2016: Its going to end up being Hillary Clinton vs Ted Cruz

[sandsthetime]

If Ted Cruz is the GOP nominee, 2016 will be handed to Hillary on a silver platter.

[Pressing-On]

I don't know about Hillary. When the NYT wants you to clean up your act on scandals, that is saying they think they backed the wrong horse.

[BentBow]

Originally Posted by sandsthetime

If Ted Cruz is the GOP nominee, 2016 will be handed to Hillary on a silver platter.

There is that crystal ball thing again....

Can you shoot me some lotto numbers for tomorrow nights draw?

[bluesjuke]

Quote:
Originally Posted by geofra
"Clinton vs. Bush... redux."

Originally Posted by drishmael

Sadly, I think you're right. Conservatives won't be happy, but as Mitt Romney -- the most transparent flip-flopper in recent memory -- demonstrated, it doesn't much matter. The Republican establishment always wins.

Yet many Republican voters (Party affiliated or not) are fed up with this and I know they know it.
They will have to throw out a bone periodically at least the too small ones we are used too and we are fed up with that also.

[mkpunk]

Originally Posted by wutitiz

We're barely into the first mile of a 26.2 mile marathon. Making a "for sure" prediction at this point is a fool's errand.

Well Cruz as the nominee would likely NOT get the Republicans the White House. Reagan won but because he had a coalition and disenfranchised voters outside of the coalition. I don't see Cruz doing that. Reagan wasn't a polarizing figure like Cruz was. Reagan was like your grandfather and at least somewhat likable.

Originally Posted by spoilers4me

I think I would vote for the "mainstream radical" before I would vote for Ted Cruz.

If I was given Paul over Cruz, yes but after Paul's flip-flop, I don't know if I can trust him

Originally Posted by no1brownsfan

Oh goodie! Two more of the same ol' same ol' status quo candidates being presented to us. At least it will fun to watch which one blows the most smoke up our a**es!

Until a third party candidate is allowed into the debates, it won't be any different.

Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas

So I assume you will be abstaining from voting in 2016 or you can waste your time and go write in someone without a snowballs chance in Hades on the ballet.

I was talking to my father about a Cruz vs. Clinton, even most Republican candidates at this stage and I told him that I would vote third party. He said that is a wasted vote but I replied, I rather vote than not vote. Not voting shows I don't care and by voting third party it is a vote of no confidence.

Originally Posted by newtoks

I can't believe that the GOP would be stupid enough to let that happen. Some of the behind the scenes people that control the cash would put a stop to Cruz, they know that he can't win in the general election.

I don't know what is the deal with that.

Has any Presidential candidate ever won all 50 states? If Cruz is the GOP nominee, there is a good chance that could happen.

Not in the modern era but we came close in 1972 when McGovern only won one state (I think Mondale won one state from Reagan in 1984.) He'll win Texas, Arizona and maybe the bible belt, but that's it. No swing-states though.

Originally Posted by wutitiz

Liberals said the same things about Reagan that they're now saying about Ted Cruz. They called Reagan an "ultraconservative" (which he was), "extremist," "hard right," etc. Guess what Reagan won two terms. He won all but 6 states+DC over Carter, and all but 1 state+DC over Mondale.

And before someone says 'yeah but the demographics were different,' the political spectrum was different. The conservative right in 1980 was nowhere near the force that it is today. Reagan, as even Pres. Obama has said, was a transformative leader. Richard Nixon would be considered a liberal Democrat by today's standards, and certainly to the left of a Hillary Clinton or even Barack Obama. Nixon imposed wage/price controls, supported a ban on handguns, and increased federal spending by leaps and bounds.

The conservative right got their strength in 1980 under Reagan but alas, he would be considered a moderate if not progressive now rather than a conservative because of policies he put in. The other thing was that Carter beat Ford over economic malaise but Carter was not been able to change it. Add this to Christians who had to deal with over-sexuality and drugs in the 1960's and 1970's.

[Casper in Dallas]

Originally Posted by mkpunk

I was talking to my father about a Cruz vs. Clinton, even most Republican candidates at this stage and I told him that I would vote third party. He said that is a wasted vote but I replied, I rather vote than not vote. Not voting shows I don't care and by voting third party it is a vote of no confidence.

That is why I would love to see one more choice added to all ballets for candidates running for any office and if over 50% over voters select it the Parties have to go get entirely new candidates and another election run, that extra choice would be None of the Above. We can count on that not happening.

[mkpunk]

Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas

That is why I would love to see one more choice added to all ballets for candidates running for any office and if over 50% over voters select it the Parties have to go get entirely new candidates and another election run, that extra choice would be None of the Above. We can count on that not happening.

I don't really see that working because that would just continue the existing president's term. Remember with the whole lame duck change this would drastically change when we vote and when officials come into office. Say Clinton and Cruz were the nominees, we vote none of the above, now we have to wait for new nominees to get named (likely more primaries), debates and then vote again and hopefully one gets 50% this time. Meanwhile, we have say Obama in Washington longer as a lame duck.