I know he is Pro life and against same-sex marriage.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(05-31-2015, 09:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What exactly is pandering to the evangelical religious right?

C'mon man I think you know what I'm referring to.  Just like those on the extreme left, you've got those on the extreme right.  The evangelical religious right would be the extreme right.

Somehow I think you knew this though.

[*bfine32*]

(05-31-2015, 10:50 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: C'mon man I think you know what I'm referring to.  Just like those on the extreme left, you've got those on the extreme right.  The evangelical religious right would be the extreme right.

Somehow I think you knew this though.

No, I really didn't; Rep to treee for trying to answer. So with this I assume you consider everyone but Rand, Walker, Christie, and Bush "panderers to the evangelical right."   

[Benton]

(05-31-2015, 10:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure I do and as far as I know he is Pro life and against same-sex marriage.

his stances are a bit more center, which is why he isn't whipping up the frothy fervor of the base. He thinks there's too for contraceptives, occasions for abortions, that two marriage should be between two people without the current government intervention.

he's not a Dem, no, but most of the other candidates make him look like one.

[*bfine32*]

(05-31-2015, 11:08 PM)Benton Wrote: his stances are a bit more center, which is why he isn't whipping up the frothy fervor of the base. He thinks there's too for contraceptives, occasions for abortions, that two marriage should be between two people without the current government intervention.

he's not a Dem, no, but most of the other candidates make him look like one.

No doubt,  but he is not as close to "center" as Pataki. I suppose if the term Extreme Right would have been used instead of Pandering to the Evangelical religious right; I would have better understood Richmond's assertion. 

BTW, I'm not sure of any candidate that thinks there is absolutely no "reason" for abortion.

[GMDino]

(05-31-2015, 04:06 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/jeb-bush-to-bob-schieffer-no-decision-yet-118457.html


Is it wise for Jeb to let the parade of long shots come out first before announcing or is he hurting himself by acting as a candidate one day and then suggesting he isn't one the next day?

Locally we have an idiot who was county commissioner for a couple terms and then throw out on his ear.  He's spent the last year telling everyone he wasn't running again *wink*.

We even got a robocall saying he was running as an Independent.

But he didn't run in the primaries and he still hasn't "officially" announced yet.

In fact there are multiple candidates who all just skipped the primaries and are going to run as "independents" in the same race.

I'm positive its about not having to follow election rules while still running for election.

[Stewy]

(05-31-2015, 04:13 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I'm not sure on all the legalities of campaign fund raising, but can't he continue to raise funds through channels that would not be available to him if he were to officially announce his candidacy?  I really think Ol' Jeb is trying to by the White House.  I've heard there's not really a candidate that can really touch him on fund raising.

(05-31-2015, 04:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He has nothing to gain by announcing until he has to do so. He doesn’t need to “get his name out there”, it make him appear to be more concerned about his current duties than his aspirations to be President, it gives his opponents less time to “dig up dirt” while he’s an official candidate, and there is nobody that is a threat to him .

Correct.  CNN did a nice article on this about a month ago.  He's raising money now that he won't be able to later.  It's said he wants to raise 100 million.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(05-31-2015, 11:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No, I really didn't; Rep to treee for trying to answer. So with this I assume you consider everyone but Rand, Walker, Christie, and Bush "panderers to the evangelical right."   

The extreme right pandering to the evangelicals I would consider to be Huckabee, Santorum, Carson, and Cruz.  Now with that being said, all of the reps candidates need to pay some lip service to that demographic to get the nomination.

I just really think the country as a whole has moved away from that ultra conservative stance.  A lot of conservatives may still be fiscally conservative, but a many have become more socially liberal.  Part of the reason same sex marriage has gained so much traction in recent years.

Therefore it's my opinion, that if the reps elect and ultra religious right wing candidate, they're going to lose the general election.  I'll be honest too, I'm very interested in who the reps nominate, as well who else the dems can field.  Not really a fan of Hillary.

[BmorePat87]

First debate is August 6th. I know they're capping it based on the top X in the leading polls, so I am assuming they would only count declared candidates at that point.

Does he stand to gain anything from skipping that first primary and letting the clown car of candidates attack each other? Remember how ridiculous those first few debates were? Then again.. Romney looked good compared to that as they all (besides Ron Paul who just wanted to answer the health care questions as the only MD there) tried to attack him