by Horatio Bunce
I have been telling friends and family for some time now that I expect the GOP to force Jeb Bush on the Republican faithful whether they want him or not. Most folks don’t believe it and point to Jeb’s perennially low, single-digit position in any poll of likely Republican voters and contrast that with the ongoing poll performance of Donald Trump/Ben Carson/Ted Cruz/Marco Rubio. Here’s my theory:
The “new” primary debate rules
I was expecting the GOP to field their usual, requisite array of primary candidates designed to appeal to various voter factions and people groups/single issue voters. The wash-rinse-repeat scenario goes like this:
1) The GOP consistently provides certain stereotype primary candidates for you to “identify” with, hoping you will warm up to the GOP brand (and donate!). These play certain specific roles, such as: war-hawk, the black guy, the female, the pro-amnesty, Hispanic-sympathizer, the fiscal money manager, the “evangelical candidate” with the new addition this cycle of “tea party darling” to head off you pesky constitutionalists that are not happy with business as usual but still believe in “reforming” your wife-beating husband called the GOP. Each of these candidates (except one) is fatally flawed by design so they will not run the distance, but you are supposed to stay loyal to the party brand despite this. Because after all, nobody is perfect, and the GOP nominee you are eventually to be force-fed sure isn’t your first, second or third choice.
2) Eventually your candidate is eliminated (by GOP hook or crook). Eventually, the GOP pre-selected nominee will emerge even though you don’t seem to know any supporters. They will have big donors from the beginning despite this. This is typically about the time your “conservative” news outlets begin to inform you that a vote for your favorite “wrong” Republican candidate equals a vote for the Democrat nominee (?). Or that your favorite “wrong” candidate isn’t polling high enough, doesn’t have a chance in the general election (while they also pre-announce the other side’s establishment candidate), etc. Or in more serious cases, they will begin name-calling them something other than Republican, such as a “libertarian isolationist” or “tea party candidate”. In this current cycle for example, if you are Bernie Sanders you are called a “socialist” instead of a Democrat. It may even be necessary to sabotage the Iowa Caucus to report a fraudulent “win” to kill momentum for the “wrong” candidates, as was done in 2012. This is all so you are mentally prepped to think the GOP really tried to give you a choice, but you need to be thinking about the “big picture” – which means keeping the GOP in power – and thus voting AGAINST the Democrat (because see, there are no alternatives to the Big Two – just ask them).
3) Eventually you are to resign your principles and be disgusted with their establishment nominee, yet remain loyal to the brand and then hold your nose and vote “so the Democrats don’t win” or “so they don’t get to pick the Supreme Court judges”. After months of hearing what a horrible candidate the Democrats support (or vice-versa) you Big Two supporters will be told despite this stupid nomination by the other side, it is now a neck-and-neck race, so “Friend, donate now to defeat Candidate X!” Suddenly “everyone” supports the emergent, stinking, establishment candidate – and you do too so you can “win”.
4) Nothing substantive changes. Banksters run roughshod with virtual printing of FRNs, foreign policy of undeclared war continues unabated, socialist security is still a ponzi scheme, budget deficits and can-kicking bailouts continue. More new boogie-men to be afraid of, liberties sacrificed for safety, etc. Globalist-R or Globalist-D makes no difference.
I found it really interesting that the GOP trotted out such a huge field of retread losers (Perry, Graham, Huckabee, Santorum, Christie) – while simultaneously announcing new “rules” for the primary debates, effectively giving you the illusion of choice, yet immediately telling you that your choice is varsity or j.v. by where they fall in the debate lineup – or whether you even see them on television. These debate lineups are to be based on polling data (those are always reliable right?). The large number made me suspicious of two things: first, that the establishment nominee was very unappealing to the average Republican voter – who is more tired than ever of establishment Republicans and second, that there may be a real, honest-to-goodness threat to the establishment in the field that has to be drowned out and marginalized with establishment-shill noise. Split the primary vote, split the donors, split those debate minutes into seconds. The legacy, big money and the die-hard minority establishment vote isn’t going anywhere. They are lifers. But you have to bust up the rest. The weak candidates will fall out and the establishment will be sustained by the legacy money. Jeb is easily recognized as nothing but establishment. The family tie, big Common Core promoter, CFR Independent Task Force co-chair. He is your globalist-R candidate (just like Hillary is the globalist-D candidate).
This extra attention to polling has made it even more interesting that Jeb continues to garner attention from the “news” when no one else seems interested in him. He has consistently placed in single digits in all polls. The only poll I have seen Jeb at the top of is the recent Iowa Caucus poll that asked “which candidate do you like the least?” I find this VERY interesting after Ron Paul’s previous campaigns where he consistently polled 12-14%, but was lambasted as having “no chance” and the name-calling was used by the “conservative news”. How in the world can these same “news” stooges keep talking up Single Digit Jeb? They tell us his primary campaign is broke…and then the next station break runs a PAC-funded ad for Single Digit Jeb. The current topics of “news” will seem to search out the opinion of Single Digit Jeb – despite his 7th place ranking in the polls. Interesting. The “news” has NEVER paid attention to anyone in the single digits like this. Don’t you wonder why? Hasn’t this always been an excuse in the past to stifle debate and eliminate the back-markers? I mean if less than 1% of Republicans want Lindsey Graham and he is in the debate, why not an actual different party candidate for once? Why are we limited to the Big Two and crap candidates that only single-digits of likely loyal party voters are interested in?
I ran across an interesting scorecard this week called the 2016 Endorsement Primary. It lists the current presidential candidates and gives points based on that candidate’s endorsements by incumbent Governors (10 points), U.S. Senators (5 points) and U.S. Representatives (1 point). Guess who is leading all Republicans in endorsements by the established Republicans? That’s right, Single Digit Jeb. He’s the establishment man. However, the number of endorsements is terribly low historically for this point in the campaign. Comparably, Hillary Clinton already has ten times the endorsements. Comparisons can also be made to previous presidential campaigns which is pretty interesting. Another notable: Neither Donald Trump nor Ben Carson have any Republican endorsements. I believe this is very telling – either for a shill or real-deal candidate. Don’t you find it strange that these “front-runner” men in the polls for months now have ZERO endorsements by incumbent Republicans?
The Iowa Deadline
Well, as you know, the cuts have been made in the debate lineup, narrowing the field – based on polling data we are told. We are less than thirty days away from the Iowa Caucus, and despite Single Digit Jeb being named the least liked Republican candidate in the polls, there he is on the varsity squad again – and of course there must be seven of them, since he is in seventh place. I am expecting some really interesting hi-jinks in the next 30 days. Certain “front-runners” are going to fall out suddenly. Watch for whom they endorse. This will be telling also. The design is for you to transfer your support with their endorsement – eventually backing the pre-selected nominee.
So Charlie Brown, do you want to try to kick the football again?