Here is some of what he posted on his Facebook page yesterday:
I cannot tell you what an honor it has been to run for President of the United States of America. My parents came to this country 45 years ago searching for freedom and a chance.
When I was born, we lived in student housing at LSU, and never in their wildest dreams did they think their son would have the opportunity to serve as Governor of Louisiana or to run for President.
They raised me to believe Americans can do anything, and they were right, we can. But this is not my time, so I am suspending my campaign for President.
Jindal is not the only Republican who is wasting everyone's time (and money). Gilmore, Graham, Pataki, Santorum, and Huckabee are in a situation very similar to the one that faced Jindal. None of them have any chance at all of actually winning the nomination, and staying in the race does nothing but feed their own narcissism.
And they are closely followed in their presidential delusions by four other candidates -- Christie, Paul, Kasich, and Bush. The surprise of this group is Jeb Bush. He was once a frontrunner, but now about half of all Republicans say they would NOT vote more him (a higher percentage than for any other GOP candidate).
The same argument could be made for the candidacy of Democrat Martin O'Malley. He gets a bit more support (around 6%), but nearly half of all Democrats (47%) say they would NOT vote for him. Far smaller percentages say that about Sanders (16%) and Clinton (14%). Meanwhile, Clinton maintains a 34 point lead over Sanders (63% to 29%).
These numbers come from a new University of Massachusetts Poll -- done between November 5th and 13% of a random national sample of likely primary voters. They queried 318 Republicans and 381 Democrats. The margin of error for Republicans is 6.4 points, and for Democrats is 6 points.
Somebody needs the tell him that he has not run for president, only sought the nomination.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the "would never vote for" numbers mean anything. About 3 months ago, I wrote an article looking at Iowa Republicans and the poll showed that roughly 60% said they would never vote for Trump. I'm more likely to trust these numbers regarding Democrats, because they seem to think a bit about politics. But the Republicans? The interesting thing about authoritarians is that they are great followers. And we see this every day with the Republican base.
ReplyDeleteI agree with a lot of what you say here as far as the futility of Piyush Brady -- no, it was his first name he changed, Bobby Jindal -- has long been running on an ego and self-delusion that I had, in fact, expected might carry him to the Convention. But a number of others you list I hhave a different take on. Gilmore, Pataki and Graham are dead, but don't entirely rule out Huckabee. I have been arguing on several sites that the absolute last thing Trump wants is to actually BE President. Does he want to put all his other interests into a 'blind trust' or have his own security replaced by the Secret Service, or have to deal with idiots he can't fire because they are elected? But that was before Paris -- which might make him realize he could not merely have to do something about ISIS, but that he's also a target of them.. By now, he's looking for a face-saving way to thee exit even faster. And Carson;s career is falling apart as his lies are coming out, and an ignorance even his own supporters had to admit this weekend after his pathetic Sunday Morning presence. (And Trump was, for the first time in months, quiet on the 'Sunday after Paris.') Somebody has to collect their supporters. While Cruz will get most of them, and Carly a few, I think there will be a revival in the Huckabee support, particularly among the evangelicals and the radio listeners.
ReplyDeleteOn the 'establishment' side, there will be a mess. Bush has made himself unelectable, but I'm sure he still has hopes that, eventually, people will turn to him. In the meantime, he's doing everything possible to kneecap Rubio, who he really hates. Kasich is still seem as too 'liberal' for the base -- and with his new 'preach Judeo Christian values' agency, will lose a lot of those people looking for a moderately sane Republican. Which is why Christie, despite "Bridgegate' may start growing back some support.
I think we'll be looking at a multi-ballot convention (first since 1952) and that the eventual nominee will be Cruz -- I think even the establishment will be glad to give him a "Goldwater nomination' so they won't have to hear four more years of 'We'd have WON if we had only nominated a REAL CONSERVATIVE.' A Bush nomination -- still possible -- would be the equivalent of the Dole and Mondale 'for long and meritorious service' nomination, given to a sure loser who would still enjoy the honor.
Btw, why the strong negatives on O'Malley. I have been somewhat impressed by him, more than the 'great national scold' that Bernie has become. (I'd still prefer any of five Senators, Gillibrand, Warren, Klobuchar, Merkley, or even McCaskill -- more moderate than I like but a goddamn good fighter,) The only real horror would be, if Hillary couldn't run, they'd turn to my own Goovernor -- I'm a Brooklynite, and Andy is the Democratic Richard Nixon.)
Wouldn't it be funny if they all dropped out?
ReplyDelete