Hillary's poll numbers tanking...

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Do you think he would still have gotten elected if his name wasn't Bush?

[/ QUOTE ]

He wouldn't have had an established national political machine behind him with the ability raise lots of money early. That scared out a lot of possible Republican candidates.

But, don't confuse that with Bush Sr. being loved by core Republican voters. They certainly didn't. A bunch of them rebeled on him in the '92 primaries led by Pat Buchanan.



Could GWB have won the Presidency without the last name of Bush? I think so. Christian conservatives really think of GWB as "their guy". In many ways, he even surpasses Reagan with those voters. And, he leaves McCain, Dole, and Bush Sr. in the dust. Nobody among the 2008 candidates comes close either.

Of course, the difficulty for GWB would be establishing himself as "their guy" prior to the 2000 Repbulican primaries. That would be very hard to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

The question is absurd on its face because George W. Bush's entire life has been shaped by being a "Bush". From entrance to East Coast prep schools, to Yale, to B-School at Harvard, to his business ventures...these were all due in some way to the Bush family name and the accompanying networks.

If the question is, does George W. Bush get elected if he had the same kind of personal history and background up until January 1st 1999 (or something like that) but then his last name magically changes to "Smith" and he no longer has the same kind of name recognition that a Presidential family name grants, then I would say "maybe he does get elected". If the question is, does George W. Bush get elected if he isn't a Bush at all, and doesn't have privileged access to Phillips and Yale and Bush family business/political networks, etc., then I say "who knows, probably not".