Jump to content

Cruz Control!


smitty

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, REBgp said:

Interesting.  I looked up Super Pacs.  I still don't quite understand.  I thot they were independent of the candidates, now I'm not sure.  I would hope most are on the up & up, for the candidate or the country, but I suspect it's fertile ground for all kind of bs.  

I understood about the Bush to Rubio money.  At least that makes sense.  

I'm still firmly convinced that the RNC & DNC control most of our elected Govt Officials.  Not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.  

Super PACs are supposed to be independent, although as pointed out in a previous post, they often trade staff with the campaigns, employ friends or big financial backers of the candidate, etc.

I'll be fair. Where his campaign is concerned, Cruz has one of the best grassroots operation in the race. He's received more small donations as a proportion of his overall fundraising total than any other GOP candidate. But the truth is the polar opposite with respect to the Super PACs that support him. And you'll notice that in that same metric, Rick Perry places third, and he hasn't been in the race for months.

Here's a friendly word of advice. If you ever want to find out who really makes the tea party movement in the State of Texas work, take a drive around Uptown the next time you're in Dallas. You're bound to run across seven or eight of 'em. The candidates may come from Houston, but the money comes from the Metroplex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's what boggles my mind.  It's been evident to me that Trump was on a roll, so surely the RNC could see it.  Now, if I heard right, they're trying to figure a way to beat him.  My feeble brain tells me it's too late.  They also didn't want Cruz, who's in second.  Knock knock RNC, maybe you need to embrace whoever the voters pick and start consolidating your efforts toward beating Hillary.  And to show y'all how smart I am, I thought there was no way a lying, no class, felon would get the Dem nomination.  My 1970's, 1980's logic is so far out of sync with today's electorate it's pathetic.  I need to charge my Flux Capacitor.   There was a candidate in my youth, Alfred E Neuman.  He could win now as a Democrat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, REBgp said:

Here's what boggles my mind.  It's been evident to me that Trump was on a roll, so surely the RNC could see it.  Now, if I heard right, they're trying to figure a way to beat him.  My feeble brain tells me it's too late.  They also didn't want Cruz, who's in second.  Knock knock RNC, maybe you need to embrace whoever the voters pick and start consolidating your efforts toward beating Hillary.  And to show y'all how smart I am, I thought there was no way a lying, no class, felon would get the Dem nomination.  My 1970's, 1980's logic is so far out of sync with today's electorate it's pathetic.  I need to charge my Flux Capacitor.   There was a candidate in my youth, Alfred E Neuman.  He could win now as a Democrat. 

lol...now there's a blast from the past!

What, Me Worry?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, smitty said:

Hummmm...

This is the hidden content, please

Heard part of an interview with who I think was a Republican Congressman, and he was saying that the establishment was so concerned that Trump was going to win that they're almost ready to embrace Cruz.  

And the crowning statement came this morning, from a Fox News lady who described Cruz as "an ultra conservative".  Never thought wanting to enforce the Constitution would get someone labeled an ultra conservative. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, REBgp said:

Heard part of an interview with who I think was a Republican Congressman, and he was saying that the establishment was so concerned that Trump was going to win that they're almost ready to embrace Cruz.  

And the crowning statement came this morning, from a Fox News lady who described Cruz as "an ultra conservative".  Never thought wanting to enforce the Constitution would get someone labeled an ultra conservative. 

Oh yeah...promoting policies of lower taxes, smaller gov and following the Constitution are considered "radical" by many.

Funny how you never hear the term "ultra-liberal" used by the media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/7/2016 at 6:26 PM, REBgp said:

Heard part of an interview with who I think was a Republican Congressman, and he was saying that the establishment was so concerned that Trump was going to win that they're almost ready to embrace Cruz.  

And the crowning statement came this morning, from a Fox News lady who described Cruz as "an ultra conservative".  Never thought wanting to enforce the Constitution would get someone labeled an ultra conservative. 

Funny how defending the constitution suddenly involves social issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, westend1 said:

Funny how defending the constitution suddenly involves social issues.

Not funny at all when a Supreme Court Justice appointed by Hillary will empower that court to overturn the 2nd Amendment and take away our right to own guns. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/7/2016 at 6:26 PM, REBgp said:

Heard part of an interview with who I think was a Republican Congressman, and he was saying that the establishment was so concerned that Trump was going to win that they're almost ready to embrace Cruz.  

What you heard was correct. Make no mistake, the establishment does not like Ted Cruz, and frankly, they have very, very good reason not to. But Ted Cruz will set the party back a decade whereas Donald Trump will send it down in a blaze so cataclysmic that it will go down in history as the most divisive end to any American political movement, ever. Between those two poisons, the establishment will pick the former.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PN-G bamatex said:

What you heard was correct. Make no mistake, the establishment does not like Ted Cruz, and frankly, they have very, very good reason not to. But Ted Cruz will set the party back a decade whereas Donald Trump will send it down in a blaze so cataclysmic that it will go down in history as the most divisive end to any American political movement, ever. Between those two poisons, the establishment will pick the former.

Well I'll cement my reputation for being a conspiracy theorists with this question.  Do any of you think that Trump was encouraged to run by his Democratic friends?

And before any of you write me off as a nut, do a little research on the number of times our Govt has lied to us.  I use to trust them too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, REBgp said:

Well I'll cement my reputation for being a conspiracy theorists with this question.  Do any of you think that Trump was encouraged to run by his Democratic friends?

And before any of you write me off as a nut, do a little research on the number of times our Govt has lied to us.  I use to trust them too. 

Buddy, that's no conspiracy theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PN-G bamatex said:

What you heard was correct. Make no mistake, the establishment does not like Ted Cruz, and frankly, they have very, very good reason not to. But Ted Cruz will set the party back a decade whereas Donald Trump will send it down in a blaze so cataclysmic that it will go down in history as the most divisive end to any American political movement, ever. Between those two poisons, the establishment will pick the former.

That's the same thing they said about Ronald Reagan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,968
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    yielder
    Newest Member
    yielder
    Joined



  • Posts

    • The problem as well as that all of the social justice warriors, influencers, and instigators repeat these lies in the immediate days after the event, garnering outrage.  But when they're proven false they never go back and rescind their outrage-causing posts, they just move on to the next one.
    • I just find it really hard to believe that Trump will select a VP based on the votes they bring him.  He's going to want a Trumper that will affirm his every move and stoke his ego.  I'm hoping I'm wrong, but I doubt it.  And as you said, in these battle ground states a few tenths of a % point may be enough to swing the whole election.  Trump can't afford a VP who will cost him votes (Noem would cost him full points, not just tenths), but also needs a candidate that will bring in as many votes as possible.  So hopefully whichever Trump disciple he chooses has some political appeal to swing voters.
    • Good news for this district is for the next two seasons your bi district opposition shouldn’t be much of a challenge… Royal may be better next year but other than that the district is pretty rough… Very good chance that it’s a clean sweep though
    • It’s terrible no matter what happened. I am always concerned with the news media and social media outright lies or incorrect information that is put out, maybe in a rush to be first. Watching the video, it is easy to see that some of the earlier claims are simply nonsense. The officer might be cleared or he might face trial but we should be disgusted with the misinformation. Having been on scene or shortly after an officer involved shooting three times, I can say that some information that comes out is a complete fabrication. This is a horrible situation no matter who was at fault. I wish that the nonsensical false information would stop. That won’t happen…..  
    • Trump walks to the beat of a different drummer so he could very likely pick a person that is on no one’s radar. Going by typical political logic, assuming that a VP pick might bring 0.5%-1% votes, who should it be? A half to one percent is not much but in a potentially razor thin election, a couple of thousand votes in a state could decide the presidency. Biden won AZ by just over 10,000 votes. The most recent Beaumont mayoral election, where almost no one votes, had over 15,000 votes cast. In GA it was 12,000 votes and Biden did not even get 50%. In WI it was 20,000 and again Biden didn’t get to 50%.  There are other states in that area of percent point difference. How important? If any two AZ, GA and WI flip, Trump would have won. So while the VP probably never matters…. can it this time? I think that it could. What then does the VP pick bring to the table? FL and SC were both won by Trump in 2020 so a favored son vote for Rubio or Scott won’t help Trump. Both are in a fairly comfortable position within the conservative community so they will neither hurt nor help with strong conservative voters.  What about the few fence riders that could and likely will determine the election by either sticking with Biden or switching from the last election? What about the people who did not vote in the last election, but may come out to vote in this one just to support the VP candidate? Could Scott sway a percentage point or two from Black support? Could Rubio help draw a percentage point or two of Hispanic support? Possibly on both counts. Like I already mentioned, they won’t help in their own states because Trump already won those in 2020. I personally think that either would actually do a good job as president (although VP picks are about the politics of being elected and not the “best” possible president) and might be the difference in a few votes but a few votes more is all that is needed.  Or…. My outlier, Tulsi Gabbard.  She had some decent support when are ran for the presidency in the Democrat primary. Could some people follow her because they support her and not necessarily the party? I’m sure that’s true for all candidates. Could she bring female support? As a strong mentally and physically person and a member of the military who was deployed into a combat zone into Iraq. Then she went to OCS and became an officer, then deployed to Kuwait. Can that military history, including deployment into a war swing some votes? As of late, she has been on a one person tirade against Biden and the Democrats. Let’s remember that Ronald Reagan was a Democrat and so was Texas governor John Connally. Connally was not only a Democrat governor in Texas but also Secretary of the Navy under JFK. Both ended up switching to the Republican Party so there is a fairly strong history of former Democrats switching parties and being successful, all the way up to the presidency. Gabbard is a pretty fiery campaigner and doesn’t mince her words. She would really be a thorn in the Democrats’ hopes and has the inside knowledge of the party. Could she potentially swing more votes than Scott or Rubio? I think so. But…. I don’t think that Trump would pick her and I’m not sure that she would accept if offered. Her odds of being Trump's pick are at about 1%.  Scott or Rubio at about 10%. Trump being Trump, will choose someone who no one has ever heard of. 
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...