Cruz/West 2016
- Thread starter nashvillegoldenflash
- Start date
Flash, I believe a Cruz/West ticket would be a "dream team" if that were to happen!Originally posted by nashvillegoldenflash:
BTW, I was listening to a little bit of The Factor last night, and one of the talking heads on there (I think his name was Sabato?) was diminishing Cruz's chances for the Presidency because he felt Cruz was "too far right"? Do you remember anyone diminishing Obama's chances back in '07--claiming he was "too far left"?
I watch O'Reilly every night and heard the comment that Sabato made regarding Sen. Cruz. You have to understand that Sabato is a typical liberal democrat in academia who uses his taxpayer-financed Center for Politics at the University of Virginia to promote liberal ideas. I know he likes to masquerade as a non-biased pundit but if I recall correctly, O'Reilly once asked him if he voted for Obama and he said that he did. That said, I wouldn't trust anything he has to say about the GOP.
Yes, that explains his comment very much! No WONDER he's downplaying Cruz's chances. The libs are SCARED TO DEATH of the man! Thanks for the info, Flash!
BBJ, let me remind you that it is just too early to project who will win at this point. I know I have stated that Hillary will win based on the last two presidential elections and the electorate's desire for free stuff over freedom but there are many people who are convinced that Hillary will never be president (see link). After Obama's disastrous eight years in office, who knows, perhaps the American people will have had enough of liberal policies that don't work and will want to try market-based policies to promote economic growth.
Hillary Was Never Goingt to Be President Anyway
Hillary Was Never Goingt to Be President Anyway
Flash, I'm in total agreement with you regarding any premature projections at this point. We're still light years away from the primaries and the general election. There's simply too much that can happen that makes the whole process so unpredictable.
I will say this, I believe Ted Cruz can weather any storm the liberal media throws at him, and when the primary debates begin, I believe the American people will begin to take notice of him. The media can't filter or spin when he's speaking directly to the American people. Cruz's dynamic, infectious, charismatic personality will shine through--just like Ronald Reagan's did.
Furthermore, the liberal media's spin of "how good things are going with the economy" isn't playing too well with the American people. Over 92 million able-bodied Americans are out of the workforce and not even being counted in the unemployment figures. Sooner or later, people are going to get completely fed up with the media's drivel and fight back.
(CNN)Hillary Clinton held a closed door meeting with President Barack Obama at the White House on Monday. Although the former secretary of state, senator and first lady has not declared, it is treated as a foregone conclusion that Clinton is running for president.
Likely to launch her campaign in April, Clinton is regarded as the front-runner — if not the only Democratic candidate — and the inevitable Democratic nominee.
There is an assumption that since Clinton supported Obama, the black community will now embrace her. But there are more than a few who didn't get that memo. At this stage of the game, many African-Americans may not be excited about a candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016. And after two terms of the nation's first black president, she should proceed with caution.
Clinton need look no further than the 2008 contest, when black voters doused water on her presidential prospects. Early on, Clinton was the favorite of black folks, lest you forgot, and it did not hurt that President Clinton had been regarded as the "first black president" with high approval among African-Americans.
Then, support for a senator named Barack Obama blew up after the Iowa caucuses. And Clinton found herself apologizing for her husband's comments about Obama's win in the South Carolina primary.
President Clinton was relieved of his black card privileges for the remainder of the 2008 election season when he compared Obama's win in the Palmetto state to that of speeches, but not for taking action.
And let's not forget her assertions that she was the candidate for "hard-working Americans, white Americans."
We can chalk up some of that rhetoric to spirited campaign-trail junk-talking, and obviously much has happened since the 2008 election. President Obama made Clinton his secretary of state, and she served as a capable top diplomat and a loyal member of the Obama Cabinet. But that does not mean black voters will completely forget the bitter, racially tinged presidential campaign politics of seven years ago.
Black voters are among the most loyal of the Democratic Party base, and their record high turnout for Obama was an important part of his victory. However, with a charismatic Obama no longer on the ballot, maintaining the same level of enthusiasm for any other candidate is a challenge.
Moreover, as for Clinton, who (understandably?) has her own ideas and may not agree with the President on certain issues, any criticism of Obama could cost her some black voters. Remember that Clinton voted in favor of the unpopular, costly and deadly Iraq war. That support cost Clinton in 2008. And while she has remained silent on the recent re-election of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Clinton's strongly pro-Israel base, including blacks, Latinos and young voters.
However, it is likely that foreign policy will not pose as great a challenge to Hillary Clinton as economics. Because she is tied to the Wall Street wealthy. The nation is hurting, despite the economic turnaround, and this is felt particularly strongly among blacks, who still have high unemployment rates, a rising wealth gap compared to whites, and, for many, no recovery in sight.
And while police shootings of young black men continue to stir outrage in the community, Clinton has remained relatively quiet on the subject. She will have to prove that she can identify with this frustration and offer ideas for reform in local law enforcement. This, rather than her email account, is what concerns the black electorate.
Perhaps a populist, more down-to-earth challenger such as Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren or former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb could appeal to black and working-class voters, and unlike Clinton, would not have to fight the perception of living in a protective security bubble, or lacking core beliefs other than being in power.
It is safe to assume that if Clinton wins the Democratic nomination that she will ultimately win the majority black vote in the general election, but that may not be enough. Let's remember President George W. Bush won re-election in 2004 with just 11% of the black vote. Had Mitt Romney been able to duplicate that number of black votes, he would be president now.
Obama won in no small part because blacks turned out for him in record numbers in 2012, particularly in swing states like Ohio.
Clinton can't assume she'll inherit that same level of black voter enthusiasm. Support for Barack Obama does not necessarily translate into support for another Democrat. This means Clinton must fight for votes like anyone else: knock on doors, kiss babies, clap off beat at the AME church, and do whatever it takes.
This post was edited on 3/25 3:10 PM by nashvillegoldenflash
Would Hillary inherit Obama's black vote turnout?
Likely to launch her campaign in April, Clinton is regarded as the front-runner — if not the only Democratic candidate — and the inevitable Democratic nominee.
There is an assumption that since Clinton supported Obama, the black community will now embrace her. But there are more than a few who didn't get that memo. At this stage of the game, many African-Americans may not be excited about a candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016. And after two terms of the nation's first black president, she should proceed with caution.
Clinton need look no further than the 2008 contest, when black voters doused water on her presidential prospects. Early on, Clinton was the favorite of black folks, lest you forgot, and it did not hurt that President Clinton had been regarded as the "first black president" with high approval among African-Americans.
Then, support for a senator named Barack Obama blew up after the Iowa caucuses. And Clinton found herself apologizing for her husband's comments about Obama's win in the South Carolina primary.
President Clinton was relieved of his black card privileges for the remainder of the 2008 election season when he compared Obama's win in the Palmetto state to that of speeches, but not for taking action.
And let's not forget her assertions that she was the candidate for "hard-working Americans, white Americans."
We can chalk up some of that rhetoric to spirited campaign-trail junk-talking, and obviously much has happened since the 2008 election. President Obama made Clinton his secretary of state, and she served as a capable top diplomat and a loyal member of the Obama Cabinet. But that does not mean black voters will completely forget the bitter, racially tinged presidential campaign politics of seven years ago.
Black voters are among the most loyal of the Democratic Party base, and their record high turnout for Obama was an important part of his victory. However, with a charismatic Obama no longer on the ballot, maintaining the same level of enthusiasm for any other candidate is a challenge.
Moreover, as for Clinton, who (understandably?) has her own ideas and may not agree with the President on certain issues, any criticism of Obama could cost her some black voters. Remember that Clinton voted in favor of the unpopular, costly and deadly Iraq war. That support cost Clinton in 2008. And while she has remained silent on the recent re-election of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Clinton's strongly pro-Israel base, including blacks, Latinos and young voters.
However, it is likely that foreign policy will not pose as great a challenge to Hillary Clinton as economics. Because she is tied to the Wall Street wealthy. The nation is hurting, despite the economic turnaround, and this is felt particularly strongly among blacks, who still have high unemployment rates, a rising wealth gap compared to whites, and, for many, no recovery in sight.
And while police shootings of young black men continue to stir outrage in the community, Clinton has remained relatively quiet on the subject. She will have to prove that she can identify with this frustration and offer ideas for reform in local law enforcement. This, rather than her email account, is what concerns the black electorate.
Perhaps a populist, more down-to-earth challenger such as Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren or former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb could appeal to black and working-class voters, and unlike Clinton, would not have to fight the perception of living in a protective security bubble, or lacking core beliefs other than being in power.
It is safe to assume that if Clinton wins the Democratic nomination that she will ultimately win the majority black vote in the general election, but that may not be enough. Let's remember President George W. Bush won re-election in 2004 with just 11% of the black vote. Had Mitt Romney been able to duplicate that number of black votes, he would be president now.
Obama won in no small part because blacks turned out for him in record numbers in 2012, particularly in swing states like Ohio.
Clinton can't assume she'll inherit that same level of black voter enthusiasm. Support for Barack Obama does not necessarily translate into support for another Democrat. This means Clinton must fight for votes like anyone else: knock on doors, kiss babies, clap off beat at the AME church, and do whatever it takes.
This post was edited on 3/25 3:10 PM by nashvillegoldenflash
Would Hillary inherit Obama's black vote turnout?
Flash, I don't believe that she will. Conversely, I believe Cruz will attract many Hispanics to vote for him.Originally posted by nashvillegoldenflash:
This post was edited on 3/25 2:59 PM by nashvillegoldenflash
BBJ, I had to edit the previous post because it was really messed up. What I attempted to say but it didn't post the first time was I expect Hillary to get the black vote but the question is will African-Americans be willing to vote three or four times for Hillary like they did for Obama? Probably not. Hopefully, some African-Americans will finally realize that it is okay to leave the Democratic Party Plantation.
This post was edited on 3/25 4:26 PM by nashvillegoldenflash
Lead Blacks Off the Democratic Party Plantation
This post was edited on 3/25 4:26 PM by nashvillegoldenflash
Lead Blacks Off the Democratic Party Plantation
Columnists and their headline writers have a habit of offering hostages to Fate - e.g., "Let's not even pretend Ted Cruz has a chance of becoming president," "Let's be serious about Ted Cruz from the start: He's too extreme and too disliked to win," "Opposition from Republicans who care about winning in 2016 will doom the chances of a senator whose tactics . . . have established him as a loudmouth loser."
We have heard this sort of thing before.
"Reagan can't win, Ford says." That's the 1976 version. The 1980 New York Times version, with the nearly identical headline: "Ford Declares Reagan Can't Win." Ford was really quite sure of himself: "Every place I go, and everything I hear, there is a growing, growing sentiment that Governor Reagan cannot win the election." New York magazine: "The reason Reagan can't win. . . . " "Preposterous," sociologist Robert Coles wrote about the idea of a Reagan victory.
The founder of this magazine worried that Reagan simply could not win in 1980, and several National Review luminaries quietly hoped that George H. W. Bush would be the nominee. There were serious, thoughtful conservatives who thought in 1980 that their best hope was to have Daniel Patrick Moynihan run as a Democrat that year, while many others were looking to ex-Democrat John Connally to carry the conservative banner on the GOP side.
Things have a funny way of working out differently than expected. (And then much, much differently.)
It is March of 2015. It is foolish to be offering statements that are not merely confident but purportedly definitive regarding who is not going to win the 2016 presidential election. This is especially true given that - and this cannot be emphasized strongly enough - we have no flippin' idea who is going to be running in that election. Yes, there are Democrats who would vote for a dead mackerel over Ted Cruz (though that candidate is currently on the ballot in Chicago) just as there are conservatives such as myself who would prefer to see an ounce of petrified navel lint elected president with the ghost of my late dachshund, Schmitty, as his veep than endure another president from the party of this guy. But Lint-Schmitty voters do not settle elections on our own. Cruz vs. Clinton? Who knows? Cruz vs. Warren? Brings a smile to the face. Cruz vs. O'Malley? If you've never seen Republicans skipping en masse, that might be your chance.
About Senator Cruz: As NR's editors note, there is much to admire about him - the raw brainpower, the oratorical gifts. When it comes to the serious conservative thinkers and their sometimes dyspeptic tomes, Cruz has, as the Hebrew sages put it, "eaten the book." (John the Revelator, like Ezekiel before him, learned how that goes when he was instructed to do it: "It will turn your stomach sour, but in your mouth it will be as sweet as honey.") There is a great deal to like about him, and grounds for charitable criticism as well, as my friend Charles C. W. Cooke has observed.
Conservatives of a Burkean bent, having attended the school of example, might pause to consider that the last senator who effectively launched a presidential campaign 11 minutes and 37 seconds after he was sworn in did, in fact, go on to become president, and that it will take the republic a generation to recover from the damage done.
Cruz is great. Rand Paul is great. Scott Walker is great. Bobby Jindal is great. Rick by-God Perry is great. Jeb Bush . . . was a really, really fine governor. We have primary elections for a reason, and these are some big boys (and girls? What says Governor Martinez? Governor Fallin? Governor Haley? Governor . . . ?) who are more than capable of inflicting upon themselves whatever savage and perverse ritual combat Republican-primary voters demand, with the last man standing demanding of the conclave in Cleveland: "Are you not entertained?"
Should be a hoot.
Is Ted Cruz "too extreme"? Longtime Cruz-watchers note that he starts his stump speech with reference to the moral philosopher John Rawls (free advice for Team Cruz: that did not go down well at Hillsdale!) a favorite of progressives and chief antagonist to Robert Nozick, a favorite among libertarian-ish types. That citation is too high-minded to be pandering, and it is too Harvardian to be intended to stir up primary voters of the sort who are always going on contemptuously about "the elites" as they rah-rah for the gentleman from Texas . . . and Princeton, and Cambridge, Mass. It is not just an unthinking stump crutch, either. Senator Cruz is a man with a theory of justice of his own, a man with a politics of his own, and a man with ideas of his own. He is a man who has something that he wants to say and who sometimes seems less sure how to get it across to his audience.
No doubt Senator Cruz would say that he is "extreme" in the sense that he is guided by a conviction that the president and the government over which he presides must be bound by the Constitution, and that this is something close to absolute, and radical compared with the status quo. Senator Paul says similar things, and so does Governor Perry. It may very well be that 50 percent + 1 of the people who choose electors will nonetheless agree with him in November 2016. Or maybe they go full pinko instead - these are American voters we're talking about, and they are an unpredictable bunch.
In football, any team can win on any given Sunday; in politics, any candidate can win on any given Tuesday. Ted Cruz did not cut a swath through Democrats to take his seat in the Senate - the Democrat, whose name I defy you to call up, was pro forma - but rather by defeating the Republican political machine in Texas and by making fools of its top dogs. If you think that he managed that by being stupid, then there is an adjective in this sentence for you.
Will he be the nominee? Good Lord, who knows or cares at this point? It's a question mainly of interest to Ted Cruz and his rivals, and maybe to their sainted mothers. That we are so fascinated by the possibility is further evidence of the corrosive cult of the presidency - we conservatives should know better than to wait for the anointing of a savior.
Besides, the mighty Cthulhu ("Why Settle for the Lesser Evil?") or the Sweet Meteor O' Death may very well have changed the equation by then. It's a long ways away.
The great irony of the moment is that the people writing Cruz off this week are sneering at his lack of political sophistication and congratulating themselves on their own. Ask Senator David Dewhurst how well that worked out for him.
Of Course Ted Cruz Could Win
We have heard this sort of thing before.
"Reagan can't win, Ford says." That's the 1976 version. The 1980 New York Times version, with the nearly identical headline: "Ford Declares Reagan Can't Win." Ford was really quite sure of himself: "Every place I go, and everything I hear, there is a growing, growing sentiment that Governor Reagan cannot win the election." New York magazine: "The reason Reagan can't win. . . . " "Preposterous," sociologist Robert Coles wrote about the idea of a Reagan victory.
The founder of this magazine worried that Reagan simply could not win in 1980, and several National Review luminaries quietly hoped that George H. W. Bush would be the nominee. There were serious, thoughtful conservatives who thought in 1980 that their best hope was to have Daniel Patrick Moynihan run as a Democrat that year, while many others were looking to ex-Democrat John Connally to carry the conservative banner on the GOP side.
Things have a funny way of working out differently than expected. (And then much, much differently.)
It is March of 2015. It is foolish to be offering statements that are not merely confident but purportedly definitive regarding who is not going to win the 2016 presidential election. This is especially true given that - and this cannot be emphasized strongly enough - we have no flippin' idea who is going to be running in that election. Yes, there are Democrats who would vote for a dead mackerel over Ted Cruz (though that candidate is currently on the ballot in Chicago) just as there are conservatives such as myself who would prefer to see an ounce of petrified navel lint elected president with the ghost of my late dachshund, Schmitty, as his veep than endure another president from the party of this guy. But Lint-Schmitty voters do not settle elections on our own. Cruz vs. Clinton? Who knows? Cruz vs. Warren? Brings a smile to the face. Cruz vs. O'Malley? If you've never seen Republicans skipping en masse, that might be your chance.
About Senator Cruz: As NR's editors note, there is much to admire about him - the raw brainpower, the oratorical gifts. When it comes to the serious conservative thinkers and their sometimes dyspeptic tomes, Cruz has, as the Hebrew sages put it, "eaten the book." (John the Revelator, like Ezekiel before him, learned how that goes when he was instructed to do it: "It will turn your stomach sour, but in your mouth it will be as sweet as honey.") There is a great deal to like about him, and grounds for charitable criticism as well, as my friend Charles C. W. Cooke has observed.
Conservatives of a Burkean bent, having attended the school of example, might pause to consider that the last senator who effectively launched a presidential campaign 11 minutes and 37 seconds after he was sworn in did, in fact, go on to become president, and that it will take the republic a generation to recover from the damage done.
Cruz is great. Rand Paul is great. Scott Walker is great. Bobby Jindal is great. Rick by-God Perry is great. Jeb Bush . . . was a really, really fine governor. We have primary elections for a reason, and these are some big boys (and girls? What says Governor Martinez? Governor Fallin? Governor Haley? Governor . . . ?) who are more than capable of inflicting upon themselves whatever savage and perverse ritual combat Republican-primary voters demand, with the last man standing demanding of the conclave in Cleveland: "Are you not entertained?"
Should be a hoot.
Is Ted Cruz "too extreme"? Longtime Cruz-watchers note that he starts his stump speech with reference to the moral philosopher John Rawls (free advice for Team Cruz: that did not go down well at Hillsdale!) a favorite of progressives and chief antagonist to Robert Nozick, a favorite among libertarian-ish types. That citation is too high-minded to be pandering, and it is too Harvardian to be intended to stir up primary voters of the sort who are always going on contemptuously about "the elites" as they rah-rah for the gentleman from Texas . . . and Princeton, and Cambridge, Mass. It is not just an unthinking stump crutch, either. Senator Cruz is a man with a theory of justice of his own, a man with a politics of his own, and a man with ideas of his own. He is a man who has something that he wants to say and who sometimes seems less sure how to get it across to his audience.
No doubt Senator Cruz would say that he is "extreme" in the sense that he is guided by a conviction that the president and the government over which he presides must be bound by the Constitution, and that this is something close to absolute, and radical compared with the status quo. Senator Paul says similar things, and so does Governor Perry. It may very well be that 50 percent + 1 of the people who choose electors will nonetheless agree with him in November 2016. Or maybe they go full pinko instead - these are American voters we're talking about, and they are an unpredictable bunch.
In football, any team can win on any given Sunday; in politics, any candidate can win on any given Tuesday. Ted Cruz did not cut a swath through Democrats to take his seat in the Senate - the Democrat, whose name I defy you to call up, was pro forma - but rather by defeating the Republican political machine in Texas and by making fools of its top dogs. If you think that he managed that by being stupid, then there is an adjective in this sentence for you.
Will he be the nominee? Good Lord, who knows or cares at this point? It's a question mainly of interest to Ted Cruz and his rivals, and maybe to their sainted mothers. That we are so fascinated by the possibility is further evidence of the corrosive cult of the presidency - we conservatives should know better than to wait for the anointing of a savior.
Besides, the mighty Cthulhu ("Why Settle for the Lesser Evil?") or the Sweet Meteor O' Death may very well have changed the equation by then. It's a long ways away.
The great irony of the moment is that the people writing Cruz off this week are sneering at his lack of political sophistication and congratulating themselves on their own. Ask Senator David Dewhurst how well that worked out for him.
Of Course Ted Cruz Could Win
Flash, good article. I remember hearing and reading the same things said about Reagan that I'm hearing now about Cruz. The only thing they're NOT saying about Cruz is that he's too old (they said that about Reagan).
Nevertheless, as we both know, Reagan went on to win two landslide victories. Reagan did this despite facing a hostile press and opposition from the establishment Republicans who preferred George H.W. Bush.
I guess all we can do at this point in the game is to continue to pray and support Cruz all we can. There's still a very long way to go, but I have confidence that Cruz will give it everything he has to win. Maybe America will wake up before it's too late. We can still hope!
Nevertheless, as we both know, Reagan went on to win two landslide victories. Reagan did this despite facing a hostile press and opposition from the establishment Republicans who preferred George H.W. Bush.
I guess all we can do at this point in the game is to continue to pray and support Cruz all we can. There's still a very long way to go, but I have confidence that Cruz will give it everything he has to win. Maybe America will wake up before it's too late. We can still hope!
Cruz raised $1 million in just over the first 24 hours. Data analysts were crucial to maximizing return (see link).
Ted Cruz's Rollout Scores a Quick Million
Ted Cruz's Rollout Scores a Quick Million
Sen. Ted Cruz has decided to take the high road, stating he refuses to partake in mudslinging, no matter how hard other candidates might come at him.
If more political candidates followed Cruz's lead and made the campaign trail less about mudslinging and more about focusing on issues, values, and principles, our nation wouldn't have such corrupt leadership in office.
I also found Cruz's point about Christians not being involved enough in the political process to be extremely interesting and sadly true.
When our nation was founded, it was pastors preaching freedom in the pulpit that lead the charge against the immorality of tyranny. This doesn't mean they stopped preaching the gospel, or that sharing Jesus with unbelievers stopped being their primary goal-as that's the main calling of the church-but they certainly didn't shy away from social and political topics either.
Our Founders believed a free society required a moral people in order to be successful. They believed no better set of morals and principles existed than those found in the Bible.
Today, that's not really the case.
Young Christians especially need to get their head in the game, and I hope many will listen to the message Cruz is spreading and will get involved in the fight to restore America to her greatness.
Sen. Ted Cruz: 'God Isn't Done with America Yet'
If more political candidates followed Cruz's lead and made the campaign trail less about mudslinging and more about focusing on issues, values, and principles, our nation wouldn't have such corrupt leadership in office.
I also found Cruz's point about Christians not being involved enough in the political process to be extremely interesting and sadly true.
When our nation was founded, it was pastors preaching freedom in the pulpit that lead the charge against the immorality of tyranny. This doesn't mean they stopped preaching the gospel, or that sharing Jesus with unbelievers stopped being their primary goal-as that's the main calling of the church-but they certainly didn't shy away from social and political topics either.
Our Founders believed a free society required a moral people in order to be successful. They believed no better set of morals and principles existed than those found in the Bible.
Today, that's not really the case.
Young Christians especially need to get their head in the game, and I hope many will listen to the message Cruz is spreading and will get involved in the fight to restore America to her greatness.
Sen. Ted Cruz: 'God Isn't Done with America Yet'
