Image 01 Image 03

Another ALL IMPORTANT Legal Insurrection Republican Nomination READER POLL

Another ALL IMPORTANT Legal Insurrection Republican Nomination READER POLL

Who do you want to get the nomination? Pick two!

I was pleased with last night’s debate. When all was said and done, I was happy to see my fellow primary voters hacking away at each other over who “won,” who was “the most presidential,” and who did and did not belong on the main stage.

This means progress, people.

That being said, I saw a lot of chatter about the respective performances of our current frontrunners. Depending on who you talk to, Ben Carson either flopped like a dying fish, or won the nomination by acclamation; Trump’s performance fielded similar sentiment—was he presidential? Presidon’tial? Too quiet? Just right? Did he stagnate, or further encourage and solidify his substantial supporter base?

Both Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have received truckloads of praise for their performances. Both men have a solid base and rising stars—but will they rise fast enough over the next month to punch through to the top? Carly Foirina is fielding a similar, positive reaction, but enthusiasm is still not on par with that displayed for Cruz or Rubio. Still, there’s room to grow, and she proved last night that she’s willing to dive into the deep end.

And then there’s Rand Paul. Paul snuck back into the national conversation like a bespoke ninja with his arguments concerning the military and defense funding. Some outlets declared him the winner, while most gave him a substantial pat on the back for stepping into the spotlight and tussling with both Donald Trump and Marco Rubio over foreign policy. Could it make a difference? Maybe. At least we know he has a pulse.

Jeb Bush fielded similar comments over the apparent reboot of his interest in actually running for President. He was definitely more engaged, and will—for better or for worse—be fielding more media attention in the coming weeks. Tensions between Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush have garnered a substantial amount of ink. A Vine posted by CNN Politics after the debate purports to show Bush snubbing Rubio onstage, and has since gone (breathlessly) viral:

Both men have since dismissed the media’s hot takes on what happened here, but the spotlight is already there.

Speaking of “already there”…is anybody there for Kasich right now? Looking at you, commenters.

That leaves the undercard debaters—have any of them earned the highest honor? Or, should they fade into the night?

Let’s hear it—all things considered, who do you want to win the nomination? In the interest of indecision, we’ll let you pick two!

We’ll keep the poll open until midnight Pacific time on Friday night, November 13.

Follow Amy on Twitter @ThatAmyMiller


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


It’s the age old problem: Do I vote for the ones who would make the best president, or the ones with the best chance of being elected?

BEST PRESIDENT: Cruz or Fiorina

BEST CHANCE: Trump or Rubio


    There’s a reason we let you pick two! You could do one of each—and I think you found an important distinction for a future reader poll.

      platypus in reply to Amy Miller. | November 11, 2015 at 9:03 pm

      The problem is that Vlad is anything but what your comment stated. He is a guy well suited for the office he occupies, unlike the jackass we have. And he understands the notion of consequences, an understanding which escapes Dear Leader.

      Is he ruthless? Yep, but that ruthlessness has sure kept Chechnya quiet for more than a few years. Will Assad stay where he is? Yep, and Syria will be much better off because of that. Any doubters need only look at Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan to see the truth that only strong leaders keep the relative peace.

        The Friendly Grizzly in reply to platypus. | November 12, 2015 at 10:29 am

        Another thing about Putin. Love him or hate him; be he ruthless or not, the man loves his country unconditionally. The same cannot be said for the present occupant of 1600.

      Amy you do not understand Trump at all. I suspect you have never worked with a successful entrpreneur from a rough and tumble business sector like real estate development and construction.

      Anonamom in reply to Amy Miller. | November 11, 2015 at 11:15 pm

      If ever they fire you, I will resume monthly contributions. Dear God, you are an idiot.

      Sammy Finkelman in reply to Amy Miller. | November 12, 2015 at 10:36 am


      TRUMP: ….as far as Syria, I like — if Putin wants to go in, and I got to know him very well because we were both on 60 Minutes, we were stablemates, and we did very well that night.

      Nobody mentioned this, but 60 Minutes does not conduct live interviews, which you would think everybody knows. And also Putin probably would never be in a green room.

      And just in case you thought this might have been some kind of an exception, TIME Magazine writes:

      Trump was interviewed by CBS’s Scott Pelley in his New York City penthouse for the season premiere of the hour-long docu-series, while Charlie Rose travelled to Moscow to interview Vladimir Putin.

      This is really “Liar, liar, pants on fire” territory.

      I don’t know if Donald Trump ever met Putin somewhere else, but it wasn’t while they were both guests on the same 60 Minutes program (!) and if they had spend some time together in a green room, it wouldn’t mean that Donald Trump got to know Vladimir Putin very well.

      Carly Fiorina, taking Donald trump’s claim at face value, responded a bit later:

      One of the reasons I’ve said that I would not be talking to Vladimir Putin right now, although I have met him as well, not in a green room for a show, but in a private meeting.

      However, on the Tonight Show this September, Carly Fiorina mentioned meeting Vladimir Putin in Beijing in something like a green room: (and apparently did not say that she met him somewhere else, too.)

      I met him in Beijing. We were in sort of a green room setting, actually. The two of us were giving a speech — each of us were giving a speech at a major economic conference called APEC — and so the two of us were sitting sort of in a chair like this, about this close, for 45 minutes before his speech and before mine. I would describe him as a formidable adversary.

    Do I vote for the ones who would make the best president, or the ones with the best chance of being elected?

    Go with the one who would make the best President. Just ask Presidents Dole, McCain and Romney how that “electability” thingy is working out.

    No on Fiorina (not talented enough) and Rubio (not man enough.)

    Vote for the one you want to win. Forget this cr@p about who has the best chance. That’s how we get stuck with RINOs every time. The MSM pushes that narrative and the lemmings on our side go right along with it. So vote for the one you want to be president.

    It’s one thing to be an earnest Trump supporter, but to cite elctability as a reason why seems a bit odd to me. He’s the only one of the major candidates who consistently trails Clinton in the polls by a substantial margin. Even Jeb does better than Trump, and Jeb is a terrible candidate who would get trounced. Now I admit Trump’s celebrity could be an asset, but it has just as much of a chance to be a sticking point that causes him to get beaten badly. It’s not as though he’s been gaining popularity as he has campaigned, so I don’t know if he has the ability to woo those inclined to oppose him.

We could all do with less chatter and analysis and more observation and self contemplation.

With all the social media flying, how could one actually listen and see what was being said?

I’ve been a Carson fan since the beginning…more so now that the media has officially put on their “we’re scared so let’s dig up whatever pitiful crap we can and sell it” face.

That said, I won’t vote in the primary because I refuse to register with corrupt parties any more and play their political aristocracy games. I won’t give them a dime until they shape up or dissolve (which would be best but only if both dissolved at once).

Anyhow, I don’t even watch these debates. Most people who do are looking for a “gotcha” moment nowadays. After the Presidential debates of last cycle where I saw each candidate literally promise both sides whatever the heck they wanted to hear, I’ve lost faith or trust in any kind of honesty from anyone at this point.

I can’t tell you who the winner is, but America is definitely the loser in its political state.

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to healthguyfsu. | November 11, 2015 at 9:56 pm

    I understand leaving parties. I left the Republicans on January 2, 2013 after 41 years that included being very active. No, I am never going to give them money again. This cycle, if we have an election, if the nominee is not Cruz or Trump, it will be the first national election in my life with the exception of the year I lost a son, that I will not take part.

    That said, I am considering registering as a Republican again until the day after the primary here. So I can caucus and become a delegate to the nominating conventions and vote against the GOPe weasel of a Congress-critter I have and to screw with the GOPe at every point I can.

    Just offering the thought.

    TX-rifraph in reply to healthguyfsu. | November 12, 2015 at 4:31 am

    Always vote. In the primary, vote for somebody. In the general election, vote against the democrat. A no show is a vote for the democrat as they never give up.

    The big fight for Cruz was the primary where he had to defeat the establishment (who gave us Sen. Cornyn the next cycle).

    Vote “For” in a primary. Vote “Against” in the general. Don’t vote and you get Obama to “punish” the GOP. Really? How is that working out? The no shows punished our children and grandchildren.

    PhillyGuy in reply to healthguyfsu. | November 12, 2015 at 9:50 am

    Just curious, what about Carson’s candidacy appeals to you? I mean in terms of his policy positions?

DINORightMarie | November 11, 2015 at 9:24 pm

If I could have, I would have voted Ted Cruz twice.

He’s the one.

1. Cruz. 2. Trump.

Rubio? Never. He’s handing to Jeb! the same as he handed the TP, a knife in the back.

Dr. Carson? No. Nice guy, but give bankrupt Puerto Rico statehood? Keep Yellin at the Fed? What the heck is he smoking? I don’t make the mistake of thinking that because he’s mild-sounding he’s a pushover, but he’s got to get his mind right on fiscal issues.

1 – Cruz
2 – Trump

Carson, who I defended to the hilt through the media smears, lost my 2nd spot to Trump when he went squish on illegals, backed PR as 51st, and seemed to support TPP, all in the past few days. WTF is he thinking? Why suddenly veer far to the left?

1. Cruz
2. Cruz
3. Cruz
4. Cruz
5. Cruz

My first five choices.

I’m shocked. Everybody goes on and on about how Trump is this or that, the reverse of what he’s said recently.

Fair enough.

But what about Ted Cruz? Cruz voted in the Senate for some very questionable items and yet tried to claim he either didn’t or he had to or it didn’t mean anything.

Particularly his votes on amnesty, immigration and the TPP.

I trust him less than I do Trump which is to say; not much.

He talks some good talk but he’s actually casting votes not just talking and they don’t jibe with what he says. And some of his “stances” in the Senate have been nothing but show.

    inspectorudy in reply to jakee308. | November 11, 2015 at 11:17 pm

    You like many Cruz haters do not know how the Senate works. There are many votes that are procedural and voting for something that you may detest is not important because it is only the process to get to the next vote which will not be a show vote. Cruz has explained his votes that look like that is what he was doing but explained that the next vote with amendments was where he did not vote for the things you noted. Just looking at a voting record does not take these tactics into account. He is the most anti amnesty candidate including Trump. He also has called the TPP a nightmare. If you call his “Stances” in the Senate self serving what do you call the non stances taken by Rubio. How about his position on the Gang of Eight? He has only so much power to do anything and at least he made the attempt.

      Hear! Hear!

      Some people think that Cruz poster which has him looking like a gangbanger is real… Or something. To some, they just don’t like his looks but will find fault elsewhere as the reason they reject like him.

      And there is Rubio who’s looks over shadows his faults for some.

      It’s human nature.

      Now here’s some sanity. We may detest the way the Senate works and its harmful collegiality, but there’s a reason for it. The slower gov. works to implement laws and change anything, THE BETTER. Some folks don’t understand how brilliant Cruz is. He knows exactly what he’s doing.

      PhillyGuy in reply to inspectorudy. | November 12, 2015 at 11:14 am

      Did he or did he not vote for cloture on TPA?

    Cruz’s ‘show’ stances in the Senate have been brilliant, and have very, very resounding – with an effect as powerful, though opposite as that of Obama’s lapdog, former Squeaker Boehner.

First choice—-Cruz, second choice (and second only by a hair) is Trump.
Both are hard-nosed and won’t cave. Those that diss Trump need to spend some time with those that operate businesses in knife-in-the-back territory (any major city). Cruz has the heart and the conservative qualifications and Trump has the experience at hugger-mugger dealings with those that would plow him under.
A businessman has to make friends and do deals with everyone, friend or foe, and you seldom know what is in his mind when he signs on the dotted line except that you can know that he won’t make an enemy unless it is absolutely necessary. That is business negotiation in a nutshell.

    Well said but I would make it Trump then Cruz. I also believe Trump is more electable in general election. I think a Trump/Cruz ticket would be a great one.

      If Trump heads the ticket I want Cruz to be appointed Attorney General, then to the SCOTUS. Cruz as VP takes a key conservative out of the action long term. Just a minor quibble.

      Notwithstanding that LI’s Enraged Tinky Winky has a rant somewhere saying Cruz would never agree to being appointed by “your little yellow god” due to @#*$&%#*$#*#*!! (unintelligible gibberish).

        PhillyGuy in reply to DaMav. | November 12, 2015 at 9:55 am

        Cruz’s support of fast track and TPP ended it for me. TPP is the holy grail for the globalists and the collectivists. The USA should never be a part of those kinds of shenanigans.

      CloseTheFed in reply to Gary Britt. | November 12, 2015 at 6:47 pm

      Yep, New York and Texas. A lot of electoral votes there.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to lowready. | November 12, 2015 at 11:04 am

    I just cannot believe how so many usually intelligent people actually believe Trump.

    If he gets the nomination, he will throw the race to Hillary, his old friend. A man does not wake up one morning at the age of 69 and decide he is a conservative after having supported leftists and their machine most of his life. Oh, and that morning just happens to be the year before an election in which he wishes to run. And his opponent will be a very old friend who happens to be unpopular and will likely lose unless her opponent really messes up. Oh, coincidentally somebody else did the same thing for her husband when he first ran and won 2 decades earlier. Oh, and there’s 6 billion dollars missing from her last job where she was in charge and Trump is allegedly using his own funds for his campaign. Oh, and rarely does Trump attack Hillary – he’s too busy calling people names, casting innuendo and cracking non-clever one-liners about his opponents. He’s a liar and a cheat and so much like obastard it’s uncanny.

    You people really believe he’s going to deport people and build a wall? You are the delusional suckers of P.T. Barnum lore, sad to say.

legalizehazing | November 12, 2015 at 1:31 am

Stop spending my future and my kids’ future.

1 Rand Paul
2 Ted Cruz

Someone find Lindsey Graham’s Mom, or at least his dog, get the man one vote at least.

Call him up and tell him about the poll, so he can come here and vote for himself.

Cruz or Fiorina

Cthulhu, why settle for the lesser of two evils.



Not voting for Cruz – his immigration/work visa policies, executive inexperience and amnesty supporter donors and ineffectiveness in Senate (though that is probably Bush cabal’s fault) has convinced me he is not the leader we need at this time.

Cruz should be on Supreme Court…or possibly Attorney General.

The US needs Trump, needs a wall and unflinching/unyielding immigration control, common sense, actual executive experience and a real economic turn-around.

A lot of people need to hear: “You’re fired (forever).” Including the Bushes and Clintons.

Always amazing that anyone who pretends conservative values would even consider voting for Mr. Establishment, Donald “Lower Wages For Workers” T-rump.

My quite intelligible opinion is that Ted Cruz would not serve in a T-rump BIG GOVERNMENT Collectivist administration, since Cruz IS a Conservative.

And I LOVE the fact that DuhMav finds it useful to lie about me and troll me. LOVE THAT…!!!

    PhillyGuy in reply to Ragspierre. | November 12, 2015 at 11:05 am

    Rags was just appointed spokesperson for Ted Cruz since he often speaks for what he will do or won’t do.

      Ragspierre in reply to PhillyGuy. | November 12, 2015 at 11:54 am

      My quite intelligible opinion is that Ted Cruz would not serve in a T-rump BIG GOVERNMENT Collectivist administration, since Cruz IS a Conservative.

      You DID see the part where I acknowledge that’s my opinion, right jerk-off?

      And it IS an opinion based on experience AND knowledge of the two OPPOSING ends of the scale…T-rump’s BIG GOVERNMENT and Cruz’s Conservatism.

      What do you think of T-rump’s “American wages are too high” position, ya moron? (This’ll be fun!)

        PhillyGuy in reply to Ragspierre. | November 12, 2015 at 1:16 pm

        Only a fool would speak for the thought processes of people they don’t know. You have no idea whether he would or wouldn’t. You’re just guessing. And I am not going to take your silly “squirrel” misdirection bait. It has no bearing on the bigger point.

          “Only a fool would speak for the thought processes of people they don’t know.”

          Gotta love how he continually accuses me of being paid by Trump, then claims I’m the one lying about him. lol! “Fool” about covers it. I’d add that he would be an embarrassment to conservative Republicans but maybe he behaves better when he isn’t semi-anonymous.

          Ragspierre in reply to PhillyGuy. | November 12, 2015 at 3:44 pm

          “And it IS an opinion based on experience AND knowledge of the two OPPOSING ends of the scale…T-rump’s BIG GOVERNMENT and Cruz’s Conservatism.”

          See, you lying SOS? It has nothing to do with “thought processes”.

          Does it, lying SOS? It DOES have to do with who these people have DEMONSTRATED themselves to be.

          Right, liar?

In the last Debate, Trump just stated the real problem with the election ploy of calling to raise wages. The Regressive New Democrats, bring that up to get votes. Trump knows that higher wages in the USA, makes us less competitive in the world. I think Rubio, and his “Gang of Eight,” gave away what this guy really wants to do if in the WH. I agree with a statement I read on this site. ” Vote for who you think would be a good President.” It is still too early to settle on one Candidate. We all must read & research the candidates.

    Ragspierre in reply to bobgood1. | November 12, 2015 at 12:04 pm

    “Trump knows that higher wages in the USA, makes us less competitive in the world.”

    I’m sometimes (OK…OFTEN) appalled at the economic illiteracy of even people here.

    Relative wage rates have nothing to do with our ability to compete in world markets. Why do you think textile manufacturing is returning here from China?

    The thing that matters is cost per unit of production, and American workers are the highest producing workers in the world. That is made possible in very large part by investments in manufacturing capital by businesses, providing force-multipliers for each worker.

    T-rump is an economics moron. (See the period?)

      PhillyGuy in reply to Ragspierre. | November 12, 2015 at 1:27 pm

      Show us your income statement and we will compare it to Trump. Let’s see who does better. Another one of your dumbass comments. Arrogant and obnoxious.

        Ragspierre in reply to PhillyGuy. | November 12, 2015 at 1:37 pm

        Hellary and Bill Clinton make many multiples of what I make, you corrupt puke.

        What does that have to do with anything?

        My comment is all true. If you CAN, refute anything I’ve said.

        You corrupt puke.

      “Relative wage rates have nothing to do with our ability to compete in world markets. Why do you think textile manufacturing is returning here from China?”

      What little is returning, and it is not a lot, returns for a couple reasons.

      One is wages in the China textile market have risen. The result of that is primarily to increase manufacturing in other low wage countries, not the USA. Bangladesh for example has built quite a few new textile mills. They would import cloth from china and cut/sew. With the increased costs of the china cloth they started building their own production. No US company is going to build a commodity textile plant in the USA, and they have not.

      Non wovens (think wipes, diapers, etc.) have a much lower labor cost than traditional wovens, so it continues to expand. Labor costs do not drive it.

      Specialty fabrics, high quality fabrics, medical fabrics, and military fabrics have done reasonably well. Some production has moved from China back to the USA because of turnaround (time to market) issues in the fashion markets.

      And then there is the high cost to ship products like carpet.

      The reality is the Asian market will continue to dominate textiles for a long time. The last frontier is Africa. It has already started. Why? No import duties going to the USA and other western countries.

      “Relative wage rates” had everything to do with why it left, and certainly continue to impact our ability to compete.

        Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | November 13, 2015 at 11:15 am

        So, it’s your thesis that per unit costs of production are NOT the determining factor?

        AND you support the T-rumpian “wages are too high” assertion.

        Gotcha. (See what I mean by appalling economic ignorance?)

          “So, it’s your thesis that per unit costs of production are NOT the determining factor?”

          A person reading my comment would gather quite easily that wages are one of the “per unit costs of production”. The effect of wages in textile manufacturing are the primary reason we lost the largest part of the textile market to Asia. The commodity items (clothing, bedding, towels, etc.) have a very high wage cost in the USA to the total production costs, something approaching 30% in the years we lost that manufacturing.

          It’s a fairly simple concept. Even for a lawyer.
          See what I mean by appalling economic ignorance.

I can’t vote for Trump in the primary as I can’t support an amnesty supporter. Anyone who would let illegal aliens back into the country because of their lack of criminal record is in fact forgiving their criminal act of being here illegally in the first place. That is textbook amnesty. If you want to be an American, get in line. If you were caught here illegally and deported, don’t bother.

    PhillyGuy in reply to Immolate. | November 12, 2015 at 1:29 pm

    Read Trump’s position paper.

    CloseTheFed in reply to Immolate. | November 12, 2015 at 6:52 pm

    That statement of his, that they can return, is very bad, granted. The problem is, your alternatives are much worse, except maybe for Santorum.

    Plus, as a practical matter, once the law begins being enforced again, a lot of illegal aliens will leave regardless.

Sammy Finkelman | November 12, 2015 at 11:23 am

Also about Trump – how did everybody let him get away with that statement that he would deport some 11 million people -and then “hopefully” he would let them all back in!

He’s said something like this more than once.

Is he talking about increasing the quota, while completely eliminating the 10-year immigration disqualification for having been deported?

Is he talking about special immigration preferences for deported people?

And if he is, why go through all of this?

Is he hoping people don’t know anything about the need to change immigration law to make feasible what he claims would happen?

    Even Trump falls short; just less so than most of the field. He talks of a door in the wall. But at least he makes a point that there will be a wall. Deport the illegals, then we have to fight like hell to keep them out. Maybe even against Trump, just like we had to fight against Amnesty under Bush. But at least Trump moves the ball down the field. It will be a lot easier blocking readmission through a controlled door than through open fields with crippled enforcement and broken promises like we got and are still repeatedly getting from the GOPe.

    Trump and Cruz are the only significant candidates willing to build a wall and put deportation on the table. Bush, Rubio, Kasich, and Fiorina are flat out in favor of Dreamer and the Gang of Eight Amnesty. You really think they are going to carefully screen illegals before making them legal and giving them citizenship like they say they will? The Feds couldn’t even process a few million Obamacare applications filled out by people trying to comply with the law. But this Amnesty crew repeatedly promises to meticulously screen out various categories of undesirables for what will be tens of millions of applicants already on our soil and clamoring for immediate approval.

    Forcing them through a door allowing controlled legalization is the best model short of having a wall with no door at all which some would prefer but absolutely no candidate advocates. The choice is between a flashlight or no light at all. Don’t reject the flashlight because it doesn’t have a whistle.

ignasi orobitg gene | November 12, 2015 at 11:40 am

Sorry if dissonance.
The $ 15 / h is a fundamental issue for millions of employees.
Quantitative easing could deliver $ 20,000 for each citizen: grandparents, children, parents, youth.
We do not deserve representatives who ignore the problems of the needy and more numerous.
The political theater that represents every four years provides no solution to the basic problems of almost all citizens.
have a nice day with lots of smiles.

Thanks to those who have wisely pointed out that Cruz is a Legal Eagle and should be Attorney General and then Supreme Court Justice.

It is not an insult to the man to say he is not an executive.

For goodness sake, the man has argued and won cases before the Supreme Court! How many people can say that?!

Which proves that he is an excellent adjudicator and should be serving in the judicial branch of the government.

Heaven knows we need strong constitutional conservatives in that branch of government EVERY BIT AS MUCH as we need them in the executive branch.

Again, pointing out as much does NOT make one a Cruz hater, it makes one a Cruz supporter … in the branch of government to which he is most supremely (pun intended) educated, trained, and experienced.

Cruz might be able to reduce the power of the SC best by being president.

Cruz. Then, Cruz.

While I’m thankful to Donald Trump for bringing some issues to the fore, I don’t think he has the temperament for the job.

My ticket is Cruz/Fiorina. Cruz hasn’t been polling as well against Hillary as some of the other candidates (in fact, he was in last place in a recent poll I saw), but if he gets the nomination he’ll be her worst nightmare. He’s incredibly smart, has an audiographic memory, and will utterly clean her clock in a debate. That is, if she’ll agree to any debates. Ted Cruz simply does not make oratory mistakes.

Carly Fiorina, in my opinion, would make an excellent VP – not only on the campaign trail, but in office as well. She’s another talented, disciplined debater and should be able to hold her own against anyone the Dems want to put up against her. Plus, she’d have eight years of seasoning under Cruz, who I fully expect would be an excellent and unifying President.

Just my $.02