View Full Version : The GOP path to victory?
I know that this is going to go high and right immediately, but I thought I would give it a try... So first off, let me state, I am your basic political hodge podge. I am conservative when it comes to budget, foreign policy, defense, guns, small government (actually small, not Patriot Act small). I am more liberal on social issues like choice, marriage equality... So I feel like I am literally without a home in our current political system. I won't vote for Hilary or Bernie - ever. But here is my problem:
I don't get the electoral college math that the GOP is looking at. Folks like Cruz will turn out huge numbers in red states that the GOP already carry. That will drive up the popular vote numbers. The challenge is that the popular vote in a state (once you have 50 percent) is irrelevant. That is not how we win elections. It is about flipping states. What current red states that Obama carried in 2012 will someone like Cruz bring into the GOP column? I am having a hard time finding enough to get the GOP to 270. Now with a Rubio/Kasich, Kasich/Rubio, Bush/Kasich ... I think you put Florida in play and Ohio in play. That is a huge start. With Cruz or TRump you might get Wisconsin, might get PA and VA... but the math just doesn't add up to 270. He won't get WA, Oregon, California. He wont get the North East. He won't get Florida.
When the democrats got smoked in election after election, the DLC and Bill Clinton pulled the Democrats towards the middle - although they didn't stay there. When the GOP get smoked, the response is to go further right. Again, I just don't get it. The talking point about "if we stick to our conservative principals we will win" doesn't match the electoral college reality.
Here is my prediction (and in November I'll circle back and eat crow if I'm wrong). If the GOP run Trump or Cruz they are going to get smoked in the electoral college. Not Reagan Mondale... but smoked. Hilary is flawed, beatable, and unsubstantive candidate. THe GOP should win in a walk but they are going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory...
So help me out. How does Cruz get to 270? How does Trump (I think even most experts have no clue about Trump). This question is not about who is best, who is more conservative... It is strictly about getting to 270. Getting down to brass tacks, how does the GOP get to 270 with any of their front runners?
Mauser KAR98K
01-21-16, 12:09
By turning large cities in their own Districts, comparable to D.C. This way rural and suburban counties aren't getting creamed by siffon cities.
but they already carry their own districts. That increases popular vote counts... It doesn't change state alignment or elector college math. You have to take blue states back not increase victory margins in red states.
I know that this is going to go high and right immediately, but I thought I would give it a try... So first off, let me state, I am your basic political hodge podge. I am conservative when it comes to budget, foreign policy, defense, guns, small government (actually small, not Patriot Act small). I am more liberal on social issues like choice, marriage equality... So I feel like I am literally without a home in our current political system. I won't vote for Hilary or Bernie - ever. But here is my problem:
I don't get the electoral college math that the GOP is looking at. Folks like Cruz will turn out huge numbers in red states that the GOP already carry. That will drive up the popular vote numbers. The challenge is that the popular vote in a state (once you have 50 percent) is irrelevant. That is not how we win elections. It is about flipping states. What current red states that Obama carried in 2012 will someone like Cruz bring into the GOP column? I am having a hard time finding enough to get the GOP to 270. Now with a Rubio/Kasich, Kasich/Rubio, Bush/Kasich ... I think you put Florida in play and Ohio in play. That is a huge start. With Cruz or TRump you might get Wisconsin, might get PA and VA... but the math just doesn't add up to 270. He won't get WA, Oregon, California. He wont get the North East. He won't get Florida.
When the democrats got smoked in election after election, the DLC and Bill Clinton pulled the Democrats towards the middle - although they didn't stay there. When the GOP get smoked, the response is to go further right. Again, I just don't get it. The talking point about "if we stick to our conservative principals we will win" doesn't match the electoral college reality.
Here is my prediction (and in November I'll circle back and eat crow if I'm wrong). If the GOP run Trump or Cruz they are going to get smoked in the electoral college. Not Reagan Mondale... but smoked. Hilary is flawed, beatable, and unsubstantive candidate. THe GOP should win in a walk but they are going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory...
So help me out. How does Cruz get to 270? How does Trump (I think even most experts have no clue about Trump). This question is not about who is best, who is more conservative... It is strictly about getting to 270. Getting down to brass tacks, how does the GOP get to 270 with any of their front runners?
Who is more moderate than McCain or Romney? Jeb?
Yeah, good luck with that. :rolleyes:
crusader377
01-21-16, 12:25
I think Trump can easily get to 270 because he has a higher likelihood of pulling a few of the Rust Belt starts that are battleground states and perhaps even a few light blue states. I think Trump can win in places like WI, OH, MI, and might be able to pull PA from the democrats. Plus one thing that Trump has is he has thought "out of the box" his whole campaign and conventional wisdom might not apply to Trump as much as a typical establishment GOP candidate.
Cruz on the other hand, I don't think can get 270. The reason why is I don't think he will perform particularly well in the Midwest.
KalashniKEV
01-21-16, 13:07
I know that this is going to go high and right immediately, but I thought I would give it a try... So first off, let me state, I am your basic political hodge podge. I am conservative when it comes to budget, foreign policy, defense, guns, small government (actually small, not Patriot Act small). I am more liberal on social issues like choice, marriage equality... So I feel like I am literally without a home in our current political system.
Like most Americans...
When the GOP get smoked, the response is to go further right. Again, I just don't get it. The talking point about "if we stick to our conservative principals we will win" doesn't match the electoral college reality.
What you are talking about is the myth of the phantom electorate.
The assertion is that nobody voted (R) because the GOP failed to present a true extremist. Key to this claim is the false notion that the middle of the United States is filled with radicals who will boycott the polls unless they see a full-on kook listed on the ticket (no half kooks accepted!).
The architects of this strategy are, of course, the same undercover Democrat party operatives that hijacked the TEA Party (Taxed-Enough-Already) and sabotaged it into the perverse hate machine it is today.
If you keep an eye out, you can spot them easily.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/donald-trumps-mystery-muslim-questioner-a-serial-anti-tea-party-plant/
So help me out. How does Cruz get to 270? ...It is strictly about getting to 270. Getting down to brass tacks, how does the GOP get to 270...
The GOP never gets there.
Not-ever-again in American history.
The GOP won't reform- so they either fade away slowly into obsolescence, after many years of painful defeat, or they crack up, fall apart, and get replaced by something closer to the first part of the OP (quickly).
SomeOtherGuy
01-21-16, 13:38
I think Trump can easily get to 270 because he has a higher likelihood of pulling a few of the Rust Belt starts that are battleground states and perhaps even a few light blue states. I think Trump can win in places like WI, OH, MI, and might be able to pull PA from the democrats.
If Trump were the GOP's candidate, I think he could win most or all of those states. But I think the GOP establishment will do everything possible to prevent him from being the candidate, regardless of primary results.
As far as Cruz, he has little to no image or presence in the midwest.
Who is more moderate than McCain or Romney? Jeb?
Yeah, good luck with that. :rolleyes: I guess you told me...SO pick the conservative of your choice and get them to 270... Its not about ideology or positions... its about electoral college math. Run the numbers for me. Which states does your guy - whoever that is - switch over to get to 270.
brickboy240
01-21-16, 14:04
The GOP establishment seems to be positioning themselves for another circular firing squad. Couple that with the onslaught from the media and WHAT path to victory are you talking about?
It does not appear that the RNC really wants to win, lead or reform a damn thing, if you ask me.
The Democrats want to win and they are willing to do anything to get there. They will ignore Bill Clinton's sexual behavior and ignore Hillary's mistakes from Whitewater to e-mail servers to Benghazi. They will make up any kind of lies or stories about the GOP opponent they think they can get away with. They will have their minions in big media host and steer the debates. This is how they win on the national level.
On the state, county and local levels, yes, the GOP can smoke the Democrats and have done so in the mid-terms both times during the Obama regime. They also did it back in 1994.
However on the national level for the presidency, we are about to turn the corner and probably never see another GOP member get the White House.
Sad...but this seems to be where we are today.
eightmillimeter
01-21-16, 14:47
If the GOP would stop beating dead horses of abortion and gay marriage they could run 3/4 of the table. I mean seriously. The people it would piss off will still vote R at the end of the day. How many court decisions and laws in favor of those two issues have to pass before they realize it's not worth the fight.
Whiskey_Bravo
01-21-16, 15:04
The architects of this strategy are, of course, the same undercover Democrat party operatives that hijacked the TEA Party (Taxed-Enough-Already) and sabotaged it into the perverse hate machine it is today.
.
The TEA party is a perverse hate machine?
I guess you told me...SO pick the conservative of your choice and get them to 270... Its not about ideology or positions... its about electoral college math. Run the numbers for me. Which states does your guy - whoever that is - switch over to get to 270.
There is no guarantee of 270, regardless of which GOP candidate we nominate. However, IF Kasich backs Cruz and delivers Iowa, and Bush/Rubio back Cruz and deliver Florida, it's doable. If they get pissy and go home with their tiny balls, then that means they don't want to win, which some of us suspect they'd prefer doing.
Long story short, we tried it their way twice and it didn't work. Now it's time they tried it OUR way. :(
The TEA party is a perverse hate machine?
According to the DNC and the leftist media? Yes. :(
Averageman
01-21-16, 15:28
There is no guarantee of 270, regardless of which GOP candidate we nominate. However, IF Kasich backs Cruz and delivers Iowa, and Bush/Rubio back Cruz and deliver Florida, it's doable. If they get pissy and go home with their tiny balls, then that means they don't want to win, which some of us suspect they'd prefer doing.
Long story short, we tried it their way twice and it didn't work. Now it's time they tried it OUR way. :(
I'm not seeing Kasich, Rubio or Bush assisting anyone but themselves.
I think Bush has already mentioned Third Party.
PatrioticDisorder
01-21-16, 15:31
GOP will "win" big this fall, I was a Trump supporter at first. Not anymore, he may revive the Republican Party but not in a way I wish to see. Cruz is looking like a long shot, but he is our best choice at this point, Rubio would be the second best choice. The democrats have no chance in hell of winning against either of the top 3 Republicans.
If the GOP would stop beating dead horses of abortion and gay marriage they could run 3/4 of the table. I mean seriously. The people it would piss off will still vote R at the end of the day. How many court decisions and laws in favor of those two issues have to pass before they realize it's not worth the fight.
Yeah, well, when fed.gov stops subsidizing legalized murder with my tax dollars, then this republican will stop beating the dead horse (or is that beating the dead fetus?) of abortion. Wanna kill your child in utero? Go for it, but pay for it your own damn self.
Eurodriver
01-21-16, 15:49
Yeah, well, when fed.gov stops subsidizing legalized murder with my tax dollars, then this republican will stop beating the dead horse (or is that beating the dead fetus?) of abortion. Wanna kill your child in utero? Go for it, but pay for it your own damn self.
Your government is going to start subsidizing the murder of you personally if we don't right the ship with electable (and I mean that not in a Romney sort of way) candidates.
Get a GOP nominee on TV saying "I support a woman's decision to abort her baby and won't sign any legislation making it harder to do so". Who gives a shit if he is lying? The left does it all the time about guns. Why don't we about abortion and homos?
GOP victory or not- nothing is changing in reality, just slowing a bit, maybe.
Here is something I wrote a Year or so ago thinking about where we've been headed and looking back in time at similar moments in known history.
"The world has moved on.
Liberty is dying- all but dead; existing in the minds of few. Faith is considered evil. Up is down. Right is wrong.
There is a way to stop the madness- but too many folks (Even those who understand and "get it") are complacent, have too much to "lose" and just want to be comfortable whilst watching the death of a Republic and the death of what is Just and Right.
The ship is sinking. It's going down. We are all on it. Some are actively trying to sink it, others are trying to stop it, and still others are too comfortable and have too much to lose to do anything about it. Just enjoy the downfall and embrace the chaos that is soon to usher us into oblivion.
And here I am sinking along with you all going mad not being able to do anything myself other than have a tiny voice- easily ignored and discarded as "Radical" or "racist" or "____phobic".
Nothing will change enough to stop the ship from sinking until those that have the ability and the responsibility- spill blood to affect change. That is a fact. A hard one to accept. Even harder to act upon- but a fact nonetheless.
So we shall go down in history as those with the means to go out with a bang, but instead chose to go out with a whimper. The last guards of the Republic leaving post and laying down.
An assisted suicide of the greatest magnitude.
The world has moved on."
I'm not seeing Kasich, Rubio or Bush assisting anyone but themselves.
I think Bush has already mentioned Third Party.
I agree. They'd rather watch Hillary win the nomination and spend the next 4 year blaming Trump, when in fact it was THEIR failure to coalesce around the GOP nominee and support the party.
See how that works? :confused:
If the GOP would stop beating dead horses of abortion and gay marriage they could run 3/4 of the table. I mean seriously. The people it would piss off will still vote R at the end of the day. How many court decisions and laws in favor of those two issues have to pass before they realize it's not worth the fight.
If they backed down on abortion, I would not vote for them
Sent from my XT830C using Tapatalk
Averageman
01-21-16, 17:12
I agree. They'd rather watch Hillary win the nomination and spend the next 4 year blaming Trump, when in fact it was THEIR failure to coalesce around the GOP nominee and support the party.
See how that works? :confused:
And on the other side of that us Trump coming out with Palin as a supporter and Cruz doing the same with Glen Beck, WTF are these guys thinking?
If they backed down on abortion, I would not vote for them
Really?, Because I'm agreeing with Eurodriver on this one, I don't care what they say to get elected. We are at a serious crossroad and if one vote loses this to Hillary, we're screwed.
If they backed down on abortion, I would not vote for them
Sent from my XT830C using Tapatalk
What does abortion have to do with the good governance of the United States? :confused:
Averageman
01-21-16, 17:36
I think if this wasn't allowed to be made in to such a devisive issue, it would allow someone to make some real change.
Until someone makes it in to office they wont be able to prosecute those at PP who were so giddy selling baby parts to finance a new Lambo.
Falling dead on your sword for a single issue, an issue that you know is a conservative value will only allow the Hildebeast to win.
I know that this is going to go high and right immediately, but I thought I would give it a try... So first off, let me state, I am your basic political hodge podge. I am conservative when it comes to budget, foreign policy, defense, guns, small government (actually small, not Patriot Act small). I am more liberal on social issues like choice, marriage equality... So I feel like I am literally without a home in our current political system. I won't vote for Hilary or Bernie - ever. But here is my problem:
An old school Republican - who was fiscally "conservative" and socially "liberal" or modern day Libertarian knows how you feel, as I know how you feel.
I don't get the electoral college math that the GOP is looking at. Folks like Cruz will turn out huge numbers in red states that the GOP already carry. That will drive up the popular vote numbers. The challenge is that the popular vote in a state (once you have 50 percent) is irrelevant. That is not how we win elections. It is about flipping states. What current red states that Obama carried in 2012 will someone like Cruz bring into the GOP column? I am having a hard time finding enough to get the GOP to 270. Now with a Rubio/Kasich, Kasich/Rubio, Bush/Kasich ... I think you put Florida in play and Ohio in play. That is a huge start. With Cruz or TRump you might get Wisconsin, might get PA and VA... but the math just doesn't add up to 270. He won't get WA, Oregon, California. He wont get the North East. He won't get Florida.
When the democrats got smoked in election after election, the DLC and Bill Clinton pulled the Democrats towards the middle - although they didn't stay there. When the GOP get smoked, the response is to go further right. Again, I just don't get it. The talking point about "if we stick to our conservative principals we will win" doesn't match the electoral college reality.
Here is my prediction (and in November I'll circle back and eat crow if I'm wrong). If the GOP run Trump or Cruz they are going to get smoked in the electoral college. Not Reagan Mondale... but smoked. Hilary is flawed, beatable, and unsubstantive candidate. THe GOP should win in a walk but they are going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory...
The GOP should have and could have easily walked away with the vote in the last election. It was not as much that the Dems won, but the GOP lost. It was there for the taking, and they farcked it up by putting forth Romney. Should the GOP get Trump or Cruise, it will be a guaranteed loss with Trump, and a likely loss with Cruise. The only candidate worth backing is Paul. Why more don't see that, I don't know, but it does not bode well.
So help me out. How does Cruz get to 270? How does Trump (I think even most experts have no clue about Trump). This question is not about who is best, who is more conservative... It is strictly about getting to 270. Getting down to brass tacks, how does the GOP get to 270 with any of their front runners?
They don't. The End.
And on the other side of that us Trump coming out with Palin as a supporter and Cruz doing the same with Glen Beck, WTF are these guys thinking?
Really?, Because I'm agreeing with Eurodriver on this one, I don't care what they say to get elected. We are at a serious crossroad and if one vote loses this to Hillary, we're screwed.
Really! I will not endorse anyone who endorses an act I know to be absolutely wrong. I understand what you guys are thinking but it is that important to me
Sent from my XT830C using Tapatalk
I find it interesting that none of the folks who support Cruz can lay out a path to victory for him. Simply put the majority of the country just isn't that conservative. Hell, look at the poll numbers for GOPers under thirty - even they are for marriage equality and are pro choice.
My hope for the GOP is that if they run Cruz and get smoked -and they will - they can at least lay down this fable about "we don't win because we didn't run a conservative". We are not winning because the social stances are not popular. Just like the democrats did with welfare reform, crime… They shifted stances. I hope that when this happens, we can get back to Reagan/Goldwater conservatism and end the choke hold one type of religious conservatives have over the party. My fear is that it will be too late. We will do a thread necropsy in November and see who is right, but math is a stubborn thing … if you can't get to 270 electoral votes you can't win.
I find it interesting that none of the folks who support Cruz can lay out a path to victory for him. Simply put the majority of the country just isn't that conservative. Hell, look at the poll numbers for GOPers under thirty - even they are for marriage equality and are pro choice.
My hope for the GOP is that if they run Cruz and get smoked -and they will - they can at least lay down this fable about "we don't win because we didn't run a conservative". We are not winning because the social stances are not popular. Just like the democrats did with welfare reform, crime… They shifted stances. I hope that when this happens, we can get back to Reagan/Goldwater conservatism and end the choke hold one type of religious conservatives have over the party. My fear is that it will be too late. We will do a thread necropsy in November and see who is right, but math is a stubborn thing … if you can't get to 270 electoral votes you can't win.
Simply put, you can't get to 270 without the high percentage of us the establishment RINOs abandoned. If Cruz or one of the other non-RINOs doesn't win the nomination, the GOP is toast.
Simply put, you can't get to 270 without the high percentage of us the establishment RINOs abandoned. If Cruz or one of the other non-RINOs doesn't win the nomination, the GOP is toast.
Y'all crack me up. You assert that w/o Cruz the GOP is toast. So again, at the risk of being repetitive… tell me which states Obama carried that Cruz will win. No extra points for bright red… you need to convert blue states… moderate states… spell it out.
Howdy,
Unless another GOPer enters the race that's electable Hillary will win by a bigger landslide than Bill won by in '96 and Obama won by in '12.
34% of GOPers might back the Donald but they are the only ones that will vote
For him in November.
Paul
Eurodriver
01-21-16, 19:30
Y'all crack me up. You assert that w/o Cruz the GOP is toast. So again, at the risk of being repetitive… tell me which states Obama carried that Cruz will win. No extra points for bright red… you need to convert blue states… moderate states… spell it out.
PA, WI, OH, FL if he doesn't start saying bullshit like rape is God's will...
PatrioticDisorder
01-21-16, 19:37
Howdy,
Unless another GOPer enters the race that's electable Hillary will win by a bigger landslide than Bill won by in '96 and Obama won by in '12.
34% of GOPers might back the Donald but they are the only ones that will vote
For him in November.
Paul
What world are you living in? Hillary isn't even going to be the D nominee and Trump is very likely to be the nominee and he will win in an enormous landslide... I'm also convinced Trump winning isn't necessarily the best thing for the country, but he will completely change the face of the Republican Party and will actually turn them into winners.
Howdy PD,
What world are you living in? Hillary isn't even going to be the D nominee and Trump is very likely to be the nominee and he will win in an enormous landslide... I'm also convinced Trump winning isn't necessarily the best thing for the country, but he will completely change the face of the Republican Party and will actually turn them into winners.
The Real World.
Trump isn't electable, neither was Dole, McCain/Palin or the Bishop.
I said the same thing in '96, '08 and '12 and I was right.
For the GOP to win the WH they have to have Evangelical Christain vote. In 2012 3,000,000 of them didn't vote, well, 500,000 did and they voted against the Bishop and his magic underwear.
In Nov. '16 that same 2,500,000 voters will stay at home and not vote for the Donald.
The Donald will get the white trash trailer park and the "+40yo SWM w/out kids ( thank God!) that still lives with their mom and has a "Command Post" in the basement" crowds vote but any of the minority groups will vote against him.
In 2008 black adults that were +40yo that had never voted before went out and voted for Obama. In 2016 Latinos, Muslims, LGBT, etc. crowds that have never voted before will go out and vote against the Donald.
This means a landslide win for Hillary.
I'm not even going to waste my time by asking you why you don't think Hillary will be the DNC candidate.
Paul
PatrioticDisorder
01-21-16, 20:58
Howdy PD,
The Real World.
Trump isn't electable, neither was Dole, McCain/Palin or the Bishop.
I said the same thing in '96, '08 and '12 and I was right.
For the GOP to win the WH they have to have Evangelical Christain vote. In 2012 3,000,000 of them didn't vote, well, 500,000 did and they voted against the Bishop and his magic underwear.
In Nov. '16 that same 2,500,000 voters will stay at home and not vote for the Donald.
The Donald will get the white trash trailer park and the "+40yo SWM w/out kids ( thank God!) that still lives with their mom and has a "Command Post" in the basement" crowds vote but any of the minority groups will vote against him.
In 2008 black adults that were +40yo that had never voted before went out and voted for Obama. In 2016 Latinos, Muslims, LGBT, etc. crowds that have never voted before will go out and vote against the Donald.
This means a landslide win for Hillary.
I'm not even going to waste my time by asking you why you don't think Hillary will be the DNC candidate.
Paul
1. Hillary will not be the DNC candidate. Besides the strong likelihood she is indicted, she is sinking like a stone everywhere in the polls, the leftists are feeling the Bern (she is now down big in both Iowa, New Hampshire and sinking fast nationally). Mark my words she will not be the candidate.
2. You are way off on who will or won't vote for Trump. Trump will get minimum 25% black vote, unheard of for GOP candidate. I'm not sure where he is polling with LGBT, but I know 2 lesbians that are generally conservative (pro-2a) but are turned off by religious right (would never vote for Cruz) that text me several times a week about how excited they are about Trump. Perhaps my sample of 2 is off, but I suspect Trump will get a "surprising" number of LGBT vote as well. Trump is polling over 30% for Hispanic vote, I don't even need to go into detail there, look into it yourself. Trump is also polling very well among blue collar democrats (mainly white), many union workers. Trump is managing to even woe the establishment who was frightened of him previously, he is doing one hell of a political dance but the coalition he is building is going to send shockwaves through the political class this November.
3. I will reluctantly vote for Trump in 2016 if (and he likely will be) he is the nominee. He is nothing like Dole or McCain, he will be strong on many "conservative" policies, my issue is I believe he will use Obama like authoritarian tactics to do it and that is what will be destructive in the long run (albeit better him than Bernie/Biden/Gore).
Really! I will not endorse anyone who endorses an act I know to be absolutely wrong. I understand what you guys are thinking but it is that important to me
Sent from my XT830C using Tapatalk
I agree with you, but the reality is that if they simply didn't touch the third rail (as many have called it) it would go better for the Republican candidates.
We aren't going to change it all at once, we need to get both sides to come to the middle first - initially I'd settle for none after first trimester unless life of mother - once we get them there we need to patiently reel them in. As it is now we are saying no lives. It is called triage.
JMO
Howdy PD,
The Real World.
Trump isn't electable, neither was Dole, McCain/Palin or the Bishop.
I said the same thing in '96, '08 and '12 and I was right.
For the GOP to win the WH they have to have Evangelical Christain vote. In 2012 3,000,000 of them didn't vote, well, 500,000 did and they voted against the Bishop and his magic underwear.
In Nov. '16 that same 2,500,000 voters will stay at home and not vote for the Donald.
The Donald will get the white trash trailer park and the "+40yo SWM w/out kids ( thank God!) that still lives with their mom and has a "Command Post" in the basement" crowds vote but any of the minority groups will vote against him.
In 2008 black adults that were +40yo that had never voted before went out and voted for Obama. In 2016 Latinos, Muslims, LGBT, etc. crowds that have never voted before will go out and vote against the Donald.
This means a landslide win for Hillary.
I'm not even going to waste my time by asking you why you don't think Hillary will be the DNC candidate.
Paul
If that's the case, those evangelical "Christians" deserve Hillary and her iron clad support for abortion. :)
If the GOP would stop beating dead horses of abortion and gay marriage they could run 3/4 of the table. I mean seriously. The people it would piss off will still vote R at the end of the day. How many court decisions and laws in favor of those two issues have to pass before they realize it's not worth the fight.
Pssst...here is a little secret. Nobody cares about abortion or gay marriage except left wing extremists who are trying to draw attention from the real issues - debt, healthcare, entitlements, immigration, gun control, etc.
Howdy PD,
1. Hillary will not be the DNC candidate. Besides the strong likelihood she is indicted, she is sinking like a stone everywhere in the polls, the leftists are feeling the Bern (she is now down big in both Iowa, New Hampshire and sinking fast nationally). Mark my words she will not be the candidate.
2. You are way off on who will or won't vote for Trump. Trump will get minimum 25% black vote, unheard of for GOP candidate. I'm not sure where he is polling with LGBT, but I know 2 lesbians that are generally conservative (pro-2a) but are turned off by religious right (would never vote for Cruz) that text me several times a week about how excited they are about Trump. Perhaps my sample of 2 is off, but I suspect Trump will get a "surprising" number of LGBT vote as well. Trump is polling over 30% for Hispanic vote, I don't even need to go into detail there, look into it yourself. Trump is also polling very well among blue collar democrats (mainly white), many union workers. Trump is managing to even woe the establishment who was frightened of him previously, he is doing one hell of a political dance but the coalition he is building is going to send shockwaves through the political class this November.
3. I will reluctantly vote for Trump in 2016 if (and he likely will be) he is the nominee. He is nothing like Dole or McCain, he will be strong on many "conservative" policies, my issue is I believe he will use Obama like authoritarian tactics to do it and that is what will be destructive in the long run (albeit better him than Bernie/Biden/Gore).
You are delusional if you think Hillary will be indicted. Indicted for what? Benghazi?
Except for Gowdy, and the trailer park and basement dwelling crowd no one cares about Benghazi.
When you intentional put yourself in harm's way you have to expect a bad outcome, it's just part of life. So, how much more in harm's way could a person possible put themselves into than to request to be stationed in a Muslim courtly that had been through an 18 month civil war w/out a functioning central gov't that was controlled by Muslim extremist warlords that hates Americans?
Ambassador Steves knew the risks he was taking when he went to Lybia and especially to Benghazi on 9-11. As far the ex-Seals that were working as PMCs for the CIA they were there for the thrill and the adrenaline rush and they too knew the risk they were taking.
What did Cheney say about all the American service men and women that died during the Gulf War? Something like "They volunteered, no one force them to join the military." no something similar.
4 people, that intentionally put themselves in harm's way died. Heck, a couple of years ago I saw 6 people killed in two weeks while driving back and forth to work and none of the victims were at fault. One of the victims was a 24yo woman and her 18mo daughter that was ran off the road (I-30) intentionally by 3 18-wheelers.
Anywho............
Benghazi? Sure, it was a cluster but Hillary isn't going to be indicted over it or her emails. Thinking she will be is just a delusional wet dream.
Paul
Howdy PD,
The Real World.
Trump isn't electable, neither was Dole, McCain/Palin or the Bishop.
I said the same thing in '96, '08 and '12 and I was right.
For the GOP to win the WH they have to have Evangelical Christain vote. In 2012 3,000,000 of them didn't vote, well, 500,000 did and they voted against the Bishop and his magic underwear.
In Nov. '16 that same 2,500,000 voters will stay at home and not vote for the Donald.
The Donald will get the white trash trailer park and the "+40yo SWM w/out kids ( thank God!) that still lives with their mom and has a "Command Post" in the basement" crowds vote but any of the minority groups will vote against him.
In 2008 black adults that were +40yo that had never voted before went out and voted for Obama. In 2016 Latinos, Muslims, LGBT, etc. crowds that have never voted before will go out and vote against the Donald.
This means a landslide win for Hillary.
I'm not even going to waste my time by asking you why you don't think Hillary will be the DNC candidate.
Paul
I tend to agree. Although I'm agnostic, I'll sit this one out if Trump is the nominee.
Moose-Knuckle
01-21-16, 23:52
Pssst...here is a little secret. Nobody cares about abortion or gay marriage except left wing extremists who are trying to draw attention from the real issues - debt, healthcare, entitlements, immigration, gun control, etc.
Pretty much this.
LGBT and women's "rights" non-issue bovine feces are effective distractionary devices as demonstrated time and again.
Moose-Knuckle
01-22-16, 00:56
So does anyone else feel that Trump might be a NEOCON construct who's sole purpose in this circus is to scuttle the election for the GOP?
I remember reading about when a few years ago Jeb met with Obama at the White House and then his meetings with McCain to strategize the Paul/Cruz/Tea Party "problem".
Speaking of Cruz I don't have the strictest of confidence in him, he talks a good game but with his wife's ties to Goldman Sachs and the CFR I have my doubts . . .
wow... I have to say we managed a whole day of political conversation and kept it mostly civil. Regardless of outcomes, it is really fascinating that folks who basically want the same thing for the country -give or take- can look at the same data and get vastly different outputs.
GOP will "win" big this fall, I was a Trump supporter at first. Not anymore, he may revive the Republican Party but not in a way I wish to see. Cruz is looking like a long shot, but he is our best choice at this point, Rubio would be the second best choice. The democrats have no chance in hell of winning against either of the top 3 Republicans.
What made you change your mind on Trump?
Your government is going to start subsidizing the murder of you personally if we don't right the ship with electable (and I mean that not in a Romney sort of way) candidates.
Get a GOP nominee on TV saying "I support a woman's decision to abort her baby and won't sign any legislation making it harder to do so". Who gives a shit if he is lying? The left does it all the time about guns. Why don't we about abortion and homos?
I've been saying this for years. Just lie. Lie through the teeth.
The Left does it about literally everything. Lie, then do as you originally intended. **** it.
I tend to agree. Although I'm agnostic, I'll sit this one out if Trump is the nominee.
Come one, man. Not voting just lets Hitlery or the senile Communist seize control of the republic.
I've been saying this for years. Just lie. Lie through the teeth.
The Left does it about literally everything. Lie, then do as you originally intended. **** it.
I still think Trump is lying through his teeth and is actually a Democrat using his money to ensure either he wins and then changes to Democrat, or he sabotages the GOP and allows a "real" Democrat to win.
So does anyone else feel that Trump might be a NEOCON construct who's sole purpose in this circus is to scuttle the election for the GOP?
I forget who else was a big proponent of this idea on the forums, but yeah, as I wrote above.
Maybe it was Sensei? Maybe not, it was a few months ago.
An old school Republican - who was fiscally "conservative" and socially "liberal" or modern day Libertarian knows how you feel, as I know how you feel.
Same here.
I tend to agree. Although I'm agnostic, I'll sit this one out if Trump is the nominee.
I'll write in Paul.
Averageman
01-22-16, 08:35
I'll write in Paul.
I agree that Paul may be the man we need, but he has little to no appeal to other than those willing and able to read and understand where we are and what he is saying. For the most part that leaves 90% of the electorate.
I'm not sure why he gets no traction, but for whatever reason, he seems unable to do so.
I agree that Paul may be the man we need, but he has little to no appeal to other than those willing and able to read and understand where we are and what he is saying. For the most part that leaves 90% of the electorate.
I'm not sure why he gets no traction, but for whatever reason, he seems unable to do so.
I think he's getting a slow build, but I agree, why he's not higher in the polls with GOP voters is unclear, but points to an electorate devoid of critical thinking skills and wasting time on sound bites from nimrods like Trump and Sanders who are two sides to a coin. I think it was Styre in another thread who had a great take as to why Paul is not more popular, which was due being a Libertarian at heart, too busy not telling others how to live their lives etc to get traction. That's got some real truth to it.
If the GOP could stop stepping on their own dink, they'd get behind Paul asap as the only GOP candidate who could and would pull in the demographic they lose to Dems or don't vote at all, who is more or less a Libertarian in GOP clothing. Anyone but Paul, with the full support of the GOP and a decent running mate, and we can just start preparing for calling HC or BS POTUS. I'll just lave this here. If it does not snap people out of their Trump support, than I guess nothing will, and they best look in the mirror when they have HC as their C&C:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDMxB8aTuXA
I will vote for Rubio or Cruze if they get that far (assuming they don't blow it by picking a horrible running mate) but Trump, no.
I still think Trump is lying through his teeth and is actually a Democrat using his money to ensure either he wins and then changes to Democrat, or he sabotages the GOP and allows a "real" Democrat to win.
I forget who else was a big proponent of this idea on the forums, but yeah, as I wrote above.
Maybe it was Sensei? Maybe not, it was a few months ago.
If you look at my posts over the past 8 months, I evolved on Trump. At first, I was luke warm on his candidacy. I was skeptical but not a contrarian. It was not until the second debate that he lost me and I started to see through his BS. That moment came when Rand Paul pointed out that Trump was for single payer as recently as 2004, and supported ObamaCare while it was being debated. You might recall that Trump's excuse was that single payer would have worked in 2004 but not now. That is utter horse shit. Single payer has NEVER been a viable option for the U.S. It would have bankrupted us even faster had it been instituted in 2004 given the pending crisis on the horizon in '07.
THAT is the moment that I knew he was either a liar who had positioned himself to run for whichever party was in the best shape to put him in the White House, or he was incompetent. I lean toward the former. He made himself to be a political chameleon - able to blend into whatever party fits his needs - utterly devoid of principles. He is the ultimate RHINO and he says whatever he needs to get in office...like so many other disastrous leaders throughout history.
I then began to gather as much information about Trump as possible. I've put this in other threads, but I'll drop it here too. These are Trump's positions in the not too distant past that I've updated to account for his most recent transgressions. Take a look at this and tell me how a limited government conservative can vote for this guy. His record is worse than Hillary's.
1) Supported the TARP bailout
2) Supported the Stimulus; in fact, said that it needed to be bigger
3) Supported the auto bailout
4) Supported a single payer (i.e. The federal government) health system as recently as 2004; Says that he now (October 2015) supports universal healthcare that covers "everybody."
5) Supported the 1994 AWB and called for waiting periods as recently as 2000
6) Called for a 14% government raid of trust and personal accounts more than $10M to erase the debt
7) Donated to democrat campaigns as recently as 2012. This includes shining stars of virtue like Charlie Rangel and Harry Reid.
8) Did the customary prochoice to prolife flip-flop
9) Is on the record opposing cuts to Medicare and Social Security
10) Supports NSA metadata collection
11) Supported the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London, giving public authorities the right to seize private land for economic development by private investors
12) Called for mandatory federal death penalty for anyone convicted for murdering a LEO (I agree with the death penalty but understand that the feds have no role in 99% of these cases).
13) Made statements in 2013 indicating some level of support for the Dream Act and in 2014 suggested a pathway to citizenship on the O'Reily Factor.
If you look at my posts over the past 8 months, I evolved on Trump. At first, I was luke warm on his candidacy. I was skeptical but not a contrarian. It was not until the second debate that he lost me and I started to see through his BS. That moment came when Rand Paul pointed out that Trump was for single payer as recently as 2004, and supported ObamaCare while it was being debated.
Trump is Romney with worse hair. He's done a 180 on all his major positions and if anyone takes 10 mins to look.
If you look at my posts over the past 8 months, I evolved on Trump. At first, I was luke warm on his candidacy. I was skeptical but not a contrarian. It was not until the second debate that he lost me and I started to see through his BS. That moment came when Rand Paul pointed out that Trump was for single payer as recently as 2004, and supported ObamaCare while it was being debated. You might recall that Trump's excuse was that single payer would have worked in 2004 but not now. That is utter horse shit. Single payer has NEVER been a viable option for the U.S. It would have bankrupted us even faster had it been instituted in 2004 given the pending crisis on the horizon in '07.
THAT is the moment that I knew he was either a liar who had positioned himself to run for whichever party was in the best shape to put him in the White House, or he was incompetent. I lean toward the former. He made himself to be a political chameleon - able to blend into whatever party fits his needs - utterly devoid of principles. He is the ultimate RHINO and he says whatever he needs to get in office...like so many other disastrous leaders throughout history.
I then began to gather as much information about Trump as possible. I've put this in other threads, but I'll drop it here too. These are Trump's positions in the not too distant past that I've updated to account for his most recent transgressions. Take a look at this and tell me how a limited government conservative can vote for this guy. His record is worse than Hillary's.
1) Supported the TARP bailout
2) Supported the Stimulus; in fact, said that it needed to be bigger
3) Supported the auto bailout
4) Supported a single payer (i.e. The federal government) health system as recently as 2004; Says that he now (October 2015) supports universal healthcare that covers "everybody."
5) Supported the 1994 AWB and called for waiting periods as recently as 2000
6) Called for a 14% government raid of trust and personal accounts more than $10M to erase the debt
7) Donated to democrat campaigns as recently as 2012. This includes shining stars of virtue like Charlie Rangel and Harry Reid.
8) Did the customary prochoice to prolife flip-flop
9) Is on the record opposing cuts to Medicare and Social Security
10) Supports NSA metadata collection
11) Supported the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London, giving public authorities the right to seize private land for economic development by private investors
12) Called for mandatory federal death penalty for anyone convicted for murdering a LEO (I agree with the death penalty but understand that the feds have no role in 99% of these cases).
13) Made statements in 2013 indicating some level of support for the Dream Act and in 2014 suggested a pathway to citizenship on the O'Reily Factor.
I've been posting the same stuff here during the same time frame- even linking his "ontheissues.org" stats (Here it is again: http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm) so anyone can go and easily see it for themselves; and I've also been doing this in real life with friends and family and all I've really gotten in response is:
"He's the only one who can do anything"
"He is beholden to no one"
"He could negotiate our way out of this mess"
Blah Blah Blah...
I keep asking for anyone to show me the guys substance- any stance with a plan- an ACTIONABLE plan that he intends to actually implement and I get crickets...
Rand Paul is the only guy in the room that has plans that are actionable and would actually work and speaks the truth about it. AND that is EXACTLY why we will never get him. Americans don't want a leader anymore- they want small minded talking points they can parrot to each other and whomever they perceive too be the "opposition". They want someone to point fingers at and blame- they want the easy way out. There is no easy way out at this point- and it only gets harder and harder each day we put the inevitable off.
I can literally show them how every candidate is a topsy-turvey, flip-flopper in it for themselves- and they just ignore it. Here and out in the real world. I can literally show them Paul's record, and his plans and they can't seem to get it to stick too grey matter. Even when they do- they say he doesn't have a chance so lets just go with one of the guys that does.
That's American politics for ya- who cares about what can be done to save us and by whom- the media tells me to think certain things; and that is what I think.
It's pathetic, and exactly why I posited my opinion in my last post in this thread.
I think I am going to print some T-Shirts and bumper stickers that say: "Mass assisted suicide in 2016"
Cause that's what it is going to be no matter how the chips fall.
BoringGuy45
01-22-16, 11:05
Trump is Romney with worse hair. He's done a 180 on all his major positions and if anyone takes 10 mins to look.
While I'm not a Trump supporter (I'm voting for Cruz in the primary) this is one issue with him that I'm less worried about. Romney played the usual politician game and claimed in 2012 to have had the same stances on everything all his life. Even when shown video evidence of his flip flops, he gave the old "out of context," response. Trump has at least admitted that his stances today are different than they were 10-15 years ago and has claimed that his experiences have changed his mind on things. I have to give him credit for that.
If he's the nominee, I'll certainly vote for him, and more enthusiastically than I did for the last two GOP candidates, but yeah, I share a lot of concerns people have about him. He's not an "establishment" candidate, but he's probably not what we need. He's still better than Hildabeast or Comrade Bernie.
The National Review has just published an entire issue dedicated to taking down Trump entitled "Against Trump." It is written by over 20 authors of the editorial staff that ranging from the GOP establishment (Bill Krystal, Cal Thomas), outsiders (Glenn Beck and Erik Erikson), and academics from the Reagan Era (Edwin Meese and Thomas Sowell). I love this line:
Donald Trump is a menace to American conservatism who would take the work of generations and trample it underfoot in behalf of a populism as heedless and crude as the Donald himself..
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/politics/national-review-magazine-opposes-donald-trump/
While I'm not a Trump supporter (I'm voting for Cruz in the primary) this is one issue with him that I'm less worried about. Romney played the usual politician game and claimed in 2012 to have had the same stances on everything all his life. Even when shown video evidence of his flip flops, he gave the old "out of context," response. Trump has at least admitted that his stances today are different than they were 10-15 years ago and has claimed that his experiences have changed his mind on things. I have to give him credit for that.
If he's the nominee, I'll certainly vote for him, and more enthusiastically than I did for the last two GOP candidates, but yeah, I share a lot of concerns people have about him. He's not an "establishment" candidate, but he's probably not what we need. He's still better than Hildabeast or Comrade Bernie.
He's also said that he made these decisions based on his own personal gain. "That's how business is done". And people just accept his admission to crony capitalism and political capitulation as a business tool for his own personal gain. Anyone think it will be any different when he has more power in the White House???!!!???
It's absolutely maddening he can admit he does and says whatever bullshit for personal gain- doesn't care and people say he is the answer to our problems. His form of business dealings match the exact problems with our government today. He would be no different than Obama, Bush II or any of the other idiots who just want power and money and say whatever it takes to get it.
His popularity is showing of the shrinking minds of the populace.
While I'm not a Trump supporter (I'm voting for Cruz in the primary) this is one issue with him that I'm less worried about. Romney played the usual politician game and claimed in 2012 to have had the same stances on everything all his life. Even when shown video evidence of his flip flops, he gave the old "out of context," response. Trump has at least admitted that his stances today are different than they were 10-15 years ago and has claimed that his experiences have changed his mind on things. I have to give him credit for that.
I give his handlers and managers/PR people credit for figuring out the best way to present his 180 on all manner of core issues (issues no adult person should do a 180 on....) with the least amount of damage compared to Romney.
MountainRaven
01-22-16, 14:06
I give his handlers and managers/PR people credit for figuring out the best way to present his 180 on all manner of core issues (issues no adult person should do a 180 on....) with the least amount of damage compared to Romney.
I can see issues where an adult might make a 180, but not barring certain specific and perhaps even traumatic life experiences.
So someone might take a 180 turn on abortion if they had a child, wife, lover, close family member die because they couldn't get an abortion... or because they lost said family member to suicide after an abortion. Might do a 180 on gun control if they're mugged or unarmed during a mass shooting or lose family to a mass shooting - or vice versa because they lost family during a mass shooting. Could change their mind about health insurance if they lose a family member while in hospital to a preventable disease. &c.
So I don't think it's likely that Trump has actually changed his positions... on anything. Let alone everything.
I can see issues where an adult might make a 180, but not barring certain specific and perhaps even traumatic life experiences.
So someone might take a 180 turn on abortion if they had a child, wife, lover, close family member die because they couldn't get an abortion... or because they lost said family member to suicide after an abortion. Might do a 180 on gun control if they're mugged or unarmed during a mass shooting or lose family to a mass shooting - or vice versa because they lost family during a mass shooting. Could change their mind about health insurance if they lose a family member while in hospital to a preventable disease. &c.
So I don't think it's likely that Trump has actually changed his positions... on anything. Let alone everything.
Doing a 180 on a position as an adult due to some experience, etc as you say, for sure. BTDT myself. A 180 on pretty much all major issues? Not so much....
MountainRaven
01-22-16, 14:19
Doing a 180 on a position as an adult due to some experience, etc as you say, for sure. BTDT myself. A 180 on pretty much all major issues? Not so much....
Besides which, if he had that sort of experience about any of the issues, he would be preaching about the shit that he's seen.
"I used to think that guns were stupid and evil and the only people who owned them were stupid and evil - but then I lost a niece in Newtown, Connecticut and thought to myself, 'What if somebody had a gun?' Now I think that people should be allowed to own and carry concealed handguns, to prevent another attack like those that occurred in Newtown and San Bernardino. (But people who own assault rifles are still stupid and evil, so are people who carry guns openly, and people who use guns to kill animals.)"
(And this is much more likely than,
"I used to think that guns were stupid and evil and that the only people who owned them are stupid and evil. But I've seen some shit, man. Totally changed my mind.")
To answer the OP's question, the path to 270 in 2016 is the same as is was for GWB in 2000 and 2004 - straight through FL and OH. The GOP must win those 2 plus a couple of smaller toss-ups like VA, CO, NM, WI, etc. Keep in mind that nabbing a toss-up has become easier this year since many now have Republican governors. Thus, look for the GOP ticket to have at least one of those 2 states, FL and OH, represented: Cruz/Rubio, Rubio/Kasich, Trump/Rubio, Trump/Kasich, etc.
The only way this strategy changes is if PA comes into play which I doubt. Sadly, PA is now deep in enemy territory.
PatrioticDisorder
01-22-16, 14:56
Doing a 180 on a position as an adult due to some experience, etc as you say, for sure. BTDT myself. A 180 on pretty much all major issues? Not so much....
My mother and stepfather did complete 180s in the early 2000s, Went from total leftist to STAUNCH conservative, my mother was late 30s at the time & stepfather early 40s. I remember being frustrated in the year 2000, I was 18 and after researching political positions of Bush & Gore I came to the conclusion Gore was bat shit crazy & realized I was a "Republican" at the time. My mother was frustrated I was voting for Rick Lazio and not Hitlery Clinton (I grew up in NY), now my mother will tell you Hitlery belongs & prison (along with Obama & Holder). So I can assure you that complete political 180s do happen, more often than what you realize.
I also think you guys are off on Trump, I believe he holds "conservative" stances, I believe you have that wrong, he isn't lying about his beliefs. It is his means of achieving his beliefs that j believe will be a problem. I believe Trump will (temporarily) fix many problems in the nation, but the price is an increase in executive power & authoritarianism. This will change the face of the Republican party, it will sadly attract new voters but those of us who are libertarian, small government minded like the founders intended will be frustrated.... And when another leftist does get elected (and eventually one will get elected) it will not be pretty due to the increase in central power.
A 'no vote', a loser write in, a third party vote are all a well established manner for people to assist the enemy.
Go vote for your fellow countrymen instead of yourself. If election day means so little to you in the moment that you would assist the enemy and you are educated to the point that you know in your gut you are throwing your vote away. Don't do it.
Give your vote away. Pay it forward. Go vote the R ticket to defeat the D ticket. Unless something incredibly bizarre happens between now and Nov the odds are only a D or R have any possibility of winning.
So pay it forward. Give your vote to someone that really doesn't want Hillary or Bernie to run this country. Pick someone on this forum that you know would appreciate it and simply go vote for them in your State. Certainly someone here on this forum has done you a favor over the years and you know they desperately want the Dems defeated. It doesn't cost you anything. Just pay your vote forward.
If you for other than D or R or sit it out, all you are doing is making yourself feel better. Just go out and make someone else feel better. It's free and everyone that wants to defeat the Dems will appreciate you for it.
AND... as a bonus... you will have massive bitching rights every time the R winner ( should R win ) screws up. You can start every political comment with....
I payed my vote forward and this is what it got me.... {complain and moan here} There it can't get any easier for you. Pay it forward, then use cut and paste. You will have 4 to 8 years of free right to complain and say I told you so.
Vote for We The People and not yourself. Be part of the only possible solution and not part of an ongoing problem. Be a team player for one day.
What's at stake?
Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Four Supreme court Justices over the age of 78, a RINO infested R Party, a D Party that wants to put you down.
The weakest link in that chain that will allows us to exert control on the other links is to capture the RINO infested R Party. If Donald Trump is the one that can do it, then that's what we have to work with.
You have ZERO other means to break that chain except from the ground up in local elections until they filter up. Which means you will have to vote for your future. Which means you will die seeing the results of your vote. So go ahead and start doing that in Nov.. Pay your throw away vote forward. Vote R.
My mother and stepfather did complete 180s in the early 2000s,
Lots of people do that, my Father did as well. Very late in life. also once you 180 on one thing, everything seems to snowball and the pendulum swings the other way.
Plenty of people have philosophical awakenings and do a 180. They can also describe a pivot point that caused the change. It may be the birth of their child for abortion or getting mugged for gun control. I'm curious to hear Trump's pivot point on the myriad of issues that have flipped just in the past 5 years. Then, there are little issues like universal healthcare that he has doubled down on with the progressive agenda.
PatrioticDisorder
01-22-16, 16:30
Plenty of people have philosophical awakenings and do a 180. They can also describe a pivot point that caused the change. It may be the birth of their child for abortion or getting mugged for gun control. I'm curious to hear Trump's pivot point on the myriad of issues that have flipped just in the past 5 years. Then, there are little issues like universal healthcare that he has doubled down on with the progressive agenda.
Honestly it could be as simple as seeing the ****ery of the Obama regime. I do believe his current views are sincere and lasting and he will absolutely be effective, I just don't think his methods are the road we want to go down, but I'm 95% sure he will be our 45th POTUS.
The National Review has just published an entire issue dedicated to taking down Trump entitled "Against Trump." It is written by over 20 authors of the editorial staff that ranging from the GOP establishment (Bill Krystal, Cal Thomas), outsiders (Glenn Beck and Erik Erikson), and academics from the Reagan Era (Edwin Meese and Thomas Sowell). I love this line:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/politics/national-review-magazine-opposes-donald-trump/
So the people who've spent the last quarter century destroying conservatism in the GOP, are telling us Trump will destroy what they've wrought?
Where do I sign? :)
On a serious note, my current prediction is that the GOP establishment RINO's will embrace Trump in order to defeat Cruz. They'll even twist Kasich and Rubio's arms to get the OH/FL votes. As RINOs, Kasich and Rubio will do their master's bidding, however reluctant they may be. Once they dispense with Cruz, they'll either do something idiotic to torpedo Trump, thereafter spending the next 4 years using the 3rd Obama term as a cudgel against anyone in the party who doesn't toe the RINO line, or they'll corrupt Trump to their ways and marginalize whatever part of him they can't.
It's exactly what they did with the Tea Party. You need look no further than what they did with "Tea Party senate candidate" Marco Rubio once he got elected.
Cruz is our only hope to defeat the RINOs AND win the WH.
So the people who've spent the last quarter century destroying conservatism in the GOP, are telling us Trump will destroy what they've wrought?
Where do I sign? :)
On a serious note, my current prediction is that the GOP establishment RINO's will embrace Trump in order to defeat Cruz. They'll even twist Kasich and Rubio's arms to get the OH/FL votes. As RINOs, Kasich and Rubio will do their master's bidding, however reluctant they may be. Once they dispense with Cruz, they'll either do something idiotic to torpedo Trump, thereafter spending the next 4 years using the 3rd Obama term as a cudgel against anyone in the party who doesn't toe the RINO line, or they'll corrupt Trump to their ways and marginalize whatever part of him they can't.
It's exactly what they did with the Tea Party. You need look no further than what they did with "Tea Party senate candidate" Marco Rubio once he got elected.
Cruz is our only hope to defeat the RINOs AND win the WH.
The NR issue is interesting in that it includes establishment (i.e. progressive like Bill Krystal) and conservative members of the GOP. For example, I wouldn't consider Glenn Beck establishment, perpetually premenstrual yes, establishment no. Thomas Sowell is also hardly establishment or someone wrecking conservatism. The same goes for Erik Erickson of Red State fame. I've read the individual essays (most about 400 words) and they basically articulate criticism from Cruz, Rubio and Paul.
On the other hand, I agree with you on Cruz - he is our best chance going forward.
What happened to the big tent GOP... Kasich who served 18 years in the house and has been a republican governor is a Rino? Because they are not a conservative as Cruz. Who are you to be the gate keeper of who is a republican? By these standards Ronald Reagan wouldn't be a republican... If you think Hilary is going to get indicted, and that Cruz is the best bet, you are living in the echo chamber of your own ideology and are listening to entertainment and not news...There are way more people like me (conservative on finances and defense and moderate on social issues) than there are of this mythical conservative majority that is dormant in blue states... The republicans are skipping off a cliff that everyone not in ideologically tinted glasses can see. It's like Thelma and Louise with ugly white guys...
What happened to the big tent GOP... Kasich who served 18 years in the house and has been a republican governor is a Rino? Because they are not a conservative as Cruz. Who are you to be the gate keeper of who is a republican? By these standards Ronald Reagan wouldn't be a republican... If you think Hilary is going to get indicted, and that Cruz is the best bet, you are living in the echo chamber of your own ideology and are listening to entertainment and not news...There are way more people like me (conservative on finances and defense and moderate on social issues) than there are of this mythical conservative majority that is dormant in blue states... The republicans are skipping off a cliff that everyone not in ideologically tinted glasses can see. It's like Thelma and Louise with ugly white guys...
LOL, you inadvertently hit on the one establishment moderate I would vote for, Kasich. I'm a fiscal conservative, pro military, anti expeditionary, social libertarian. After the 2nd Amendment, my biggest issue is wasting money on federal control over issues that don't have a damn thing to do with the good governance of the nation as a whole, unified entity.
If he had a snowballs chance in hell, my pick would be Rand Paul.
PatrioticDisorder
01-22-16, 19:14
What happened to the big tent GOP... Kasich who served 18 years in the house and has been a republican governor is a Rino? Because they are not a conservative as Cruz. Who are you to be the gate keeper of who is a republican? By these standards Ronald Reagan wouldn't be a republican... If you think Hilary is going to get indicted, and that Cruz is the best bet, you are living in the echo chamber of your own ideology and are listening to entertainment and not news...There are way more people like me (conservative on finances and defense and moderate on social issues) than there are of this mythical conservative majority that is dormant in blue states... The republicans are skipping off a cliff that everyone not in ideologically tinted glasses can see. It's like Thelma and Louise with ugly white guys...
John Kasich is a conservative? You mean like supporting the 1993 federal "assault weapons ban"? Supporting amnesty for illegal aliens is conservative? Like how he expanded Medicare spending in Ohio? Dude is a big government nanny state spender, I'd much rather have Jim Webb as president than John Kasich.
What happened to the big tent GOP... Kasich who served 18 years in the house and has been a republican governor is a Rino? Because they are not a conservative as Cruz. Who are you to be the gate keeper of who is a republican? By these standards Ronald Reagan wouldn't be a republican... If you think Hilary is going to get indicted, and that Cruz is the best bet, you are living in the echo chamber of your own ideology and are listening to entertainment and not news...There are way more people like me (conservative on finances and defense and moderate on social issues) than there are of this mythical conservative majority that is dormant in blue states... The republicans are skipping off a cliff that everyone not in ideologically tinted glasses can see. It's like Thelma and Louise with ugly white guys...
Wait a minute. I though you were needing a Republican candidate who could reach across the isle to gays and women. Last I checked, Kasich is prolife and believes that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Is it possible that your opposition to Cruz has less to do with his stance on social issues and more to do with something else in your political views?
If you are talking to me, I like kasich. Don't agree on everything but he has experience, actually wants to govern and seems like an adult.
Who is more moderate than McCain or Romney? Jeb?
Yeah, good luck with that. :rolleyes:
Yeah, the GOP didn't go to the right with McCain or Romney, they went left.
What happened to the big tent GOP... Kasich who served 18 years in the house and has been a republican governor is a Rino? Because they are not a conservative as Cruz. Who are you to be the gate keeper of who is a republican? By these standards Ronald Reagan wouldn't be a republican... If you think Hilary is going to get indicted, and that Cruz is the best bet, you are living in the echo chamber of your own ideology and are listening to entertainment and not news...There are way more people like me (conservative on finances and defense and moderate on social issues) than there are of this mythical conservative majority that is dormant in blue states... The republicans are skipping off a cliff that everyone not in ideologically tinted glasses can see. It's like Thelma and Louise with ugly white guys...
Well then you go ahead on into the primary booth and pull the lever for a RINO and you WILL have Cuntlery for the next POTUS, because there are people like me who are tired of holding our noses for that mythical "moderate" vote that hasn't materialized in the last two presidential elections. We refuse to do it again and it's YOUR turn to hold your nose and vote for a conservative.
You talk about the "mythical" conservatives lying dormant out there? What a joke! The freaking "myth" is trying to capture the unicorn-like, spineless, "I don't know what the f**k I want" wishy-washy middle. It hasn't worked the last two times, give it up. Don't double down on stupidity.
If you are talking to me, I like kasich. Don't agree on everything but he has experience, actually wants to govern and seems like an adult.
F**k Kasich. He is exactly what is wrong with the Republican Party. His "compassion" is sickening; he sounds like a damn Democrat. Him and Rubio, Christie, Jeb, and Huckabee should all drop out......but they won't of course.
Eurodriver
01-23-16, 15:30
F**k Kasich. He is exactly what is wrong with the Republican Party. His "compassion" is sickening; he sounds like a damn Democrat. Him and Rubio, Christie, Jeb, and Huckabee should all drop out......but they won't of course.
"But he actually wants to govern" :jester:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/john-kasichs-top-5-failed-defenses-of-his-obamacare-expansion/article/2568656
MountainRaven
01-23-16, 15:39
Good news!
Bloomberg is considering a run. If he runs third party, he might pull some voters from Hilliary or Bernie.
If you are talking to me, I like kasich. Don't agree on everything but he has experience, actually wants to govern and seems like an adult.
Oh...OK, it's who you like and think seems like an adult.
Unfortunately, Kasich will fare about as well as McCain and Romney - he'll lose by 40 or so electoral college votes. He may win OH, but will lose the other toss-ups that went blue in 2008 and 2012. That is because he is vulnerable on issues like gun control and healthcare. Oh, he also sucks whenever in front of a microphone and will get his clocked cleaned by even an average debater. Case in point, his excuse for expanding Medicaid amounts to "Jesus made me do it."
Good news!
Bloomberg is considering a run. If he runs third party, he might pull some voters from Hilliary or Bernie.
His reasoning was "there's a need for a centrist in the race." OMG. If he's centrist, I'm Santa.
Oh...OK, it's who you like and think seems like an adult.
Unfortunately, Kasich will fare about as well as McCain and Romney - he'll lose by 40 or so electoral college votes. He may win OH, but will lose the other toss-ups that went blue in 2008 and 2012. That is because he is vulnerable on issues like gun control and healthcare. Oh, he also sucks whenever in front of a microphone and will get his clocked cleaned by even an average debater. Case in point, his excuse for expanding Medicaid amounts to "Jesus made me do it."
LOL! A local AM talk radio host calls him "Pope John".
LOL, holy cow. Bloomberg a centrist. I don't think he's stupid enough to run 3rd Party. That would cripple the Dem ticket. He despises the 2A crowd too much to risk that.
well... then again....
The likelihood that the 73-year-old former mayor would join the race would increase if Republicans pick Donald Trump or Ted Cruz as their candidate and Democrats go with Bernie Sanders. Bloomberg believes that could give him an opening to run as an independent.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/01/23/michael_bloomberg_considers_independent_run_for_presidency.html
Something sounds really fishy about this.
Good news!
Bloomberg is considering a run. If he runs third party, he might pull some voters from Hilliary or Bernie.
Could also pull votes from GOP.
LOL, holy cow. Bloomberg a centrist. I don't think he's stupid enough to run 3rd Party. That would cripple the Dem ticket. He despises the 2A crowd too much to risk that.
well... then again....
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/01/23/michael_bloomberg_considers_independent_run_for_presidency.html
Something sounds really fishy about this.
End of the day, like Trump, he cares more about Bloomberg than anything else and his massive ego will allow him to justify essentially anything.
Could also pull votes from GOP.
Especially if the GOP nominee is Trump.
End of the day, like Trump, he cares more about Bloomberg than anything else and his massive ego will allow him to justify essentially anything.
He may be the one person who thinks more of himself than Obama.
Well I will wait with eager anticipation for the conservative silent majority that didn't turn out for the last two GOP nominees to show up and flip the purple states red. hypothetically when that doesn't happen maybe we can put this whole Rino nonsense to rest and govern from the middle and not from the far right. Or we can keep skipping to electoral oblivion.
PatrioticDisorder
01-24-16, 16:37
Well I will wait with eager anticipation for the conservative silent majority that didn't turn out for the last two GOP nominees to show up and flip the purple states red. hypothetically when that doesn't happen maybe we can put this whole Rino nonsense to rest and govern from the middle and not from the far right. Or we can keep skipping to electoral oblivion.
I know right, the last time we had a conservative on the presidential ballot in a general election the conservative only won 49/50 states. :rolleyes:
Yeah and that conservative couldn't get the nomination now.
PatrioticDisorder
01-24-16, 18:06
Yeah and that conservative couldn't get the nomination now.
Keep telling yourself that, Seattle is the land of make believe. The Republican Party (and democrat party) have made sharp turns to the left the past 15 years.
Well I will wait with eager anticipation for the conservative silent majority that didn't turn out for the last two GOP nominees to show up and flip the purple states red. hypothetically when that doesn't happen maybe we can put this whole Rino nonsense to rest and govern from the middle and not from the far right. Or we can keep skipping to electoral oblivion.
Okay, what part of the last two POTUS elections is confusing you? You can't get any more milquetoast conservative than Romney or McCain. You keep going back to bash conservatives but you totally ignore 2008 and 2012. Maybe your area is influencing your political thoughts/theories?
Quite frankly, with half this damn country on the dole you'd have to nominate a Democrat-lite to even remotely (and I emphasize that word) stand a chance. No thanks. I'd rather watch it burn than play along.......
PatrioticDisorder
01-24-16, 19:06
Okay, what part of the last two POTUS elections is confusing you? You can't get any more milquetoast conservative than Romney or McCain. You keep going back to bash conservatives but you totally ignore 2008 and 2012. Maybe your area is influencing your political thoughts/theories?
Bush won against a VERY weak John F. Kerry in 2004 and let's not forget he lost the popular vote against Gore in 2000 and squeaked out the electoral collage against Gore, that is the RINO path to victory... Compare and contrast that to the conservative Reagan path to victory.
Bush won against a VERY weak John F. Kerry in 2004 and let's not forget he lost the popular vote against Gore in 2000 and squeaked out the electoral collage against Gore, that is the RINO path to victory... Compare and contrast that to the conservative Reagan path to victory.
I agree. The assertion that the Republicans just haven't been liberal enough by the OP is aggravating.
Like I said, go ahead into the primaries and give me a RINO and for the first time in my voting life I will skip the POTUS lever.....and I'm not alone, in fact enough so that Klinton will win. Like has been said here numerous times: We did it the RINO way in 2008 and 2012, now they can hold their noses like we did.
The reason that Romney lost is that he was a moderate who tried to deny what he was. By doing that he lost the moderates and did not fool the conservatives.
Yeah it must be aggravating to see the country's ideology not match the prism of your ideology. By the way I'm from the south...so Seattle doesn't really have a lot to do with it. I am just looking at the electoral college and counting to 270. I think we have fleshed this out and had a really remarkably civil conversation. if Hilary gets indicted I'll circle back and eat crow. If she doesn't get the nomination I'll circle back and eat crow. And if a conservative wins, I will circle back and eat crow. Can I get the same commitment from y'all who keep spouting the Rino line and asserting that a Cruz type conservative can win?
The fact that you would rather lose and skip voting in the name of ideological purity is pretty shocking. but that will be the line...the conservative didn't come out for a Rino...so that is why they lost. It seems like you are setting up your alibi in advance.
I hope I am wrong...cause a president Hilary makes my brain hurt.
Go panthers...
Keep telling yourself that, Seattle is the land of make believe. The Republican Party (and democrat party) have made sharp turns to the left the past 15 years.
I'm not sure I understand, I kind of agree with KTR03 that Reagan would have a hard time getting nominated today, precisely because the Republican Party has turned more leftist, which seems to be exactly the opposite of what you are saying, did I miss something?
I'm not sure I understand, I kind of agree with KTR03 that Reagan would have a hard time getting nominated today, precisely because the Republican Party has turned more leftist, which seems to be exactly the opposite of what you are saying, did I miss something?
Actually, Reagan had a hard time getting nominated in '80; nevermind his primary challenge of Ford while he was POTUS that didn't exactely endear him to the GOP establishment in '76. Reagan was considered the the non-thinking man's candidate. Bush was the establishment favorite leading into 1979.
My point is that I'm not so sure that the turn to the left was as dramatic as people like to think. Both parties have always had their progressive wings which have always appealed to big donors. Candidates like Reagan win by absorbing the conservatives from both parties. This typically happens in the debates with a conservative vision that contrasts agianst their opponent's progressivism; remember "There you go again?" Cruz must do the same if he is going to get to 270.
The reason that Romney lost is that he was a moderate who tried to deny what he was. By doing that he lost the moderates and did not fool the conservatives.
Yeah it must be aggravating to see the country's ideology not match the prism of your ideology. By the way I'm from the south...so Seattle doesn't really have a lot to do with it. I am just looking at the electoral college and counting to 270. I think we have fleshed this out and had a really remarkably civil conversation. if Hilary gets indicted I'll circle back and eat crow. If she doesn't get the nomination I'll circle back and eat crow. And if a conservative wins, I will circle back and eat crow. Can I get the same commitment from y'all who keep spouting the Rino line and asserting that a Cruz type conservative can win?
The fact that you would rather lose and skip voting in the name of ideological purity is pretty shocking. but that will be the line...the conservative didn't come out for a Rino...so that is why they lost. It seems like you are setting up your alibi in advance.
I hope I am wrong...cause a president Hilary makes my brain hurt.
Go panthers...
I'll take that bet because I think you're delusional. Nothing in evidence supports your theory. As for not voting RINO, the GOP went to the well too many times with RINO's (Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush, McCain & Romney). We're repudiating the GOP "leadership" on their entire political theory of the last 30 years. A theory I'll remind you that has brought us to the low point we find ourselves at now.
What you are talking about is the myth of the phantom electorate.
Not a myth and it effects both parties.
Obama got 3.5M less votes in 2012, and Romney only got 985K more McCain. That is a lot of people who stayed home.
The reason that Romney lost is that he was a moderate who tried to deny what he was.
The reason Romney lost is because he was an uninformed dipshit. Place him on any point of your compass and paint him any color. Same same.
I cannot picture anyone voting for Comrade Bloomberg that would ever even consider voting for the GOP otherwise.
As for 180's, I know they happen, and on multiple issues (like a snowball/cascade like another M4C'er mentioed). I've seen it and I've experienced it myself. Now, I don't really know if Trump is being remotely honest, but I do know that the Dems will destroy the country if they get in, and that RINO's will help them. The only question is whether Trump is a RINO. My guy tells me no, but I am still looking into this as I could be mistaken.
I've always been a fan of Ben Shapiro. I rarely disagree with him on much of anything. Trump may not have been a politician in the past, but he certainly has a record. He responds to his terrible record by firing arrows at Cruz. Now, this isn't all positions he held 15 years ago, 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago. This is his recent history.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/24/is-donald-trump-conservative-heres-the-rundown/
Eurodriver
01-25-16, 07:23
I'll take that bet because I think you're delusional. Nothing in evidence supports your theory. As for not voting RINO, the GOP went to the well too many times with RINO's (Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush, McCain & Romney). We're repudiating the GOP "leadership" on their entire political theory of the last 30 years. A theory I'll remind you that has brought us to the low point we find ourselves at now.
This OP is something else.
"The GOP just needs to run a moderate and they will win." - yet fervently denies that the losers Romney and McCain are the epitome of that.
The fact that you would rather lose and skip voting in the name of ideological purity is pretty shocking. but that will be the line...the conservative didn't come out for a Rino...so that is why they lost. It seems like you are setting up your alibi in advance.
Sounds like you are setting up the admonishment that was thrown out in 2008 and 2012: "If you don't join us and vote for the RINO we nominated it'll be YOUR fault if the Dems win. This is the most important election in history" blah blah blah
Not doing it this time. Trump? God, I don't know.......probably would hold my nose and vote for him but he's not an Establishment Republican either, so I could make my peace with that. I'm talking about the Rubio/Bush/Christie/Kasich et al crowd.
Who is more likely to veto an AWB, or any firearms infringement? Trump or Cruz?
Who is more likely to return a sense of honor and a level-headed dignity to the office of the President? Trump or Cruz?
Who is more likely to keep the soaring executive branch in check? Trump or Cruz?
Who is more likely to promote reversing the annexation of legislative power to federal agencies? Trump or Cruz?
Who has a better understanding of our Constituiton and will honor the intent of the founders? Trump or Cruz?
This OP is something else.
"The GOP just needs to run a moderate and they will win." - yet fervently denies that the losers Romney and McCain are the epitome of that.
Not to mention Dole and how Bush barely squeaked by, twice. :(
Sounds like you are setting up the admonishment that was thrown out in 2008 and 2012: "If you don't join us and vote for the RINO we nominated it'll be YOUR fault if the Dems win. This is the most important election in history" blah blah blah
Not doing it this time. Trump? God, I don't know.......probably would hold my nose and vote for him but he's not an Establishment Republican either, so I could make my peace with that. I'm talking about the Rubio/Bush/Christie/Kasich et al crowd.
This is the formula the RNC MUST understand:
Establishment RINO = No votes - you lose
Anti-Establishment Moderate = Probably hold our noses and vote - 50/50 on win/lose
Anti-Establishment Conservative - All the votes (including the RINO's that arm twisted us to vote for their losers) - likely win
It's all there for them to see, but they don't want to see it. If they lose, it's 100% on them. Time to fish or cut bait!
eightmillimeter
01-25-16, 09:39
Who is more likely to veto an AWB, or any firearms infringement? Trump or Cruz?
Who is more likely to return a sense of honor and a level-headed dignity to the office of the President? Trump or Cruz?
Who is more likely to keep the soaring executive branch in check? Trump or Cruz?
Who is more likely to promote reversing the annexation of legislative power to federal agencies? Trump or Cruz?
Who has a better understanding of our Constituiton and will honor the intent of the founders? Trump or Cruz?
None of this matters as one of these men has a chance to win a general, and the other does not.
You can't just expect all of the independents and light liberals to just say f it and vote right wing. It will take several elections and years to shift to a true conservative leadership.
None of this matters as one of these men has a chance to win a general, and the other does not.
You can't just expect all of the independents and light liberals to just say f it and vote right wing. It will take several elections and years to shift to a true conservative leadership.
30 years isn't enough? Seriously? I'd advise you to CONVINCE all the independents and light liberals you know to vote for Cruz. Let's worry about "electability" once we have a candidate that actually represents the constituency, and not the 1%'ers only. :(
crusader377
01-25-16, 10:01
Who is more likely to veto an AWB, or any firearms infringement? Trump or Cruz?
Who is more likely to return a sense of honor and a level-headed dignity to the office of the President? Trump or Cruz?
Who is more likely to keep the soaring executive branch in check? Trump or Cruz?
Who is more likely to promote reversing the annexation of legislative power to federal agencies? Trump or Cruz?
Who has a better understanding of our Constituiton and will honor the intent of the founders? Trump or Cruz?
That doesn't matter at all because Cruz has zero chance of actually getting 270 electoral votes necessary to win.
I think conservatives and republicans spend way too much time debating who is the most conservative rather than developing a list of who can actually win the 270 electoral votes.
Fundamentally the reason why the republicans keep losing presidential elections is because the democrats have two advantages going into Presidential elections. These are the following:
1.) The Democrats have built in systemic advantages. Between the heavily blue Northeast and The left coast, the Democrats start the election with at least 200 solidly blue electoral votes whereas republicans start with about 150 in their safe states.
2.) The media machine is firmly with the Democrats and any successful Republican candidate has to be able to create and maintain his narrative over the media machine.
Right now like it or not the GOP has only two candidates that can go over 270 electoral votes and those are Trump and Rubio. Cruz simply cant win a general election because he doesn't bring any new voters for the party. Yes Cruz will win Red states in the South and West but he is not going to win battleground states in the Midwest and the Rust Belt.
In contrast, Trump has already proven that he can deal with the media machine and he is running a campaign that is "outside of the box". He will be able to peel off voters who historically voted democrat. Rubio also has the ability to peel off voters from the democrats through his youth and charisma.
crusader377
01-25-16, 10:07
I've always been a fan of Ben Shapiro. I rarely disagree with him on much of anything. Trump may not have been a politician in the past, but he certainly has a record. He responds to his terrible record by firing arrows at Cruz. Now, this isn't all positions he held 15 years ago, 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago. This is his recent history.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/24/is-donald-trump-conservative-heres-the-rundown/
And yet Cruz was a Canadian citizen up to about 20 months ago.
Changing your viewpoints isn't necessarily a bad thing. People do evolve in their political viewpoints. Also you have to remember is that Trump has been a high profile businessman for 30+ years now. First rule in business is that don't let your personal politics detract from your business.
crusader377
01-25-16, 10:12
For Cruz supporters especially. Show us how Cruz wins the election.
http://www.270towin.com/
Looking at things rationally with intellectual honesty, Trump and Rubio can exceed 270 electoral votes and Cruz simply can't. He is not going to run well in the Midwest and Rust Belt states and he certainly doesn't have the ability to peel off any of the light blue states.
That doesn't matter at all because Cruz has zero chance of actually getting 270 electoral votes necessary to win.
I think conservatives and republicans spend way too much time debating who is the most conservative rather than developing a list of who can actually win the 270 electoral votes.
Fundamentally the reason why the republicans keep losing presidential elections is because the democrats have two advantages going into Presidential elections. These are the following:
1.) The Democrats have built in systemic advantages. Between the heavily blue Northeast and The left coast, the Democrats start the election with at least 200 solidly blue electoral votes whereas republicans start with about 150 in their safe states.
2.) The media machine is firmly with the Democrats and any successful Republican candidate has to be able to create and maintain his narrative over the media machine.
Right now like it or not the GOP has only two candidates that can go over 270 electoral votes and those are Trump and Rubio. Cruz simply cant win a general election because he doesn't bring any new voters for the party. Yes Cruz will win Red states in the South and West but he is not going to win battleground states in the Midwest and the Rust Belt.
In contrast, Trump has already proven that he can deal with the media machine and he is running a campaign that is "outside of the box". He will be able to peel off voters who historically voted democrat. Rubio also has the ability to peel off voters from the democrats through his youth and charisma.
Then you'd better vote for Trump, because Rubio CAN'T get to 270. We simply will not vote for him!
crusader377
01-25-16, 10:23
Then you'd better vote for Trump, because Rubio CAN'T get to 270. We simply will not vote for him!
So you would rather have the Hildabeast than Rubio? Did Rubio somehow hurt your feelings and you are going to pout about it? Basically by not voting you are handing the Hildabeast another vote advantage.
crusader377
01-25-16, 10:45
The reason Romney lost is because he was an uninformed dipshit. Place him on any point of your compass and paint him any color. Same same.
No, Romney lost because he let the democrats create his narrative and he simply lacked the "killer instinct" in politics. He didn't attack Obama and remained on the defensive during his campaign. Like it or not, the democrats always have systemic advantages in the presidential elections and a winning Republicans need win a greater percentage of moderates and also peel off democratic voters to win. Plus they need to be able to deflect and defeat media attacks.
Of all the Dim voters I know the only candidate from the right that they have said they would vote for is Rubio.
I was watching The Herd with Colin Cowherd the other day. He claimed to be a moderate and registered independent voter. He even said that Trump or Cruz were to far right and that if they were the nominee he would vote for Clinton. He said that the one Republican that he would vote for and that stands a snowballs chance in hell was Rubio. He claimed the other two have hijacked the GOP and driven it too far to the right.
Howdy,
Rubio?
Not in a million years. For starters, I'm not a fan of "if you're born here it makes you a US Citizen." and I would need to see Rubio's birth certificate and proof his mom and dad were here legally.
Why aren't the "birthers" jumping all over Cruz and Rubio and demanding to see their..............
Oh, wait..............
They're not black.
My bad!
Paul
Of all the Dim voters I know the only candidate from the right that they have said they would vote for is Rubio.
I was watching The Herd with Colin Cowherd the other day. He claimed to be a moderate and registered independent voter. He even said that Trump or Cruz were to far right and that if they were the nominee he would vote for Clinton. He said that the one Republican that he would vote for and that stands a snowballs chance in hell was Rubio. He claimed the other two have hijacked the GOP and driven it too far to the right.
If he replaced the name Rubio with Paul he might have a point. I'm unclear how Rubio is that much more centrist compared to Cruz say. At very least, I'd bet $ the only candidate that could get traction with Dems and pull some Dem votes (especially if he didn't allow the far right to push some awful running mate on him to satisfy the evangelical vote) as being outside the current GOP box is Paul.
One of the key demographics with poor turn out is millennials, and millennials tend to identify as libertarian. They tend to vote Dem because they feel the GOP offers nadda for them, and they're right.
The GOP as is, will just pull the exact same demographic with anyone but Paul. With Paul, they will get the usual GOP demographic (regardless the whining, etc, they will pull the lever for Paul knowing what the alternate for POTUS is...) as well as some Dem votes and the demographics that have poor turn out do to feeling essentially left out of the process, similar to why Sanders is doing as well as he's doing.
With a good campaign, enough funding, a logical running mate who is not just chosen to make the far right voters happy, and the backing of the GOP, Rand will be POTUS by taking some Dem Votes, getting the GOP votes, and pulling from the millennials and card carrying Libertarians who may otherwise not vote, or write in a third part candidate as I have and others have.
So you would rather have the Hildabeast than Rubio? Did Rubio somehow hurt your feelings and you are going to pout about it? Basically by not voting you are handing the Hildabeast another vote advantage.
No.
If you don't want Hillary to win, then don't install Rubio as the nominee. We're putting you on notice now, so you can't blame us later on. Rubio flipped. He sold out the very voters who gave him his job and now he wants to do the same to the rest of us. So no, I will not vote for him. He is not worthy of my vote, regardless of who he's running against.
If you don't believe us, then you might want to read this:
http://buchanan.org/blog/is-the-spectre-of-trump-haunting-davos-124642
No more astute essay has been written this political season than that of Michael Brendan Dougherty in “This Week,” where he describes how, 20 years ago, my late friend Sam Francis predicted it all.
In Chronicles, in 1996, Francis, a paleoconservative and proud son of the South, wrote:
“Sooner or later, as the globalist elites seek to drag the country into conflicts and global commitments, preside over the economic pastoralization of the United States, manage the de-legitimization of our own culture, and the dispossession of our people, and disregard or diminish our national interest and national sovereignty, a nationalist reaction is almost inevitable and will probably assume populist form when it arrives. The sooner it comes, the better.”
What we saw through a glass darkly then, we now see face to face.
Is not Trump the personification of the populist-nationalist revolt Francis predicted?
And was it not presidents and Congresses of both parties who mired us in wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, and negotiated the trade deals that have gutted American industry?
So you'd better wrap your mind around the fact that it's over. Trump isn't the end, he's the beginning. And I'm not pouting, I'm filled with righteous indignation. You ignore it at your peril.
Of all the Dim voters I know the only candidate from the right that they have said they would vote for is Rubio.
I was watching The Herd with Colin Cowherd the other day. He claimed to be a moderate and registered independent voter. He even said that Trump or Cruz were to far right and that if they were the nominee he would vote for Clinton. He said that the one Republican that he would vote for and that stands a snowballs chance in hell was Rubio. He claimed the other two have hijacked the GOP and driven it too far to the right.
So you're going to let liberals and moderates choose your nominee for you? Then you deserve Hillary or Sanders as your POTUS!
Simply put, the DNC has SO screwed the pooch by shoving Hillary down their throats, the left has never been more vulnerable to a conservative win than at any time in the last 30 years. I read the left's blogs and media. They're pissed about Hillary and how the DNC has treated Sanders. Only her die hard fans will vote for her and you were never going to get them to stay at home or vote for anyone else regardless. Yet you, crusader377, eightmillimeter and KTR03 are letting the other team convince you otherwise. We're trying to tell you that you can win with a conservative or an anti-establishment candidate, but you've been hypnotized by the RINO's and media that it can't be done. You're like the Vichy gov't of the GOP.
Well we've done it your way for 30 years and we're in worse shape now than ever before. Populism isn't a pejorative. It's a groundswell of people telling you something you're desperate to ignore. But keep burying your head in the sand and prepare your ass for a Hillary presidency if you must, but we're going to sit back and say "I told you so!", when you just couldn't believe you were wrong.
The choice is in your hands...
If he replaced the name Rubio with Paul he might have a point. I'm unclear how Rubio is that much more centrist compared to Cruz say. At very least, I'd bet $ the only candidate that could get traction with Dems and pull some Dem votes (especially if he didn't allow the far right to push some awful running mate on him to satisfy the evangelical vote) as being outside the current GOP box is Paul.
One of the key demographics with poor turn out is millennials, and millennials tend to identify as libertarian. They tend to vote Dem because they feel the GOP offers nadda for them, and they're right.
The GOP as is, will just pull the exact same demographic with anyone but Paul. With Paul, they will get the usual GOP demographic (regardless the whining, etc, they will pull the lever for Paul knowing what the alternate for POTUS is...) as well as some Dem votes and the demographics that have poor turn out do to feeling essentially left out of the process, similar to why Sanders is doing as well as he's doing.
With a good campaign, enough funding, a logical running mate who is not just chosen to make the far right voters happy, and the backing of the GOP, Rand will be POTUS by taking some Dem Votes, getting the GOP votes, and pulling from the millennials and card carrying Libertarians who may otherwise not vote, or write in a third part candidate as I have and others have.
I really wish Paul was doing better in the polls for the exact reasons you listed. From what I've seen, he allowed the establishment RINO's and the left to pidgenhole his narrative as isolationist and weak on national security, which he did nothing to effectively counter. Since he couldn't fight his own party on who he is, I saw that as a sign that he wouldn't be able to effectively out-debate the Democratic nominee. That's where I moved to Cruz, because he's the best debater on the GOP stage besides RINO Rubio. Cruz will hit Hillary or Sanders where they're vulnerable and not let up when they're on the ropes, like so many GOP candidates in the past have done.
Averageman
01-25-16, 12:17
So you're going to let liberals and moderates choose your nominee for you? Then you deserve Hillary or Sanders as your POTUS!
Simply put, the DNC has SO screwed the pooch by shoving Hillary down their throats, the left has never been more vulnerable to a conservative win than at any time in the last 30 years. I read the left's blogs and media. They're pissed about Hillary and how the DNC has treated Sanders. Only her die hard fans will vote for her and you were never going to get them to stay at home or vote for anyone else regardless. Yet you, crusader377, eightmillimeter and KTR03 are letting the other team convince you otherwise. We're trying to tell you that you can win with a conservative or an anti-establishment candidate, but you've been hypnotized by the RINO's and media that it can't be done. You're like the Vichy gov't of the GOP.
Well we've done it your way for 30 years and we're in worse shape now than ever before. Populism isn't a pejorative. It's a groundswell of people telling you something you're desperate to ignore. But keep burying your head in the sand and prepare your ass for a Hillary presidency if you must, but we're going to sit back and say "I told you so!", when you just couldn't believe you were wrong.
The choice is in your hands...
If he replaced the name Rubio with Paul he might have a point. I'm unclear how Rubio is that much more centrist compared to Cruz say. At very least, I'd bet $ the only candidate that could get traction with Dems and pull some Dem votes (especially if he didn't allow the far right to push some awful running mate on him to satisfy the evangelical vote) as being outside the current GOP box is Paul.
One of the key demographics with poor turn out is millennials, and millennials tend to identify as libertarian. They tend to vote Dem because they feel the GOP offers nadda for them, and they're right.
The GOP as is, will just pull the exact same demographic with anyone but Paul. With Paul, they will get the usual GOP demographic (regardless the whining, etc, they will pull the lever for Paul knowing what the alternate for POTUS is...) as well as some Dem votes and the demographics that have poor turn out do to feeling essentially left out of the process, similar to why Sanders is doing as well as he's doing.
With a good campaign, enough funding, a logical running mate who is not just chosen to make the far right voters happy, and the backing of the GOP, Rand will be POTUS by taking some Dem Votes, getting the GOP votes, and pulling from the millennials and card carrying Libertarians who may otherwise not vote, or write in a third part candidate as I have and others have.
I have to agree with both of these posts, in part anyway.
Hillary is losing, no one but the DNC feel she is worthy of anyone's vote. I've spoken to a number of Women and a number of Progressives and also a number of Progressive Women, not one of them has said "I'm voting for Hillary."
I think She's going to be very disappointed after Iowa.
Paul may be the smartest guy up there. I like Paul and would vote for him, but
The GOP isn't taking him serious, no one is listening to his message and I feel like half of the time he's incapable of delivering that message in a way that makes people want to listen.
If he had half the skill of a Carnival Barker like Trump, he would get his message across.
It look very much like a Trump or Cruz vs Hillary, although I would prefer Paul I refuse to stay home and let that Witch further ruin this Nation.
Maybe I hate both Republicans and Democrats.
In my Liberal youth, I voted straight ticket Republican and was quite smug.
I've since realized choosing between the two is like deciding if you'd rather get slowly killed with poison or shot in the back of the head.
Here's the bottom line...if you're a Republican, you've got nobody. Anything they do positive is counterweighted with some bullshit hangup (religion/queers/etc)
The Democrats state up front that they want to tax and spend like a mother, limit your personal freedom, and disarm you. In exchange, you can enjoy the rights you already had all along if you give up your freedom and money.
I mean....these are ALL my rights I already had. In 1934...I could buy a full auto. A few years earlier, I could grow hemp and poppy. My property nor income was taxed. And while women couldn't vote....most really didn't want to. And for a time there, people were getting killed by their own police for drinking liquor.
Then we get involved in foreign wars that we could've avoided and ended up being a superpower and then just....
What the hell happened here?
I have to agree with both of these posts, in part anyway.
Hillary is losing, no one but the DNC feel she is worthy of anyone's vote. I've spoken to a number of Women and a number of Progressives and also a number of Progressive Women, not one of them has said "I'm voting for Hillary."
I think She's going to be very disappointed after Iowa.
Paul may be the smartest guy up there. I like Paul and would vote for him, but
The GOP isn't taking him serious, no one is listening to his message and I feel like half of the time he's incapable of delivering that message in a way that makes people want to listen.
If he had half the skill of a Carnival Barker like Trump, he would get his message across.
It look very much like a Trump or Cruz vs Hillary, although I would prefer Paul I refuse to stay home and let that Witch further ruin this Nation.
All the rest of us conservatives will be right there with you! The moderates and RINO's? THEY are the question mark in this cycle. :(
I "may be something else" but it defies logic that hard core conservatives demand a national candidate adopt positions with which the nation does not agree and then expect them to win. That works when you are trying to be the governor of Texas or Arkansas or something but at the end of the day the country just isn't as conservative as you are. I know that this is sad, frustrating, or puzzling but the hard right conservative values voter is a minority. We have to find common ground in the middle, and govern from the middle.
Y'all keep talking about Reagan, you know Ronald Reagan the - don't speak ill of fellow republicans - guy - as your conservative patron saint. Reagan the guy that was the president of a union, the guy who supported national infrastructure spending, the guy who raised taxes as governor of California, the guy who signed a bill legalizing abortion in California, the guy who signed the Brady Bill, and the guy who signed amnesty. You mean that conservative guy? His formula: moderate on social issues, strong on foreign policy, and bright optimism carried 49 states. But by todays standards he was a Rino... Can you imagine a politician running for the GOP nomination that was the head of a union, raised taxes and legalized abortion as governor and being successful?
We will see how it shakes out.
I "may be something else" but it defies logic that hard core conservatives demand a national candidate adopt positions with which the nation does not agree and then expect them to win. That works when you are trying to be the governor of Texas or Arkansas or something but at the end of the day the country just isn't as conservative as you are. I know that this is sad, frustrating, or puzzling but the hard right conservative values voter is a minority. We have to find common ground in the middle, and govern from the middle.
Y'all keep talking about Reagan, you know Ronald Reagan the - don't speak ill of fellow republicans - guy - as your conservative patron saint. Reagan the guy that was the president of a union, the guy who supported national infrastructure spending, the guy who raised taxes as governor of California, the guy who signed a bill legalizing abortion in California, the guy who signed the Brady Bill, and the guy who signed amnesty. You mean that conservative guy? His formula: moderate on social issues, strong on foreign policy, and bright optimism carried 49 states. But by todays standards he was a Rino... Can you imagine a politician running for the GOP nomination that was the head of a union, raised taxes and legalized abortion as governor and being successful?
We will see how it shakes out.
Can you win without us? Unless the answer is yes, that one question renders all your other points moot. You don't have to like it, but one way or another, you have to live with it. :)
I really wish Paul was doing better in the polls for the exact reasons you listed. From what I've seen, he allowed the establishment RINO's and the left to pidgenhole his narrative as isolationist and weak on national security, which he did nothing to effectively counter. Since he couldn't fight his own party on who he is, I saw that as a sign that he wouldn't be able to effectively out-debate the Democratic nominee. That's where I moved to Cruz, because he's the best debater on the GOP stage besides RINO Rubio. Cruz will hit Hillary or Sanders where they're vulnerable and not let up when they're on the ropes, like so many GOP candidates in the past have done.
I Don't disagree with your assessment, but per my comments I don't see Cruz pulling any additional votes for the GOP that are needed to win, which = a win for the Dems as it did for reelection for OBL, which was open for the taking by the GOP had they actually allowed a decent candidate to rise.
Averageman
01-25-16, 13:13
I would say we were founded on a more Libertarian ideal and have floundered in to this current mess by growing a massive Federal Government and getting entangled in stupid wars.
You cannot expect the far Right or the far Left to back down on either side on any issue. I'm reasonably sure that the message from the Right and the Libertarians could be easier to understand if it wasn't being buffered by the media who takes every opportunity to kick the teeth out of everything coming from the Right and the Libertarians.
I honestly think one of the problems Rand Paul faces is he gets no press. I also believe to a degree that is because the MSM / Progressives don't want that message out there. The other side of that is that he has aligned himself with the GOP, which neither wants nor needs anymore challengers to the current status quo.
Paul very well may go down in history footnoted as the guy who could have saved us, but we ignored him.
You cannot expect the far Right or the far Left to back down on either side on any issue.
Looks to me like the far left votes with the party, while the far right stays home, generally speaking.
That doesn't matter at all because Cruz has zero chance of actually getting 270 electoral votes necessary to win.
I think conservatives and republicans spend way too much time debating who is the most conservative rather than developing a list of who can actually win the 270 electoral votes.
Fundamentally the reason why the republicans keep losing presidential elections is because the democrats have two advantages going into Presidential elections. These are the following:
1.) The Democrats have built in systemic advantages. Between the heavily blue Northeast and The left coast, the Democrats start the election with at least 200 solidly blue electoral votes whereas republicans start with about 150 in their safe states.
2.) The media machine is firmly with the Democrats and any successful Republican candidate has to be able to create and maintain his narrative over the media machine.
Right now like it or not the GOP has only two candidates that can go over 270 electoral votes and those are Trump and Rubio. Cruz simply cant win a general election because he doesn't bring any new voters for the party. Yes Cruz will win Red states in the South and West but he is not going to win battleground states in the Midwest and the Rust Belt.
In contrast, Trump has already proven that he can deal with the media machine and he is running a campaign that is "outside of the box". He will be able to peel off voters who historically voted democrat. Rubio also has the ability to peel off voters from the democrats through his youth and charisma.
And lose the vote of those of us fed up with RINO's, thereby losing the election. I won't dispute your points about Trump but no f****g way I'll vote for Rubio.
Guys, that ugly, spineless, cop-out phenomena known as electability is beginning to rear it's pussified head again (as I knew it would). FORGET that word and vote for who you feel reflects your views.....just don't expect everyone to go along in the general if a RINO is the one who reflects your views, that's all.
For Cruz supporters especially. Show us how Cruz wins the election.
http://www.270towin.com/
Looking at things rationally with intellectual honesty, Trump and Rubio can exceed 270 electoral votes and Cruz simply can't. He is not going to run well in the Midwest and Rust Belt states and he certainly doesn't have the ability to peel off any of the light blue states.
Like I said earlier, Trump I might be able to choke down the vomit and vote for, but only because he isn't an Establishment RINO. That's it. His true conservative values are questionable. BUT FORGET RUBIO.
So you would rather have the Hildabeast than Rubio? Did Rubio somehow hurt your feelings and you are going to pout about it? Basically by not voting you are handing the Hildabeast another vote advantage.
Don't even try that bullshit. YOU and those who vote in a RINO in will be responsible, and NO ONE ELSE. Remember that and choose carefully in the primary booth.
The argument you make is that we all have to go along with YOUR choice or it's our fault? Riiiiight. Choose carefully 'cause I ain't bullshittin' on this one. I'll watch it burn baby! Count on it. Not a threat, a promise.
Of all the Dim voters I know the only candidate from the right that they have said they would vote for is Rubio.
I was watching The Herd with Colin Cowherd the other day. He claimed to be a moderate and registered independent voter. He even said that Trump or Cruz were to far right and that if they were the nominee he would vote for Clinton. He said that the one Republican that he would vote for and that stands a snowballs chance in hell was Rubio. He claimed the other two have hijacked the GOP and driven it too far to the right.
So he basically said Rubio was a RINO. Makes my point for me!
If he replaced the name Rubio with Paul he might have a point. I'm unclear how Rubio is that much more centrist compared to Cruz say. At very least, I'd bet $ the only candidate that could get traction with Dems and pull some Dem votes (especially if he didn't allow the far right to push some awful running mate on him to satisfy the evangelical vote) as being outside the current GOP box is Paul.
One of the key demographics with poor turn out is millennials, and millennials tend to identify as libertarian. They tend to vote Dem because they feel the GOP offers nadda for them, and they're right.
The GOP as is, will just pull the exact same demographic with anyone but Paul. With Paul, they will get the usual GOP demographic (regardless the whining, etc, they will pull the lever for Paul knowing what the alternate for POTUS is...) as well as some Dem votes and the demographics that have poor turn out do to feeling essentially left out of the process, similar to why Sanders is doing as well as he's doing.
With a good campaign, enough funding, a logical running mate who is not just chosen to make the far right voters happy, and the backing of the GOP, Rand will be POTUS by taking some Dem Votes, getting the GOP votes, and pulling from the millennials and card carrying Libertarians who may otherwise not vote, or write in a third part candidate as I have and others have.
That is true for Paul, as I could pretty easily vote for him. Do not, however, let that assumption apply to the RINO's. You won't like the result.......
No.
If you don't want Hillary to win, then don't install Rubio as the nominee. We're putting you on notice now, so you can't blame us later on. Rubio flipped. He sold out the very voters who gave him his job and now he wants to do the same to the rest of us. So no, I will not vote for him. He is not worthy of my vote, regardless of who he's running against.
If you don't believe us, then you might want to read this:
http://buchanan.org/blog/is-the-spectre-of-trump-haunting-davos-124642
So you'd better wrap your mind around the fact that it's over. Trump isn't the end, he's the beginning. And I'm not pouting, I'm filled with righteous indignation. You ignore it at your peril.
So you're going to let liberals and moderates choose your nominee for you? Then you deserve Hillary or Sanders as your POTUS!
Simply put, the DNC has SO screwed the pooch by shoving Hillary down their throats, the left has never been more vulnerable to a conservative win than at any time in the last 30 years. I read the left's blogs and media. They're pissed about Hillary and how the DNC has treated Sanders. Only her die hard fans will vote for her and you were never going to get them to stay at home or vote for anyone else regardless. Yet you, crusader377, eightmillimeter and KTR03 are letting the other team convince you otherwise. We're trying to tell you that you can win with a conservative or an anti-establishment candidate, but you've been hypnotized by the RINO's and media that it can't be done. You're like the Vichy gov't of the GOP.
Well we've done it your way for 30 years and we're in worse shape now than ever before. Populism isn't a pejorative. It's a groundswell of people telling you something you're desperate to ignore. But keep burying your head in the sand and prepare your ass for a Hillary presidency if you must, but we're going to sit back and say "I told you so!", when you just couldn't believe you were wrong.
The choice is in your hands...
Can I subscribe to your newsletter? :thank_you2:
I "may be something else" but it defies logic that hard core conservatives demand a national candidate adopt positions with which the nation does not agree and then expect them to win. That works when you are trying to be the governor of Texas or Arkansas or something but at the end of the day the country just isn't as conservative as you are. I know that this is sad, frustrating, or puzzling but the hard right conservative values voter is a minority. We have to find common ground in the middle, and govern from the middle.
Y'all keep talking about Reagan, you know Ronald Reagan the - don't speak ill of fellow republicans - guy - as your conservative patron saint. Reagan the guy that was the president of a union, the guy who supported national infrastructure spending, the guy who raised taxes as governor of California, the guy who signed a bill legalizing abortion in California, the guy who signed the Brady Bill, and the guy who signed amnesty. You mean that conservative guy? His formula: moderate on social issues, strong on foreign policy, and bright optimism carried 49 states. But by todays standards he was a Rino... Can you imagine a politician running for the GOP nomination that was the head of a union, raised taxes and legalized abortion as governor and being successful?
We will see how it shakes out.
Klinton signed the Brady Bill. Do your homework.
That is true for Paul, as I could pretty easily vote for him. Do not, however, let that assumption apply to the RINO's. You won't like the result.......
But you will not vote for HC or BS. You'll write in a name or not vote at all, as may others did in the last few elections, including yours truly.
But you will not vote for HC or BS. You'll write in a name or not vote at all, as may others did in the last few elections, including yours truly.
Yeah, basically. I have NEVER and will NEVER vote Democrat!
That doesn't matter at all because Cruz has zero chance of actually getting 270 electoral votes necessary to win.
I think conservatives and republicans spend way too much time debating who is the most conservative rather than developing a list of who can actually win the 270 electoral votes.
Fundamentally the reason why the republicans keep losing presidential elections is because the democrats have two advantages going into Presidential elections. These are the following:
1.) The Democrats have built in systemic advantages. Between the heavily blue Northeast and The left coast, the Democrats start the election with at least 200 solidly blue electoral votes whereas republicans start with about 150 in their safe states.
2.) The media machine is firmly with the Democrats and any successful Republican candidate has to be able to create and maintain his narrative over the media machine.
Right now like it or not the GOP has only two candidates that can go over 270 electoral votes and those are Trump and Rubio. Cruz simply cant win a general election because he doesn't bring any new voters for the party. Yes Cruz will win Red states in the South and West but he is not going to win battleground states in the Midwest and the Rust Belt.
In contrast, Trump has already proven that he can deal with the media machine and he is running a campaign that is "outside of the box". He will be able to peel off voters who historically voted democrat. Rubio also has the ability to peel off voters from the democrats through his youth and charisma.
Actually, Cruz is beating both Clinton and Sanders in the RCP national averages: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html
While this average of polls cannot predict individual states, it is a reasonable barometer of overall electability. I could easily see a Cruz / Kasich, Cruz / Rubio, Cruz / Fiorina, or Cruz / Walker (probably my personal favorite) ticket walking away with an electoral map identical to (or better than) Bush in 2000 and 2004.
Now, before everyone vomits from the notion that Kasich or Rubio might be VP, remember that Reagan put Bush on the ticket.
This shows that it is far too early to be using general election electability as the major criteria in assessing primary candidates.
Actually, Cruz is beating both Clinton and Sanders in the RCP national averages: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html
While this average of polls cannot predict individual states, it is a reasonable barometer of overall electability. I could easily see a Cruz / Kasich, Cruz / Rubio, Cruz / Fiorina, or Cruz / Walker (probably my personal favorite) ticket walking away with an electoral map identical to (or better than) Bush in 2000 and 2004.
Now, before everyone vomits from the notion that Kasich or Rubio might be VP, remember that Reagan put Bush on the ticket.
This shows that it is far too early to be using general election electability as the major criteria in assessing primary candidates.
Yes, I think Walker would be an excellent VP choice. In fact, I thought he was the "dark horse" in this election cycle, but apparently not.
Klinton signed the Brady Bill. Do your homework.
YOu are absolutely right. I stand corrected. Reagan supported it in an editorial after he was out of office. How about the rest?
PatrioticDisorder
01-25-16, 14:40
Actually, Cruz is beating both Clinton and Sanders in the RCP national averages: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html
While this average of polls cannot predict individual states, it is a reasonable barometer of overall electability. I could easily see a Cruz / Kasich, Cruz / Rubio, Cruz / Fiorina, or Cruz / Walker (probably my personal favorite) ticket walking away with an electoral map identical to (or better than) Bush in 2000 and 2004.
Now, before everyone vomits from the notion that Kasich or Rubio might be VP, remember that Reagan put Bush on the ticket.
This shows that it is far too early to be using general election electability as the major criteria in assessing primary candidates.
Sensei you are doing a lot of wishful thinking with Cruz, I plan to vote for Cruz here in FL but he has slightly better than a snowball's chance in hell of beating Trump in the primary. Cruz would win a general, Trump will win the general as well and it will be by a HUGE margin, but I digress.
Hypothetically what happens if the guy you view as evil (Trump) picks Cruz (your pick) as his running mate, how do you vote?
Trump is a different breed, he is not the establishment candidate you make him out to be, bore is he a CONSTITUTIONAL conservative, he is a progressive conservative much like Theodore Rosevelt. Trump will use progressive tactics to push through conservative policy (building a wall/refining immigration, balanced budget, strengthening military, national reciprocity for concealed carry, etc.) but he will do it by any means necessary, he is a street fighter. That is my only issue with him, but given the choice of a communist or another Theodore Rosevelt, I'll take the Rosevelt progressive style conservative, not my first choice but it is far better than the alternative.
Sensei you are doing a lot of wishful thinking with Cruz, I plan to vote for Cruz here in FL but he has slightly better than a snowball's chance in hell of beating Trump in the primary. Cruz would win a general, Trump will win the general as well and it will be by a HUGE margin, but I digress.
Hypothetically what happens if the guy you view as evil (Trump) picks Cruz (your pick) as his running mate, how do you vote?
Trump is a different breed, he is not the establishment candidate you make him out to be, bore is he a CONSTITUTIONAL conservative, he is a progressive conservative much like Theodore Rosevelt. Trump will use progressive tactics to push through conservative policy (building a wall/refining immigration, balanced budget, strengthening military, national reciprocity for concealed carry, etc.) but he will do it by any means necessary, he is a street fighter. That is my only issue with him, but given the choice of a communist or another Theodore Rosevelt, I'll take the Rosevelt progressive style conservative, not my first choice but it is far better than the alternative.
And that's OK with you? How's that different than current POTUS or HC or others who seem to feel their personal views and values trump (no pun intended!) the US Const? It's ok if it's in line with your personal values/views?
So you're going to let liberals and moderates choose your nominee for you? Then you deserve Hillary or Sanders as your POTUS!
Simply put, the DNC has SO screwed the pooch by shoving Hillary down their throats, the left has never been more vulnerable to a conservative win than at any time in the last 30 years. I read the left's blogs and media. They're pissed about Hillary and how the DNC has treated Sanders. Only her die hard fans will vote for her and you were never going to get them to stay at home or vote for anyone else regardless. Yet you, are letting the other team convince you otherwise. We're trying to tell you that you can win with a conservative or an anti-establishment candidate, but you've been hypnotized by the RINO's and media that it can't be done. You're like the Vichy gov't of the GOP.
Well we've done it your way for 30 years and we're in worse shape now than ever before. Populism isn't a pejorative. It's a groundswell of people telling you something you're desperate to ignore. But keep burying your head in the sand and prepare your ass for a Hillary presidency if you must, but we're going to sit back and say "I told you so!", when you just couldn't believe you were wrong.
The choice is in your hands...
I find your lack of reading and comprehension skills disturbing.
No where in my post did I say I was going to vote for Rubio, much less who I was considering voting for.
I merely stated that people I have conversed with that I know typically vote Dim said that the only R candidate they would vote for was Rubio, and that a guy with a sports talk radio show said the same thing.
I personally do not care very much about this popularity contest of empty suit puppets chosen and funded buy the moneyed elites of the world to rule over us. To me there isn't a dimes bit of difference between the R's and D's anymore. They merely serve at the feet of the globalist/statist bankers of the IMF. They don't give a shit about you or your quality of life.
Averageman
01-25-16, 15:32
I personally do not care very much about this popularity contest of empty suit puppets chosen and funded buy the moneyed elites of the world to rule over us. To me there isn't a dimes bit of difference between the R's and D's anymore. They merely serve at the feet of the globalist/statist bankers of the IMF. They don't give a shit about you or your quality of life.
I have to agree with the above.
The Middle Class is dying as quickly as the American Dream is for our Kids future.
The Game is fixed and the RINO's in the GOP aren't on your team.
Can I subscribe to your newsletter? :thank_you2:
You're in the club! :)
YOu are absolutely right. I stand corrected. Reagan supported it in an editorial after he was out of office. How about the rest?
As with the rest of your "points", its irrelevant.
Sensei you are doing a lot of wishful thinking with Cruz, I plan to vote for Cruz here in FL but he has slightly better than a snowball's chance in hell of beating Trump in the primary. Cruz would win a general, Trump will win the general as well and it will be by a HUGE margin, but I digress.
Hypothetically what happens if the guy you view as evil (Trump) picks Cruz (your pick) as his running mate, how do you vote?
Trump is a different breed, he is not the establishment candidate you make him out to be, bore is he a CONSTITUTIONAL conservative, he is a progressive conservative much like Theodore Rosevelt. Trump will use progressive tactics to push through conservative policy (building a wall/refining immigration, balanced budget, strengthening military, national reciprocity for concealed carry, etc.) but he will do it by any means necessary, he is a street fighter. That is my only issue with him, but given the choice of a communist or another Theodore Rosevelt, I'll take the Rosevelt progressive style conservative, not my first choice but it is far better than the alternative.
Not Sensei, but IMO, Trump is more correctly a "Rockefeller Conservative". If he picked Cruz as his running mate? I'd try to figure out how the Dems do it and vote twice! LOL
Seriously, Cruz is strong enough to pull the conservative vote and Trump will pull votes from everywhere but the Bernsters. They'd be unbeatable as a team and I think Cruz could wield a lot of positive influence once they were in the WH.
I find your lack of reading and comprehension skills disturbing.
No where in my post did I say I was going to vote for Rubio, much less who I was considering voting for.
I merely stated that people I have conversed with that I know typically vote Dim said that the only R candidate they would vote for was Rubio, and that a guy with a sports talk radio show said the same thing.
I personally do not care very much about this popularity contest of empty suit puppets chosen and funded buy the moneyed elites of the world to rule over us. To me there isn't a dimes bit of difference between the R's and D's anymore. They merely serve at the feet of the globalist/statist bankers of the IMF. They don't give a shit about you or your quality of life.
I was taking a bit of literary license and assuming that you were somehow at least slightly influenced by what they told you. If not, I apologize. The part I bolded is exactly why I rank the candidate I'd like to see at the top of the heap as: Paul (libertarian/conservative/anti-establishment); Cruz (conservative/ predominantly anti-establishment) and Trump (moderate/anti-establishment). The rest are varying degrees of oligarch/statist/evangelical that I can't bring myself to support.
I fully agree with Will and wish Paul's branding got better play. He'd be able to pull from all areas except the FSA.
Exactly. This "zero chance" stuff is pure fiction. Priciples matter and doing the right thing consistently is of grave importance. I won't be told that we should be doing the wrong thing, so maybe someday we might be able to do the right thing. That thinking is based on a lack of priciples. Cruz/Walker would be an excellent ticket, and the reality is they could easily take a lot more than 270.
Actually, Cruz is beating both Clinton and Sanders in the RCP national averages: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html
...Cruz / Fiorina, or Cruz / Walker (probably my personal favorite) ticket walking away with an electoral map identical to (or better than) Bush in 2000 and 2004.
MountainRaven
01-25-16, 16:13
And that's OK with you? How's that different than current POTUS or HC or others who seem to feel their personal views and values trump (no pun intended!) the US Const? It's ok if it's in line with your personal values/views?
I'm still wrapping my head around the comparison of Theodore Roosevelt to Donald Trump.
crusader377
01-25-16, 16:41
And lose the vote of those of us fed up with RINO's, thereby losing the election. I won't dispute your points about Trump but no f****g way I'll vote for Rubio.
Guys, that ugly, spineless, cop-out phenomena known as electability is beginning to rear it's pussified head again (as I knew it would). FORGET that word and vote for who you feel reflects your views.....just don't expect everyone to go along in the general if a RINO is the one who reflects your views, that's all.
ABNAK, First off I never said Rubio was my man. Actually if you must know I'm a Trump supporter but at the end of the day my main concern is beating the Democrats. I was simply stating a fact that Cruz is not that electable in a general election.
If I'm wrong please explain what new voter demographics is Cruz going to win and how is he going to get to 270 electoral votes? How is he going to get independent voters and peel off some Democrats? How is he going to win battleground states such as FL, VA, and OH or states that lean blue such as WI, MI, and PA. At the end of the day Trump has a decent chance of winning those states and Rubio at least has a decent chance with the battleground states.
crusader377
01-25-16, 16:48
Don't even try that bullshit. YOU and those who vote in a RINO in will be responsible, and NO ONE ELSE. Remember that and choose carefully in the primary booth.
The argument you make is that we all have to go along with YOUR choice or it's our fault? Riiiiight. Choose carefully 'cause I ain't bullshittin' on this one. I'll watch it burn baby! Count on it. Not a threat, a promise.
So let me get this right you would be in such butthurt if Trump or Rubio won the nomination that you would rather have Clinton?
So let me get this right you would be in such butthurt if Trump or Rubio won the nomination that you would rather have Clinton?
Would you rather have Hillary if Cruz wins?
crusader377
01-25-16, 16:55
Looks to me like the far left votes with the party, while the far right stays home, generally speaking.
That is true. Unfortunately their are too many ideologues in the GOP who develop a major case of butthurt if their candidate doesn't win and they stay home and pout. That why we had 2 terms of Obama.
crusader377
01-25-16, 16:59
Would you rather have Hillary if Cruz wins?
If Cruz's win I will support him 100%. I would support any GOP candidate 100% against the Wicked Bitch of the Left (Hillary). I think right now Trump and Rubio have the best chance of beating her in a general election.
If Cruz's win I will support him 100%. I would support any GOP candidate 100% against the Wicked Bitch of the Left (Hillary). I think right now Trump and Rubio have the best chance of beating her in a general election.
Then your best bet is Trump, because a LOT of conservatives see Rubio as just another Bush/Dole/McCain/Romney. We're done going there and while we don't want Hillary either, we'd rather rip the duct tape off quick and get it over with. We're sick and tired of being held hostage by RINO's. :(
crusader377
01-25-16, 17:28
Then your best bet is Trump, because a LOT of conservatives see Rubio as just another Bush/Dole/McCain/Romney. We're done going there and while we don't want Hillary either, we'd rather rip the duct tape off quick and get it over with. We're sick and tired of being held hostage by RINO's. :(
The problem with getting it over with is quite frankly I don't think this country would be able to recover from 4 to 8 years of the Hildabeast. I fear that she will make Obama look good. America is going to have a hard enough time recovering from Obama, if Hillary is elected it is simply Game Over for the U.S.
So let me get this right you would be in such butthurt if Trump or Rubio won the nomination that you would rather have Clinton?
Get over yourself and the childish "butthurt" comments. Trump I said I'd reluctantly vote for as although he isn't historically conservative he is NOT an Establishment Republican. Rubio no way. The real question is how bad do YOU not want Cuntlery as POTUS? Let me re-state my position: I will NOT vote for an Establishment RINO, period. And I don't care who would win as a result. So go into the primary booth and click Rubio/Christie/Bush et al and find out. I'm not alone in my feelings, as I'm sure you've seen in this thread, and it won't take many of us in a tight election.
That is true. Unfortunately their are too many ideologues in the GOP who develop a major case of butthurt if their candidate doesn't win and they stay home and pout. That why we had 2 terms of Obama.
No, we had two terms of Obama because of people like YOU who are bound and determined to be "moderate". Two consecutive POTUS elections prove it. One you could argue, but two? Nah, ain't buying it. We did it your way the last two times, not doing it again. It's YOUR turn to hold your nose and get on board (like I said if Trump is your guy I'd choke it back and hit the lever, and for the reason I stated).
Couldn't agree more here, but there were more than two. Trump and Cruz could definitely win, though I prefer the latter. The argument for an "electable" candidate has gone on for decades, and it is inevitably used to push a moderate who then loses. For example, Bush in 1992, Bob Dole, John Mcain, and then Mitt Romney. So yeah Rubio, Bush, Christy, Kasich, will lose because that's what moderates do best. Forget this king maker cliché of who is "electable."
No, we had two terms of Obama because of people like YOU who are bound and determined to be "moderate". Two consecutive POTUS elections prove it. One you could argue, but two? Nah, ain't buying it. We did it your way the last two times, not doing it again. It's YOUR turn to hold your nose and get on board (like I said if Trump is your guy I'd choke it back and hit the lever, and for the reason I stated).
The problem with getting it over with is quite frankly I don't think this country would be able to recover from 4 to 8 years of the Hildabeast. I fear that she will make Obama look good. America is going to have a hard enough time recovering from Obama, if Hillary is elected it is simply Game Over for the U.S.
Then suck it up, buttercup and vote for Trump if you think he's the crossover candidate who can pull it all together, but we're done being held hostage by you RINOs. :)
No, we had two terms of Obama because of people like YOU who are bound and determined to be "moderate". Two consecutive POTUS elections prove it. One you could argue, but two? Nah, ain't buying it. We did it your way the last two times, not doing it again. It's YOUR turn to hold your nose and get on board (like I said if Trump is your guy I'd choke it back and hit the lever, and for the reason I stated).
How about we let people make their own decisions and vote, or not vote accordingly. If hildabeast wins, the fault lies with those foolish enough to vote for her, not anyone else
Sent from my XT830C using Tapatalk
crusader377
01-25-16, 22:00
To ABNAK and Glocktogo,
Besides calling others RINOs when we are not, I'm still waiting to find out how Cruz is going to get 270 electoral votes? Who is going to bring to the GOP fold? What battleground states is he going to resonate well in and win? Are there any light blue states that Cruz can bring into play?
While you are answering these question why not settle these questions as well.
How is Cruz going to settle the eligibility question since if he is the presidential nominee he will be challenged by the Democrats?
If Cruz is such a great candidate, how come no one who has worked with him in the Senate likes him on a personal level? How will he govern if he can't work with people?
Although I hope I'm wrong, if nominated, it is far more likely that Cruz will be the second coming of Goldwater instead of the next Reagan.
To ABNAK and Glocktogo,
Besides calling others RINOs when we are not, I'm still waiting to find out how Cruz is going to get 270 electoral votes? Who is going to bring to the GOP fold? What battleground states is he going to resonate well in and win? Are there any light blue states that Cruz can bring into play?
While you are answering these question why not settle these questions as well.
How is Cruz going to settle the eligibility question since if he is the presidential nominee he will be challenged by the Democrats?
If Cruz is such a great candidate, how come no one who has worked with him in the Senate likes him on a personal level? How will he govern if he can't work with people?
Although I hope I'm wrong, if nominated, it is far more likely that Cruz will be the second coming of Goldwater instead of the next Reagan.
No.
You can't prove Rubio will get to 270 any sooner than McCain or Romney, so why should I do any mental gymnastics to prove Cruz can? It's a STUPID question! You sit there and say "no one who has worked with him in the Senate likes him on a personal level" as if that's supposed to mean something? WE DON'T LIKE ANYONE IN THE SENATE!!! Have you been dead for the past decade? Their approval ratings are pure crap! They've been so far under water for so long, they should be renamed "disapproval ratings". If everyone in the Senate hates Ted Cruz, THAT'S AN ENDORSEMENT!
The way to 270 for the GOP is not through the mythical "appealing to independents and moderates", which never happened in 2012, 2008 or 1996 and BARELY happened in 2000 & 2004. Facts are not on your side there. No, the way to 270 for the GOP is through getting ALL the Republicans they can to the polls, while utterly demoralizing the Democrats so many of them will stay at home! The GOP has simply lost the base they've taken advantage of for 30 years. We begged and pleaded and held our noses till we were as blue as Democrats, but they never got the hint.
If you're not a RINO, then why are you so bleeping DESPERATE to convince all of us to vote for Rubio? Can you answer that one? Because it's boggling our minds that you want to demoralize such a crucial part of the GOP constituency, to the point we won't vote in the POTUS race? Why are you so willing to throw us under the bus for some wishy washy wafflers in the middle? Do you hate us? Why are you trying to demonize us because we won't let you spend another 30 years screwing us over? What's in it for you?
Stop trying to convince us because there's NOTHING you will ever say that will change our minds. I'm hearing it all over the place that the GOP will lose it's core constituency at the polls this year if they run yet another in a LONG line of RINO's. RINO means Rubio, Christie, Kasich or Bush. It's game over if you nominate one of them, so stop trying and vote for Trump if he's the closest to conservative you can come. Most of us will come that far because even though he's a Rockefeller Republican moderate, at least he's despised by the people we despise in turn. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and the enemy of the day is the GOP establishment elite.
I really don't know how to explain this any more clearly that we already have. If you want Hillary to be POTUS so bad, then pull that lever for Rubio and watch what happens, but you're a fool if you do. :(
crusader377
01-25-16, 23:17
No.
You can't prove Rubio will get to 270 any sooner than McCain or Romney, so why should I do any mental gymnastics to prove Cruz can? It's a STUPID question! You sit there and say "no one who has worked with him in the Senate likes him on a personal level" as if that's supposed to mean something? WE DON'T LIKE ANYONE IN THE SENATE!!! Have you been dead for the past decade? Their approval ratings are pure crap! They've been so far under water for so long, they should be renamed "disapproval ratings". If everyone in the Senate hates Ted Cruz, THAT'S AN ENDORSEMENT! :(
Again this is a Republic and the next President has to have ability to work with people. How is Cruz going to get anything done if he can't work with Congress? Reagan was able to build effective relationships with his own party and democrats and was able to get things done.
The way to 270 for the GOP is not through the mythical "appealing to independents and moderates", which never happened in 2012, 2008 or 1996 and BARELY happened in 2000 & 2004. Facts are not on your side there. No, the way to 270 for the GOP is through getting ALL the Republicans they can to the polls, while utterly demoralizing the Democrats so many of them will stay at home! The GOP has simply lost the base they've taken advantage of for 30 years. We begged and pleaded and held our noses till we were as blue as Democrats, but they never got the hint.:(
Still no answers on how Cruz is going to win. Yes he can get much of the conservative base but he won't win many independents which are still needed to win. Is Cruz going to win OH, FL, and VA, and can he pick off blue leaning states such as WI, MI, CO, and possibly PA. Can he pick up Reagan Democrats like Trump probably can? What new voters does Cruz bring to the table.
If you're not a RINO, then why are you so bleeping DESPERATE to convince all of us to vote for Rubio? Can you answer that one? Because it's boggling our minds that you want to demoralize such a crucial part of the GOP constituency, to the point we won't vote in the POTUS race? Why are you so willing to throw us under the bus for some wishy washy wafflers in the middle? Do you hate us? Why are you trying to demonize us because we won't let you spend another 30 years screwing us over? What's in it for you? :(
I never advocated for Rubio in any of my posts and I won't vote for him in the primary. All I said was the route to 270 is clearer with Trump and Rubio. I'm all ears on specifics on how Cruz wins 270 electoral votes.
Stop trying to convince us because there's NOTHING you will ever say that will change our minds. I'm hearing it all over the place that the GOP will lose it's core constituency at the polls this year if they run yet another in a LONG line of RINO's. RINO means Rubio, Christie, Kasich or Bush. It's game over if you nominate one of them, so stop trying and vote for Trump if he's the closest to conservative you can come. Most of us will come that far because even though he's a Rockefeller Republican moderate, at least he's despised by the people we despise in turn. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and the enemy of the day is the GOP establishment elite.
I really don't know how to explain this any more clearly that we already have. If you want Hillary to be POTUS so bad, then pull that lever for Rubio and watch what happens, but you're a fool if you do. :(
I'm more concerned with winning. To win, the GOP has to bring more people into the party and peel off potential democratic voters. Trump, Rubio, probably the very underrated Rand Paul if given a chance could do that. End of the day I will back who ever the GOP puts up to keep Hillary out of office. I wasn't particularly happy with Romney or McCain but I voted for them.
Klinton signed the Brady Bill. Do your homework.
It wasn't like The Gipper was opposed:
"In a March 1991 editorial, President Reagan opined that the Brady Act would provide a crucial "enforcement mechanism" to end the "honor system" of the 1968 Gun Control Act and "can't help but stop thousands of illegal handgun purchases."
Didn't see earlier post - left this because it included the quote.
It wasn't like The Gipper was opposed:
"In a March 1991 editorial, President Reagan opined that the Brady Act would provide a crucial "enforcement mechanism" to end the "honor system" of the 1968 Gun Control Act and "can't help but stop thousands of illegal handgun purchases."
Didn't see earlier post - left this because it included the quote.
I'll wager someone wrote that for RR as by 1991 he was largely out-of-touch (if you know what I mean). Never claimed he was a staunch 2nd Amendment guy either.....he was okay.
Again this is a Republic and the next President has to have ability to work with people. How is Cruz going to get anything done if he can't work with Congress? Reagan was able to build effective relationships with his own party and democrats and was able to get things done.
Still no answers on how Cruz is going to win. Yes he can get much of the conservative base but he won't win many independents which are still needed to win. Is Cruz going to win OH, FL, and VA, and can he pick off blue leaning states such as WI, MI, CO, and possibly PA. Can he pick up Reagan Democrats like Trump probably can? What new voters does Cruz bring to the table.
I never advocated for Rubio in any of my posts and I won't vote for him in the primary. All I said was the route to 270 is clearer with Trump and Rubio. I'm all ears on specifics on how Cruz wins 270 electoral votes.
I'm more concerned with winning. To win, the GOP has to bring more people into the party and peel off potential democratic voters. Trump, Rubio, probably the very underrated Rand Paul if given a chance could do that. End of the day I will back who ever the GOP puts up to keep Hillary out of office. I wasn't particularly happy with Romney or McCain but I voted for them.
Then vote for Trump. Most of us wishing for Cruz will go along with it. Not my first choice but not an Establishment guy either.
How about we let people make their own decisions and vote, or not vote accordingly. If hildabeast wins, the fault lies with those foolish enough to vote for her, not anyone else
Agreed. Just preparing for the inevitable finger-pointing that will take place if a RINO gets nominated and loses.
crusader377
01-26-16, 09:28
Agreed. Just preparing for the inevitable finger-pointing that will take place if a RINO gets nominated and loses.
I do agree that Republicans do too much finger pointing. However, I think it is the duty of anyone who is against the Democrats though to vote for a Republican regardless of if the nominee is your preferred candidate or not. If the Hillary wins it is the fault of all Hillary voters and everyone who chose to sit home or waste their vote on a write in.
I think 2016 could very well be our last chance to halt the left and start turning this country around. If Democrats are elected they will be able to nominate at least 2-3 Supreme Court Justices, Expand the size of the "Free Shit Army" making any sort of spending reforms or tax reforms impossible, and import millions of future Democratic voters from the Third World further Balkanizing the U.S.
brickboy240
01-26-16, 10:03
I agree. This might indeed be our "last chance" to save any resemblance of America.
It is now obvious that only kicking butt in the mid-term elections is NOT going to change much or stop the leftward progression of the country.
However, if you recall, Dubya had both houses and a more right leaning Supreme Court and what did HE do with all of that? Not a damn thing, really.
So where DO we go from here?
Scary days are ahead..I am afraid...
Again this is a Republic and the next President has to have ability to work with people. How is Cruz going to get anything done if he can't work with Congress? Reagan was able to build effective relationships with his own party and democrats and was able to get things done.
Still no answers on how Cruz is going to win. Yes he can get much of the conservative base but he won't win many independents which are still needed to win. Is Cruz going to win OH, FL, and VA, and can he pick off blue leaning states such as WI, MI, CO, and possibly PA. Can he pick up Reagan Democrats like Trump probably can? What new voters does Cruz bring to the table.
I never advocated for Rubio in any of my posts and I won't vote for him in the primary. All I said was the route to 270 is clearer with Trump and Rubio. I'm all ears on specifics on how Cruz wins 270 electoral votes.
I'm more concerned with winning. To win, the GOP has to bring more people into the party and peel off potential democratic voters. Trump, Rubio, probably the very underrated Rand Paul if given a chance could do that. End of the day I will back who ever the GOP puts up to keep Hillary out of office. I wasn't particularly happy with Romney or McCain but I voted for them.
You and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. There's no evidence that a conservative like Cruz can't get to 270, because a conservative hasn't been the nominee since forever.
Agreed. Just preparing for the inevitable finger-pointing that will take place if a RINO gets nominated and loses.
As much as we've been telling them for years to stop nominating RINO's? Yeah, finger pointing WILL happen. :(
crusader377
01-26-16, 10:49
You and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. There's no evidence that a conservative like Cruz can't get to 270, because a conservative hasn't been the nominee since forever. :(
Fair enough.
As much as we've been telling them for years to stop nominating RINO's? Yeah, finger pointing WILL happen. :(
Again feel free to point fingers but please get out to vote for who ever is nominated and encourage others to do the same. If the GOP fails to win 2016, I think the America as we know it is gone.
brickboy240
01-26-16, 11:15
There is almost ZERO evidence that the RNC wants to win in 2016.
Fair enough.
Again feel free to point fingers but please get out to vote for who ever is nominated and encourage others to do the same. If the GOP fails to win 2016, I think the America as we know it is gone.
The America as we know it and as it should be IS ALREADY GONE.
We lost it when we allowed our rights to be turned into permissions granted by the state. When we accepted the False sense of safety and traded real liberty for it.
A "conservative" SCOTUS has ruled wildly and unconstitutionally and we allow it.
Our "representatives" steal from us, write new laws to turn us into criminals everyday and spy on us right out in the open.
We lost the country when we decided it was best to be comfortable and wait until it is WAY too late to FIGHT for it.
We lost our country when we allowed monetary scientists to stal it from us bit by bit and bridle future generations with debt that basically condemns them to a life of indentured servitude.
The next election cycle is just business as usual- the business of bending us over, turning us against one another and stealing what's left of our prosperity from us.
I'll wager someone wrote that for RR as by 1991 he was largely out-of-touch (if you know what I mean). Never claimed he was a staunch 2nd Amendment guy either.....he was okay.
Yes, know what you mean. We also have to factor in his personal involvement, both as a victim and as Brady's friend.
I don't believe in supply-side economics, but there was more to Reagan than that, I believe, he was a genuine good man - as substantiated by many.
Yeah, go ahead and sit this one out. vote for a 3rd party loser. Do anything you can to help Hillary.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/26/politics/barack-obama-supreme-court-scotus-hillary-clinton/index.html
After noting how the next president will nominate "at least three" Supreme Court justices and that she isn't happy with the current Supreme Court, Clinton went back to the voter's question.
brickboy240
01-27-16, 11:23
True.
Many sat out on the Romney vote and we got 4 more years of Obama misery.
I am not a fan at all but still think Trump is ten time better than Hillary.
True.
Many sat out on the Romney vote and we got 4 more years of Obama misery.
I am not a fan at all but still think Trump is ten time better than Hillary.
As far as I'm concerned we could all say let's just elect Carley. All I care about in 2016 is that the Liberals get crushed. We can deal with problems in our own house after that. We can't afford for the Libs to win this one... or the next one.
If Trump is where the momentum ends up, then we vote for him. If it's Cruz it's Cruz. I believe anyone beyond those two will actually lose. We need 100% participation no matter the person. All these stories you see about Iowa adn all that mess about people not knowing who they might vote for and all that nonsense.... I'm convinced they are simply Liberals too.
Let's face it, if you help Hillary by action or inaction no matter how brilliant you think yourself to be, you have still helped Hillary. Talk about the stupidest thing heard at a gun shop.... how about the stupidest heard at the waiting line at the polls. "I hate Hillary and Trump, I'm a real Conservative that supports 2A, so I'm writing in Cristie"
Since the Repubs haven't done any of the things we sent them to D.C. to do, why should I give them my vote for the big chair?
Mauser KAR98K
01-27-16, 13:30
Since the Repubs haven't done any of the things we sent them to D.C. to do, why should I give them my vote for the big chair?
Because the nominee might be the one to bitch slap Biatch McConnell and Ryan. The two top runners are way outside of the establishment GOP.
brickboy240
01-27-16, 13:58
Romney would NOT have given us Obamacare or anything close to it.
Romney would not have nominated Kagen or Sotomayor, either.
Yes...even if we have to hold our noses...lets keep Hillary from the Oval Office.
Hillary guarantees America 4-8 more years of economic winter - you can bet on that.
Since the Repubs haven't done any of the things we sent them to D.C. to do, why should I give them my vote for the big chair?
This is why: Clinton: Nominating Obama For Supreme Court Is 'A Great Idea'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-obama-supreme-court_us_56a893fde4b0f7179928714a
Since the Repubs haven't done any of the things we sent them to D.C. to do, why should I give them my vote for the big chair?
Because there is no way in hell we have time and talent to build a third army. We have to capture and utilize the viable infrastructure of the R. Trump is taking over a business. That doesn't mean all the employees have to go nor that the whole business is shot. What it does mean is that there is a lot of management that needs to go.
Think of it as a De-RINOfication of the R Party while recapturing the White House.
We win this election. Mid-terms will allow to replace more RINOs that don't know how to vote and are exposed as closet Dems.
It will take 8 years of bitch slapping Dems and house cleaning RINOS. But 3rd Party.... I honestly don't think it could be done.
Romney would NOT have given us Obamacare or anything close to it.
Um what? Obama care was based of the "success" of Romney care he foisted on MA. I lived it. Romney care was the model for Obama care. Romney was a POS and when he did that to MA, I wrote about it in a lengthy post here, with a dire warning of what would happen when it became the national model, which it did. Obama care promised to "fix" some of the problems with Romney care. How's that working out so far? When Romney care took place, my insurance went way up and quality of service went down. When Obama care came in, it just yet increased my insurance rates, and co pays, drug costs, etc went up. Romney did his best to distance himself and back peddle from his socialist experiment pushed on MA, but no one who bothered to look into that one was fooled.
People have some real short memories it appears...See:
http://obamacarefacts.com/romneycare-romneyhealthcare/
Since the Repubs haven't done any of the things we sent them to D.C. to do, why should I give them my vote for the big chair?
You're just being impatient. It takes time to right the ship. They only need another 30 years to turn the corner, so why don't you just exercise some patience! :rolleyes:
Um what? Obama care was based of the "success" of Romney care he foisted on MA.
So when faced with the reality that either Romney or Obama would be POTUS, and the knowledge that...
A. a third party vote was a vote for Obama
B. a no vote was a vote for Obama
C. a vote for Obama was a vote for Obama
D. a vote for Romney would defeat a Liberal AND provide opportunity to expose a fraudulent health care system because it was active and operative.
Knowing that...... how are we better off today with the fact that the majority of people voted a, b and c?
We are not. We are worse off. It's highly possible our representatives could have stopped RomneyCare because they would not have had the momentum.
This is rhetorical but it is a perfect example of how important it is to defeat the Dems.
We are not booking rooms in Boro Boro, we are trying to plot a course into the least deadly section of a storm that has been a long time brewing and unless everyone pulls together it is not going to work.
So when faced with the reality that either Romney or Obama would be POTUS, and the knowledge that...
A. a third party vote was a vote for Obama
B. a no vote was a vote for Obama
C. a vote for Obama was a vote for Obama
D. a vote for Romney would defeat a Liberal AND provide opportunity to expose a fraudulent health care system because it was active and operative.
Knowing that...... how are we better off today with the fact that the majority of people voted a, b and c?
We are not. We are worse off. It's highly possible our representatives could have stopped RomneyCare because they would not have had the momentum.
This is rhetorical but it is a perfect example of how important it is to defeat the Dems.
We are not booking rooms in Boro Boro, we are trying to plot a course into the least deadly section of a storm that has been a long time brewing and unless everyone pulls together it is not going to work.
"We" have no idea if that's the case as we don't have an alternative universe time machine to know the answer to that.. Some assume that would be the case. He was the one time Gov. of my state, and he was disliked and terrible at it, and passed more guns laws than the prior Govs before him. Most people were simply unable/unwilling to hold their nose and pull the handle for Romney. The last election was not as much the Dems winning as it was about the GOP losing, and it was an election there for the taking easily. Reality is, GOP put forth a loser on all fronts, and shock of shocks, he lost.
Some may vote what they think is the greater good and vote for what they consider lesser of the two evils (a vote for Romney) and some voted with their conscience and or being unable to see Romney as the better of two evils.
Regardless, those who dislike Obama care need to do a little research and you can thank GOP Gov. Romney for proof of concept on that disaster.
Thanx Romney!
So when faced with the reality that either Romney or Obama would be POTUS, and the knowledge that...
A. a third party vote was a vote for Obama
B. a no vote was a vote for Obama
C. a vote for Obama was a vote for Obama
D. a vote for Romney would defeat a Liberal AND provide opportunity to expose a fraudulent health care system because it was active and operative.
Knowing that...... how are we better off today with the fact that the majority of people voted a, b and c?
We are not. We are worse off. It's highly possible our representatives could have stopped RomneyCare because they would not have had the momentum.
This is rhetorical but it is a perfect example of how important it is to defeat the Dems.
We are not booking rooms in Boro Boro, we are trying to plot a course into the least deadly section of a storm that has been a long time brewing and unless everyone pulls together it is not going to work.
I would say the voters repudiated the GOP playbook of "it has to be a moderate" and sent a VERY clear message. As a matter of fact, the voters over the past 8 years have EXPLICITLY spelled out why the GOP/RNC lost, why the GOP/RNC would continue to lose and why the GOP/RNC had better change their ways if they ever wanted to win again.
What did the GOP/RNC do? They stuck their heads in the sand and pretended what was happening, wasn't really what was happening. They idiotically decided they had to "rebrand" the message, rather than changing the message! If insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result, then the GOP/RNC is the poster boy for insanity.
"We" are not worse off because voters repudiated the GOP/RNC platform, we're worse off because the GOP/RNC is a dinosaur that refuses to avoid extinction. I guess you could make a case that they're incapable of changing, but the world is moving on whether they adapt or not. :(
KTRO3 hit the nail on the head when he said that we have been losing because our social stances are unpopular.
If we continue to get hung up on the Planned Parenthood/abortion issue and HOMO butt sex stuff, then Republicans will throw away another election. About the first, abortion is here to stay; about the other, if it ain't your butt, then don't worry about it. Let's pick and choose issues that will allow us to win.
If we are going to argue among ourselves, let's fight about Frog Lube. Remember those threads?
KTRO3 hit the nail on the head when he said that we have been losing because our social stances are unpopular.
If we continue to get hung up on the Planned Parenthood/abortion issue and HOMO butt sex stuff, then Republicans will throw away another election. About the first, abortion is here to stay; about the other, if it ain't your butt, then don't worry about it. Let's pick and choose issues that will allow us to win.
If we are going to argue among ourselves, let's fight about Frog Lube. Remember those threads?
If you throw out the social policy positions (which I don't disagree with), without doing away with the rampant excessive spending, then you've eliminated the only difference between R and D. :(
I would say the voters repudiated the GOP playbook of "it has to be a moderate" and sent a VERY clear message. As a matter of fact, the voters over the past 8 years have EXPLICITLY spelled out why the GOP/RNC lost, why the GOP/RNC would continue to lose and why the GOP/RNC had better change their ways if they ever wanted to win again.
What did the GOP/RNC do? They stuck their heads in the sand and pretended what was happening, wasn't really what was happening. They idiotically decided they had to "rebrand" the message, rather than changing the message! If insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result, then the GOP/RNC is the poster boy for insanity.
"We" are not worse off because voters repudiated the GOP/RNC platform, we're worse off because the GOP/RNC is a dinosaur that refuses to avoid extinction. I guess you could make a case that they're incapable of changing, but the world is moving on whether they adapt or not. :(
That's exactly my point. They won;t change but there is a massive element that can be captured. You are right, I don't think a RINO will ever change stripes. Look at Cantor backing Jeb. After he got annihilated he still doesn't get it. This is where Trump or Cruz or similar could step in.
My point about Romney is that provided we didn't have a candidate other than RINOs that were capable of winning, we would have still been better off had the Rs banded together and elected him rather than Obama create more negative momentum. We could have bought time with a less deadly environment for instance.
That's been my whole point, R voters are disorganized, and live in a fantasy world of thinking they can sit out, vote a loser, teach a lesson. Yo8u can't teach a lesson to a DEM or a RINO and DEM voters would never dare not going with the flow of their party.
The DEMS could elect a hammer.... and would! and be happy about it!! On the other hand you could take 10 R voters and say look, here's $100, go pull the lever for the only guy with an R by his name. If all ten of you do that we will win. They would still screw it up. Somehow one of them would have a flash of brilliance and not pull the R lever.
Here's what teaching lessons get's you... Our F Rated Gov playing a TV role as a Militia General that fought for gun rights. What a fn hypocrite. Rode right in on Obama's coat tails.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/revolutionary-war-general-terry-mcauliffe-tapes-tv-cameo-during-snow-crisis/article/2581390
Abortion ain't my issue, but those videos of gleefully selecting body parts from abortions were abhorrent. Ghoulish in nature. Sorry, but that extreme isn't what Roe vs. Wade was about.
I don't care who's dick your sucking but I don't want it rammed down my throat (pun intended). I can accept it begrudgingly and harbor no hate, but embrace it or revel in it? Never. I know a guy at work who is big-time pro-gun (like AR's and similar) but is gay. He's a recent vet too, an ex-Army medic. Don't care and it wouldn't dissuade me from having him over shooting, but an endorsement of that lifestyle? Nope.
I don't have to have, and would prefer not to have, a Bible-thumping POTUS. A guy with good morals and a conservative track record is my kinda candidate. If he's religious and goes to church that's cool by me too, but not an evangelist please. Cruz has walked it back a bit in that regard and that may be why he is second only to Trump. I like Cruz and will vote for him in the primary, but if the Bombastic King of NY gets the nod I'll reluctantly vote for him. No others but those two though.
Abortion ain't my issue, but those videos of gleefully selecting body parts from abortions were abhorrent. Ghoulish in nature. Sorry, but that extreme isn't what Roe vs. Wade was about.
OT: I guess you've seen the outcome of that. The undercover people are looking at prison time.... NOT... the abortion people.
OT: I guess you've seen the outcome of that. The undercover people are looking at prison time.... NOT... the abortion people.
Of course, we live in Bizzaro-World.
crusader377
01-28-16, 09:11
I think everyone has great points and I think the RNC loses elections for a combination of reasons which I'm going to list.
1) Social Issues: The Republican's need to think more strategically on social Issues. They need to focus more on winning elections while not focusing on social issues. Once elections are won then it is the time to work on social issues such as appointing more socially conservative justices on the Supreme Court and getting education out of the hands of the liberal elite. Changing social views is a long game it could take generation to see results.
2.) They do not listen to their supporters: Between Trump, Cruz, and Carson over 2/3 of Republican voters want someone other than what they are providing. A thinking organization would take this fact and adjust their message to appeal to the largest demographics of their voters (this is like sales 101). Instead the RNC consultant class just call these people stupid or uneducated and therefore risk losing elections.
3.) The RNC has loser organizational Ethos: The establishment RNC by itself is unable to win elections because its leaders are fundamentally losers. 2012 should have been a victory for the RNC. Instead, the RNC doesn't do what it takes to win and need someone like Trump to break them out of their loser tendencies.
4.) They need to govern competently: When Republicans win the Presidency they have to govern competently. We can no longer of mediocre administrations like the Bush administration who spend too much and get America involved in foreign policy quagmires (Iraq) which are difficult to get out of. Plus mediocre administrations allow the Democrats to win with their clowns.
These are my big four areas which the RNC needs to fix.
I think everyone has great points and I think the RNC loses elections for a combination of reasons which I'm going to list.
1) Social Issues: The Republican's need to think more strategically on social Issues. They need to focus more on winning elections while not focusing on social issues. Once elections are won then it is the time to work on social issues such as appointing more socially conservative justices on the Supreme Court and getting education out of the hands of the liberal elite. Changing social views is a long game it could take generation to see results.
2.) They not listen to their supporters: Between Trump, Cruz, and Carson over 2/3 of Republican voters want someone other than what they are providing. A thinking organization would take this fact and adjust their message to appeal to the largest demographics of their voters (this is like sales 101). Instead the RNC consultant class just call these people stupid or uneducated and therefore risk losing elections.
3.) The RNC has loser organizational Ethos: The establishment RNC by itself is unable to win election because its leaders are fundamentally losers. 2012 should have been a victory for the RNC. Instead, the RNC don't do what it takes to win and need someone like Trump to break them out of their loser tendencies.
4.) They need to govern competently: When Republicans win the Presidency they have to govern competently. We can no longer of mediocre administrations like the Bush administration who spend too much and get America involved in foreign policy quagmires (Iraq) which are difficult to get out of. Plus mediocre administrations allow the Democrats to win with their clowns.
These are my big four areas which the RNC needs to fix.
I can't disagree with a single thing in this post. Well stated.
4.) They need to govern competently: When Republicans win the Presidency they have to govern competently. We can no longer of mediocre administrations like the Bush administration who spend too much and get America involved in foreign policy quagmires (Iraq) which are difficult to get out of. Plus mediocre administrations allow the Democrats to win with their clowns.
There are times when you must fight, and then follow-up successfully. It took W too long to engage a successful strategy but eventually he did. The subsequent administration took what had largely been cleaned up and blew it. While Republicans shouldn't relish war, it is an undeniable fact of life in this world of ours. We must show a discernible difference in that regard (and in foreign policy in general) from the Democrats, who quite frankly are pussies and everyone around the world knows it. We get walked on when the likes of Carter, Clinton, and Obama are in office.
Anyone read the news reports today.
Fox News and Google are inviting "Youtube Stars" to question the candidates. One is an admitted illegal alien, one is an Anti-Trump Muslim.
These people were reportedly picked and approved by the RNC and Fox News.
Fox News, RNC, Google. What's wrong with this political picture? Nothing. They are all operating in concert to a desired goal.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/disgusting-fox-news-invited-muslim-activist-bernie-sanders-supporter-and-mexican-dreamer-to-debate-to-bash-trump/
I wonder where Glenn Beck is today on this injustice... oh that's right, he endorses Cruz, so this is ok.
All the candidates should tell them to stuff it and tell MOM to grab his guitar. Let Fox News run their Liberal nonsense for an hour.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-qbTSAzq7Y
Anyone read the news reports today.
Fox News and Google are inviting "Youtube Stars" to question the candidates. One is an admitted illegal alien, one is an Anti-Trump Muslim.
These people were reportedly picked and approved by the RNC and Fox News.
Fox News, RNC, Google. What's wrong with this political picture? Nothing. They are all operating in concert to a desired goal.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/disgusting-fox-news-invited-muslim-activist-bernie-sanders-supporter-and-mexican-dreamer-to-debate-to-bash-trump/
I wonder where Glenn Beck is today on this injustice... oh that's right, he endorses Cruz, so this is ok.
All the candidates should tell them to stuff it and tell MOM to grab his guitar. Let Fox News run their Liberal nonsense for an hour.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-qbTSAzq7Y
If you think that's bad, you should go to Breitbart and check out their bombshell. Apparently, Brooke Sammon is Marco Rubio's national press secretary. Now you might be inclined to ask "who is Brooke Sammon and why should I care?". Well, she happens to be Bill Sammon's daughter. HE, is the FOX News Vice President in charge of the debate, including the debate questions!
Can you say " conflict of interest "? :confused:
The deeper you dig, the more it looks like Trump was completely justified in dumping FOX.
Well, she happens to be Bill Sammon's daughter. HE, is the FOX News Vice President in charge of the debate, including the debate questions!
Unbelievable.... I heard some theories that the sub-candidates would be attacking Rubio tonight to take his place. What if it's a setup! What if Rubio has been set up for Christie or Jeb.
If Rubio pulls a major gaffe tonight followed by a night to remember comment from Christie then someone has sand bagged Rubio.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave...
Is it just me or did Rand Paul get the biggest applause/reaction from the audience and have have the most realistic and best replies to the BS questions Fox vommited out?
It's such a shame he is written off. A travesty really. He's the only one who isn't playing the same old game saying the same old shit.
Fox did a terrible job of moderating and question asking. The dog and pony show is getting very old.
Is it just me or did Rand Paul get the biggest applause/reaction from the audience and have have the most realistic and best replies to the BS questions Fox vommited out?
It's such a shame he is written off. A travesty really. He's the only one who isn't playing the same old game saying the same old shit.
Fox did a terrible job of moderating and question asking. The dog and pony show is getting very old.
It was definitely Rand's best debate performance so far.
I didn't watch it. I did watch Trumps show and the tweets that came in about the debate. I did read one that also said Paul did well. One said Christie actually did well. The rest were sort of Cruz - Rubio. One mentioned Kelly nailed Rubio with some old new footage.
Trumps show was really nice. John Wayne Walding spoke for quite a while. I didn't hear the whole show but it seemed very well done. He got 6M$ for Vets while Megyan and crew basically got nothing but yesterdays leftover cold lunch.
Averageman
01-29-16, 10:33
On the News today they said Megyn Kelly had some disparaging names for Trump when she was talking to the other candidates after the debate calling him Mohrgdor or some other name from a villain in the "Harry Potter" series.
The childishness on this issue shouldn't be lost on Fox Executives as according to Trump he got a call and an apology and asked to please attended earlier in the day. I'm pretty sure apology or not, bridges aren't being mended when that got out.
I don't blame Trump, a late apology isn't going to make up for starting then stopping an event to raise money for Disabled Vet's. Asking for 5 million and being refused only would have left him a million short of what his event raised.
I'm beginning to believe Fox kinda sucks.
On the News today they said Megyn Kelly had some disparaging names for Trump when she was talking to the other candidates after the debate calling him Mohrgdor or some other name from a villain in the "Harry Potter" series.
The childishness on this issue shouldn't be lost on Fox Executives as according to Trump he got a call and an apology and asked to please attended earlier in the day. I'm pretty sure apology or not, bridges aren't being mended when that got out.
I don't blame Trump, a late apology isn't going to make up for starting then stopping an event to raise money for Disabled Vet's. Asking for 5 million and being refused only would have left him a million short of what his event raised.
I'm beginning to believe Fox kinda sucks.
It's just so blatantly obvious that FOX wants to be the deciding factor on who the GOP nominee is, just as much as the rest of the media want to control who the Dem nominee is. There is no "fair and balanced" with ANY of them. :(
Averageman
01-29-16, 10:56
Megyn may look like "All of that and a bag of chips", but should that matter as much as a Presidential debate?
A lot of folks wasn't to put this back on Trump and point out that Putin isn't going to be friendly either, but one has nothing to do with the other. Failing to see that Fox wants to be the final deciding factor and the type of tactics they are willing to use to get there only exposes their credibility issues.
Greta could have just as easily taken Megyn's chair and their wouldn't have been an issue, but that wasn't what they were going after. Clearly there is no small amount of friction and Trump was right to make it about integrity.
They've jumped the shark at this point, they have and agenda and it isn't "fair and balanced" it is a clear objective to push the Rino's forward.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3422103/Let-s-address-elephant-NOT-room-Republican-debate-Megyn-Kelly-overshadows-attack-thee-Donald-claims-Fox-begged-come-apologized.html
Most of the voters are easy to fool, as they are uninformed by not paying attention . Ill informed by the mainstream media and the movies they watch. The big factor is that the voters who voted Obama both terms will vote Hillary of Sanders.
Cruz CAN get to 270, and here's how he does it: There are several GOOD candidates on the stage who are NOT going to get the nomination - BUT, would make GREAT VP/Cabinet appointees. Watch what Obama successfully did - he co-opted his rivals into his administration, and therefore secured their support. Cruz needs to come up with a DREAM TEAM, which includes publicly announcing which other contenders will be his running mate and cabinet pics. IT's not about just ONE MAN, it's about the DREAM TEAM that can take America back from the Socialists currently running the show. After Iowa, some of them are gonna drop out, and that's when he needs to make his play.
Here's my problem with Trump: He cannot STAND to be criticized; and his only response is personal insults. Watch every debate, every newscast, every interview...when someone gets the best of him or asks him an uncomfortable question, he comes out slinging insults (and unfortunately, it's working with the emotional, reality-show voter). He said Ted Cruz was a "great guy who definitely qualified for eligibility" UNTIL Cruz started nipping at his heels, and then his tone and rhetoric changed. Trump will SAY ANYTHING to get elected. So what happens when Trump gets elected, and he's asked tough questions (by the press, Dems, everybody)...all he has in his toolbox is personal insults...I fear his overinflated ego (worse than Obama's and Hillary's btw) will lead him not to seek resolution and follow the law, but to insult/degrade, then use the executive order as bad as Obama has (not that I might not approve of his choices, I just disapprove of EO's); THIS is what leads to a tyrannical leader....
Cruz is the one who has voted closest to his stated principles which are the closest to mine, whether it cost him personally or not. He needs to surround himself with other candidates who can help bring in the RINO/Libertarian vote. Even Reagan wasn't the smartest cookie in the can, but he was crafty enough to surround himself with smart people. He set the direction, and they did the yeoman's part of the work. If all the conservatives would just show up and vote instead of sitting on the sidelines (or frankly, are actually WORKING election day)....
Cruz get's my primary vote. Now, having said all this, if Trump does get the nomination, I WILL NOT SIT HOME AND LET HILLARY WIN - I will still have to vote Trump. But I will do so with a lump in my throat and hope for the best...Sometimes I wonder if Trump is the poison pill of the Dems...
Cruz CAN get to 270, and here's how he does it: There are several GOOD candidates on the stage who are NOT going to get the nomination - BUT, would make GREAT VP/Cabinet appointees. Watch what Obama successfully did - he co-opted his rivals into his administration, and therefore secured their support. Cruz needs to come up with a DREAM TEAM, which includes publicly announcing which other contenders will be his running mate and cabinet pics. IT's not about just ONE MAN, it's about the DREAM TEAM that can take America back from the Socialists currently running the show. After Iowa, some of them are gonna drop out, and that's when he needs to make his play.
Here's my problem with Trump: He cannot STAND to be criticized; and his only response is personal insults. Watch every debate, every newscast, every interview...when someone gets the best of him or asks him an uncomfortable question, he comes out slinging insults (and unfortunately, it's working with the emotional, reality-show voter). He said Ted Cruz was a "great guy who definitely qualified for eligibility" UNTIL Cruz started nipping at his heels, and then his tone and rhetoric changed. Trump will SAY ANYTHING to get elected. So what happens when Trump gets elected, and he's asked tough questions (by the press, Dems, everybody)...all he has in his toolbox is personal insults...I fear his overinflated ego (worse than Obama's and Hillary's btw) will lead him not to seek resolution and follow the law, but to insult/degrade, then use the executive order as bad as Obama has (not that I might not approve of his choices, I just disapprove of EO's); THIS is what leads to a tyrannical leader....
Cruz is the one who has voted closest to his stated principles which are the closest to mine, whether it cost him personally or not. He needs to surround himself with other candidates who can help bring in the RINO/Libertarian vote. Even Reagan wasn't the smartest cookie in the can, but he was crafty enough to surround himself with smart people. He set the direction, and they did the yeoman's part of the work. If all the conservatives would just show up and vote instead of sitting on the sidelines (or frankly, are actually WORKING election day)....
Cruz get's my primary vote. Now, having said all this, if Trump does get the nomination, I WILL NOT SIT HOME AND LET HILLARY WIN - I will still have to vote Trump. But I will do so with a lump in my throat and hope for the best...Sometimes I wonder if Trump is the poison pill of the Dems...
Imagine if Cruz was able to tap RP as VP, Carson as Surgeon General, Kasich as FED Chairman, etc.? You're thinking in the right direction there...
Averageman
01-29-16, 12:07
I would be cool with Paul, Cruz or as a final choice Trump.
If Trump has accomplished nothing else, I like that he and Breitbart together have exposed Fox News for what they are. Fox pushing a select RINO Candidate forward seemingly to be the one and only conservative option for American voters, may very well be how McCain and Romney ended up where they were. Trump now has me questioning, "is that push in conjunction with or based upon the Major GOP donors approval?"
I will be there on election day, but I'm pretty much done with the GOP as a "Conservative" Party.
brickboy240
01-29-16, 15:35
Lets face it...Trump is better than Hillary any way you paint it.
I am NOT a fan of Trump but yeah..if it comes down to it....I am voting for the man.
(Cruz is the one I am hoping for)
I wrote in a candidate in 12 and am not doing anything like that again. We cannot afford 4-8 more years of total darkness.
Still for Cruz here, but will vote for whatever the nominee will be. Mario quoted Hillary as to saying that Obama would be a great Supreme Court Justice. :stop: What a catastrophe for the Constitution that would be if that is the back room deal they made.
GOOD GRIEF.
If the rest of the primaries are anything like Iowa, the Democrats aren't going to fare well. No wonder the DNC doesn't want to talk about the turnout numbers.
1,398 votes TOTAL for Hitlery and Bern. Rick Santorum alone got more votes than both of them combined.
The GOP got over 183,000 votes total.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/primary-caucus-results/iowa
Howdy,
GOOD GRIEF.
If the rest of the primaries are anything like Iowa, the Democrats aren't going to fare well. No wonder the DNC doesn't want to talk about the turnout numbers.
1,398 votes TOTAL for Hitlery and Bern. Rick Santorum alone got more votes than both of them combined.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/primary-caucus-results/iowa
That's why Iowa's caucuse doesn't mean much.
Either way Hillary will win by a bigger landslide than Obama did on 2012 and Slick Willie did in 1996.
Paul
GOOD GRIEF.
If the rest of the primaries are anything like Iowa, the Democrats aren't going to fare well. No wonder the DNC doesn't want to talk about the turnout numbers.
1,398 votes TOTAL for Hitlery and Bern. Rick Santorum alone got more votes than both of them combined.
The GOP got over 183,000 votes total.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/primary-caucus-results/iowa
All true, but it's Iowa after all which (1) not remotely representative of the rest of the country, (2) generally very poor at predicting winners nationally (3) not an actual vote, but more of a poll. All that said, don't really understand why the media or the candidates waste time on the place.
1,398 votes TOTAL for Hitlery and Bern.
Democratic vote totals are “state delegate equivalents”, it does not mean that only 1,398 people in all of Iowa 'voted'.
Hillary really didn't win IOWA either.
I saw one guy post about a coworker of his. At her caucus MOM had 13%( below threshold ) so his voters were likely leaning to Sanders. Hillary was in lead but if MOM's votes had gone to Sanders he would have won. So people from Hillaries camp go to MOM to put him over 15% so they stay put with him. MOM looses, Sanders looses, Hillary wins. In a true vote between Hillary and Sanders, Sanders would likely have won.
Also 3 counties were so close that they had to decide via a coin toss. Hillary won all three coin tosses. So that's 4 counties where she "won" but at best in reality she 0-1-3 ( W-L-D ).
I guess when she said she was relieved, she meant that so far the media was able to able to obfuscate her loss.
Cruz vs Sanders would be our most hopeful scenario but I fear it will be Cruz vs Hillary. I just hate to see her have the most remote possibility of ever becoming POTUS.
Democratic vote totals are “state delegate equivalents”, it does not mean that only 1,398 people in all of Iowa 'voted'.
I see that now. If you click on the link I posted, those numbers are in the Votes row just like the Republicans. Fox News, I know.
It's my understanding Iowa doesn't release the Democrat caucus vote totals. There was word the DNC wasn't releasing the total votes due to being ashamed of voter turnout is why I looked it up.
I see that now. If you click on the link I posted, those numbers are in the Votes row just like the Republicans. Fox News, I know.
It's my understanding Iowa doesn't release the Democrat caucus vote totals. There was word the DNC wasn't releasing the total votes due to being ashamed of voter turnout is why I looked it up.
Faced with the choice of a kooky old socialist and Satan in a pant suit, the DNC didn't give them a lot of reasons to leave the house. Let's hope that trend holds through November.
Speaking of Fox News, it's pretty clear they hate Ted Cruz. They really aren't much different the MSM. Megan Kelly is about the only one that gave him a fair shake albeit in the after the debate interview. Heard a clip from CNN asking Bongo Bernie's followers the definition of socialism, they had no idea. Someone on Glenn Beck this AM said the difference between Socialism and Communism is about a year and half.. ;)
Speaking of Fox News, it's pretty clear they hate Ted Cruz. They really aren't much different the MSM. Megan Kelly is about the only one that gave him a fair shake albeit in the after the debate interview. Heard a clip from CNN asking Bongo Bernie's followers the definition of socialism, they had no idea. Someone on Glenn Beck this AM said the difference between Socialism and Communism is about a year and half.. ;)
It's blatantly evident they're in the bag for Rubio.
Averageman
02-02-16, 12:56
Speaking of Fox News, it's pretty clear they hate Ted Cruz. They really aren't much different the MSM. Megan Kelly is about the only one that gave him a fair shake albeit in the after the debate interview. Heard a clip from CNN asking Bongo Bernie's followers the definition of socialism, they had no idea. Someone on Glenn Beck this AM said the difference between Socialism and Communism is about a year and half.. ;)
It's blatantly evident they're in the bag for Rubio.
RINO News, they may have a few Foxes reading the prompter but it is all about the Republican status quo.
Iowa does not make a nominee. However it can provide some momentum (which may be short lived as the next two states have a different constituency makeup than IA). I'm glad Cruz won, if even barely. Takes down Trump a notch at least for a few days. I had a coworker today trying to convince me that Rubio is the candidate as he can get both the mainstream GOP and enough of the Tea Party vote to beat Hillary. But frankly, Rubio comes across too processed and too immature...he speaks really well, but every response he has is canned and you can tell he's just got a few catch phrases that he repeats. In a one-on one debate with Hillary he'd be hard pressed to beat her. But Cruz would wipe the floor with her ass - look how he handled that IA voter who was upset about ending Subsidies, or a previous liberal that he publicly on-the-spot debated a month or so ago...All Trump would be able to do is insult....Cruz is the REAL DEAL; he just needs to be careful about following some of his 'professional campaigners' advice - that mailing was ill advised...
Again, IMHO NO ONE CANDIDATE can evoke enough emotion to overcome the Dem machine and all it's machinations/cheats. It's got to be a DREAM TEAM and Cruz needs to start lining that up NOW. There will be a few more candidates that drop out in the next two primaries, and he needs to come to terms with them quick - as many of them really do not want Trump. I think Rubio is a robot that would do whatever the GOP told him to.
If it became a Cruz/Rubio ticket, with some of the other candidates Cabinet positions pre-announced...that might be winnable...
Note the news is totally ignoring Paul. One news program I listened to today ran a long story on Bush, and ran his speech, yet he finished behind Paul! I don't know what the media has against Paul, but it's become VERY obvious they are actively attempting to keep him from the public spot light.
He made major strides to end top 5, yet I have heard nothing and nadda about that in the media. What have others heard in the media on Paul?
For me, Paul is the only one running in this crop who "gets" it here and although not a "pure" Libertarian (which may be a good thing...) he seems the only one who actually reads the US Const. and understand how to apply it. He's aint perfect, but no one is, nor ever will be...
On Cruz, he's already quoting scripture in his speeches. That will make a core group of voters happy (what the media refers to as the "evangelical" voter) but there's not enough them to carry a general election and doing such will turn off many moderates who may or may not be religious, but don't want their GOP candidate making it focus/core of his platform, and or, will feel it will prevent him from beating HillSanders in the general election, and will turn away from him.
I suspect Rubio (and fingers crossed) and Paul will see better outcomes in the next states.
That's my prediction.
Phillygunguy
02-02-16, 14:20
What worries me is if Trump doesn't get the nomination. Will he run as 3rd party ? will his supporters stay home during the general?
We are in the tank for Cruz here, always have been. Agreed though on the faith proclamations, everyone that knows about Cruz knows where he is at on that. I'm ok with it but to win over the seculars, he might want to tone that down a bit. Rubio is way too mechanical for me, I agree with much what he says but the delivery is always on full auto. The speech Cruz did after the win was stellar IMHO, it was the best I've heard from him yet.
crusader377
02-02-16, 14:31
What worries me is if Trump doesn't get the nomination. Will he run as 3rd party ? will his supporters stay home during the general?
I don't think Trump will run third party. On the second question I think most of his GOP supporters would switch to another GOP candidate. For his non traditional supporters that is a bigger question. I don't see them backing an establishment guy like Rubio, Cruz I think could capture these voters if he tuned down the social conservative issues.
I personally see the biggest GOP challenge for 2016 is provided that a nominee is fairly decided, getting all GOP voters to rally around that candidate in order to maximize their chances to beat Hillary.
Rubio is one of those GenII RINO's I refuse to vote for. I like Cruz and I'd hold my nose for Trump (only because he's not an Establishment guy and is not PC, otherwise I don't care for him). Basically it comes down to those two. Since they are the frontrunners it should be one or the other of them who gets the nod. Other than Rand Paul, a personal second choice to Cruz, I'll cast my vote for no other.
I agree Cruz needs to tone down the preacher-like persona. He has walked it back a bit but maybe just a little more.
Phillygunguy
02-02-16, 15:53
I was all about Trump in the beginning, but after listening to how he is willing to make deals with democrats like Schumer, Pelosi, etc really makes me worried. I don't want to anyone to "make deals" with someone who is Hell bent on limiting my 2A rights.
Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk
Note the news is totally ignoring Paul. One news program I listened to today ran a long story on Bush, and ran his speech, yet he finished behind Paul! I don't know what the media has against Paul, but it's become VERY obvious they are actively attempting to keep him from the public spot light.
He made major strides to end top 5, yet I have heard nothing and nadda about that in the media. What have others heard in the media on Paul?
For me, Paul is the only one running in this crop who "gets" it here and although not a "pure" Libertarian (which may be a good thing...) he seems the only one who actually reads the US Const. and understand how to apply it. He's aint perfect, but no one is, nor ever will be...
On Cruz, he's already quoting scripture in his speeches. That will make a core group of voters happy (what the media refers to as the "evangelical" voter) but there's not enough them to carry a general election and doing such will turn off many moderates who may or may not be religious, but don't want their GOP candidate making it focus/core of his platform, and or, will feel it will prevent him from beating HillSanders in the general election, and will turn away from him.
I suspect Rubio (and fingers crossed) and Paul will see better outcomes in the next states.
That's my prediction.
They do that all the time. Theyll show latest poll numbers and leave him out. Or put him at the bottom of the list.
https://www.google.com/search?q=rand+paul+missing+from+polls&client=ms-android-verizon&prmd=nvi&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjxzqGZkNrKAhUBez4KHTNXDsQQ_AUICSgD
They do that all the time. Theyll show latest poll numbers and leave him out. Or put him at the bottom of the list.
https://www.google.com/search?q=rand+paul+missing+from+polls&client=ms-android-verizon&prmd=nvi&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjxzqGZkNrKAhUBez4KHTNXDsQQ_AUICSgD
But why? Whose corn flakes did he piss in to get that treatment, seemingly, from both right or left leaning media? He does not seem to rant and rave about the evils of the media etc as other candidates have yet get coverage.
Outlander Systems
02-02-16, 16:54
Quiet marginalization. Paul would fundamentally transform this place into a Constitutional Republic.
But why? Whose corn flakes did he piss in to get that treatment, seemingly, from both right or left leaning media? He does not seem to rant and rave about the evils of the media etc as other candidates have yet get coverage.
Averageman
02-02-16, 17:12
But why? Whose corn flakes did he piss in to get that treatment, seemingly, from both right or left leaning media? He does not seem to rant and rave about the evils of the media etc as other candidates have yet get coverage.
He didn't, his Dad did and pretty much as wacky as these two have been portrayed they've been right.
You simply dont rub some Bush and Clinton nose in what they left on the carpet and then get elected POTUS.
Quiet marginalization. Paul would fundamentally transform this place into a Constitutional Republic.
Well we can't have that now can we?
90% of Americans are "Sound Bite" voters, Trump gets this, Hillary gets this WTF doesn't Paul get this? He holds himself above the unwashed masses, he needs to get a little bit of street fight in him and get busy.
Quiet marginalization. Paul would fundamentally transform this place into a Constitutional Republic.
Oh the horror! I think you may be giving the media too much credit for long term thinking. No doubt Quiet marginalization,but I'm not convinced it's due to the media fearing a Constitutional Republic as I doubt most of them even know what that it.
He didn't, his Dad did and pretty much as wacky as these two have been portrayed they've been right.
You simply dont rub some Bush and Clinton nose in what they left on the carpet and then get elected POTUS..
Ah, I think you hit the nail there and it would explain why right and left media seems to actively be ignoring him no matter what he does.
Averageman
02-02-16, 17:18
Oh the horror! I think you may be giving the media too much credit for long term thinking. No doubt Quiet marginalization,but I'm not convinced it's due to the media fearing a Constitutional Republic as I doubt most of them even know what that it.
No, but they know their Hair Jell.
http://www.aol.com/article/2016/02/02/brian-williams-apologizes-after-woman-says-va-is-f-ed-up-live-tv/21306557/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl17%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D1317148525_htmlws-sb-bb
In his return to primetime TV, anchoring MSNBC's Iowa caucuses coverage, the former "NBC Nightly News" anchor had to apologize after a young, impassioned Iowa voter yelled on-camera that the Veterans Administration is "f—ed up."
Did you know Brian Williams actually founded the Veterans Administration? Just ask him.
Nice to See You Again Brian......NOT!
In my eyes Cruz is the answer to both "The Bern" and Hildebeast. He is the antithesis to socialism and has the ability to explain why free market systems are more beneficial for Americans than being pandered to with crippling subsidies. Obamacare is the same socialist phenomenon. People don't like to hear about being pulled off the government teet, but they fail to understand what they are being robbed of if they don't.
Case in point:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I6cUDscjrNg
In my eyes Cruz is the answer to both "The Bern" and Hildebeast. He is the antithesis to socialism and has the ability to explain why free market systems are more beneficial for Americans than being pandered to with crippling subsidies. Obamacare is the same socialist phenomenon. People don't like to hear about being pulled off the government teet, but they fail to understand what they are being robbed of if they don't.
Case in point:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I6cUDscjrNg
I agree. While Paul would be a close second he has a little too much of his kooky old man in him to be #1 for me. A close #2 but Cruz is my guy, sans the Sunday-mornin'-preacher schtick.
If Cruz got the nomination would Paul be a viable VP pick for the masses?
In my eyes Cruz is the answer to both "The Bern" and Hildebeast. He is the antithesis to socialism and has the ability to explain why free market systems are more beneficial for Americans than being pandered to with crippling subsidies. Obamacare is the same socialist phenomenon. People don't like to hear about being pulled off the government teet, but they fail to understand what they are being robbed of if they don't.
Case in point:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I6cUDscjrNg
So we will start to see E15-30? I don't understand this. The boating industry and from my experience the small engine industry has been cost a lot of money due to E10 ruining things or having to pay for additives and such.
But when I read this.... it looks like the boating industry likes Ted Cruz.
http://boatingindustry.com/blogs/2015/12/07/how-the-presidential-candidates-rate-on-ethanol/
Notice it says they would take an opposite view from the ratings....
Now, of course, from a marine industry standpoint, we'd probably be taking the opposite view.
...and the ratings... http://americasrenewablefuture.com/2015/11/arf-releases-candidate-midterm-report-card/
So why will the marine industry like TC for bringing more E into the market?
I agree. While Paul would be a close second he has a little too much of his kooky old man in him to be #1 for me. A close #2 but Cruz is my guy, sans the Sunday-mornin'-preacher schtick.
If Cruz got the nomination would Paul be a viable VP pick for the masses?
I'd be fine with it, but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. Nominees choose their VIP with the hope of them bringing something to the table. That may be a key battle ground state, voting block, or some street cred on a major policy issue. Unfortunately, Rand brings neither since Ted does very well with the libertarian wing. My bet is that Kasich and Rubio real estate looks pretty good right now. Condy Rice is a bit of a dark house but might be a good choice.
crusader377
02-02-16, 22:00
Oh the horror! I think you may be giving the media too much credit for long term thinking. No doubt Quiet marginalization,but I'm not convinced it's due to the media fearing a Constitutional Republic as I doubt most of them even know what that it.
The Media has a lot to fear from a Constitutional Republic the reason why is the all of the major media is owned by corporate interests and quite frankly too many people in high places would lose a lot of money if Rand Paul is elected. Wall Street would lose big because Rand Paul would have the Fed Audited and all substantial perks from the Fed to Wall Street would end if Rand was elected. The large national intelligence industrial complex would lose big because Rand would instituted accountability for both their practices and spending. The list goes on and on.
I think his point was that it will all be available. If the free market wants it, it will thrive, but the government won't subsidize to meddle with the free markets.
So we will start to see E15-30? I don't understand this. The boating industry and from my experience the small engine industry has been cost a lot of money due to E10 ruining things or having to pay for additives and such.
But when I read this.... it looks like the boating industry likes Ted Cruz.
http://boatingindustry.com/blogs/2015/12/07/how-the-presidential-candidates-rate-on-ethanol/
Notice it says they would take an opposite view from the ratings....
...and the ratings... http://americasrenewablefuture.com/2015/11/arf-releases-candidate-midterm-report-card/
So why will the marine industry like TC for bringing more E into the market?
I'd be fine with it, but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. Nominees choose their VIP with the hope of them bringing something to the table. That may be a key battle ground state, voting block, or some street cred on a major policy issue. Unfortunately, Rand brings neither since Ted does very well with the libertarian wing. My bet is that Kasich and Rubio real estate looks pretty good right now. Condy Rice is a bit of a dark house but might be a good choice.
Maybe Scott Walker? I certainly wouldn't mind that.
Rand Paul drops out: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/rand-paul-dropping-out-of-white-house-race-218675
Rand Paul drops out: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/rand-paul-dropping-out-of-white-house-race-218675
Seems to be throwing in the towel rather early considering progress made. Was he expecting to win Iowa? All things considered, 5th was quite good. I think he at least should have seen what happened in NH. Oh well.
Seems to be throwing in the towel rather early considering progress made. Was he expecting to win Iowa? All things considered, 5th was quite good. I think he at least should have seen what happened in NH. Oh well.
I like Rand, but I think anyone not polling at least 10% should drop out.
Averageman
02-03-16, 08:41
Seems to be throwing in the towel rather early considering progress made. Was he expecting to win Iowa? All things considered, 5th was quite good. I think he at least should have seen what happened in NH. Oh well.
Maybe he is just sick of the game?
Watch the news and see how many times he gets a mention. The game is rigged, the game was rigged against his Dad, maybe he smelled the coffee and just went on to do something better somewhere else. I certainly wouldn't blame him.
He isn't going to get a chance to get his message out, why keep beating your head against the wall?
crusader377
02-03-16, 08:53
I like Rand, but I think anyone not polling at least 10% should drop out.
This is very true.
Basically the GOP have three viable candidates for the nomination. Cruz, Rubio, and Trump. It is really important to see who the supporters of second tier candidates are going to rally around. What is really important is that all of the bottom tier candidates need to say that they will fully support the nominee who ever it is and really work hard to get all of their supporters to back the nominee. Actually, Jeb could actually do something useful in his campaign and before dropping out can run a big media blitz against Hillary and use the millions he has in his campaign and then drop out.
Maybe he is just sick of the game?
Watch the news and see how many times he gets a mention. The game is rigged, the game was rigged against his Dad, maybe he smelled the coffee and just went on to do something better somewhere else. I certainly wouldn't blame him.
He isn't going to get a chance to get his message out, why keep beating your head against the wall?
Agreed on all fronts, but he had to know that going in. He's not new to the rodeo. I think he should have done NH, and had he done no better than 5th in NH, dropped out. If he was able to be 5th in Iowa, considering the demographics, I suspect he would do much better in NH. If he made say 3d in NH, they'd have no real choice but to pay attention to him at that point.
Q: The media is claiming Cruz pulled many of the Libertarian vote Paul would have gotten. Who on this planet views Cruz as a Libertarian or in line with Libertarian views? Can someone learn me on that so I can either see Cruz in a more positive light or continue to see the media as full of BS.
What am I missing there?
Outlander Systems
02-03-16, 09:43
Same.
While he's defended firearms rights, I'm not a one-issue voter.
I need edumacatin' on Cruz.
Agreed on all fronts, but he had to know that going in. He's not new to the rodeo. I think he should have done NH, and had he done no better than 5th in NH, dropped out. If he was able to be 5th in Iowa, considering the demographics, I suspect he would do much better in NH. If he made say 3d in NH, they'd have no real choice but to pay attention to him at that point.
Q: The media is claiming Cruz pulled many of the Libertarian vote Paul would have gotten. Who on this planet views Cruz as a Libertarian or in line with Libertarian views? Can someone learn me on that so I can either see Cruz in a more positive light or continue to see the media as full of BS.
What am I missing there?
Same.
While he's defended firearms rights, I'm not a one-issue voter.
I need edumacatin' on Cruz.
He's for a smaller, less intrusive federal government. Oh, and the Establishment hates him, which can only be read as a positive thing!
Agreed on all fronts, but he had to know that going in. He's not new to the rodeo. I think he should have done NH, and had he done no better than 5th in NH, dropped out. If he was able to be 5th in Iowa, considering the demographics, I suspect he would do much better in NH. If he made say 3d in NH, they'd have no real choice but to pay attention to him at that point.
Q: The media is claiming Cruz pulled many of the Libertarian vote Paul would have gotten. Who on this planet views Cruz as a Libertarian or in line with Libertarian views? Can someone learn me on that so I can either see Cruz in a more positive light or continue to see the media as full of BS.
What am I missing there?
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Ted_Cruz.htm
Essentially he is a Conservative first and then a Libertarian. So I guess that would be Libertarian light- but obviously a staunch Conservative on abortion, marriage Family issues and his ideals on foreign policy.
I hope he picks Paul as VP. I really don't think it would be a good idea to go the Rubio or Kasich route. I know why so many believe that would be a good way to go catching votes and all; but here's where I disagree:
1) Paul has a HUGe following amongst younger voting blocks- both right and left leaning libertarians. We need to capture younger voting blocks to win this election.
2) Paul isnt establishment shuck and jive like Rubio and Kasich; people are sick of the same old crap they are peddling. Especially the younger voters.
3) Paul and Cruz have a certain charisma when working together that compliments one another- I really believe they could get a lot done when unified. That's what we need- action.
4) They both have a terrific handle on the Constitution. More and more people are realizing how important the document is and I believe there is a "Constitutional renaissance" beginning to gain steam. If we had these two to stoke the fires we just might reach critical mass and put the country back on the path it should be on.
5) Paul is INTELLIGENT. He doesn't play the typical political games everyone else does. This speaks to a lot of the voting block. It's why the media doesn't touch him with a ten foot pole. He isn't manufactured drama, and that's the only thing the media knows how to handle.
Same.
While he's defended firearms rights, I'm not a one-issue voter.
I need edumacatin' on Cruz.
Two, I have heard people call Cruz a strict constitutionalist. Again, based on what? Defending 2A Rights is win to be sure and commendable, but other then that, it does not make one a strict constitutionalist by any means. I do not see him defending the Rights (capital R) of those he does not agree with that go against his personal religious beliefs which may otherwise be constitutionally protected.
I fully support his personal religious beliefs, I do not support his, or anyone else for that matter, who puts their personal religious beliefs ahead of the US Const. when they don't match up.
If he gets a decent running mate, I'll hold my nose and vote for him over the alternative, but I'd prefer to want to support him, and maybe I can with more intel on him. Personally, per comments, I think he'll fail in a general election if he does not tone way down on the televangelist speech style he goes into when he gets excited as he did in Iowa.
If you wanna push a bunch of people who are on the fence, or people strongly secular, etc, toward the Dem side, then sounding like a televangelist is the best way to do it.
I think Rubio will emerge the victor in that case as GOP front runner, and a Rubio/Cruz ticket highly possible if Cruz slips, which I believe he will.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Ted_Cruz.htm
BTDT that, and it confirms my comments and Q. That's no Libertarian, especially on the social issues.
BTDT that, and it confirms my comments and Q. That's no Libertarian, especially on the social issues.
So other than his opposition to gay marriage, what else isn't Libertarian enough?
Two, I have heard people call Cruz a strict constitutionalist. Again, based on what? Defending 2A Rights is win to be sure and commendable, but other then that, it does not make one a strict constitutionalist by any means. I do not see him defending the Rights (capital R) of those he does not agree with that go against his personal religious beliefs which may otherwise be constitutionally protected.
I fully support his personal religious beliefs, I do not support his, or anyone else for that matter, who puts their personal religious beliefs ahead of the US Const. when they don't match up.
If he gets a decent running mate, I'll hold my nose and vote for him over the alternative, but I'd prefer to want to support him, and maybe I can with more intel on him. Personally, per comments, I think he'll fail in a general election if he does not tone way down on the televangelist speech style he goes into when he gets excited as he did in Iowa.
If you wanna push a bunch of people who are on the fence, or people strongly secular, etc, toward the Dem side, then sounding like a televangelist is the best way to do it.
I think Rubio will emerge the victor in that case as GOP front runner, and a Rubio/Cruz ticket highly possible if Cruz slips, which I believe he will.
I hope not, because there are enough of us out there who REFUSE to do another RINO that you'll have Hitlery for your next POTUS. I will not get on board with Rubio, period.
I really wish that Republican primary voters would realize that it's the conservative's turn to get their candidate and the "moderates" turn to hold their noses and vote for our guy. We tried it their way the last two times, now it's our turn.
I think his point was that it will all be available. If the free market wants it, it will thrive, but the government won't subsidize to meddle with the free markets.
Ok, so what he was saying was that free market in Europe already has E20-30 and vehicles to run it in, but our farmers can't sell corn for E30 because it's not allowed and thus no one will build anything to run it in.
His theory being take away restrictions, let the markets build whatever they want and if what they want requires E30, then you can sell corn for that.... but... the subsidies go away and everyone operates on a totally free market.
Which to a farmer may mean that Tacos may get really cheap until the vehicle industry gets fired up. The marine industry still will have issues though as they want high octane E0.
I guess at the end of the day until the government is out of the picture everyone's hands are tied.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.