But Jeb, there’s no way.
Posted on 04/10/2015 3:43:26 PM PDT by entropy12
Walker 15 Bush 12 Carson 11 Cruz 10 Huckabee 10 Paul 9 Rubio 8 Christie 4 Perry 3 Santorum 2 Jindal 2 Kasich 1
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
“Unfortunately there are some Cruz supporters who will not vote for Walker or Rubio.”
Count me as one. You know I escaped an invaded state, at a loss of income and great cost. Best decision I ever made! Anyway I will never vote for a pro-amnesty candidate. I was able to escape- once the entire country is invaded, there will be no escaping it.
Bwahahahahah! Carson ahead of Cruz? Get real.
N.H. poll: Scott Walker leads Jeb Bush, Rand Paul third
There is a very good chance that Cruz will surge ahead based upon his debate skills and the fact that too many of the others will be exposed as the valueless politicians they are.
If Senator Cruz is as good as you are saying, should’nt he be leading in most polls? I could’nt agree more with you that the senator is a very very good conservative. But we need to see his appeal to voters everywhere, not just on FR.
N.H. poll: Scott Walker leads Jeb Bush, Rand Paul third
I personally do not give a damn anymore for jumping on the bandwagon that I “think” will win because of its “concern” for the likes of “other” voters.
Cruz because he’s the most conservative, period.
In spite of his being an effing Senator.
The critical question is not who is the most conservative. We can wind ourselves into pretzels arguing who is more conservative on what issue.
Also, who is more likely to win is just that...an opinion.
OTOH polls reflect whom the voters actually favor. That is why I am studying the polls. It is true polls are not the same as elections. However polls have generally have been a good indicator in history of how the election will turn out.
It’s good to see that Fox has (for now) given up on Bush and has moved slightly to the right to Walker.
Give them time and they may even slant their coverage to support an actual conservative.
In fairness, polls are candidate neutral, if done objectively and honestly. Many pollsters are notorious for asking slanted questions in polls. I don’t think Fox News tried to skew the poll in any one particular candidate’s favor.
“....First, Walker strikes no one as an egghead or a wonk. He has the personality of an ordinary, good-hearted American – the kind of guy who coaches youth baseball teams or teaches Sunday School classes or gives us a ride to work when our car is in the shop. We see this as an understated but palpable decency – not sainthood or anything that fancy, but rather inherent American goodness....
....Watch how Scott Walker’s unfolding campaign is covered by the media. The very strengths that let Reagan not only win election but implement policies will be sneered at in Walker by a Leftist oligarchy that has no real notion of decency, sincerity or guts. Note that Walker has already said that his goal is not to win elections but then to do something with that victory (i.e. simply gaining power is not important.) This sort of talk befuddles Leftists who love power for its own sake and love, really, nothing else...”
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/scott_walkers_underappreciated_strengths.html
Who told you that?
Actually, that is one of the most fundamental reasons that freerepublic exists.
But Jeb, there’s no way.
Governors are proven sell-outs.
Wrong. We need multiple conservatives on the debate stage. Otherwise, the one gets drowned out by all the moderates.
Governors are proven sell-outs.
Yeah I’m sure. Well Senators are just policy wonks. We have a Senator as President now. How’s that working for ya?
“If Senator Cruz is as good as you are saying, should’nt he be leading in most polls? I could’nt agree more with you that the senator is a very very good conservative. But we need to see his appeal to voters everywhere, not just on FR.”
Give him time to get his message out. The debates can make or break a candidate- think Rick Perry 4 years ago.
Are you siding with the liberal GOP establishment, saying we need to have another liberal Republican candidate because only they can be elected? I’d rather give a conservative candidate the opportunity.
Of course, with the dumbing down of the sheeple, 47% taking from the rest, and the MSM lying, it will be hard for any conservative candidate- that’s what we need one that can articulate his case well - not a liberal or moderate one to further advance the decline if this country. We need a quick turn around or the debt and the invasion will destroy what we are leaving to our children.
I understand.
:)
I’m not necessarily for Senators, but I rule out full-term Governors. How about a General or a CEO, maybe even a Doctor?
I’m not necessarily for Senators, but I rule out full-term Governors. How about a General or a CEO, maybe even a Doctor?
I am DEFINITELY not against a General, CEO or Doctor. I actually thought that AFTER Romney was the nominee he would have done a pretty good job at least in the economic part of being President and as far as social issues go I can’t imagine him being worse then Obama. I was for Santorum and thought he would be great as President but once we pick our nominee, I support them warts and all.
People wear more than one hat. Your guy was a Senator but is also a Filmmaker and a Homeschooler. I say open it up to everyone, but be very skeptical of full-term Governors. For me, I just rule them out as a first-order sort algorithm.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.