A signal of distaste for dynasties bodes ill for Bush, Clinton
By Dan Balz Chief correspondent
January 10, 2014
The participants in Aurora have barely begun to engage with their 2016 choices; most are not even close to the starting line. But they are underwhelmed by the prospect of a race pitting another Bush against another Clinton. When Charlie Loan, an IT program manager and Republican-leaning independent, said half-seriously that he would be happy if Congress would pass a law banning anyone named Bush or Clinton from running, half the people in the room agreed.
Reactions to Bush were viscerally negative. When the participants were asked for short impressions of him, the responses included the following: “Joke.” “No, thank you.” “Clown.” “Don’t need him.” “Greedy.” “Again?” One said, “intriguing” and another said, “interesting.” That’s as close as anyone came to outright enthusiasm for Bush.
Hart asked the group which individual from a long list of current politicians they would least like to have as a next-door neighbor. Eight named Bush. “I’m tired of it,” said Brandon Graham, an IT systems engineer and Democratic-leaning independent. Jenny Howard, who works in accounting and voted for Romney in 2012, said, “He’s running off the Bush name and thinks that means something.”
Clinton fared slightly better. Instant impressions included the following: “Don’t like.” “Strong.” “Spitfire.” “Untrustworthy.” “More of the same.” “Politician, but gets things done.” The reactions echoed what has been found in polls and in other focus groups, which is that Clinton has stature but remains a polarizing figure.
Most of the prospective presidential candidates were only vague figures to these Coloradans. When names such as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) or Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wis.) or Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) or Mike Huckabee, the former Republican governor of Arkansas, were raised, many indicated they didn’t know enough to have even a superficial impression.
Of those in the Republican field, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) drew positive comments, not necessarily because the members of the group know that much about him, but because they find him new and intriguing. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) was better known but not admired.
Warren proved the exception to all this. Quick impressions voiced about her were highly positive: “Passionate.” “Smart.” “Sincere.” “Knowledgeable.” “Intelligent.” “Capable.” One person said, “questionable.” That was as close to a negative reaction as she got in that round.
There were other signs that Warren, who has said repeatedly that she is not running for president in 2016, had caught the eyes and ears of people in the room. She was the popular choice as a next-door neighbor, seen as genuine and personable. Even one of the most conservative members of the group said this.
Several said that if they could pick from a long list of national politicians, they would prefer to have the chance to have a long conversation with Warren, describing her as both articulate and down to earth. “She’s a strong woman, and I’d like to sit down and pick her brain,” said Susan Brink, an independent who backed President Obama.
Howard, an independent who voted Republican in both 2012 and 2014, was among those who offered an admiring view of Warren. “If she ran, I think she could be the next president,” she said.
What’s behind all this? The rest of the discussion on Thursday helped to explain why the participants feel the way they do, from the lack of enthusiasm for Clinton to the obvious disaffection with Bush to the comments about Warren.
Read the complete article at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-sign...story.html
By Dan Balz Chief correspondent
January 10, 2014
The participants in Aurora have barely begun to engage with their 2016 choices; most are not even close to the starting line. But they are underwhelmed by the prospect of a race pitting another Bush against another Clinton. When Charlie Loan, an IT program manager and Republican-leaning independent, said half-seriously that he would be happy if Congress would pass a law banning anyone named Bush or Clinton from running, half the people in the room agreed.
Reactions to Bush were viscerally negative. When the participants were asked for short impressions of him, the responses included the following: “Joke.” “No, thank you.” “Clown.” “Don’t need him.” “Greedy.” “Again?” One said, “intriguing” and another said, “interesting.” That’s as close as anyone came to outright enthusiasm for Bush.
Hart asked the group which individual from a long list of current politicians they would least like to have as a next-door neighbor. Eight named Bush. “I’m tired of it,” said Brandon Graham, an IT systems engineer and Democratic-leaning independent. Jenny Howard, who works in accounting and voted for Romney in 2012, said, “He’s running off the Bush name and thinks that means something.”
Clinton fared slightly better. Instant impressions included the following: “Don’t like.” “Strong.” “Spitfire.” “Untrustworthy.” “More of the same.” “Politician, but gets things done.” The reactions echoed what has been found in polls and in other focus groups, which is that Clinton has stature but remains a polarizing figure.
Most of the prospective presidential candidates were only vague figures to these Coloradans. When names such as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) or Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wis.) or Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) or Mike Huckabee, the former Republican governor of Arkansas, were raised, many indicated they didn’t know enough to have even a superficial impression.
Of those in the Republican field, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) drew positive comments, not necessarily because the members of the group know that much about him, but because they find him new and intriguing. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) was better known but not admired.
Warren proved the exception to all this. Quick impressions voiced about her were highly positive: “Passionate.” “Smart.” “Sincere.” “Knowledgeable.” “Intelligent.” “Capable.” One person said, “questionable.” That was as close to a negative reaction as she got in that round.
There were other signs that Warren, who has said repeatedly that she is not running for president in 2016, had caught the eyes and ears of people in the room. She was the popular choice as a next-door neighbor, seen as genuine and personable. Even one of the most conservative members of the group said this.
Several said that if they could pick from a long list of national politicians, they would prefer to have the chance to have a long conversation with Warren, describing her as both articulate and down to earth. “She’s a strong woman, and I’d like to sit down and pick her brain,” said Susan Brink, an independent who backed President Obama.
Howard, an independent who voted Republican in both 2012 and 2014, was among those who offered an admiring view of Warren. “If she ran, I think she could be the next president,” she said.
What’s behind all this? The rest of the discussion on Thursday helped to explain why the participants feel the way they do, from the lack of enthusiasm for Clinton to the obvious disaffection with Bush to the comments about Warren.
Read the complete article at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-sign...story.html
