With the 2016 Republican Primary looming, each faction of the party seems to have selected their candidate. Libertarians are pulling for Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the establishment wants Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.) and the Tea Party is pushing for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). However, the candidate who makes for the best bet in the Electoral College is former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-Fla.).
Many conservatives are dismissing Bush in 2016 mainly because of his last name. Yet if you look at his record and the context of American political history, his name could actually be a benefit. Americans love political dynasties and have been fair in distinguishing family members’ political achievements from one another. As Governor, Bush enacted school choice reform, tax cuts and large reductions in government.
Recommended Stories
Yet Ben Smith gave a dismal account in BuzzFeed for how many Republicans feel about his potential candidacy.
“The notion that Jeb Bush is going to be the Republican presidential nominee is a fantasy nourished by the people who used to run the Republican Party,” he wrote. “Bush has been out of a game that changed radically during the 12 years(!) since he last ran for office… scorning today’s Republican Party is, by contrast, the core of Jeb’s political identity.”
Smith is wrong, however. Bush’s positions might conflict with a lot of conservative Republicans, but the party always ends up nominating the candidate most likely to win. Mitt Romney got the nomination even though he essentially enacted the model for Obamacare in Massachusetts. Has Bush been that antagonistic to the party base, that he should be disqualified? Not at all, and he actually makes for the best match up in the Electoral College because his perceived negatives are actually a benefit. Plus, he has a record of governing a large diverse swing state unlike the other potential candidates. Republicans need to wake up to the fact that relatively speaking, a few people, in a few states, nominate the president.
One of the most important swing states is obviously Florida. According to Washington Policy Center, Bush left office in 2006 with a 63 percent approval rating, and became popular on the other side of the aisle as well, winning reelection handily. He also made big inroads with the Hispanic community during his tenure as governor. According to Pew Research, in 2012 Obama carried the Hispanic vote in Florida 60 percent to 39 percent, and Hispanic’s were 17 percent of the electorate in Florida. Obama surprisingly even won Cubans, a reliable conservative voting bloc, 53 percent to 47 percent. Obama only ended up winning Florida by a few percentage points, and if Republicans tip the numbers just a bit, it could mean victory.
In two other important swing states, Colorado and Nevada, the Hispanic share of the electorate was 14 percent and 18 percent, respectively, and Obama won those two groups with at least 70 percent of the vote. Republicans used to win these states, and they have to answer changing demographic trends with a particular candidate to make an electoral victory possible again.
On top of his electoral success, he also enacted conservative reforms. He was known as the “Education Governor” reforming the system with the McKay Scholarship Program and The A+ Plan, which at the time was seen as one of the most innovative school choice reforms in the country, according to a study done by the Washington Policy Center. The study also points out he lowered taxes by $19 billion overall, reduced state employees by more than 13,000 by establishing the Center for Efficient Government, and vetoed more than $2 billion in new spending proposals. He also created a highly competitive pro-business atmosphere that enabled the state to receive Wall Street’s highest possible bond rating during his second term.
The other main criticism for nominating Bush is that Americans don’t like political dynasties, and his name is an unavoidable block. While this might be true to an extent, the argument wouldn’t hold up in court. Americans love political dynasties, and they love dynasties in general. The last hundred years saw FDR elected four times, three Kennedy brothers run for president, and George H.W. Bush elected president whose father was a Senator. Hillary Clinton ran for president only eight years after her husband was in office for two terms, and George W. Bush won election eight years after his father lost. Given the unique history, his family name wouldn’t hurt his chances at all; it would only help, and it’s no coincidence Clinton seemingly has the nomination wrapped up for Democrats in 2016.
Conservatives shouldn’t be so dismissive. Bush has a conservative record on taxes, spending, school choice and education. These are still central issues today, and he was even ahead of his time on school choice. His success winning the Hispanic community only bolsters Republican chances in the Electoral College, and even protects states like Arizona from going Democratic. Texas could be a majority Hispanic state in potentially eight years, and if Republicans lose Texas, winning the Electoral College would be impossible, as Obama won California and New York in 2012 by wide margins.
Jeb Bush offers the best defense against that pending scenario, and would be the best candidate in 2016.
