The all-important Legal Insurrection REPUBLICAN PRIMARY READER POLL
Who needs actual voting?
This is the only poll that matters.
We figured we’d let the dust settle a little since Thursday’s Fox News debates. It’s more, ahem, scientific that way.
Open until Midnight (Pacific Time) on Sunday night, August 9, 2015
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I’d rather see a poll where we could rate the candidates because picking a winner our of ten with such mixed up questions being asked. Comparisons are very difficult.
I think some gained and some lost and some stayed the same.
There was no one winner. IMO.
Strongly agree! It’d be interesting and instructive to allow for ranking the candidates, perhaps the top 3; allowing the top 4 might be good yet feel that it gets tough to rank much more than the top 3.
FWIW: My ranking would have been 1. Trump, 2, Fiorina, 3. Cruz. With ranking 4, my number 4 be Graham.
Yes, but this poll is just asking who do you want to see as the Republican nominee, so we don’t have to wade through the silliness of measuring who “won” the debate.
It wasn’t a debate, it was FOXNews moderators coming in to take out the opposition candidates to their guy, Bush. Sharpened knives were at the ready, each question was heavily editorialized before finally being asked, and the moderators were combative towards the candidates, except, of course, with Jeb Bush.
Disgraceful, and I hope Ms. Acerbic Kelly finds out that she isn’t all that. Wallace we know is a Lefty and was born with a permanent sneer; disappointed about Bret, but he wasn’t the worst. There was a reason for the backlash…
Well, that is Rush’s theory.
Or maybe Fox threw some real, difficult questions at the candidates, and gave them a chance to answer.
The other media would have posed similar questions, imagined answers that would have hurt each of them, and printed the imaginary answers. It’s hard to do that now, because we have the video of actual answers.
I would not be surprised if a lot of this “outrage” is coming from Democrats.
Anything to divert the subject from the genuinely good performance of the Republican candidates.
Yes, I agree, also.
2 hours of prime time, ten hopefuls, over 30 minutes of talk by the moderators plus commercials (excluding the cocktail debate).
And I’m supposed to decide on a winner based on maybe 6 minutes of answers (less for some, more for others)?
Yeah, right. I’ll get right on that any second now.
Damned radio buttons…!!!
I voted for myself and two clients who had given me their proxies.
Yeh.
That’s it…
Would like to have been asked to select the top 8 at this point in time. There’s a whole lot more to assess than 3 1/2 hours minus commercial breaks of opening salvos.
But did push the button to see where Carly Fiornia placed. Like to believe she could be our own Margaret Thatcher of our times and bring about the conservative logic of the Reagan era.
The first thing that turned me off about Obama was his creepy cult followers. The Stormtrumpers are giving me deja vu all over again.
I’m kinda thinking the same way…..Trump has a bunch of entertainment value and I am enjoying his rise like the phoenix every time he is declared “dead” BUT……..something is wrong with the big picture. I smell a plant. He is saying things that are just….too….convenient and are what a large portion of Americans want to hear. Like I said, I enjoy hearing it too but be careful of those “sigh-reens”, they will love you up and turn you into a horny-toad!
I think I see where you are going with this. But, in my opinion, Obama was just way too inexperienced and didn’t have the required skills to do what he promised.
Do you think Trump does not have the required skills either? Or do you think he has some ulterior motive for running other than wanting to help the country?
It’s interesting. If you look back as far as 1988, he says a lot of the same things regarding trade and us losing our jobs to other countries.
So do you think Trump has an ulterior motive? Or do you just think he’d be unable to do what he is vowing to do?
There is no evidence Trump can make good on any of his promises. Governing is a lot different from running a business. Also, while his show business experience makes him somewhat effective as a campaigner, it has it’s limitations. His great love for being in the public eye could mean he behaves a lot like Obama, who is mostly engaged in the ceremonial side of the job and who leaves the real work to aides.
I am also highly concerned about Trump’s long record of shady dealings as an real estate developer. He is far more likely to increase rather than decrease the corruption in DC. Some people seem to think that since he is wealthy he won’t be tempted, but that is to profoundly misunderstand human nature.
Lindsey Graham has one vote as I write this. Glad to know he reads Legal Insurrection.
Two votes, now. He apparently got his dog an account 😉
Cruz, Walker and Fiorina. Not bad.
Two out of the three for President and Vice President.
Dam, not sure if that choice is easy, or hard. Just imagine any combination of two out of the three, compared to what we’ve had for seven years.
Oh, yeah!
Just discovered Carly attacked Cruz on Wednesday (day before debate) for his wanting to defund Obamacare. Said he had no honor, that’s end my second look at her…
Obamacare is ruining our healthcare and our economy. I’m a registered nurse and know what I’m talking about. It’s also why our millennial-aged children have 29hr/wk jobs, low-pay and no benefits, despite being well-educated. It’s why more people have given up looking for work and more women out of work…
I’m hoping for Cruz, maybe we’ll get lucky.
Sorry, LP, I accidentally hit the down vote instead of “reply”. Tried to counter with another up vote, but system won’t tolerate that.
Didn’t know about Carly’s pettiness extending to Cruz, too, but not surprised. What does leave me in dismay is that she is garnering so much positive attention, including her numbers here at LI where I would have thought that the posters and voters would be more inclined to due diligence in vetting the candidates background.
It troubles me that there remain so many who are so easily wooed by an able speaker, a trait which Fiorina has achieved over the years, without delving into the candidates documented history. Carly has a)executed preference for H1B visa hires over American workers in her past role as a CEO. She has b)articulated support for the DREAM Act. There are reports that she has c)expressed support for CommonCore speaking in some venues and d) danced around questions concerning acceptance of anthropogenic global warming (by asserting that it is not the most serious threat facing America today).
While I am still researching the origin and veracity of (c) and (d), my confirmation of items (a) and (b) were sufficient to permanently remove her from my most remote possibility list of acceptables for 2016. Coupled to her inclination toward knee-jerk, snit statements and criticisms of others in the GOP race, she shares file space with John McCain and other establishment types.
I just hope a wiser, more aware and discerning electorate emerges before 2016.
You make a good point. There are two business people in the race Trump and Fiorina.
Now let me make this clear, becuse there are a lot of people on this board who will say that I am proTrump because I say something nice about him. I do not know who I am going to vote for. In some circumstances I would vote for Trump–for example if when my turn came around the only viable candidates were Trump and Bush I would vote for Trump. In other other circumstances, I would not vote for trump– for example if when it came my turn, the only two viable candidates were Cruz and Trump. I would look closer at both but most probably vote for Cruz.
While they both businesspeople, the nature of their businesses are different. Trump succeeds by developing real estate well. He fails enough times he runs out of money, and no one else will trust him with money. Carly OTOH succeeds by interview well, every position she gets she gets by giving a good job interview, including explaining away previous foul ups. The actual evidence is that once she gets the jobs, she doesn’t do it well.
For her the presidential campaign is another job interview, but there is no evidence that she will do well once she gets the job. TO the contrary.
Dear Mouse,
Line for line and word for word I concur with your reasoned post. Particularly good point re people who have honed the skill of interviewing well but have poor performance on the job.
They are often the type of leader who fabricates problems out of thin air or exacerbates small issues as a means to avoid and distract from their incompetence in dealing with the major job responsibilities. Washington, both parties, have far too many of these types, starting at 1600 Penn Ave as the epicenter.
LP:
Do you have a link for that Fiorina comment?
Fiornia lost me last night with her tweets about Trump and Kelly. I had contributed to her, but no more.
Here is the link to Carly’s actual stand in 2013 when Ted Cruz tried to do what his constituents sent him to DC to do – his job.
http://therightscoop.com/carly-fiorina-stood-with-republican-establishment-against-cruz-in-2013-government-shutdown/
I think Breitbart had the remarks about “no honor” in defunding Obamacare.
Yes, her remarks about Trump and Kelly show she jumped on the Establishment bandwagon.
BTW, Erickson going around implying that Trump said something he did not literally say, would seem to lead into areas of legal concern. Does defamation of character enter in this?
There is also a difference between defending someone without having to be a supporter.
PS, to be noted, Erickson (RedState) did not invite Dr. Ben Carson. I think that wasn’t right either.
I see Fiorina’s “no honor” statement in October 2013. It is not an uplifting comment.
America so needs an anti-politician with the wherewithall politically to set our country back on it’s principals and prosperity. Let’s face fact,Republican party….no matter what you do or say, the mainstream media is going to tear you into shreds over EVERYTHING. Accept that fact and let’s do the difficult job of shrugging it off and supporting a true conservative. I would love to See a Walker/Fiorina ticket or a Cruz/Carson situation. Let’s balance out political saavy with a little non-political action VP.
I am glad that I could vote for Carley Fiorina twice. Lol
Granted, this is a small number or results. But I just think it interesting that Carly Fiorina has the second highest vote count (at the time I’m writing this) yet she was in the 2nd tier debate that didn’t have as much national exposure.
Ok, most of the folks here are political junkies so maybe it doesn’t mean much. Still…
I wonder who will be in the next debate, how many people will watch and if those who are watching are people other than political junkies.
It’s similar to the reaction to her on the stump in the early states. The people who hear her talk end up liking her a lot.
I still lean Walker and don’t have to decide until 20 Feb 2016, so there’s no rush. But I like her a lot.
Walker, like Fiornia, lost me with his tweet supporting Kelly and criticizing Trump.
This mostly mirrors the instapundit poll, except Walker got 40% there, with Cruz at 21 and Fiorina at 16 .. BEFORE the debate.
http://poll.pollcode.com/78829761_result?v
AFTER Fiorina was 35, Cruz 19. Walker 23
http://poll.pollcode.com/76459685_result?v
Megyn interviewed some folks tonight in studio, and thought the “no exception to save the mother” thing might hurt Walker in the general.
iirc, Walker said something about other options, and I don’t know what the issue is there. After 20 weeks, how often is that choice made? It seems the issue is perhaps that the “save the mother” excuse is used to abort late term.
This poll is mostly garbage (sorry) as similar candidates steal each others’ votes, and your second preference gets no love. A ranking system would be a better measure at this point. Set up a Surveymonking ranking poll for us, please. http://help.surveymonkey.com/articles/en_US/kb/How-do-I-create-a-Ranking-type-question
Erick Erickson tweeted he has withdrawn his invitation to Trump to speak at his Red State gathering, due to the remarks Trump made about Megyn Kelly.
I think it was on CNN, he said “She came at me with blood coming out her eyes, blood coming out of whatever …” which seems to be the offending remark.
– –
I wouldn’t have booted him, although he should have to defend it. And someone should ask how he can say he’d be tough with Putin and Mexico when tough questions make him cry like this.
The inner spoiled rich brat bully comes out. Loves to dish it out, can’t take it.
Erickson is a pompous blowhard so he didn’t want any competition. He was looking for a way to cut trump and guess what? I’ll bet Trump couldn’t care less.
I wish Erickson would just sell out to Town Hall and quit hogging the stage. Go run for something Erick. You need a real hobby.
Just to be fair, and I’m not a Trump supporter, both my husband and I did not take that remark like Mr. Erickson did. It’s very easy to talk off the cuff and the English language lends itself to informal fill in the blank endings to sentences and thoughts. I thought “ears” was next, but I’m a nurse so would think like that. 🙂
Trump is a blowhard no doubt. I stopped reading redstate over two years ago because Mr. Erickson is a whiner and a complainer. Personally, I would still allow Trump to have come. If none of the other Republican candidates can’t overcome Trump then they will not be able to defeat Clinton.
Erickson’s twitter record has far worse than Trump has ever tweeted or said.
Megyn Kelly is not a fair damsel worth defending…or having on his show. Her GQ photos and trash talk on Howard Stern reveals the trollop underneath the anchor journalist pose.
Can anyone here say that Megyn Kelly isn’t overrated, and a lightweight? Yeah, the comments come across as a little mean, but can anyone say they weren’t true?
Up until a few days ago I had not heard of him. MOw the one thing I have heard is that Erickson thinks Bush is the most conservative governor.
A Walker-FIORINA ticket will win. Walker is low key (a non-BS-er), Midwestern wired and experienced at the state level.
Fiorina has similar down-to-earth values and comes with a business POV. Fiorina would help mitigate the OCD union backlash just by being a smart woman who knows how to get things done without nanny union overlords. Fiorina has worked with stockholder expectations.
The Trumps of the world would be wise to put their money behind them and also the major and would-be tech gurus who want their IPOs and their new gadgets deployed in hopes of meeting revenue expectations. Walker/Fiorina would set manufacturing free from disabling regulations.
Ted Cruz, a great man, would be too much for the liberals and they would send in the clowns to vote twice against him. And, I think Ted better serves the U.S. as the conscience of congress, at least this time round.
I second that. Cruz supporters don’t seem to care that the general election is ultimately decided by swing + indie voters in Blue and Swing states that have the most electoral votes.
These voters are looking for a candidate that can present a concrete agenda beyond the conservative rhetoric, pep talk that appeal to us primary voters.
Did anyone see Carly’s interview on Fox News Sunday, Aug. 9th, 2015?
Wow!
And, yes, Obamacare, Common Core and AGW and the ideologies behind them must be disavowed now! Centralized government disavows democracies and certainly humans.
I’d like a Cruz-Fiorina or a Cruz-Carson ticket. Cruz is terrific. I’ve never heard him back down when faced with hostile questions. He usually knocks them out of the park. And he appears to be principled and honorable.
And because they couldn’t rattle Cruz, the FOX moderators when 40 minutes in the 2nd round without giving him a question. It’s clear the FOX agenda was at work and it wasn’t a debate. It was a hatchet job on all the candidates except Bush. There is the Establishment GOP pick.
I thought Trump answered well. Too bad he did not have sense enough to avoid whining afterward.
The question was fair. Trump has a real mouth on him, and this proves it.
I thought most everyone answered well except mamma’s boy John Ellis Bush who’s not ready for prime time and whose only qualification is the Bush name. Nonetheless the establishment is pushing the boy so hard he’s about to fall over, but not to worry his dear sweet mamma will there to catch him in her apron, dust him off, give him a peck on the cheek and say, “Don’t worry Jeb honey, I just know you’ll be a president like your daddy and big brother.”
I think the one mistake that Trump made was after saying he didn’t have time to PC, he should have asked if she had any proof that he treated women worse then he did men. You know he does do the same thing for men, and if women want equality they should accept the bad parts along with the good parts.
As to the question. in broad form I had no problem with it. However imbedded in the question was a piece of defamatory innuendo. That Trump suggested to a female underling that she get on her knees to preform a sexual act. We now know there were several things wrong with the innuendo, it was an act of supplication not a sexual act, he did not suggest it someone else did, and there may have been a bit of meanspiritedness ( if any ) it certainly was not insulting.
If it were the 1700’s, Europe and Kelley was a man she would be fighting a duel over it. I can’t blame Trump for geting mad over it.
As for Kelley, before this debate I generally thought well of her, but now she has changed ger mind. My negative opinion of her comes does not come whether or not she is a slut ( as som epeople suggest)> I could care less about that. My negative opinion comes from the fact that she is a LIAR! Her many of her questions to ALL the candidates came from lefty field. She has been claiming to be a ”
conservative babe” and she herself showed that is a lie!
Good points, Mouse. In our household, we’ve gone from having FOX on all the time, to only occasionally watching Bret Baier and then the Kelly Files. That ended for us a few months ago. You’re right about Kelly, and I was fooled too. Began to see her take sides on some of her shows which surprised me.
Now she opened the can of worms about woman, sex, etc. etc. revealing interviews and pictures are showing her history…but like you said, the worst thing – is that she is a liar. She came out gunning for Trump in particular, but the others at well. Giving long negative preambles before finally asking her questions – as if she was a prosecutor doing interrogations. Someone needs to tell these people what the role of a moderator is, they’re not supposed to be debating the candidates, that’s supposed to be between the candidates. No, FOX came out for blood…wondering if it wasn’t their (figuratively speaking, of course) that was left on the stage that night. Time will tell.
Shouldn’t candidates be vetted by asking them the questions on the issues the Democrats will most certainly use in their attack ads? I remember the conservatives who were up in arms when Gingrich stated that there were issues with some of Bain Capital’s deals. The Romney people whined How dare he attack free enterprise!
It turned out that Obama used those same deals to attack Romney among white working class voters to get them to stay home or vote for Obama. Instead of whining about unfair attacks, Romney’s supporter should have worked out an effective response to that line of attack.
As for those supposedly friendly forums, there are none. Nor should there be. Over the years I have been asked more than once to be the “skunk at the garden party” at political events- to ask that nasty question everyone is thinking about but is too polite to ask. If your friends don’t ask first, the opponents certainly will so get that answer formed.
I agree, Mouse. What guy doesn’t want a “lady in the streets and a freak in the sheets”? Who doesn’t have a duality of nature, a public side and a (sometime radically different) private side?
Trump was invited to the debate (which it was not) for one reason, to serve as a target. The establishment fears him because he connects with the public for his refusal to be PC. People are sick to death of our prevaricating, mealy-mouthed “leadership,” and are willing to entertain alternatives.
Well, my top three, Cruz, Fiorina and Walker, are currently leading 7with 5% of the vote.
After reading the comments above, it finally struck me; Hey, oldness means some things take time, eh!
The highly vaunted FNC moderator panel seemed to be on a mission to pick winners and losers. Leaving Cruz and Carson sit out of the questioning for a long stretch was questionable. Picking winners and losers on tropics was asinine; selecting which candidates to ask which topics; really! Bret’s first challenge (That was a question?) was a page right out of the RNC’s play book, aimed at getting rid of that “nasty” Trump guy; orders is orders, bub!
Having tough questions would be very fair and necessary in order to keep FNC’s famed motto valid. However, most of the questions asked were of the Scott Pelley “gotcha” variety, especially Chris Wallace’s; what’s with TV guys named “Chris; Chrissy Matthews, Chris Wallace, both little guys, no class, all butt!
Fiorina is not a conservative:
https://www.conservativereview.com/2016-presidential-candidates/candidates/carly-fiorina
Fiorina supports:
Climate Change
Dream Act
Common Core
The week of 9/11, she was praising Islam.
Fiorina also disparaged Ted Cruz for trying to stop Obamacare.
Here’s an excerpt from an earlier speech, demonstrating support for the Muslim faith and culture, delivered by one of the candidates in this debate:
” . . . Not only was the civilization of Islam capable of defeating arrogant and proud empires. It displayed a complexity and richness unmatched and able to unite the human race under the truest and most harmonious way of life, that even the more honest of the kuffar are able to glimpse”
This speech was delivered a couple of weeks after 9/11.
She expressed similar ideas in her book, “Tough Choices.”
The speaker was Carly Fiorina.
Would you have wanted a candidate for the position of Commander-in-Chief who expressed empathy for Emperor Hirohito and the Japanese military successes a couple of weeks after the attack on Pearl Harbor?
Vet your candidates carefully folks.
If the text is accurate, one must ask if Fiorina is an Islamic convert. That is not the language of an admirer of Islam but of a Muslim. Only Muslims call us “kuffar” in the context in which it appears in this quote.
If the text is true, goodbye Fiorina. We already have a Muslim president, and the results for us are not happy ones.
I only found one link to part of that quote. Of course right after 9/11 we were inundated with “not all Muslims are bad” and were scolded since probably, maybe, we “rubes” might hold resentment against all Muslims, not just the “radicals”. It seems in that tone Fiorina was trying to state that EARLY Islam had some good things.
But I don’t think she had the whole history (few did at that time), so the “everyone remain calm” tone was maybe out of place. This link also has a long response to her, informing her that she needed to do more research before glibly promoting old Islam. The response is pretty good.
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/426
The headline at that link seems biased … I don’t think her ouster had to do with her promoting Islam. She left four years later.
I still view Carly as an effective attacker of Hillary, and an alternative “feminist” voice to corrupt Hillary (as Tammy Bruce recently pointed out). She would be effective throughout a Walker campaign as either VP (though that require thorough vetting on her real policy stance) or some other position.
.
DR, that quote is not Fiorina’s, though she seems to think we’ll if Islam. http://gatesofvienna.net/2015/08/what-did-carly-fiorina-really-say-about-islam-after-9-11/
Juba, the text is accurate, but it is out of context. I encourage everyone to read the entire speech as well as her book. I believe that she is both naive and sympathetic to the apologists of Islam. Neither of these is a good quality to possess at a time when Islam has actively reengaged the West in this very old war of conquest.
Upon re-reading the entire speech, I must correct my own comment. The text I posted has been widely quoted on other blogs but, in fact, came from a synopsis of the speech on a now-defunct Hizb ut-Tahrir site, and which does not accurately reflect Ms. Fiorina’s words. I should practice what I preach and carefully vet the source of any candidate’s supposed statements.
A more accurate quote taken directly from this speech would be:
“One of its languages became the universal language of much of the world, the bridge between the peoples of a hundred lands. Its armies were made up of people of many nationalities, and its military protection allowed a degree of peace and prosperity that had never been known. The reach of this civilization’s commerce extended from Latin America to China, and everywhere in between.”
The events in New York on 9/11 put the lie to this idea of ‘Islamic peace and protection.’
I still maintain, based on other of her comments, that she is dangerously naive regarding her views of Islam.
At least you checked, and posted.
One of the most basic ideas in reporting “facts” used to be that a reporter checked his information through at least three other sources. I failed to follow that dictum.
To do otherwise is to promote the same sort of propaganda for which I constantly castigate the main stream media.
I do something similar, but I usually look for one source, namely a copy of the original document or video.
I typically check more than one source to make certain that my biases aren’t clouding my judgment as to the information’s true meaning. Also, in this day and age I need to be sure it hasn’t been digitally altered or edited.
Any one notice that the candidates no longer refer to illegal aliens as undocumented workers and are now referring to them as illegal aliens again?
Well one place that Trump really screwed up.
He isseed one hell of a straight line when he was told that he one suggested that he would like to see a woman on her knees.
He could have said WEll I’m sure Hilarry would never suggest that!
I remain there for Scott Walker and I’m ready to remain patient until the rest of the world agrees. Ted Cruz is my 2nd choice but I think he’d have a much harder job winning over women and soft emotive voters in the general.
So happy to see Cruz in the lead!
Ted Cruz at the top is not my choice, but I’d be fine with him. I’d rather keep him in the senate, though. What was dismaying was the support for Trump. Food gawd. A circus barker on steroids.
I was at the Red State conference in Atlanta and let me tell you what a different atmosphere it was than the fnc circus. Each candidate was given 25 minutes to speak uninterrupted and then 5 minutes of questions from the audience. To almost everyone there it was Ted Cruz by far, and then Carly Fiorina or Marco Rubio. Bobby Jindal was also great. Jeb Bush was ok and Perry was likable but not impressive. Mike Huckabee is one hell of a speaker! He would be ok with me if he ended up on top. Walker was ok too but not very dynamic but all would be better than hillary. When Erickson announced that Trump would not be speaking and why the place went crazy with boos and whistles.
Your post inspires me to point out this website, https://www.conservativereview.com/Commentary/2015/08/A-Conservatives-Guide-to-the-GOP-Debate
If you use the tabs at the top you can find all the candidates to study their positions, background, record and other matters of interest about each of them. Then there’s a dashboard on the side for that candidate’s record on each issue. The only filter, if you want to call it that, is of the true conservative variety. No windbaggery. Just facts, with sources. They also list conservative ratings on members of congress.
Forgive me for interrupting the political talk but just saw this and my grandma part kicked in!
http://victorygirlsblog.com/gopdebate-ted-cruzs-precious-daughters-steal-the-show/
I would suggest the next poll be who would you most like to see leave the race.
Maybe the poll after.
I think the next poll should be, who will you never vote for in the general election?
I’ve got one person in mind and it ain’t Trump.
Hillary beats Trump by a large margin in a head-to-head general, but loses within the margin of error to Jeb. I despise them both, but, as you pose it came down to choosing which candidate I’d never vote for, Trump is the take-away winner.
If people would get off Trump and just forget about this Sharpton hustler in white face, we can beat Bush with any one of a half dozen excellent candidates and beat Hillary in the general. As it stands right now, Trump is pulling support from Walker, not Jeb. Go look at the polls. In a head-to-head, Walker was beating Hillary beyond the margin of error. It’s the Trump supporters who have jumped off the rational conservative candidates and are advancing Jeb above them because establishment support for Jeb hasn’t moved to Trump, obviously. So Trump is helping Jeb. Jeb’s support from the establishment remains static while Trump pulls support from true conservatives who were doing well, Walker being the leader and the only candidate beating Hillary beyond the margin of error. Go read RCP’s legitimate poll histories and you’ll see what I mean.
If you don’t want Bush for our nominee, then you’d better get off Trump. He’s taking support away from winning conservatives, not the establishment candidate, Jeb.
I read the transcript of the main event a couple of evenings ago and was happy I’d made no effort to watch the “debate.” There’s good reason I left the party many years ago.
More research is imperative, but I just cast my vote for Ted Cruz. Of course the media and the party will do everything in their power to derail anyone with principles, but an old lady has to have hope for the nation.
My issue with Cruz is that he’s a grandstander. He blames leadership, but when he had an opportunity to challenge for a leadership post, he toed the line. Tactically, he’s not a great politician either, if the last government shutdown is any indication, unless that was just a fund raising ploy, in which case it probably worked out well for him.
He spends far too much time outside of his target zone, focusing most of his ire on other Republicans he says don’t measure up, which just isn’t smart. I generally dismiss any candidate who overuses the term “establishment” just because it is primarily used as an excuse to point fingers at the ineffectiveness of others, instead of telling you how they would do more.
Ideologically, he’s fine. But I think he’s politically out over his skis too much.
It was a grandstand play, but cunning as well. He put up his bogus “petition” (which of course was never presented to anyone) to collect email addresses of those gullible enough to believe signing an internet petition would help repeal Obamacare. He got 1.5 million of them, and built a campaign chest of it.
Cruz came to the Senate looking for such opportunities. He very rarely attends caucus meetings or confers with colleagues (sometimes he gives Lee a heads-up). He hasn’t tried to build a coalition within the caucus at all.
– –
He can pretend to be Reagan, but Reagan talked regularly to everyone on both sides of the aisle. He was a leader and persuader. Reagan convinced the skeptics, Cruz just insults them. And Reagan never criticized Republicans publicly, no matter how badly they had screwed up or embarrassed him.
Like I said, Reagan was a leader.
I voted Walker, but it’s a tossup between Walker, Rubio and Cruz for me. That’s the top tier in my opinion. Anyone on the list is preferable to Hillary or Bernie.
Voted Walker over Cruz because 1) he has executive experience and 2) we need Cruz in the Senate to battle the stealth democrat who is the majority leader there now.
Voted for Cruz though that may have been a tactical vote. I have had Walker, Perry, and Jindal in my top tier based on their executive experience, but sadly it looks like the latter two are not getting any traction. Walker has been quitet, or perhaps he’s just been drowned out by the Trump noise machine. Like rabidfox I’d take Walker over Cruz in a vacuum based on the executive experience, but if the race comes down to Bush or Kasich against Cruz, then I don’t even have to think about (obviously executive experience is a tiebreaker for me).
Trump is ahead here on Legal Insurrection so I see an opportunity to get a question answered from supporters of him. I like much of what he says now, but wonder if those supporting him have any idea what his core principals are? He said (a SHORT time ago) “The Canadian system works well”. Now he claims some support for a free market solution. Several examples of other conflicting statements. I assume the up scale audience of this site make decisions on a pretty solid base so can someone give me a source of their conviction that what Mr Trump says now has any idea of his core principals. I can state it for MOST of the others even if I don’t like their core principals but have NO idea about Trump.
But that is a question for all of the candidates. Cruz’s filibuster failed, so did he filibuster knowing he would fail for show? Elizabeth Warren recently filibustered and made it stick why couldn’t he? ( Just to be clear this is the first example that I thought of. I think of this question in particular because I am thinking of voting for Cruz and it is something that is bothering me. )
One thing I can say about Trump in this reguard. He generally does what he says he will. If he promises investors that he will build a golf course and instead builds a casino, then eventually he will lose his investors and there goes his career. He wants to get reelected and he is not the kind of person who fails to do what he promised and win reelection. So I give him a slightly higher percentage of doing what he says then the other candidates.
As for the problem in general, I made a suggestion earlier that would help alleviate such concerns. Have all the candidates give us some idea of who would be in their inner circle and part of their ca binent.
You should really do some research before you say “Trump does what he says he’ll do.”
There are plenty of former creditors and partners who got screwed by trusting his word.
He’s not publicly traded, and there are always more fish in the water of a market like NYC, and they all think they are the sharks. But he doesn’t get a lot of repeat business.
I sure can’t explain it. I just wonder how much of it is bogus and being orchestrated by the Left. Follow the money and ask yourself que bono? Who benefits from the emergence of Trump into the GOP field, throwing bombs and distracting attention away from an excellent slate of candidates? The ‘rats, that’s who benefits. Who benefits most? Hillary. Who is Trump’s good friends? The Clintons.
To the extent there is any real support from true conservatives, they are getting played like the world has never seen before. They are abject fools.
“Who is Trump’s good friends? The Clintons.”
Uh huh, I believe it was George H W Bush that said he and Bill Clinton were “brothers from a different mother”.
Who trollops around with the Clintons, Bush or trump?
pyawakit, trump has written many books, among them “Time to Get Tough: Making America#1”.
Read that if you want to understand trumps position on things in general and for some specifics.
Those that pretend trump has no core either cannot read or simply want to ignore the truth.
P.S. No, the Canadian system does not work especially well, for a mere 30+million people. I’ve been living with it for 40 of my 62 years. Great docs, too few (especially GPs); great nurses, too few and overworked; too few diagnostic services, long wait lists, steady decrease in services covered, steady increase in small fees for “non-medical” services (prescription refills, kids vaccinations records). Lots of problems. About which Mr. Trump knows NOTHING. Way better than England, though.
By the way, I will vote for whatever Republican comes out on top and despise any that try to run as a 3rd party. I liked Perot in the early 90’s but will NEVER forgive him for what he did. Whatever his accomplishments prior to his gift to Clinton were wiped out in my opinion regardless of any good accomplished.
I’ve been watching this thread for a couple of days now. I think that the Trump people have pulled something off here. Like having their supporters invade this site and cast votes. You will never be able to prove that, but it is pretty obvious. Do the numbers and check whether any of them ever appeared on this website before.
It used to happen in ’08 and ’12 with the Ron Paul fans. They got the word out on some website or blog without a mainstream audience, or perhaps a big email list, and would flood any internet poll with Paul votes.
In most blog polls where you can watch the results change, there isn’t so much change in distribution of votes over the course of the day, even as the totals multiply. Maybe one candidate has an edge with the morning crowd and another in the evening, but overall the distribution doesn’t change radically. Here the big Trump vote came in late.
http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2015/08/full-video-watch-the-aug-6-fox-news-republican-debate/ Took me a while to find a video of the debate. the one I found was pulled from Youtube.
How on Earth did Yeb! get 47 votes on this page?
Hi. It’s “WHOM” do you want as Republican Presidential nominee?
Just sayin’. If they’re gonna call ya Nazis, might as well be grammar Nazis.