Replies

I want to know how the case is being made here that Cruz is the best candidate to beat Hillary?

No real track record on anything yet he can beat Hillary.

Well someone please explain that rationale. I can’t see it.
Cruz has to get support from areas that Trump is already polling well in. I guess we will just see.

if you look at the RealClearPolitics polls today, Cruz has a better chance than Trump!

Average—Cruz vs Clinton—Clinton +1.3
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html

Average—Trump vs Clinton—Clinton +4.4
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

My take is that Hillary is fatally dirty. Benghazi is bad enough, but she and Bill left the WH dead broke, as she put it, and now they have more dough than Mitt Romney. People assert that a lot of that money came from foreign governments - and Hillary was on the federal payroll (senator and SecState) for most of that time. And whether that money was donated for, and spent in support of, charitable causes or not actually makes on difference to the fact that that is unconstitutional:

Article 1 Section 9: No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state If I am a Republican consultant I am promoting ways to dramatize the scofflaw nature of all that grifting. State governments should be lobbied to pass a law against the selection of Electors pledged to anyone one tenth as corrupt as the Clintons. There would be no problem passing constitutional muster because: Each state’s legislature has (as SCOTUS put it) plenary power to determine how the Electors are selected. They do not even have to be popularly elected, so there would be no grounds for complaint SCOTUS about how the election was run. Unlike, say, states trying to impose term limits on Congressmen by keeping them off the ballot. Even if SCOTUS heard a case, it would have to complain that the states were enforcing a constitutional provision in a minimal way; no criminal penalty would be involved, and not even a fine would be imposed. And SCOTUS has upheld McCain-Feingold - notwithstanding the opinion of four justices that it violates the First Amendment - on the basis that campaign finance contributions were a threat to the honesty of politicians. Here, there is no constitutional issue and the states would be on the side of cleaning up money in politics. If you were really squeamish, you could simply require that the candidate with the illegit money not be on Row A, Row B, or Row C of the ballot. Democrats statewide would go ballistic over the thought of having to compete on even terms with Green parties and Right-to-Life parties . . . IMHO Donald Trump will exactly run against Hillary’s money. He has not accept a dime from anyone, and she has been on the take from everyone.