Why Republicans Need to Nominate Ted Cruz

Rothenberg Gonzalez Political Report ^ | 10/16/15 | Stuart Rothenberg

[Psalm 144]

Cruz can’t seem to make significant headway in this very straightforward primary with some dreadfully weak competitors. He hasn’t put a foot wrong but still seems to be moonwalking.

Trump is on the money on a few things. He has gotten it right on very few things, but he is convincing that he could and would move the ball on those few things. They happen to be important things. That’s it. That is what he’s got. That is more than anyone else, and that is why he is ahead.

If Cruz is going to prove his ability to win, it had better be soon. I wish he would. The idea gruel is rather thin in this election.

[JediJones]

And he has Ivanka as his top confidante and advisor who is “besties” with Chelsea Clinton, has supported same-sex marriage and believes that woman don’t get “equal pay.” And those are just the liberal issues we know about from a woman who hasn’t spoken publically about her views much.

[LS]

I agree. In most cases, Mitt got far more votes than McLame.

[LS]

Exactly right. Obviously, a R cannot alienate the base as Romney and McCain did and hope that he gets a 90% turnout.

[buckeye49]

On what information do you base the statement that he would not carry Ohio?

[LS]

BTW, I know a guy who says that right now, due to his model based almost entirely on home ownership, the Republicans will never win another election. I certainly don't think that's true, but it's an interesting correlation. He says he can look at a county's rate of home ownership and tell which way it votes.

The problem with that is that there are places like Scarsdale or Malibu that have high rates of home ownership and are extremely lib. On the other hand, Scottsdale AZ has a high rate of home ownership and is extremely conservative.

[LS]

The fact that OH has always been a "swing" state, with a lot of union people, that tends to go toward more moderate (or moderately-perceived) candidates like Bush (who barely won OH, twice.) Our state offices and Senators are nominally conservative (Kasich, Portman, DeWine) but more conservative guys like Ken Blackwell don't do well. (Jordan is an exception and has a great district).

Voter registration is skewed solidly Dem.

Cleveland dominates the state, somewhat offset by Cincy. But in recent elections Columbus has trended Dem.

[Ancesthntr]

So Rothenberg wants Cruz to be nominated so that the Party goes down in the Senate and we get Shrillary as POTUS - all to prove the his point that conservatives are evil and/or stupid...so that the GOPe can forever point to the 2016 election and say, “You have to do what WE say, look at the results!”

Phuck that noise! THIS is why Trump is even a candidate, let alone leading, because of self-interested jackasses like Rothenberg. THIS is why I want Trump to win (and take Cruz as Veep or AG), because he doesn’t need the GOPe for anything, and he’ll destroy it.

First the internal enemies (the most dangerous kind), then the external ones (the Dems/Leftists/Traitors).

[Ancesthntr]

Too funny to see some people’s thinking:

“I’m not voting for Romney, he is not conservative enough”.

“I’m not voting for Cruz, he is too conservative.”

---

The problem here is that people don’t understand that in politics, you NEVER get everything that you want. The Dems understand that, which is why they’re happy to win and get 65%...which, over time, means that they have re-shaped the nation. Republican idiots, OTOH, have been so ideologically pure that they get virtually nothing they want, ever, and have had the nation re-shaped around them. The only real exception was under Reagan, and he had both a millstone around his neck (a Dem House) and successors (Bush 41 and Clintoon) who undid a lot of what he did.

Patton said, “The Perfect is the enemy of the Good.”

Reagan said, “In politics, if you get 70% of what you want, take it and run away.”

Maybe, just maybe, more Republicans and more conservatives should listen to these to ultra-successful people.

[Gee Wally]

Why would anybody give any credence to what Stuart Rothenberg predicts this far out from the election. He wrote this in early 2009:

But there are no signs of a dramatic rebound for the party, and the chance of Republicans winning control of either chamber in the 2010 midterm elections is zero. Not “close to zero.” Not “slight” or “small.” Zero.

[right way right]

A dem candidate will just steal Trumps most popular issues.
They can’t do that with Cruz. Cruz has the most distinction from the left by far.
Trump.supporters hate this type of article, it pisses all over their argument. If Trump win the nomination the media will flip like a switch on him. Thats exactly why they push him so much and give him all the publicity he wants and that is also why they try to ignore Cruz.

[right way right]

I was not clear.
The article is total BS and Trump supporters know it.
Just GOPe and dem wishful thinking.

[sarge83]

Well we have tried Mr. Rothenbergs way of nominating what the Republican intelligentsia assured us were the “most electable candidates” since 1992 and what has it got us?

I especially like his tantrum that its time for the anti-establishment conservatives to put up or shut up on winning elections. Well Stu baby when has a conservative been allowed to win the nomination in your sacred and beloved Party since 1984?

If we are going to run conservative candidates and right off the bat write off Ohio, Florida etc... why bother, it’s done. We have offered these states the mush that they claim they want and they have rejected Republican mush liberals for the real liberal Santa Claus every time. They can try the moderate aka liberal Republican only electable candidate insanity again, but without me, I won’t board that train ride to hell and losing yet again.

Those conservative advocating electing yet another liberal Republican are just hoping to ride the tiger to the end in the vain hope of being the last ones eaten by progressivism or hoping they die first before it all comes crashing down.