of-the-month" candidates from 2012 rose up in waves one after another to Trump-type poll numbers (Perry, then Cain, then Gingrich, etc.), Romney was also consistently polling very strongly and was routinely at the top of the polls or was a close number 2 right behind the flavor-of-the-month; Bush is not polling nearly that well in terms of his overall support or in terms of consistently being the number 1 or number 2 candidate.
(2) Long before this point in the process, Romney was the consensus establishment choice (maybe you could argue that Perry briefly flirted with the establishment, but Romney was clearly the establishment choice before Perry entered the race and after Perry gathered a few establishment endorsements upon his entry into the race, Romney was back on top as the clear establishment choice within a month); in contrast, it looked like Bush had the establishment locked up early (like Romney) but then Walker, and Rubio, and Christie, and now even Kasich are getting some support from the establishment party structure -- Bush has failed to establish himself as the clear choice of the mainstream Republican establishment in a way that Romney convincingly took hold of that role.
The MSM is constipated with "OMG Has Hillary Stalled?!?" stories (I'm in the Sanders camp and even I am gagging on the sheer volume of the MSM hand-wringing stories on MSNBC and schadenfreude stories on the WSJ/FauxNews). Comparing the Clinton and Bush campaigns, if the Clinton campaign has stubbed its toe, then the Bush campaign has had both of its legs blown off.
= new reply since forum marked as read
