Posted on 02/05/2016 10:08:07 AM PST by Kaslin
I have, since last September, written several times that I think the 2016 campaign comes down to a race between Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. The loss in Iowa after leading in the ten polls preceding the caucuses has taken the wind out of Donald Trump's sails. He is refusing to invest in New Hampshire and will not buy expansive data to micro-target voters.
I suspect Christie, Bush, Kasich, and Fiorina fade. Ben Carson is already fading. Despite Carson's attacks on Ted Cruz over urging Carson supporters to stand with Cruz, the facts are that Ted Cruz's campaign relied on CNN reporting to tell Cruz's supporters that Ben Carson was getting off the campaign trail after Iowa. Carson's campaign has cut fifty staffers and is already announcing more cuts after New Hampshire. Carson will be out soon. He is using Ted Cruz as a way to stay on life support, but his campaign is over.
Trump, as long as he stays in, is more an opportunist who will say and do anything to get elected. Trump was recently endorsed by former Senator Scott Brown, who won a special election in Massachusetts, lost re-election, then moved to New Hampshire to try to get back to the Senate. Trump has been hopping party to party since the '90s trying to get himself into power. The endorsement was fitting. The endorsement, like Sarah Palin's albatross around Trump's neck, will not save him.
That leaves Cruz and Rubio as the last men standing. Both have substantial war chests and heavily funded super PACs to run ads and build ground game operations. Rubio continues to get endorsements from political leaders, but Cruz continues to pick up sizable support from people mad at political leaders.
If voters feel like the 2016 election is the last election to save the American experiment, Ted Cruz really is their only option. If voters feel like things are coming to an end in this country without drastic action, they really do not have a choice between Rubio and Cruz. They have only Cruz. Cruz is the disruptive candidate. A voter who feels like the end is near without drastic action has to take the gamble on Cruz, who still has a good chance to win.
Rubio, on the other hand, is the candidate for voters who think the best days are still ahead of us regardless of what happens in 2016. Democrats may fear Rubio as a candidate, but the base of the Democratic Party does not fear him like Ted Cruz. They think they could wait out Marco Rubio, even after eight years in power, and see few of their advances surrendered.
Washington's lobbyists think that Marco Rubio will not be a disruptive force to them. They know Washington will still be mostly the center of people's lives to a greater degree with Marco Rubio than with Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz will burn Washington to the ground and throw lobbyists on the street. Marco Rubio will strategically raze parts of Washington, putting fewer lobbyists in danger than Cruz. At least that is the thinking, and it is the thinking that is reflected in the attacks on both men.
For critics of Cruz, he cannot win. The reality is that Cruz can win, but if he wins those lobbyists and politicians attacking him will be out of a job. The Washington elite have every incentive to stop Cruz because he absolutely would be transformational, though his path to victory may be harder than Rubio's.
For critics of Rubio, he will not go far enough. The reality is that Rubio may have an easier time winning, but his critics do not believe he will go far enough and do as much to fix the problems in Washington.
Cruz and Rubio would both be conservative to varying degrees. What is at stake between the two is how easy their election would be and how transformational their presidency would be. Rubio backers are looking at the path to the White House. Cruz backers are willing to take a gamble on the slog of a general election campaign so they can see Washington rent asunder.
So would I but I’m afraid Rubio is another Bush. He’ll talk a good game and throw it all away once elected and go back to HIS agenda like W did - Amnesty at all cost.
Maybe they don’t go back far enough. He’d been in the FL legislature since January 2000. Marco so hates to leave a paper trail. That is why he kept conservative bills from reaching the floor of the FL house when he was speaker. That is also one of the reasons why he skips out on so many votes.
The key to advancing the conservative agenda at the federal level is a veto-proof (in the case of a Democrat President) or filibuster-proof (with a Republican President) majority in the Senate. Without that, what matters most is preventing another Democrat in the White House who will issue damaging executive orders and help set the world on fire with feckless diplomatic and military policies.
If GOA is okay with him (on Second Amendment issues) then I'm okay with him, on Second Amendment issues.
Trump is the one who consistently is destroyed by Clinton in the polls. Cruz beats her. Worst yet for Trump:
Cruz has more support among blacks and Hispanics (!), contrary to Drudge’s legend.
The regions were Trump does best against Democrats relative to Cruz are all regions where there won’t be much of a battle anyway: New York, California, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Illinois, and New Hampshire. Of those, only New Hampshire is purple. Cruz, on the other hand, performs better in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado and Minnesota. Of those, only Minnesota isn’t purple... and Cruz actually could win it!
No way. Not a Trump fan either.
Marco Rubio (R-Amnesty)
It didn’t begin with the Gang of Eight.
He was already siding with illegals when he was Speaker of the Florida House.
At least that's the case here in California.
This is Erick Erickson (Red State) babble. Trump hater extraordinaire. I totally disregard anything Erick says.
Whatcha gonna do if he gets the nomination? Stay home and pout? Vote for some third party candidate who has zero chances to get elected, or vote for Hillary, the criminal?
Wow, I didn’t know Townhall.com wrote the op-ed /sarcasm>
Agreed
You will now say something along the lines of 'Hillary thanks you', but I totally reject that charge.
It is the establishment, by refusing yet again to listen to their constituents, that will elect Hillary.
Mitt Romney would have been a million times better that that arrogant pos who occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Ave
I agree..... we’re going to end up with a Cruz/Rubio ticket.... or a Rubio/Cruz ticket. And the world’s richest moron is going to run third party....
As much as it pains me to agree with you you are right. Mitt Romney would have been 1000% better than a commie lovin Muslim with the IQ of a brick.
What about the years from 2000 to 2010. Rubio getting an A from the NRA in 2000 is not surprising at all, nor is it proof of how he’ll vote at any other time. That was his first year in the legislature. He had not learned his way around yet. Marco Rubio is the slipperiest, slimiest candidate inflicted on an electorate. You have to watch his every move, not just trust someone’s observation of one or two years.
Take it from a Floridian who has seen him in action. Marco Rubio is a snake.
As to his other positions? I have not commented on them. Only his Pro-RKBA status. And the fact he aligned with the "Gang of 8" which of course negates any $upport/vote I would give him.
Rubio was, and is PRO-Second Amendment. Larry Pratt said so. If you disbelieve me? Call GOA. ..
What you said in #77! But when I tried to suggest that, I was blamed for everything from the Mountain Meadows Massacre to “Peep Stones.”
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.