Can Trump beat Clinton?

[LumRaiderFan]

1 hour ago, bullets13 said:

i've been arguing with some of you guys for years about what republicans need to do in order to get back into the white house.  many of you guys have insisted that the problem is that your candidates have not been conservative enough, while i've insisted they need to be even more moderate.  well, if this doesn't answer that debate for you, i don't know what will.  you have the ultra-conservative candidate you've wanted in the race, and he's being routinely beaten by a blowhard mouthpiece who has no experience and no plan.  

As an aside: For all of the many thousands of jabs you guys have taken at democrats on this site over the years for being low information voters... DONALD TRUMP IS WINNING REPUBLICAN STATE PRIMARIES.  I guess those voters exist in large numbers on both sides of the aisle after all.`

Low information voters are without a doubt on both sides...the larger number exist in the form of moderates.

They can be swayed by the last few soundbites they hear and will vote for someone like Trump when they voted for Obama last election...whoever makes them feel good.

Obama played the game and got them, now Trump is doing it.

No true conservative will vote for Trump UNLESS he is the last man standing for the Republicans...he'll be much better that what we have had and what we would get from the Democrats.

[bullets13]

17 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Low information voters are without a doubt on both sides...the larger number exist in the form of moderates.

They can be swayed by the last few soundbites they hear and will vote for someone like Trump when they voted for Obama last election...whoever makes them feel good.

Obama played the game and got them, now Trump is doing it.

No true conservative will vote for Trump UNLESS he is the last man standing for the Republicans...he'll be much better that what we have had and what we would get from the Democrats.

i wholeheartedly disagree with this.  moderates actually consider the issues and the politician's stances on said issues before making a decision, especially if you include the unaffiliated in this category, which most do now.   the far right and far left eat whatever their party feeds them without a second thought.  the only reason conservatives don't like moderates is because in the last few election cycles they have not been voting conservative.

[LumRaiderFan]

14 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

i wholeheartedly disagree with this.  moderates actually consider the issues and the politician's stances on said issues before making a decision, especially if you include the unaffiliated in this category, which most do now.   the far right and far left eat whatever their party feeds them without a second thought.  the only reason conservatives don't like moderates is because in the last few election cycles they have not been voting conservative.

The right and the left vote Republican and Democrat because each has core values that would never allow them in good conscience to vote for the other...but the moderates love to throw out the line (like you just did) that they are simply being fed by their party...wrong.  Must make them feel more enlightened.

They simply have some core values that they won't give on...I am talking about individuals, not the parties as a whole.

Moderates don't seem to have any core values that they won't give on.

If I am wrong, list the values that most moderates stick by.

[bullets13]

1 hour ago, LumRaiderFan said:

The right and the left vote Republican and Democrat because each has core values that would never allow them in good conscience to vote for the other...but the moderates love to throw out the line (like you just did) that they are simply being fed by their party...wrong.  Must make them feel more enlightened.

They simply have some core values that they won't give on...I am talking about individuals, not the parties as a whole.

Moderates don't seem to have any core values that they won't give on.

If I am wrong, list the values that most moderates stick by.

As a moderate, I have core values from both sides that I won't change to toe a party line, which is why i refuse to label myself one way or another.  That being said, I AM willing to examine the current climate of the country and make concessions one way or another and vote for the candidate that I feel is best for our country.  This election, for example, I'm willing to forgoe my liberal beliefs and vote for Rubio because I personally feel he is the best candidate for the job.  That being said, if we have a Cruz/Clinton or Trump/Clinton election I'm just going to stay home because I can't bring myself to vote for any of the three without feeling sick to my stomach.

[TxHoops]

Vegas odds to win the Presidency:

Clinton -150

Trump +200

Rubio +500

Sanders +1000

Bloomberg +2500

Cruz +10,000

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

[TxHoops]

Per the Kevin from "The Office" rule, we should all bet on Cruz.  "If you ever get 10,000 to 1, you have to take it.  If John Mellencamp ever wins an Oscar, I'm going to be a very rich man."

Which is ironic:

 

 

[TxHoops]

My bad, Cruz is +10,000 which is 100 to 1 (bet $100 to win $10,000).  Kevin rule is out

[LumRaiderFan]

1 hour ago, bullets13 said:

As a moderate, I have core values from both sides that I won't change to toe a party line, which is why i refuse to label myself one way or another.  That being said, I AM willing to examine the current climate of the country and make concessions one way or another and vote for the candidate that I feel is best for our country.  This election, for example, I'm willing to forgoe my liberal beliefs and vote for Rubio because I personally feel he is the best candidate for the job.  That being said, if we have a Cruz/Clinton or Trump/Clinton election I'm just going to stay home because I can't bring myself to vote for any of the three without feeling sick to my stomach.

Trump and Clinton I can understand...just curious, what is it about Cruz that makes you feel sick to your stomach...not asking about his personality, but his policies and record?

[bullets13]

56 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Trump and Clinton I can understand...just curious, what is it about Cruz that makes you feel sick to your stomach...not asking about his personality, but his policies and record?

As a social liberal, I have a hard time voting for someone who comes off as so conservative that they would try and push legislation that I feel would discriminate against certain groups of people. I also have a problem with the shady things he's been pulling to try and sway voters in the primaries, and he reeks of hypocrisy to me after being one of the leaders in the charge to question Obama's citizenship while living almost exactly the same situation.  As for his policy and record, it's tough to gauge that, because he's basically done nothing beyond being a good debater or talker (kinda like our current president).

[LumRaiderFan]

18 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

As a social liberal, I have a hard time voting for someone who comes off as so conservative that they would try and push legislation that I feel would discriminate against certain groups of people. I also have a problem with the shady things he's been pulling to try and sway voters in the primaries, and he reeks of hypocrisy to me after being one of the leaders in the charge to question Obama's citizenship while living almost exactly the same situation.  As for his policy and record, it's tough to gauge that, because he's basically done nothing beyond being a good debater or talker (kinda like our current president).

what groups would he discriminate against?

[bullets13]

Any that don't line up with his strict, conservative beliefs.  I feel we need a republican right now to help fix the economy, but I worry that cruz will spend a lot more time and effort trying to legislate morality, which i'm firmly against.   As I mentioned earlier, I can take the good with the bad from both sides in relation to my ideology, but I'm not going to vote for a republican to fix the economy if I'm concerned he'll put social issues ahead of the economy, especially if I can't stand his stance on those social issues.

[LumRaiderFan]

15 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

Any that don't line up with his strict, conservative beliefs.  I feel we need a republican right now to help fix the economy, but I worry that cruz will spend a lot more time and effort trying to legislate morality, which i'm firmly against.   As I mentioned earlier, I can take the good with the bad from both sides in relation to my ideology, but I'm not going to vote for a republican to fix the economy if I'm concerned he'll put social issues ahead of the economy, especially if I can't stand his stance on those social issues.

One thing's for sure...you will never have a Democrat fix the economy, and we're running out of Republicans that will, also.

Better vote for one that is still talking about making cuts while we can...I wish we had more folks that could get behind someone like Paul that would like to actually go by the Constitution and let gay marriage, abortion, welfare, education and all the other stuff that the fed gov has no business in go back to the states to decide.

Sadly, we're past that...too many folks looking for answers from the fed gov.

[PN-G bamatex]

Back to the thread's original question....

No, Donald Trump cannot beat Hillary Clinton, and I seriously, seriously doubt Ted Cruz could either. Trump can't even beat Sanders, and Cruz has a coin flip's chance. All of the polling indicates that this party has (barring disaster) two sure things right now: Marco Rubio and John Kasich.

If this party has any sense left at all, Marco Rubio will be the nominee in November. Otherwise, y'all better get ready for four more years of a Democrat in the White House.

[LumRaiderFan]

5 minutes ago, PN-G bamatex said:

Back to the thread's original question....

No, Donald Trump cannot beat Hillary Clinton, and I seriously, seriously doubt Ted Cruz could either. Trump can't even beat Sanders, and Cruz has a coin flip's chance. All of the polling indicates that this party has (barring disaster) two sure things right now: Marco Rubio and John Kasich.

If this party has any sense left at all, Marco Rubio will be the nominee in November. Otherwise, y'all better get ready for four more years of a Democrat in the White House.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

[PN-G bamatex]

1 minute ago, LumRaiderFan said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

I hate to break this to you, but you are every bit as delusional as Ted Cruz himself if you think he's the new Ronald Reagan.

[LumRaiderFan]

Just now, PN-G bamatex said:

I hate to break this to you, but you are every bit as delusional as Ted Cruz himself if you think he's the new Ronald Reagan.

And you are delusional if you think a squishy moderate Republican is the answer we need right now.

I guess you missed my point...your polling data means nothing at this point.

[PN-G bamatex]

6 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

And you are delusional if you think a squishy moderate Republican is the answer we need right now.

I guess you missed my point...your polling data means nothing at this point.

No, I get your point. I do. I'd bet very, very good money that I'm a lot more involved in politics than you are. I know that head-to-head polls aren't always the best long term indicators of a candidate's success. What are good indicators, though, are favorability polls, in which Ted Cruz comes in ahead of absolutely nobody but Donald Trump, while both Marco Rubio and John Kasich post numbers that are, not surprisingly, as good as or better than the two potential Democrat nominees among general election voters.

And if you'll notice, I didn't pick any "squishy," moderate candidate. I picked Marco Rubio, whose conservative bona fides are every bit as strong as Ted Cruz's (arguably stronger in certain areas). If I was going for "squishy" candidates, Ted Cruz would be my man. I mean, how could I pass up on this face?

[LumRaiderFan]

13 minutes ago, PN-G bamatex said:

No, I get your point. I do. I'd bet very, very good money that I'm a lot more involved in politics than you are. I know that head-to-head polls aren't always the best long term indicators of a candidate's success. What are good indicators, though, are favorability polls, in which Ted Cruz comes in ahead of absolutely nobody but Donald Trump, while both Marco Rubio and John Kasich post numbers that are, not surprisingly, on as good as or better than the two potential Democrat nominees.

And if you'll notice, I didn't pick any "squishy," moderate candidate. I picked Marco Rubio, whose conservative bona fides are every bit as strong as Ted Cruz's (arguably stronger in certain areas). If I was going for "squishy" candidates, Ted Cruz would be my man. I mean, how could I pass up on this face?

You probably are more involved in politics...I have a family and full time job to look after...doesn't make you any better judge of a candidate's character.

Believe me, if Rubio is the guy, I will vote for him over the other side, but I will guarantee you that he will make no attempt to cut the spending and the debt will grow.

So our side will win...and we continue down the same path...yeehaw.

[PN-G bamatex]

Just now, LumRaiderFan said:

You probably are more involved in politics...I have a family and full time job to look after...doesn't make you any better judge of candidate's character.

On the contrary. I'll refer you to my previous post on this very subject.

 

And that was before the video accusing Rubio of insulting the Bible, or the photoshopped picture with Obama, or the fake Facebook page impersonating Trey Gowdy that said he was no longer endorsing Marco.

[LumRaiderFan]

2 minutes ago, PN-G bamatex said:

On the contrary. I'll refer you to my previous post on this very subject.

 

And that was before the video accusing Rubio of insulting the Bible, or the photoshopped picture with Obama, or the fake Facebook page impersonating Trey Gowdy that said he was no longer endorsing Marco.

The Cruz campaign fired the guy...not sure what else they can do.

You have drank the GOP kool-aid and decided to settle for Rubio because he's the "safest" bet.

He will do nothing to stop the spending or make our borders safe...you know it and I know it, but hey, we got a Republican in the White House.

[PN-G bamatex]

Just now, LumRaiderFan said:

The Cruz campaign fired the guy...not sure what else they can do.

You have drank the GOP kool-aid and decided to settle for Rubio because he's the "safest" bet.

He will do nothing to stop the spending or make our borders safe...you know it and I know it, but hey, we got a Republican in the White House.

Dude, I don't even like Kool Aid.

I haven't "drank" anything. I didn't decide to "settle" for Rubio this past week, or this past month, or even this past year. I knew I would be voting for Marco Rubio one day when I watched his victory speech after winning his Senate seat while I was still a senior in high school back in 2010. I posted on this very site in 2012 that if Mitt Romney didn't win, Marco Rubio would be the next President of the United States. I stand by that now. My mail in ballot was sealed in its envelope with the box beside Rubio's name filled in days before the South Carolina primary even took place.

My support for Rubio isn't engendered by the fact that he's a conservative candidate for president that's actually electable, it's merely bolstered by it. I agree with Marco on more issues than any other Republican candidate. I knew that when this race first started, but took the ISideWith policy test anyways just to quantify it. I agreed with 96% of his policy positions.

Furthermore, I disagree with your contention that he won't do anything to slow the rate of spending. Marco cut the built in bailout fund for health insurers out of Obamacare. That's more of a cut than Ted Cruz has ever come close to passing. Where the border's concerned, that evil, unpalatable "Gang of Eight" bill included massive increases in the number of Border Patrol agents on the southern border - a part of the bill Marco continues to campaign on now. Cruz has never proposed a single piece of legislation that would do anything to shore up border security.

Oh, and about the Cruz campaign firing that guy, they never fired Dan Gabriel or their high-ranking fundraising official that got caught cheating on a law school exam. I wonder why that is? Oh, that's right, because it wouldn't yield a PR boost.

[LumRaiderFan]

4 minutes ago, PN-G bamatex said:

Dude, I don't even like Kool Aid.

I haven't "drank" anything. I didn't decide to "settle" for Rubio this past week, or this past month, or even this past year. I knew I would be voting for Marco Rubio one day when I watched his victory speech after winning his Senate seat while I was still a senior in high school back in 2010. I posted on this very site in 2012 that if Mitt Romney didn't win, Marco Rubio would be the next President of the United States. I stand by that now. My mail in ballot was sealed in its envelope with the box beside Rubio's name filled in days before the South Carolina primary even took place.

My support for Rubio isn't engendered by the fact that he's a conservative candidate for president that's actually electable, it's merely bolstered by it. I agree with Marco on more issues than any other Republican candidate. I knew that when this race first started, but took the ISideWith policy test anyways just to quantify it. I agreed with 96% of his policy positions.

Furthermore, I disagree with your contention that he won't do anything to slow the rate of spending. Marco cut the built in bailout fund for health insurers out of Obamacare. That's more of a cut than Ted Cruz has ever come close to passing. Where the border's concerned, that evil, unpalatable "Gang of Eight" bill included massive increases in the number of Border Patrol agents on the southern border - a part of the bill Marco continues to campaign on now. Cruz has never proposed a single piece of legislation that would do anything to shore up border security.

Oh, and about the Cruz campaign firing that guy, they never fired Dan Gabriel or their high-ranking fundraising official that got caught cheating on a law school exam. I wonder why that is? Oh, that's right, because it wouldn't yield a PR boost.

Rubio will be more of the same that we have had for a while, and the spending will continue because he feels like central planning (and spending) is appropriate.

Maybe they aren't serving kool-aid at the GOP these days...I wouldn't know...dude.

[PN-G bamatex]

1 minute ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Rubio will be more of the same that we have had for a while, and the spending will continue because he feels like central planning (and spending) is appropriate.

Maybe they aren't serving kool-aid at the GOP these days...I wouldn't know...dude.

When, exactly, did Rubio advocate for central planning? I'm pretty sure my two hardcore Rand Paul-supporting, super Libertarian, economics grad student best friends wouldn't be going for Rubio since Rand dropped out if he was a central planner.

Oh, that's right, he's not. That's just another dirty, *untrue* tagline Cruz supporters like to throw around.

[LumRaiderFan]

2 minutes ago, PN-G bamatex said:

When, exactly, did Rubio advocate for central planning? I'm pretty sure my two hardcore Rand Paul-supporting, super Libertarian, economics grad student best friends wouldn't be going for Rubio since Rand dropped out if he was a central planner.

Oh, that's right, he's not. That's just another dirty, *untrue* tagline Cruz supporters like to throw around.

We'll see...Rubio will be a big spender is he is elected...I'll remind you of it in a year or too...comes from years and years of seeing promises that don't match up with actions.

And pardon me if I don't put much stock in your world traveler grad student buddies decision on presidential picks...lol.

I'm out, it's late...gotta get up go to work in the morning.

[PN-G bamatex]

6 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

We'll see...Rubio will be a big spender is he is elected...I'll remind you of it in a year or too...comes from years and years of seeing promises that don't match up with actions.

And pardon me if I don't put much stock in your world traveler grad student buddies decision on presidential picks...lol.

I'm out, it's late...gotta get up go to work in the morning.

World travelers? One of them's never even left the country. And that's beside the point, which is that a couple of Libertarian economics grads aren't going to go for anything even remotely resembling a "central planner." Which, by the way, isn't inextricably tied to government spending; we don't have a centrally planned economy right now despite the spending, and we've had quasi-centrally planned economies during war efforts in which we spent less than we do now. In any case, you have more reason to believe Rubio's sincerity with regard to the debt based on his actual record than you do Cruz.