Let's review, shall we? You want to quack about Hillary being in the position that she is in because her husband was president. Yet, you refuse to acknowledge that being named Bush has anything to do with the fact that every GOP president since 1988 has been named Bush....and the leading candidate for the GOP nomination in 2016 is also named.....Bush.
Seriously?
Originally Posted by timpage
No more than there was a string of Kennedys ....
Name recognition alone has a lot to do with it. Familiar with the name.
Since Bush I was beaten by Clinton with Gore in the #2 position, then by your analysis Gore should have beaten Bush II .... Bush had executive experience at the state level and pendulum was swinging to the conservative side on the national scene.
Neither ole man Bush or Bush II are campaigning for Jeb ... Jeb has executive experience just like George Jr., did ... Texas did well ... So did Florida.
If your assessment of Bush II is correct AND your theory of "spin off" to Jeb, then Jeb should be hovering around the 3% mark or less.......since you think Bush is a dumbass and was a no good President.
There are probably as many people who think Bush II was a good President, but don't want to hear the bullshit if they acknowledge it in public, as there are people who think Obaminable is awful, but don't want to be called "racist."
By the way .... you aren't the only clown on here ..
..... but you're certainly the biggest .... and I don't mean physical size either.
Back to the OP and Hillarious and her "legacy"!!
What difference does it make .... or ... who gives a fuck