NM-Gov: Rep. Steve Pearce (R) Will Run for Governor

NM-2 Rep. Steve Pearce (R) will once again give up his House seat to make a third statewide run. Pearce definitely has the statewide bug; he ran for Senate in 2000, and then served three terms in the House before running for Senate again in 2008. After a tough primary against fellow Rep. Heather Wilson (R) in which he ran to the right (in exactly the wrong year to do so), he was clobbered in the general by then-Rep. Tom Udall (D). Two years later, he was swept back into the House in the 2010 wave, defeating one-term-wonder Harry Teague (D). Now he leaves his seat for what looks like another uphill statewide run. As representative of a third of the state and more than a third of its Republicans, Pearce looks like the man to beat in the GOP primary, though it is still possible that other potential candidates like LG John Sanchez (R) and Albuquerque Mayor Richard Berry (R) may still run. The general election is still very much an open question; Pearce’s 2008 performance hardly inspires confidence, and his ideological positioning is significantly to the right of the light-to-medium-blue state. But he is still a top-tier recruit by the standards of the NMGOP’s thin bench, due to his name rec and appeal to the southern half of the state. Should he make it to the general, he will likely face his congressional colleague, Michelle Lujan-Grisham (D) of Albuquerque, though multiple other Democrats are considering runs as well; the Dem nominee will start as a slight favorite but the race is by no means unwinnable for Pearce.

As for Pearce’s NM-2, the R+6 seat covers the southern half of the state from the oil rich “Little Texas” in the southeast to heavily Hispanic Las Cruces, and then north to the southern exurbs of Albuquerque. It is close to majority-Hispanic, but as Hispanics are low-turnout and the whites here are very conservative, it has not been more than a reach target for Dems in recent cycles with Pearce firmly entrenched. That said, this is the kind of seat that Dems will need to at least contest heavily to have a serious shot at winning the House. The best bet for Republicans might be State Lands Commissioner Aubrey Dunn Jr. (R), who ran for this seat in 2008 and won statewide in 2014 in a considerable upset. Another 2014 statewide nominee who could be strong is 2014 Senate nominee and ex-NMGOP chair Allen Weh (R), who also overperformed expectations in his Senate loss to Udall. Public Service Commissioner Patrick Lyons (R) could also be a strong possibility. From the prior candidate file, there is 2008 nominee Edward Tinsley (R), ex-NMGOP chair, ex-State Rep. and 2016 SoS nominee Nora Espinoza (R), 2012 Senate candidate Greg Sowards (R), and 2008 candidate, ex-Hobbs Mayor, and ex-NMGOP chair Monty Newman (R). From the legislature, State Sens. Greg Baca (R), Cliff Pirtle (R), Bill Burt (R), Gay Kernan (R), Ron Griggs (R), and Stewart Ingle (R) are possibilities, as are around a dozen GOP State Reps. Pirtle in particular ran for the seat in 2010 as a Some Dude (being flattened by Pearce in the primary) before winning his State Senate seat two years later.

Dems have a similarly deep bench. Ex-AG and 2014 Gov nominee Gary King (D) was the nominee for this seat in 2004; two other recent former statewide officials, ex-LG and 2010 Gov nominee Diane Denish (D), and ex-State Treasurer James Lewis (D), also live in the district. Public Service Commissioner Sandy Jones (D) is the only sitting state executive official in the seat for Dems and could be a possibility. Possibilities from the legislature could include State Sens. Howie Morales (D) and Joe Cervantes (D), who have been connected with long-shot Gov runs, and State Sen. William Soules (D), whose sister Merrie Lee (D), was the little-noticed 2016 nominee for this seat. Other State Sens. in the seat are Mary Kay Papen (D), Clemente Sanchez (D), and Jeff Steinborn (D), and over half a dozen D state Reps are in the seat. Overall this seat is probably more likely than not to stay in GOP hands, but Democrats would be foolish not to make a serious play for it without Pearce in the race.

Previous Post Next Post

60 Comments

  • HoneyBee July 10, 2017 at 9:28 am

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/libertarian-ticket-cost-trump-the-popular-vote/article/2614458

    I think New Mexico is a state we should do better in. People forget we won it as recently as 2004. The whites there are not super educated liberal hippies like Colorado or the west coast, and the hispanics are more conservative than average hispanics as they’ve been there for 200 or so years.

    Trump actually improved over Romney’s margin there, but I think Gary Aleppo really hurt us there. Johnson-Weld internal polling suggests that among Johnson voters who would’ve voted for President, 75% would’ve voted Trump. Going by the traditional standard that about half of 3rd party voters would’ve stayed home if forced to choose, if Gary wasn’t on the ballot, Trump would’ve gotten 47% of the 2 party share in New Mexico, making it only a D+2 or so state.

    Pearce is a good Conservative who overperforms in his district. Dems will start out as the favorites, but this is winnable race


    Former Anti-Trump Rubio supporter in the primaries. Trump is now my favorite Republican

    • jncca July 10, 2017 at 10:28 am

      A large # of the Hispanics are more recent, just like other states.

      It’s a minority of Hispanics that have been there for centuries.


      24, CA-6. Part Obama, Part May, Part Christian Democrat.

      • HoneyBee July 10, 2017 at 3:14 pm

        http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/mapping-the-latino-electorate-by-state/

        Don’t think so. I realize this isn’t a perfect barometer, but New Mexico has by far the highest % of Latino population eligible to vote of any state with a decent sized hispanic population. 60% of Hispanics there are eligible to vote. If they had a lot of immigrants legal or illegal, who tend to ALSO have more children, they would have nowhere near 60% of Hispanics eligible to vote. Compare it to the other 3 states on the Mexican border, California and Texas are at 46% and Arizona is at 48%. The part of New Mexico that borders Mexico is a desert with very few people, and New Mexico doesn’t have too many immigrants.

        http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/us-immigrant-population-state-and-county

        This website shows that only 9% of New Mexicans are immigrants.


        Former Anti-Trump Rubio supporter in the primaries. Trump is now my favorite Republican

        • VastBlightKingConspiracy July 10, 2017 at 3:19 pm

          FiveThirtyEight has a good article about how Nevada is the future of American demographics. Nevada is a good pick, but in many ways, so is New Mexico. New Mexico is blue, but it’s no California or Washington or Massachusetts or Maryland. As heavily Hispanic New Mexico is, the GOP is still pretty relevant.

          A combination of American-born Hispanics being much more politically moderate than expected and a more ideologically flexible/heterodox Republican Party probably kills off the idea of an “emerging Democratic majority”, which Texeira is still pushing (lol).


          I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

          • HoneyBee July 10, 2017 at 3:39 pm

            And it’s actually not even the Hispanics who kill us in New Mexico. The most Hispanic Congressional District is the 2nd, Pearce’s, also the most Republican in the state. It’s 40% Hispanic CVAP, and yet we win easily. If those Hispanics voted like they do nationally, we’d need to get deep south margins among whites for the district to vote like it does. We get good margins out of whites, definitely, but not deep south margins. There’s clearly a significant number of Hispanic Republicans there. I remember Pearce said he estimated he gets 44% of Hispanics in his district in 2012. He likely won Hispanics in 2014 and 2016. Trump probably got nearly 40% of Hispanics there. The least Hispanic is Ben Ray Lujan’s, the most Democratic in the state because it has white liberals in Santa Fe.


            Former Anti-Trump Rubio supporter in the primaries. Trump is now my favorite Republican

            • rdelbov July 10, 2017 at 3:56 pm

              Santa Fe/Taos and the changes in the voting pattern/population of those two counties may nearly taken NM out of reach in Presidential years.

              Over 40K D in a state with only 800K votes.

            • californianintexas July 11, 2017 at 1:13 am

              NM-03 is also almost 20% Native American, another solid Dem voting bloc there.


              34, Female, Libertarian, UT-02 (hometown CA-31), theelectionsgeek.com

  • rdelbov July 10, 2017 at 9:37 am

    I think Pearce might be the best GOP choice for this seat. A united GOP would go a long way towards helping him. The Lujan name means a lot in NM but IMO her very liberal record could cost her votes in rural areas. I guess we will what sort of turnout occurs in 2018 in this state. Pearce starts behind but not by much.

    I think his seat stays R–not being a Presidential year IMO means the turnout numbers should be helpful to the GOP.

    • HoneyBee July 10, 2017 at 9:48 am

      One of the biggest lies in Politics is that the Democrats somehow do better in “Presidential years”. That’s ridiculous. They do better in some Presidential years, and better in some midterm years. They did better in 2006 than 2004. They did better in 1998 than 2000. They did well in 2008 and 2012 because of the fundamentals: In 2008 there was an incumbent Republican President with approvals in the 20s, and an economy in the middle of the biggest recession since the great depression. In 2012, they had a relatively popular incumbent President. In 2010 and 2014 they lost because nearly all Presidents’ parties do worse in midterms, and it was exacerbated by all the gains they overextended themselves with in 2008 because of those good fundamentals. Shouldn’t 2016 let us see through this lie? In 2016 we held onto all but two senate seats we won in 2010, one of them was almost impossible to hold (Illinois), and we lost the other by a little over 2,000 votes. In the house, we lost 4 (FL-10, FL-13, FL-7, VA-4) seats due to redistricting and gained 1 (FL-2). We lost a total of 6 seats. That means we only lost a net of THREE seats without redistricting from 2014, a midterm election. We lost IL-10, NJ-5, NH-1, NV-3 and NV-4 and gained NE-2 and FL-18. NH-1 and NJ-5 we lost to serious issues with candidates . Garrett made bad comments about gays and Guinta was corrupt. Presidential turnout probably helped us in NH-1 as Trump did better than Brown there. NV-3, Trump also won, and we lost because we put up a crazy perennial candidate and STILL almost won. NV-4 and IL-10, maybe you could argue we lost due to Presidential turnout. But I suspect if 2016 was another midterm, we would’ve lost those ANYWAYS. Those were always “rental” seats, that would be hard to hold down long term.


      Former Anti-Trump Rubio supporter in the primaries. Trump is now my favorite Republican

      • jncca July 10, 2017 at 10:29 am

        I don’t think it’s a lie as much as a new thing.

        The Democrats dominate with Hispanics (big midterm dropoff) and young people (big midterm dropoff). The GOP dominates with seniors (small dropoff). As recently as 10-15 years ago the Democrats only won each group by small to medium margins, while holding even with seniors. So back then midterms were not bad for Democrats. Now they are, due to the change in each party’s coalition.


        24, CA-6. Part Obama, Part May, Part Christian Democrat.

        • VastBlightKingConspiracy July 10, 2017 at 12:39 pm

          Are Democrats doing better among Hispanics, or are they just a larger proportion of the coalition because of the collapse in seniors and the larger % of Hispanics?

          Also, 2016 was strange because of relatively high Hispanic turnout and relatively low black turnout. I’m really not sure what this will mean going forward into 2018.


          I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

          • HoneyBee July 10, 2017 at 12:46 pm

            They’re not. Trump did the 3rd best Hispanics of any GOP candidate ever behind only GW Bush and McCain. Trump and Romney, widely thought of to have done poorly with Hispanics, did way better than guys like Dole, HW, Reagan, and Ford


            Former Anti-Trump Rubio supporter in the primaries. Trump is now my favorite Republican

          • jncca July 10, 2017 at 3:46 pm

            Better than in 2000 and 2004, but the increase in the coalition is important too.


            24, CA-6. Part Obama, Part May, Part Christian Democrat.

          • jncca July 10, 2017 at 3:47 pm

            Black turnout wasn’t relatively low. It was just about average. It’s just that people got used to 2008 and 2012.


            24, CA-6. Part Obama, Part May, Part Christian Democrat.

            • VastBlightKingConspiracy July 10, 2017 at 3:51 pm

              What I think convinced people was 2012. In 2012, black voters were a considerably larger proportion of voters than 2008 because white turnout dropped, but black turnout didn’t. And black turnout in 2010/2014 wasn’t that bad (compared to most midterms), so I think a lot of people (myself included) naturally assumed that Obama-style black turnout would persist even without Obama on the ballot.

              Even now, I’m unsure why black turnout recessed to 2004-levels. I’m still a bit skeptical of the “well, Obama’s not President anymore” argument.


              I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

              • HoneyBee July 10, 2017 at 3:55 pm

                I’m not. I think it’s the new normal. 538 had an article about how black turnout is still low. Obama was not just black, but also the first black President

                https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/black-voters-arent-turning-out-for-the-post-obama-democratic-party/


                Former Anti-Trump Rubio supporter in the primaries. Trump is now my favorite Republican

                • VastBlightKingConspiracy July 10, 2017 at 4:07 pm

                  Oh, I’m in total agreement on the data. But I’m not sure if the cause of that data is 1) Obama not on the ballot or 2) something different.

                  I actually wonder if the pro-BLM, anti-police tack of the Democratic Party is depressing black turnout. Most black-Americans are pretty skeptical of law enforcement, but black voters are so Democratic, that likely means even that the most pro-police black voters are Democrats or at least Democrat-leaning independents. Something like 1/3rd of blacks are extremely confident in their local police and disagree with claims of racism. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/09/29/the-racial-confidence-gap-in-police-performance/ That is significantly more than % that vote Republican.

                  Not to mention confidence in police is heavily linked with both age and gender (older women are probably the most confident), and older African-Americans are probably some of the most loyal and active Democratic voters. I guess this shows that it’s really hard to simultaneously hold onto 90% of any group’s votes with high turnout, especially when they actually have diverse policy preferences.


                  I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

              • roguemapper July 10, 2017 at 4:03 pm

                The only people I know who were actually fired up for Hillary were either old Second Wave feminists or younger women with postgrad degrees. So, HRC’s miserable campaign and negative charisma was probably a major factor.


                Dem NC-11

              • rdelbov July 10, 2017 at 4:07 pm

                I think I only said it a 1000 times during the 2016 election cycle. Obama turned out minority voters-not just AA voters but minority voters in record numbers in 2008/2012. I might he had got record number of % of AA voters in 2008/2012. He also did much better then Gore and Kerry with Hispanic voters. It does not sound like a lot of votes but Obama AA by 93-6 in 2008 but Hillary only did 88-8. So Trump lost the AA vote by 80%- Romney lost by it 87% while 80% of 11% is 9.6%. Hmm.

                So Trump’s improvement among AA voters, on a state by state basis, improved his numbers by about .8 or a bit less then 1%. So states like Michigan/PA/Wisconsin would have flipped if Hillary won Obama like numbers among AA voters. Not turnout numbers but the % of votes. Just saying. AA voters for Trump or AA voters for Stein won the election for the GOP.

                • HoneyBee July 10, 2017 at 4:15 pm

                  One of the biggest drops in turnout/margin was native American voters. While some of it may be clouded by the fact that a lot of Natives live in ares surrounded by whites who are very Trumpy, even the native reservation only counties swung significantly to Trump. Menominee County Wisconsin, a county that I think is entirely a Native American reservation swung from 86.5-13 for Obama to 76.6-20,4 Hillary. Todd County SD swung from 79-19 Obama to 70.8-22 Trump. There are a lot of other swings in Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, etc.

                  They don’t live in any swing states really (hopefully we can get NM back into that column, as they have the highest native population of any state other than Alaska), but they swung significantly GOP


                  Former Anti-Trump Rubio supporter in the primaries. Trump is now my favorite Republican

                • VastBlightKingConspiracy July 10, 2017 at 4:16 pm

                  Yeah.

                  Though considering that Trump did worse than Romney among white voters, I think it’s pretty obvious that he could not have been elected President if not for changes in non-white voting patterns/turnout. Since he couldn’t have become President if he had lost the PV by 4% like Romney.

                  Though I am somewhat skeptical that Trump will repeat this performance in 2020. The strategy of the Trump administration seems to be to win the support of base Republican voters and hope that his more-marginal voters still stick with him. I am somewhat skeptical this will work.

                  The ideal electoral strategy would have been to blitz after white working-class and older Black/Hispanic voters, and bask in conservative adoration once the Democrats nominated Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris.


                  I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

      • rdelbov July 10, 2017 at 10:37 am

        What changes in Midterm elections is the electorate. Voters in midterm elections are older, wealthier, better educated, whiter, more likely to be married, more likely to be a home owner and more likely to be retired military. I can’t change these stats. The difference between turnout in Presidential years and Midterms is that we see fewer minority voters and fewer younger voters. Those are the stats.

        Does that mean GOP always wins in midterms? Look at 1986 and 2006 senate outcomes? So yes midterms are not always better for the GOP. Yes 2016 was better for the GOP then 2012 so there is not a direct connection between which party does better in what cycle.

        What you can’t change, however, is that electorates by age, race, income and other factors that I listed historically are more favorable for the GOP in midterms. You will an older electorate in NM in 2018 compared to 2016-most likely the electorate will also be whiter. Is that a guarantee the GOP will do better in NM in 2018 then in 2016-No but if I had to compete for a pool of voters in NM as a GOP candidate I would rather do it in 2018 then in 2016. I would suggest that the change in state house results in 2016 compared to 2014 is 100% related to who turned out. The increase in younger and minority voters flipped the NM state house from R to D. Could flip back in 2018.

        • Republican Michigander July 10, 2017 at 12:07 pm

          The other thing forgotten in midterms is government workers.

          If the district has a lot of government workers, that often favors dems in midterms.

          This district does have Las Cruses as well. Dona Ana County is a sizable portion of the district. Much like Ingham County in my district, it’s enough to not put down as a safe district.


          MI-08 - Michigan is a red state again. We need a 50 state strategy and an 83 county strategy.

      • Izengabe July 10, 2017 at 12:40 pm

        Midterm elections favor the party with the more motivated voter. Based on the special elections that should worry the GOP.


        Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

        • VastBlightKingConspiracy July 10, 2017 at 12:43 pm

          Sean Trende had a comment about how the special elections make it seem like Democrats have a huge lead among people who are a 9/10 or 10/10 in enthusiasm, but Republicans become somewhat more competitive when 8/10s and 7/10s are added in. GA-6 seems more predictive than SC-5 because the turnout in the former is a lot closer to midterm turnout than the latter. That being said, GA-6 still portends serious GOP losses.


          I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

        • rdelbov July 10, 2017 at 1:57 pm

          Motivation helps but when the GOP loses midterms (like 1986/2006) it is mostly due to losing indies. I note that the GOP has only suffered midterm losses of any note during six year itch elections in 1974-1986-2006. 1970-1982-1990-2002 were not all that bad in overall house-senate-governor losses. Even had some gains in some years.

          NM in 2016 had 800K voters. In 2018 my best guess is 510K. We still might lose the Gov race and other races but it will not be because a ton of young voters come out. Not happening.

    • segmentation_fault July 10, 2017 at 10:55 am

      Richard Berry would clearly be better. A Republican who is popular in the large, liberal urban core of the state. Pearce is not that.


      core dumped

      • HoneyBee July 10, 2017 at 10:56 am

        He can run for NM-1 🙂


        Former Anti-Trump Rubio supporter in the primaries. Trump is now my favorite Republican

      • rdelbov July 10, 2017 at 11:17 am

        Mayor Berry has been doing his Hamlet impression on running. If he was interested he would have a million in the bank for the race right now. He is a popular Mayor and perhaps in the metro area he would certainly score more votes the Pearce but maybe the congressman can excite more turnout outstate? The political lines are mostly drawn in ABQ and I suspect that neither congressman will really grab the voters in that area. I can see Lujan winning the area by a hair but not by a huge margin. So then it comes down to home town hero vote.

        • HS July 10, 2017 at 12:10 pm

          I don’t think Berry is as popular as he once was. After 8 years in a prominent Executive position, people get tired of you, and this is indeed what happened.

          Pearce is the best we can get this year.

  • Tekzilla July 10, 2017 at 9:55 am

    Lujan wins this one like 54-46ish I think.

    Will be interested to see how many more GOP house seats open up over the next few months.


    36/M/NY-01 (D)

    • andyroo312 July 10, 2017 at 10:01 am

      Yeah, I would say Lean D on the gubernatorial race and toss-up on NM-2.


      MA-7

      • HoneyBee July 10, 2017 at 10:06 am

        Toss-up on an R+6 district?

        Dems have one district that is R+6 or more in the entire house. Collin Peterson’s. I think that’s crazy to call that a toss-up. Even if Dems have a fantastic year, they’d have to win the generic ballot by 12 or so to win NM-2 under normal circumstances

        I’d say Lean D on Governor and Likely R on NM-2


        Former Anti-Trump Rubio supporter in the primaries. Trump is now my favorite Republican

    • GerGOP July 10, 2017 at 10:56 am

      Agreed. This is basically throwing away a safe spot in the house for a race where he has little to no chance. Increasing hispanic population and anti-GOP/Trump midterm makes for bad results in a state like NM.

      • Izengabe July 10, 2017 at 12:42 pm

        But if Dems pick up NM-2 Pearce can just run for this seat again in 2020.


        Follow me on Twitter: @Izengabe_

      • shamlet July 10, 2017 at 3:20 pm

        I think there’s a good chance he’s getting tired of the House; 12-16 years is when a lot of Reps. burn out of the congressional lifestyle. My guess is he probably would have retired if running statewide weren’t an option and this is more an up or out kind of deal.


        R, MD-7. Process is more important than outcome.

  • krazen1211 July 10, 2017 at 10:07 am

    Nice old piece on Pearce and how he handled illegal immigration much better than Jeb and company.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/us/politics/on-immigration-a-republican-carves-out-some-middle-ground.html

    • HS July 10, 2017 at 12:54 pm

      2016 was an eye opener when it came to Jeb. The CW had always been that Jeb was a better candidate, and a better conservative, than his brother, who would and should have been the nominee in 2000 (if he had won the FL governorship in 1994). But, it turned out that Jeb wasn’t very conservative on a lot of things, and was a very poor candidate on the stump and at debates. He always appeared like a deer in the headlights.

      It really showed how foolish the GOP elite was in promoting him. And then they, and the Dem elites were further embarrassed when Hillary, who was an even worse candidate than Jeb, also blew it.

      • VastBlightKingConspiracy July 10, 2017 at 12:57 pm

        Whoa, Hillary was not a worse candidate than Jeb. Hillary actually won her primary with something like 52% of the popular vote. Jeb got like 3%. And Jeb’s financial advantage over the rest of the GOP field was actually greater than Clinton’s financial advantage over Bernie Sanders!

        Hillary came within striking distance of being President! Jeb uh, lol. Her failure is far more damaging to her respective party, but it was not more pathetic than Jeb.


        I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

        • zbigreddogz July 10, 2017 at 1:15 pm

          Barely. Against a crazy atheistic socialistic Jew.

          I don’t think you can draw much from that.

          • VastBlightKingConspiracy July 10, 2017 at 1:47 pm

            A crazy atheistic socialistic Jew who just happened to have stronger favorability ratings than all seventeen Republican candidates in 2016 and every other Republican candidate for President since 2000.


            I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

            • zbigreddogz July 10, 2017 at 2:05 pm

              Sure, because he was running against Hillary and she barely touched him till it was too late, while all the R’s were tearing each other to pieces. Doesn’t change the fact that he’s essentially a fringe candidate that went mainstream for a bit.

              • AD123 July 10, 2017 at 3:29 pm

                If a longtime US Senator and Congressman is a fringe candidate I’d love to hear what you consider a reality tv star, birther, and Democrat-turned-Republican billionaire…

                • HoneyBee July 10, 2017 at 3:34 pm

                  I consider him President of the United States.


                  Former Anti-Trump Rubio supporter in the primaries. Trump is now my favorite Republican

                • VastBlightKingConspiracy July 10, 2017 at 3:46 pm

                  Probably still less of a fringe candidate than all of the candidates in a certain political party’s presidential primary, just because his views on foreign affairs and trade and social policy were so much closer to the national center.

                  In a more functional Republican Party, Trump would have never been the nominee because some other politician would have already adopted all of the popular aspects of his platform before he decideed to run for President, won the primary, and then smushed Hillary Clinton. But in the echo chambers of Conservatism, Inc., that never happened.

                  Mike Pence has actually proven himself really adept at mixing Trumpism and traditional conservatism together, so he has that going for him. He seems like a clear and overwhelming frontrunner for 2024. I’d probably support him, even though I find many of his social views rather off-putting.


                  I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

                • zbigreddogz July 10, 2017 at 4:48 pm

                  Perhaps “fringe” was not the right word. But he’s easily the most openly radical member of the Senate, and would be in very, very small company in the House.

                  Anyhow, I don’t deny that Bernie could have won against Trump. But it’s a weird election. I still don’t think Hillary putting away Bernie, barely, says a lot about her strength as a candidate.

        • HS July 10, 2017 at 1:33 pm

          Hillary is not likable at all, and is widely thought to be corrupt. She is worse than Jeb.

          She and her husband were just able to bribe/trick/threaten enough Democrats to back her to win, against a crazed socialist. Think of all the Democrat Governors and Senators etc. who could have run, but didn’t? Cuomo, Gillibrand, Warren, Murphy, Shaheen, Booker, Castro, etc.

          • HoneyBee July 10, 2017 at 1:44 pm

            Look, I dislike Hillary more than Jeb. And I think most people here do too. Hillary was not popular by any means with the general electorate. A large swath of America to viscerally hate her. But SOME people did like Hillary. Enough people to win her the Democrat primary and come close to Obama. She was popular with some black voters some feminists and “swamp” type white Democrats in places like the DC area and San Francisco.

            No one liked Jeb. Literally nobody. He wasn’t popular among Republicans, Democrats, Independents, nobody. He had by far the most money of any Republican candidate, he had by far the most establishment endorsements of any Republican candidate, and he ended up with 3%. Jeb was just always stumbling over his words and misarticulating positions and he kept getting attacked by other candidates and was unable to respond. He had zero charisma and no one really liked Jeb.


            Former Anti-Trump Rubio supporter in the primaries. Trump is now my favorite Republican

        • Greyhound July 10, 2017 at 4:59 pm

          Jeb!’s problem is that he is the exact sort of guy who would listen to and shape his campaign around the conventional wisdom of the time, and he ran in the absolute worst possible year to take that approach. I honestly believe he convinced himself that his candidacy was the only way the GOP could win the presidency in 2016, which is why he stuck around for so long–he had to save the GOP from going down this ruinous “Tough on illegal immigration” route that was clearly going to doom the party. After all, everyone he knew thought it was a bad idea!


          R, 26, CA-18. Anti-Anti-Trump

      • andyroo312 July 10, 2017 at 1:05 pm

        Jeb is very much a conservative…by 1990s standards, at least.


        MA-7

        • Republican Michigander July 10, 2017 at 1:07 pm

          I disagree with that. Jeb, like W, was a social conservative only.


          MI-08 - Michigan is a red state again. We need a 50 state strategy and an 83 county strategy.

          • HoneyBee July 10, 2017 at 1:27 pm

            Jeb actually had a decent record as Governor. If I had to rank all the Governors in the 2016 Primary (by record only, Bridgegate and beach gate don’t count) I’d go

            Walker
            Christie
            Jeb
            Perry
            Kasich
            Gilmore (LOL)
            Huckabee
            Pataki
            Jindal

            The problem is Jeb had absolutely zero charisma.


            Former Anti-Trump Rubio supporter in the primaries. Trump is now my favorite Republican

            • Red Oaks July 10, 2017 at 5:17 pm

              Frankly Jeb’s last name was a huge liability too. A third President from the same family in a quarter century was too much for many people.


              MI-03: Tired of Presidency; Focused more on downballot races; Chris Afendoulis for State Senate

              • VastBlightKingConspiracy July 10, 2017 at 5:20 pm

                Especially an unpopular president. And a President that Jeb did nothing to distance himself from. There was a very brief moment where I considered Jeb Bush, but then I heard him open his mouth on Iraq and quickly slid into #NeverBush.

                In contrast, the Clinton last name was not a huge liability for Hillary.


                I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Republican.

      • zbigreddogz July 10, 2017 at 1:14 pm

        Jeb was simply a man whose time had passed. He had many virtues, none of which really helped him in 2016, and some vices, all of which did massive damage in 2016. He was exactly the wrong man at the wrong time in the wrong place.

        Things might have played out very differently had he found himself to be in a position to run in 2000 or 2004 or maybe even 2008 if things had been different (say, McCain won in 2000). But they played out the way they did.

  • shamlet July 10, 2017 at 2:57 pm

    Aubrey Dunn won’t run for Governor, is considering re-election as Lands Commissioner, a PSC seat, or NM-2. State Sen. Cliff Pirtle is also considering NM-2. http://nmpolitics.net/index/2017/07/pearce-to-run-for-governor-instead-of-seeking-re-election-to-u-s-house/


    R, MD-7. Process is more important than outcome.

  • Leave a Reply

    Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!