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.
You have absolutely no way of knowing that right now. All speculation. You know, the same speculation that said Trump and Hillary would easily win Iowa tonight. Oops.
Except I've been saying for months that I thought Trump would likely implode and that Hillary is a weak candidate. Anyone who follows politics knows that Democrats tend to win urban areas. Between the high proportion of minorities, and liberals in cities, it puts any Republican that isn't moderate at a disadvantage. The Electoral map increasingly benefits Democrats; just like the midterms increasingly benefit Republicans. In order for the Democrats to win they only have to pick up Colorado and Nevada. A Republican has to have broad enough appeal to pull in enough swing states to win. Marco Rubio likely has that kind of appeal, but Ted Cruz does not. Ted Cruz isn't even liked well within his own party.
It's pretty hard to imagine him appealing to large numbers of moderate voters. So yes, I do know that with some level of certainty. Ted Cruz will do just the same as Huckabee and Santorum did in 2008 and 2012. He will win very conservative deep southern and Midwestern states and lost everywhere else. The only hope he has is that Trump and Rubio both do well enough to split the moderate vote, and allow him to sneak on it.
Not if you've ever watched a presidential election before.
Iowa Rs *always* go for a religious conservative. The only reason why Cruz might have lost to Trump is that the religious conservative vote was split among too many candidates.
The Iowa results are not a good predictor of the other 49 states. Something else that people who have watched past presidential elections know.
That's not true at all. They voted for both Bushes, Bob Dole twice, and Gerald Ford, and they split into a virtual tie between Romney and Santorum. They more often than not pick the eventual nominee. It's only in the last few elections that the more Conservative candidates seem to do better.
Except I've been saying for months that I thought Trump would likely implode and that Hillary is a weak candidate. Anyone who follows politics knows that Democrats tend to win urban areas. Between the high proportion of minorities, and liberals in cities, it puts any Republican that isn't moderate at a disadvantage. The Electoral map increasingly benefits Democrats; just like the midterms increasingly benefit Republicans. In order for the Democrats to win they only have to pick up Colorado and Nevada. A Republican has to have broad enough appeal to pull in enough swing states to win. Marco Rubio likely has that kind of appeal, but Ted Cruz does not. Ted Cruz isn't even liked well within his own party.
It's pretty hard to imagine him appealing to large numbers of moderate voters. So yes, I do know that with some level of certainty. Ted Cruz will do just the same as Huckabee and Santorum did in 2008 and 2012. He will win very conservative deep southern and Midwestern states and lost everywhere else. The only hope he has is that Trump and Rubio both do well enough to split the moderate vote, and allow him to sneak on it.
I agree with this overall assessment in the sense that Hillary is quite vulnerable and can get beat by a more charismatic center-right opponent, especially if that opponent is more trustworthy. I started out thinking that would obviously be Rubio.
However, the more I see Rubio in action the more I realize he's pretty bad at toning down the harsher aspects of his convictions. I mean he sounds sane and likable at first, then out pops the kind of things that would send young people and far left liberals (Hillary's least enthusiastic voters) flying to the polls to vote against him. He can come across like an undercover nut.
I kinda think Kasich has the best chance to beat Hillary but he'll never make it out of the primaries. I'm surprised he's still in it frankly. I think Rubio is touch and go because he's prone to shoot himself in the foot, like Romney was.
It's going to be (in order) Clinton, Rubio, or Trump
Rubio versus Clinton. Few people, outside the ones already supporting him, find him even remotely tolerable.
As the field narrows it will get down to Rubio and Cruz with the more moderate Rubio getting the nod.
Tell that to the millions of voters who can afford health insurance now, who were uninsured before.
But hey, if the Repubs want to campaign on repealing the ACA, I would encourage that strongly. It's their funeral.
The ACA still needs a lot of work, at this point it's insurance in name only for many people--there are many who can't afford to cover their deductibles.
Liberty requires great responsibility. You can go exercise your liberal free speech and get tarred and feathered for trying to make America to be like England. Go to a bar and start using your free speech in the wrong way and you might get punched in the face.
A good tar and feathering will help a lot of liberals to be responsible citizens and stop acting like victims.
At the U.S.'s inception, wealthy land owners and businessmen were the ones who enjoyed the stated "unalienable rights" of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness".
From the get go in this country there has been a double standard, and the means of earning your living today are quite different than they used to be. Sure, go tell a person trying to eke out a living to get their own land and feed themselves--hardly anyone provides for themselves completely anymore.
Like it or not, most of us live in a society dependent upon certain services to be productive and safe, and a well-run capitalist-socialist system which provides basic services is necessary.
The founding fathers and son's of Liberty regularly tar and feathered outspoken loyalist. I'm sure they would do the same to Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and their supporters.
You seem to be weirdly nostalgic for the days when people tortured each other (hot tar causes second degree burns) over politics. I suggest you find an American revolution re-enactor group and volunteer to re-create that bit of history. Report back on the reception you get for your idea.
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.
