WI: Jeb Bush Running for President in 2008 or 2012?

[Montgomerie Ward]

I was reading through my old PMs with a user that is now banned and they wanted to explore a Jeb Bush presidential run in either 2008 or 2012. Jeb Bush would be more relevant in 2008 than he would in 2012 or 2016, but his surname would open discussions of Bush Fatigue. How would John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee do in ATL 2008?

For 2012, we agreed a reasonable POD would be Mitt Romney being the defeated nominee in 2008, clearing the way for Bush and others to run in ATL 2012. If Bush was defeated in 2008 or 2012, could he run again in 2016? Who do you think would be his vice presidential nominee in either scenario?

 

[SsgtC]

If he runs in 08, I doubt he makes it out of the Primaries. Whether you liked him or not, W was seen as an anchor around the neck pulling the party down. Not so much in traditional Red States, but in the swing States you had to win. Being his brother would be even worse. If, by some miracle, he does get the nomination, he would get HAMMERED in a general election. Just because of who his brother is. Barring a massive scandal being uncovered for the Democratic nominee or the Democrats running literally the worst, most inept campaign of all time, they win in a landslide.

Running in 12, he would be a much better option. Though I agree with your statement, that only if Romney is the nominee in 08 and loses. Otherwise I think Romney still gets the nomination. Again mainly because of the Bush name still dragging Jeb down.

 

[Ak-84]

In 2008, after September 15 2008, the day of the financial crash; no Republican is winning. Even Abraham Lincoln reborn would lose.
In 2012, Obama has not exactly covered himself in glory, but he has not messed it up either. And he seems to be "untouchable" on foreign policy, (this is before ISIS, Russian resurgence began to make him look like an idiot). As a sitting President thats enough to make his built-in advantage insurmountable.

 

[Deleted member 16736]

2012 was Jeb's year to win the nomination. I remember reading something in late 2015 that rang true to me: by that point most of the voters who put Jeb into the Florida governors mansion were dead, which was a huge handicap for him in terms of his ability to connect with the electorate. Beyond that the mood of the GOP electorate had drifted far away from establishment conservatism in a way that it hadn't four years earlier. If he was going to have any shot it wouldn't be in 2008 (which, to his credit, he realized) or in 2016 for the reasons I just stated. So that leaves 2012.

I don't think you need Romney to lose in 2008 to get Jeb Bush in 2012. It's hard to remember at this point in time, but in 2010-2011 the "establishment" wasn't sold on Romney. Folks like Haley Barbour were trying to find someone else to run as the establishment candidate; they were so hard up they considered running Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana before he told them "no." I think that Jeb preempts Romney as the favorite of the beltway and donor crowds that year to the point that Romney likely wouldn't run. My money would be on him winning the nomination while facing some of the same challenges that Mitt's campaign did during the primaries. Ultimately, I think he'd lose the general to Obama because of the "Bush Fatigue."

As far as his VP nominee, that's a tougher question. Bush is a peevish guy who doesn't necessarily play well with others or let bygones be bygones, from what I understand, so that woudl rule out anyone who runs against him. He's wonkish and not a terribly charismatic guy, so I think that rules out Paul Ryan. Depending on how indebted he feels to Barbour, that might make a good selection. Someone like Huckabee wouldn't be the worst addition either, if they can get over their differences. Basically, he'll need to find someone who can fire up the base for him and bring some charisma to the ticket, but I'm not sure who that would be. Christie, maybe? I don't know.

If he loses that year, though, he's done. The Bushes will have spent the last of their dynastic and political capital for at least a generation, pretty much just like we're seeing today.

 

[Montgomerie Ward]

As far as his VP nominee, that's a tougher question. Bush is a peevish guy who doesn't necessarily play well with others or let bygones be bygones, from what I understand, so that would rule out anyone who runs against him. He's wonkish and not a terribly charismatic guy, so I think that rules out Paul Ryan. Depending on how indebted he feels to Barbour, that might make a good selection. Someone like Huckabee wouldn't be the worst addition either, if they can get over their differences. Basically, he'll need to find someone who can fire up the base for him and bring some charisma to the ticket, but I'm not sure who that would be. Christie, maybe? I don't know.

I am not sure if these are good selections but, the user suggested to me that a good 2008 vice presidential nominee would be Tom Ridge and two good potential picks for 2012 were Bill Frist or John Kasich. They told me Ridge would be helpful in swinging Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Virginia, but that a Bush-Ridge Ticket reminded voters too much of his brother's administration. Bill Frist brings legislative experience to the ticket and him being a doctor, he might provide a better alternative to Obamacare, but Frist being from Tennessee does not provide any regional balance and he might be seen as too irrelevant. John Kasich, brings Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania to the ticket, but he would have only become governor in 2011. I know there's more choices, but those are the ones I discussed with them.

 

[Katarn]

I could see Jeb winning in 2008 if two things happen:

1) W was never president (Maybe Nader doesn't run in 2000).
2) Whoever is president in '08 is a Dem (probably Gore) and something similar to the financial crash still occurs.

The Dems get the blame for the crash and Bush wins. It's simple, but I think this works.

 

[Pericles]

According to Game Change Romney considered not running in 2012 and approached Jeb to see if he was running, Jeb however wanted to make money for his family and felt ripped off that by the time he left office the housing bubble had burst. However, if Jeb ran and Romney didn't he could take on the Romney role in the primaries and would probably win, and though IOTL he'd lose the general to Obama if you put in a few PoDs(perhaps more than you'd need for a Romney win given he's a Bush) he could pull it off.

 

[Ak-84]

To unseat a sitting President, requirement no 1, is to be charismatic. 3/4, times it happened in the last century, you had an extremely charismatic challenger running against a dour incumbent. Over here you have an extremely charismatic incumbent, versus a dour challenger.

*Wilson over Taft. Am ignoring Ford defeat by Carter, that was basically unprecedented and extraordinary.

 

[dmg86]

I also read that jeb had trouble winning against strong candidates.

 

[Expat]

A very useful POD for a Jeb run in 2012 (or 2016, for that matter) is to keep Sarah Palin off the ticket. Not that she's single-handedly responsible for the Tea Party movement, but ideas don't always find the right people to champion them and remain less effective than they might. If the dissatisfaction on the right is much more churn and less articulation, that's good for the establishment. Even delaying a more coherent movement, or having it form entirely behind the Ron Paul contingent, would result in a net improvement for the establishment.

I know it's not the OP but a Jeb vs Hillary scenario is kind of profoundly interesting in its banality compared to OTL.

 

[Deleted member 16736]

I am not sure if these are good selections but, the user suggested to me that a good 2008 vice presidential nominee would be Tom Ridge and two good potential picks for 2012 were Bill Frist or John Kasich. They told me Ridge would be helpful in swinging Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Virginia, but that a Bush-Ridge Ticket reminded voters too much of his brother's administration. Bill Frist brings legislative experience to the ticket and him being a doctor, he might provide a better alternative to Obamacare, but Frist being from Tennessee does not provide any regional balance and he might be seen as too irrelevant. John Kasich, brings Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania to the ticket, but he would have only become governor in 2011. I know there's more choices, but those are the ones I discussed with them.

I have issues with all of those names. For various reasons. The big reason is that not one of them is going to speak to the base of the party that Bush needs to turn out. Romney/Ryan made sense on paper because of Ryan's association with extreme conservative positions on economics and entitlement reform and because Romney was going to be saddled with the Republican budget that fall no matter what. McCain's pick of Palin seemed smart at the time because it galvanized the part of the party that would become known as the Tea Party. Mike Pence was a good choice for Trump because he was a draw for evangelicals. Bush is the avatar of the squishy middle of the Republican Party's establishment, so he needs someone who can balance out that perception and give him distance from W's administration. So that rules out Ridge, who was close to the Bush family and served in W's cabinet, and Frist, who was the former Republican Senate Leader.

So that's my big objection to those names. There are other nitpicky kind of reasons why I think they wouldn't work as well. Ridge's stance on abortion makes him a no-go to many Republican voters and he hasn't held elected office in Pennsylvania since 2001. Frist has a history of campaign finance violations that no candidate is going to want to have to spend time explaining. Kasich, like you said, was just elected in 2010 and was seriously wounded in his first year during a fight with unions over right-to-work. (I'm not sure when his overall in-state approval numbers turned around, but I don't think it was until after the 2012 election.)

As you're looking at potential candidates, I'd have to say that I wouldn't focus too much on achieving regional diversity. In the age of television and the internet, Bush needs diversity in personality and political experience. No one is going to think that he's the outside, for instance, even if he's never spent a day of his life serving in Washington, D.C., and no evangelical is going to buy that this wonky guy in glasses is going to be their champion. That's why I lean so favorably toward Mike Huckabee who checks a lot of those boxes even if he's not bringing regional diversity. Someone like Michelle Bachmann, but less of a dingbat and far less reminiscent of Palin would do well.

And I know I just mentioned Michelle Bachmann, but rereading articles from 2011-2012 reminds me of just how big a factor Sarah Palin was in all of this. There are a lot of articles regarding Romney's VP search that called certain prospects "too Palin-like." Just one more thing to keep in mind, I think, if you're looking for prospective 2012 veeps.

 

[Montgomerie Ward]

I know it's not the OP but a Jeb vs Hillary scenario is kind of profoundly interesting in its banality compared to OTL.

I proposed that in the OP, but edited it out. How do you think Jeb Vs. Hillary would look in 2008 or 2012? 2012 is more interesting because it would be twenty years after Bill Clinton faced George H.W. Bush. It would also be the opposite of 1992, in that a Clinton is the incumbent president being challenged by a southern governor surnamed Bush. I think in ATL, if Mitt Romney is the defeated nominee in 2008, there might be some analogues of Romney being the new Michael Dukakis (a former Governor of Massachusetts whom had trouble inspiring). Mitt Romney's vice presidential nominee (I always thought Governor Matt Blunt of Missouri, but he could have always selected someone else) Vs. Jeb Bush Vs. Mike Huckabee Vs. Mitch Daniels Vs. OTL's 2012 Republican Presidential Candidates makes an interesting primary fight.

 

[Nazi Space Spy]

FWIW, Jeb remained out of the 2012 race due to financial problems. Part of the reason I was suspicious of him in '16 (even though I interned for one of his political consultants) was the fact that he *somehow* turned around his fortunes relatively quickly. Have him make some better investments and a Bush '12 campaign would not be out of the question at all.

 

[Don Corleone]

I could see Jeb winning in 2008 if two things happen:

1) W was never president (Maybe Nader doesn't run in 2000).
2) Whoever is president in '08 is a Dem (probably Gore) and something similar to the financial crash still occurs.

The Dems get the blame for the crash and Bush wins. It's simple, but I think this works.

Even better: Kerry wins in 2004. Democrats own the botched Katrina response, the rise of the Iraqi insurgents, and the financial meltdown. The voters have a major case of buyer's remorse and being W's brother becomes an asset for that reason.

 

[Expat]

I proposed that in the OP, but edited it out. How do you think Jeb Vs. Hillary would look in 2008 or 2012? 2012 is more interesting because it would be twenty years after Bill Clinton faced George H.W. Bush. It would also be the opposite of 1992, in that a Clinton is the incumbent president being challenged by a southern governor surnamed Bush. I think in ATL, if Mitt Romney is the defeated nominee in 2008, there might be some analogues of Romney being the new Michael Dukakis (a former Governor of Massachusetts whom had trouble inspiring). Mitt Romney's vice presidential nominee (I always thought Governor Matt Blunt of Missouri, but he could have always selected someone else) Vs. Jeb Bush Vs. Mike Huckabee Vs. Mitch Daniels Vs. OTL's 2012 Republican Presidential Candidates makes an interesting primary fight.

As you show here, there are a lot of different ways this could play out depending on the circumstances. Without getting into the hows and whys, you could basically have Jeb running as an incumbent, Clinton running as an incumbent, or both running for a first term. And you could find a way to make those combinations work in either 2008 or 2012 with a little work. Though all of them would, I think, require either Gore or W to not run in 2000 and for the other one to lose (or also not run). You can't have both Clinton and Jeb winning the nomination in 08 or 12 if the president from 01-05 is closely connected to them.

I guess when I made my statement about the "profoundly interesting banality" of a Hillary/Jeb matchup I was thinking about a scenario where both of them go into an election as non-incumbents. I'm trying to imagine the most equal scenario for the two of them to compete under. I think it would be something like Clinton being vice president in 2008 after eight years of (non-W) Republican admin and her running mate (not Obama, someone more boring) deciding not to run in 2012 for health reasons. Clinton has to own someone else's agenda and can't really stir up the base too much. And Jeb's the third non-sterling conservative in a row to sleepwalk his way to the GOP nomination.

One would expect a lot of third-party speculation, which usually comes to nothing. Even if you had, say, Sanders for the Green Party and Ron Paul on a Libertarian/quasi-Tea Party fusion running, one wouldn't expect a change in the two-party dynamics. It would just be something the media fixates on because a couple zipping jet skis are more interesting than two creaking dreadnoughts plodding along.

The unfair atmosphere for Clinton would be as potent as ever, but in this case she does have that one-term incumbent advantage, or at least part of it. Bush is mostly as per OTL. He doesn't have as much W baggage, but imagining W ran and lost in 2000 he would have a still negative (if less severe) association to overcome.

If other world events are similar- 9/11 on schedule, housing crisis on schedule- the election comes down to two factors:
1) How well has Clinton's predecessor dealt with the Great Recession?
2) How strongly does the media bias against a woman candidate play in a less combative atmosphere?

 

[David T]

I was reading through my old PMs with a user that is now banned and they wanted to explore a Jeb Bush presidential run in either 2008 or 2012. Jeb Bush would be more relevant in 2008 than he would in 2012 or 2016, but his surname would open discussions of Bush Fatigue. How would John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee do in ATL 2008?

For 2012, we agreed a reasonable POD would be Mitt Romney being the defeated nominee in 2008, clearing the way for Bush and others to run in ATL 2012. If Bush was defeated in 2008 or 2012, could he run again in 2016? Who do you think would be his vice presidential nominee in either scenario?

Jeb Bush's last name would be poison in either 2008 or 2012. Period. Iraq plus Great Recession. I mean, the name even hurt him in 2016 in OTL!

If Romney is nominated in 2008 and loses (as he will), the party will still try to find someone other than Jeb in 2012, but if Jeb does get the nomination in 2012 (unlikely) he loses worse than Romney did in OTL. The Obama (or if she is elected in 2008, HRC) re-election ads write themselves: "Do we really want a return to the Bush policies that brought us...?" etc.

The only plausible POD here would have to go back many years before 2008: a totally different GW Bush administration--or none at all.