Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I came across this poll. Bottom line, it's good for Democrats. It's about a month old, but I'm willing to bet Cruz's standing has increased even more with GOP primary voters.
A month-old poll is worthless, considering the events which have occurred since it was taken. There are more recent ones, which you might want to investigate.
I came across this poll. Bottom line, it's good for Democrats. It's about a month old, but I'm willing to bet Cruz's standing has increased even more with GOP primary voters.
First, it has Ted Cruz at 20%, which means 80% prefer someone else.
Second, it Rand Paul at 17%, Chris Christie at 14%, Jeb Bush at 11% - Cruz isn't exactly pulling away from the field.
Third, it is 2013; with no real leader of the Republican Party at this point, such polls are little more than metrics of name-recognition.
Fourth, Ted Cruz doesn't even remotely fit the profile of recent Republican Presidential nominees - and recent history is our best indicator of who the GOP will nominate in 2016.
First, it has Ted Cruz at 20%, which means 80% prefer someone else.
Second, it Rand Paul at 17%, Chris Christie at 14%, Jeb Bush at 11% - Cruz isn't exactly pulling away from the field.
Third, it is 2013; with no real leader of the Republican Party at this point, such polls are little more than metrics of name-recognition.
Fourth, Ted Cruz doesn't even remotely fit the profile of recent Republican Presidential nominees - and recent history is our best indicator of who the GOP will nominate in 2016.
Recent history won't be as much as a factor in who gets the GOP nomination in 2016.
Recent history won't be as much as a factor in who gets the GOP nomination in 2016.
Of course. That's always the claim.
That's why in 2005 there was no chance John McCain would ever win the 2008 nomination. And why in 2009 there was no chance Mitt Romney would ever win the 2012 nomination.
It's always going to change 'next time'.
Why?
Oh, 'just because'.
Until it actually does change, I'll judge the way the GOP behaves on ... the way the GOP behaves.
That's why in 2005 there was no chance John McCain would ever win the 2008 nomination. And why in 2009 there was no chance Mitt Romney would ever win the 2012 nomination.
It's always going to change 'next time'.
Why?
Oh, 'just because'.
Until it actually does change, I'll judge the way the GOP behaves on ... the way the GOP behaves.
The conventional wisdom in 2008 was that McCain would win the nomination and he did. The conventional wisdom in 2012 was that Romney would win the nomination and he did. Right now the conventional wisdom is that the tea party will play a more dominant and forceful role in the GOP primaries. That bodes well for Cruz or Paul, which also bodes well for Democrats.
I could see Rand Paul being nominated before Ted Cruz. Cruz is just too effin crazy.
Remember back in 2011/2012, the GOP primary had a "flavor-of-the-month" thing going. The candidate who was sure to be nominated was Herman Cain. Then it was Michele Bachmann. Then it was Tim Pawlenty. Then it was Newt Gingrich. Oh, oh, then it was Rick "Oops!" Perry. Rick Santorum made a late, frothy surge, but Mittens was able to come through.
I expect the same thing next time. I'm sure both Paul and Cruz will be the flavor of the month at some point.
Honestly, the only thing the GOP can do to help themselves would be to limit the number of debates. How many were there last time? 30? Almost all of them (if not all) were televised, giving Americans a full-on portrait of peak wingnut.
The conventional wisdom in 2008 was that McCain would win the nomination and he did. The conventional wisdom in 2012 was that Romney would win the nomination and he did. Right now the conventional wisdom is that the tea party will play a more dominant and forceful role in the GOP primaries. That bodes well for Cruz or Paul, which also bodes well for Democrats.
I don't have any idea who will come out on top but I can guarantee you, a lot of Democrats will support Rand Paul or at least it is likely, certainly he should appeal to the independents which is what both parties want to happen. Cruz is not going to get the nomination, if he even runs.
Globe is right: the GOP has to reduce the debates and I am pretty sure they learned from the last election. Of course, we still have no idea who, on the Democrat side will be running. Everyone is assuming Hillary, but you know there will be, at least 4 or 5 other serious contenders that will enter the race.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
