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 think this will be a wasted effort, Cruz may win some primaries but he won't win the nomination. And IF he does, he wont win the presidency. There is just too much dislike to the Tea Party and the far right in politics today. Cruz himself, hasn't been favorable beyond 30% in much with the average in the 20's while unfavorable is steadily in the high 30's into the low 40's. Ted Cruz Favorable Rating - Polls - HuffPost Pollster Plus, CNN had a poll from the Inside Politics show today, and most Americans polled rathered an executive (gubernatorial) candidate rather than legislative (congressional) candidate. It was 59% to 39% or 15% margin (considering margin of error) on March 13-5 CNN/ORC poll.
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.
This is the problem with politics. We have a very loud and boisterous end to both ends of the spectrum (more so the right.) They think that because they aren't being appeased, that is why Romney didn't win rather than say Obama retaining all but 5 million of his voters in 2008 for 2012. I don't think a conservative especially a libertarian leaning and obstructionist conservative like Cruz could win right now. Rand Paul, that's a bit different as he does have the youth vote while Cruz doesn't.
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.
You bring up an interesting point but let's remember that one, Vietnam wasn't a poisoned well the way it was by 68 when LBJ barely won New Hampshire and instead decide to not run. I think that one of the things in favor for the Republicans is the fact that after two-terms in the white house, the other party takes over. That said, I don't know if a staunch conservative to the point of obstructionism like Cruz can work. A president isn't just commander in chief but also compromise in chief. That word in bold doesn't exist to Cruz. This could hurt him with more informed independent voters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus
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.
I think those bringing it up may just be doing this as a way to show that Obama's birther controversy was not racially or politically driven. I mean I am a skeptic and all...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus
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 (4 points, with Romney leading the polls for a good part of the campaign season).
To be fair, the democrats don't historically do well during mid-term elections. Romney may have lost by 4 points popular wise but the popular vote don't win elections, it is the electoral college. Electorally Romney lost by 126 votes. Not necessarily a landslide, but not close. In fact, the last Republican win was closer than that by W. winning over Kerry by 35 votes and 2.4 points popularly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
I somehow don't think it has anything to do with how weak or strong someone views their own party. It has more to do with thinking who is the best match up and the opponent that gives their side the best opportunity.
Not only that, but Ponderosa mentioned specfically about perhaps it will move the GOP to the center a bit. After the last couple elections the consensus from many Republicans on here was that they lost because the GOP wasn't far enough to the right. Well, perhaps putting someone up there as far to the right as Cruz and having him get absolutely demolished in a General Election, will change some of that.
You hear this from "independent" conservatives and other staunch conservatives in the party but they don't have true numbers to back it up. Unless there were conservatives that live in Ohio, Florida and Virginia who had the closest races won by Obama (Florida at 0.88%, Ohio at 2.98% and Virginia at 3.87%) didn't vote. FYI the 62 electoral votes still wouldn't be enough. The conservatives would have to show up in a close race (none were lower than 5% so they would a LOT of conservatives to vote that didn't.) United States presidential election, 2012 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
But here's the thing, if we go by the popular vote (something conservatives push for) Democrats won 6 times to the Republicans' 4. And with that, George W. Bush wouldn't have beaten John Kerry as he would have not been president so in actuality you can say it would be 6-3 Democrat wins over Republican wins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713
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.
It could be IFF the voters are retained by the Democrats in 2016. For young voters, if they vote the same party three times in a row, they are basically set for which party they will vote for life. If millennials in 2008 voted Obama, again for Obama in 2012 and vote Democrat again in 2016, that can be an issue. Obama had a strong contingent of voters that only Nate Silver saw. Most pundits on the right, even the center thought it would have been a closer race than it was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713
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.
It could be if both sides energize and get the moderates, yes it will. The key is either side getting the moderates. If one can't especially in the purple states, they wont win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WIHS2006
I hope so Smash, I certainly hope this occurs. The ability for moderate Republicans like myself to tell the lunatic wing "I told you so" would be the icing on the cake.
I don't understand these people from the far right, I just don't understand them. They don't understand elections or how governing occurs.
You got me. I'm with Smash and you on this as a moderate Republican.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
Cruz will be a formidable candidate. He has the rare combination of being quick on his feet as well as having intellectual depth. Right now I think it's between Cruz, Rubio, and Walker. I will be happy with any of the three. Each has strengths and weaknesses, but if I had to pick today, my choice would be Cruz. The key for him will be to figure out ways to counter the unrelenting name-calling attacks that are sure to ensue from the left. W Bush never solved that problem. Reagan did. We'll see about Cruz.
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.
What is your issue with Dewhurst? Remember, Texas is only one of fifty states and one of the more far right leaning states at that with Arizona and the south.
As for money, Cruz may get the Koch brothers to put money up for him but money don't always win elections. Romney could have used more of the millions in his warchest but it wouldn't have helped. Also Linda McMahon spent about $50 million TWICE for two FAILED US senate bids in Connecticut.
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.
In a way you are right about the insiders but voters want a nominee with executive branch experience. Cruz don't have that. Rand Paul don't have that as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251
If Ted Cruz actually stood for everything you claim he did, you would have no need to tell anyone that he is their "nightmare".
I think that is one of that poster's trademarks such as calling non-conservative Republicans like myself a progressive.
IFF they have the majority in both the House of Representative and the Senate AND dont face a Senate fillibuster either on the floor or vote threshold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
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.
I am a Republican and I voted Republican the last two presidential years. The 2014 midterms, I didn't but only because I didn't like the options and wanted to voted out the incumbent Representative. However you put Cruz up against any Democrat, I'll vote Democrat Presidentially. It may not mean much, Arizona is fairly red anyway.
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.
As someone who wants the Democrats to hold the White House, I ABSOLUTELY want the Republicans to be delusional enough to nominate Ted Cruz. He is COMPLETELY unelectable.
Convince us left wingers of why we should vote for Ted Cruz.
From the movie Dr. Zhivago.
"According to Comrade Lenin The great war was a war between the various Upper Classes and who won was a mater of supreme indifference. But as the war dragged on it would bring on the revolution which would be victory for us!" Ted Cruz is so ignorant he could without understanding grease the skids for this nation to slide in ruin and revolution and that would be victory for the left. Giving Ted Cruz the The Presidency is like giving a box or matches to a toddler to play with , what could possibly go wrong .
Convince us left wingers of why we should vote for Ted Cruz.
Challenge everyone of why Ted Cruz shouldn't be elected. Don't cite leftist sources such as Dailykos and other such nonsense sources. Someone claimed Cruz used innuendos and smears to make his point- prove it without Forbes or WSJ.
As it just so happens, I am going to announce my bid for the Papacy tomorrow.
I only mention it because think we have about equal chances of making it.
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 (4 points, with Romney leading the polls for a good part of the campaign season).
