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.
He's announcing it at Liberty University, no hotbed of political and religious moderation. If he does win the nomination I don't see how he could ever win over independent swing voters.
How do you think he beat all the money thrown against him, to put David "but I'm the chosen" Dewhurst, out of a certain job.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 29 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,589 posts, read 16,568,312 times
Reputation: 6050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus
Those of you buying into the Goldwater-style loss would do well to remember that in 1964 80% of the public trusted the federal government to do the right thing always or most of the time; now that's down to 10% or so. 55% currently believe the federal government is a threat to their rights and freedoms, and only 20% believe it has the consent of the governed. Circumstances and the public mood now are almost the exact opposite of what they were in 1964, and if the environment in 1964 was like 2015 Goldwater likely would have won. One also has to keep in mind that LBJ got a big bump from carrying JFK's water after his assassination, as well as a far more technically competent campaign than the opposition had. If those factors didn't exist it's likely LBJ's landslide victory would have been instead merely decisive. Even with all that going against him Goldwater started out in June with a 77-18 lead for LBJ, which was gradually brought down to a 61-38 lead by the actual election (source); that's actually one of the more impressive campaign-season shifts in polling of any Presidential race, so even under those hostile conditions Goldwater was gaining traction in a significant way, though obviously not nearly enough for victory by election day.
I've heard rumors of birthers backing Cruz as revenge for the Democrats foisting an illegitimate President upon the country, so that sentiment could just as easily go in the opposite direction.
The Democrats always win? Yeah, right; losing state legislatures to where they hold fewer chambers than at any other time in the party's history, losing the House to where they have the smallest caucus in 87 years, and losing their Senate majority with more incumbents losing than at any election since 1980 is really what I'd call "always winning" . The only center of power Democrats control or indeed have controlled for most of the past two decades is the Presidency, and the last election even there was a close shave against a weak opponent
Trust of government has nothing to do with that trouncing, Goldwater water was just an inherently flawed candidate. if your logic had been sound, JFK wouldnt have beaten Nixon by a hair and Humphrey wouldnt have lost to Nixon just 4 years later.
As for your argument that the last election was a "close shave", get real. 332 to 206 is not close. 2008 comparatively shows that more Democrats stayed home than republicans showed out to vote. And the electoral land slide further proves it.
Quote:
(4 points, with Romney leading the polls for a good part of the campaign season).
the last election was only 2 years ago, and yet you guys are already rewriting history
Campaign season if we go by the official acceptance of the nomination and beyond was 3 months. Romney lead in polling average for exactly one day, October 9th, 2012. That is it.
Your worse nightmare has just become reality.
With everyone fed up with the way Washington has been run and used to enslave us all, it will be refreshing to see someone that PO's all those Washington insider Democrats and Republicans(Progressives) get the support of the people that are "fed" up.
Your worse nightmare has just become reality.
With everyone fed up with the way Washington has been run and used to enslave us all, it will be refreshing to see someone that PO's all those Washington insider Democrats and Republicans(Progressives) get the support of the people that are "fed" up.
Cruz is just another tool of the rich. You want to see someone the rich and corporations don't like, check out Warren. That woman gives them nightmares.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 29 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,589 posts, read 16,568,312 times
Reputation: 6050
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Your worse nightmare has just become reality.
With everyone fed up with the way Washington has been run and used to enslave us all, it will be refreshing to see someone that PO's all those Washington insider Democrats and Republicans(Progressives) get the support of the people that are "fed" up.
If Ted Cruz actually stood for everything you claim he did, you would have no need to tell anyone that he is their "nightmare".
This is pretty much my point of view as well, in fact I am praying that the Establishment doesent even bother and just lets him win the nomination. Eight years of Hillary will cause the GOP to implode and return to the center ... from which we can actually win.
The Tea Party does not seem to grasp that the US is not a far right nation, it's a centrist nation. This is why the Democrats always win, they campaign as centrists ... not far right ideologues.
I do not think Cruz will get the GOP nomination in '16. The moneyed interests that want a candidate who can woo the moderates and independents will not contribute much to his campaign.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713
The Democrats do not "always" win. In fact, the Republicans have won 5 of the last 10 presidential elections. And as impossible as it seemed in 2008, the Republicans now lead the US House, US Senate, a solid majority of state governor's mansions and a solid majority of state houses, which also includes a very lopsided number of states where the Republicans control both state houses and the Governor's mansion.
Anyone extrapolating Obama's victory in the last two in a row into a long-term or even a permanent new political reality in this country has not studied the political volatility of our country or other democratically oriented countries very much at all.
This is going to be a close presidential race and as is usually the case, it will come down to the wire. It may also be close in the US Senate. But for all the rest, the Republicans will continue to dominate for a good while yet, and nothing is going to happen in the next two years to change that.
Not disputing what you're saying, but to be fair looking at the whole picture in American politics, consideration must be given to the fact that the big cities in the US tend to be run by Democratic mayors and city councils, the judiciary leans more to the Democrats (that why I believe same sex marriage will be legal in all 50 states this summer), and it tends to be be the populous and wealthiest states that are important that have Democrats for governors - like California, New York, Pennsylvania, etc. Although Illinois and New Jersey have Republican governors they are absolutely centrists because they are in essentially "blue" states. Who cares who the governor of Idaho is? While some Republicans run with the (R) tag they truly are "RINOs".
Yes, the GOP scored a big victory when they were elected with the majority in the House, the Senate, and the Governor's races. Their victory did not, however, give them a veto-proof majority nor a filibuster-proof majority. Their power does have limits and the picture can change dramatically in 2016.
I do not think Cruz will get the GOP nomination in '16. The moneyed interests that want a candidate who can woo the moderates and independents will not contribute much to his campaign.
Not disputing what you're saying, but to be fair looking at the whole picture in American politics, consideration must be given to the fact that the big cities in the US tend to be run by Democratic mayors and city councils, the judiciary leans more to the Democrats (that why I believe same sex marriage will be legal in all 50 states this summer), and it tends to be be the populous and wealthiest states that are important that have Democrats for governors - like California, New York, Pennsylvania, etc. Although Illinois and New Jersey have Republican governors they are absolutely centrists because they are in essentially "blue" states. Who cares who the governor of Idaho is? While some Republicans run with the (R) tag they truly are "RINOs".
Yes, the GOP scored a big victory when they were elected with the majority in the House, the Senate, and the Governor's races. Their victory did not, however, give them a veto-proof majority nor a filibuster-proof majority. Their power does have limits and the picture can change dramatically in 2016.
All you have to do, is tell the truth and they will come.
Ron Paul proved that.
The Republican Base, is not who they have to tell the truth to. Hell, the base will buy lies right with the truth, as long as it is a Republican. You could not sell McCain, nor Romney as a Conservative and it showed at the polls on election day.
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.
. The only center of power Democrats control or indeed have controlled for most of the past two decades is the Presidency, and the last election even there was a close shave against a weak opponent