The path to a landslide victory in 2016 is clear, if not predictable. In a word, it can be summed up by "anybody but Jeb Bush."

Washington Post, 2/126/2015:   The last time Jeb Bush spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference, he delivered blunt talk — an unwelcome lecture, in the view of many — about the problems with the Republican Party.
“All too often we’re associated with being ‘anti’ everything,” Bush said in 2013. “Way too many people believe Republicans are anti-immigrant, anti-woman, anti-science, anti-gay, anti-worker, and the list goes on.”   Bush will return to the conservative gathering Friday as one of his party’s leading possible presidential candidates — but one who still needs to find the right way to connect with the conservative activists who have not joined establishment donors in an early rush to back him     . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  The timing is critical for Bush, 62, whose all-but-certain candidacy has attracted legions of financiers and supporters this winter. Despite his fast start, Bush is not outpacing the rest of the GOP field, and some potential rivals — particularly Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker — are gaining traction among conservatives as they begin to travel and raise money ahead of the nominating contest.

Editor's notes:  What the reader might miss is the fact that the Washington Post has given the GOP candidacy to Jeb Bush with the words  "all but certain candidacy," and the statement, "[he] has attracted legions of financiers and supporters."  But,  before the Post's editor's can get into the next paragraph,  they have to admit that "Bush is not outpacing the rest of the GOP field."  

Just another example of Progressive "intellectualism." What is more than humorous is the knowledge that these people will not understand the criticism, will not see the contradiction.  But there it is,  in black and white.  Bush's candidacy is all but certain,  however,  he is not outpacing the GOP field.  

The fact of the matter is this:  Jeb has no intentions of winning the GOP nomination via conservative support within the party.  We get lectured everyday by a man who does not speak above an 8th grade level (see the Politico article, here) and cannot write a budget proposal (the first president to ever fail in this regard - see "After Notes" below).     

How Jeb plans on gaining the nomination without the conservative vote, is not apparent to this writer.    I mean,  conservatives walked away from the elections in 2006 and 2008 and, to a lesser degree,  in 2012.  The two elections that drew conservative support were the two recent midterms,  both landslide elections for the GOP.  If you understand that all elections since and including Reagan's,  have been determined by the attendance or lack thereof,  of the conservative membership within the GOP, you will appreciate just how critical Conservatives are to any election.  No one was enthused by H Bush in his re-election bid versus Clinton., and he lost.   And no one was interested in Bob Dole's campaign versus Clinton's re-election bid.  and he lost 

How strong is the conservative vote?  Think about this:  GW Bush was admired by conservatives,  in spite of the fact that he often push big government legislation.  And,  because conservatives supported the man,  the Marxist Party we like to call "The Democratic Party,"  could not defeat the man,  in spite of record political donations into the Democrat coffers and control of the national media.  

Take it to the bank:  if the GOP nominates a candidate that conservatives can support,  the next president will be a Republican.  Hillary is an awful candidate.  She has no core values,  no campaign strategy that is not 1990's Democrat politics,  and no record that demands our attention,  and,  the biggest obstacle of all:  she is far from being charismatic "on the stump."  

With a healthy GOP candidate,  the 2016 election could be a landslide.  We only hope that Obama continues to be "Obama."  That will be perfect,  and this editor,  at least,  believes that Obama can't help but be a pain,  for the Democrats,  in the coming election cycle. 

   
____________________________
After Notes:

  1. thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/...obama-budget-in-99-0-vote   Cached
    A budget resolution based on President Obama’s 2012 budget failed to get any votes in the Senate on Wednesday. Skip to main content. TRENDING: Immigration; ISIS ...
  2. www.politifact.com/.../2012/...says-obama-failed-pass-budget   Cached
    Apr 06, 2012 · ... that Obama failed to pass a budget ... Such votes are taken "just as a means of embarrassing the president and his party," said Patrick Louis ...
  3. hotair.com/archives/2012/03/29/consistency-obama-budget...   Cached
    Mar 29, 2012 · ... Obama budget fails to get a single ... Manage Zero Votes for Obama’s Budget ... passed a budget in 3 years. Obama can’t even get a Democrat to vote ...
  4. thehill.com/blogs/.../163345-obama-budget...votes-in-senate-   Cached
    ... Obama's 2012 budget when it came up for a vote in the Senate Wednesday. A procedural vote to move forward on the president's plan failed ... Obama budget receives ...
  5. www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-budget-fails-414-0-as...   Cached
    ... House Democrats and Republicans united in their opposition to President Obama's 2013 budget, which failed ... budget, which failed tonight with 414 votes ...
  6. hotair.com/.../05/16/99-0-senate-votes-down-obamas-budget...   Cached
    May 16, 2012 · ... Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of ... No Member Of Congress Votes For Obama’s Budget « Steven ... Obama Budget So Popular Not One ...