Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
WIHS2006". Sadly a significant portion of my party thinks that it's still 1984 and are seemingly oblivious to the demographic changes that have occurred over the past 30 years."
I agree, and they are stupid! The GOP must also get 1/2 the single woman vote, and cut Dems below the 83% which is their low amongst black voters for the last several decades. A goal for the GOP s/b getting 25% of that vote.
Jeb Bush is IMO the only Republican candidate who could potentially pull it off. Sadly a significant portion of my party thinks that it's still 1984 and are seemingly oblivious.
The portion of the Republican Party who will be making the decision on who to nominate likes Bush.
So it really isn't "sad" that not everyone agrees, because you never have situation where everyone agrees.
Personally, I don't think that Mr. Bush stands a chance of a snowball in heck in the general election, but we shall see. A lot of moving parts at work here.
But Jeb is more inevitable than Mrs. Clinton is one the other side of the ballot.
In the North he portrayed Goldwater literally in KKK robes, while in the South he accurately portrayed Goldwater as a lifelong opponent of segregation. LBJ would probably not be able to get away with that today.
Reagan was portrayed as a hard right conservative, which he was, yet won solidly in 1980, and by a landslide in 84. Every presidential election is a unique event. Whether Cruz has a chance is not a function of what happened in 1964 or 1972, but of what happens between now and Nov 2016. We don't even know with 100% certainty whom the Dem nominee will be, much less what might transpire--war, terrorist attack, economic crash,
What made the LBJ campaign work was that there were disenfranchised Republicans who were more on the Romney/Scranton/Rockefeller moderate camp than there were on the Goldwater conservative camp. This again is the case now with Cruz only appealing to a minority of voters and not enough of the majority. Unlike Goldwater in 1964 during the campaign, Cruz already was behind the shutdown in 2013 over Obamacare and far more on the national scene than Goldwater was with releasing a book that is soly credited for jump starting the modern day conservative movement.
Comparing then to Reagan is a bit off, Reagan wasn't a hardline conservative unwilling to compromise or spouting off crazy (well to the majority of Americans) comments. The thing we have to remember is that America is not just conservative but moderate and liberal too.
Ted Cruz to me is a truly terrifying individual. He is a complete and total sociopath. He has the charisma of Gerald Ford, the ruthlessness psychopathy of Nixon, the lying his ass off spin of Clinton. He is the embodiment of all of the worst qualities a politician can have...a living caricature of someone from a Ayn Rand novel.
I do not say this because I am not a republican, I mean I could see myself voting for Rand over Clinton, but Cruz is a dangerous man.
"The man called Cruz." LOL. Trying to make him out like a John Wayne?
It's actually "the man called Rafael." He comes from a Cuban commie family and - gasp - was born in Canada! Since Obama supposedly wasn't eligible to run under similar allegations, conservatives should definitely be writing off Cruz. With Obama, it was made up; with Cruz, it's for real.
He should start going by Rafael Cruz if he hopes for that to happen.
Bad move, "Rafael Cruz" is already being used by the candidate's father, a conservative theologian who is still working.
Calling them both the same would just stir up confusion, and its illogical to call the senator "Junioro", as the vast majority of the people are uninformed as to who "senior" is.
Perhaps one should write: "The man named Rafael Edward Cruz, son of Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, called "Ted" by family and friends".
I was very gratified to see that the students at Liberty University were only facing a $10.00 fine, plus a reprimand, if they chose to not attend the speech delivered by Rafael Edward Cruz, son of Rafael Bienvenido Cruz*.
*note that the article points out that Rafael Edward Cruz was not a 'special' case; students at "Liberty" University must attend three 'events' per week or pay fines and face reprimands (such as, "Jesus is very, very disappointed in you"). This was just one of those events.
Yet you seemed to paint is as a "special case".
The repeated use of his full legal name is suspect.
Yeah. Also Reagan was a governor, not a congressman like Cruz. Most people want a candidate with executive experience than a legislator in 2016. Cruz is barely a legislator.
Are you saying that didn't work out too well currently?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
