Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
I'm saying that ultimately it won't make a difference.
Here's an interesting data point to ponder. The Republicans haven't won a Presidential race since 1928 without a Bush or Nixon on the ticket.
|
Yeah, that's really interesting. In the same vein, it's an even more interesting "data point" that The Democrats won elections during almost 200 years without a Clinton on the ticket.
Man . . . those are really some relevant "data points."
Anyway, Jim, if the Repubs have to have a Bush or Nixon on the ticket to win, and Nixon is dead, and there is Bush fatigue, then they aren't going to win . . . so pack it in and quit quibbling over Jeb not being your best choice but he might be the most likely to beat Hillary. The scary "data point" coupled with the "fatigue" make your quibble a futile exercise.
So, then, why not abandon the "data point"/fatigue syndrome and insist on a fresher Republican candidate? Hey . . . maybe it's time to break the Bush/Nixon stranglehold on the party. Maybe it can win elections during the next 200 years without a Bush or Nixon on the ticket. Or the party can just implode and die with the final breath of that duo.