TexasCHLforum.com

OldGrumpy wrote:Electing a president is somewhat like the constitutional carry issue. You can't get to a Cruz without an intermediate stop. Meaning, the President is always elected by the true independents who tend to be the moderates of the nation. If we want to lose to another Democrat the Republicans will nominate someone like Cruz or Paul. By the time the Democratic News Media gets through with them they will be viewed as lunatics. I am in favor with someone like Jeb Bush, who though I do not agree with his some of his positions is a vast improvement over the current President and any potential Democrat. I believe he would be electable. Good article on his strategy in Sunday's Dallas Morning News.

This is why I stated in an earlier post that wasn't sure Cruz would even carry Texas in the primaries.

Jason K wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

Jason K wrote:....If not Cruz, who?

[ Image ]

Quit being so subtle.....

Image too small?

RoyGBiv wrote:

Jason K wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

Jason K wrote:....If not Cruz, who?

[ Image ]

Quit being so subtle.....

Image too small?

You mean you couldn't find a bigger one?

Hey, If Jeb, Walker, Jindal, Rubio or whoever is your guy, I suggest you get onboard and do more than just send twenty bucks, vote the primary and general. I think we all need to get more active in the process. We need to be as passionate and concerned about this upcoming presidential election as we are guns rights.

Otherwise, we'll be sitting around whining about another president that isn't any better than Obama such as Hillary.

Whoever it is, it's going to take more from the right people than just voting. If Ted isn't the one nominated I'll get on board with who is. I just hope it isn't a go along to get along progressive republican.

I've been giving myself this same talk for the last two years.

Jason K wrote:If Rand Paul announced his candidacy tomorrow, I would have a tough choice b/t the two.

Those are my two favorites, and have been for a couple years. Cruz and Paul, I'd take either, or both.
Unelectable? Maybe.
But a ho-hum progressive republican is what lost the race the last two times. Lots of people on the right won't even care enough to go to the polls.
Put in a firebrand, let the media do their worst, and see who wins.
It's a coin toss, but the other way is surrender.

rbwhatever1 wrote:Cruz / Paul....either order sounds good to me.

Please no Jeb Bush.
Lots of people have mentioned Walker. I don't know much about him. Need to find out, I guess.
Condi Rice would be awesome. I don't think she's interested though.

mgood wrote:If Rand Paul announced his candidacy tomorrow, I would have a tough choice b/t the two.

Those are my two favorites, and have been for a couple years. Cruz and Paul, I'd take either, or both.
Unelectable? Maybe.
But a ho-hum progressive republican is what lost the race the last two times. Lots of people on the right won't even care enough to go to the polls.
Put in a firebrand, let the media do their worst, and see who wins.
[/quote]

I would argue that what lost it last time was the rich and elitist aspect of Romney, not that he was a "ho-hum progressive republican". The majority of people found him to be out of touch. Too many people had too easy of a time picturing him sitting on a yacht noshing on caviar while wearing an ascot. He is also a very stiff, boring man. "A milquetoast enigma wrapped in a white bread conundrum".

On the other side, I think that even of those that might be able to better relate to Cruz find him to be a lunatic.

If we're going to call Cruz a lunatic, then it's time to lock this thread, before I go nuclear.

TVGuy wrote:
I would argue that what lost it last time was the rich and elitist aspect of Romney, not that he was a "ho-hum progressive republican". The majority of people found him to be out of touch. Too many people had too easy of a time picturing him sitting on a yacht noshing on caviar while wearing an ascot. He is also a very stiff, boring man. "A milquetoast enigma wrapped in a white bread conundrum".

I think that analysis might be out of touch. When it came down to voting for a Democrat or a Republican who inspired and enacted the same policies that the Democrats were pushing for on a federal level, most conservatives didn't see much use in wasting a vote. If Bush, Romney, or Christie run, I see a lot of conservatives not wasting votes again this year....

TVGuy wrote:
On the other side, I think that even of those that might be able to better relate to Cruz find him to be a lunatic.

....or those who better relate to Cruz would find anyone willing to vote for Bush, Romney, or Christie to be a lunatic.....what's that saying about doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result?

Jason K wrote:
....or those who better relate to Cruz would find anyone willing to vote for Bush, Romney, or Christie to be a lunatic.....what's that saying about doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result?

I'll eat my hat if a Tea Party Republican carries a national electoral map in the next 10 years. Just not going to happen unless their tactics change and by definition of the party they won't.

Not even trying to say my feelings on the guy one way or the other, but he barely won in TX. This state is far more conservative than most. Do you really think there is a reasonable chance for that winning on a national stage?

Jason K wrote:

TVGuy wrote:
I would argue that what lost it last time was the rich and elitist aspect of Romney, not that he was a "ho-hum progressive republican". The majority of people found him to be out of touch. Too many people had too easy of a time picturing him sitting on a yacht noshing on caviar while wearing an ascot. He is also a very stiff, boring man. "A milquetoast enigma wrapped in a white bread conundrum".

I think that analysis might be out of touch. When it came down to voting for a Democrat or a Republican who inspired and enacted the same policies that the Democrats were pushing for on a federal level, most conservatives didn't see much use in wasting a vote. If Bush, Romney, or Christie run, I see a lot of conservatives not wasting votes again this year....

TVGuy wrote:
On the other side, I think that even of those that might be able to better relate to Cruz find him to be a lunatic.

....or those who better relate to Cruz would find anyone willing to vote for Bush, Romney, or Christie to be a lunatic.....what's that saying about doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result?

Picking a candidate that gains conservatives doesn't mean you keep the moderates or independents though. like him or not, Cruz is an insta lose for the independent vote and you risk moderates not voting.

Romney didn't lose because he was a moderate. Romney lost because he flip flopped, had the personality of a Buick, and there was no way a hyper rich founder of Bain Capital was going to win.

No Republican outside of Zombie Reagan would have beaten Obama. It was a nexus point in history with a wave of people voting for the first moderately acceptable African American candidate in history. On the positive I don't see the same translating for Clinton as she's been around the spotlight since before a lot of voters were even born.

Paul couldn't win either but he could angle for Sec of Commerce or such. But, like Cruz I welcome his hat in the ring. It puts more arguments on the table and frankly makes the race more fun.

TVGuy wrote:

Jason K wrote:
....or those who better relate to Cruz would find anyone willing to vote for Bush, Romney, or Christie to be a lunatic.....what's that saying about doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result?

I'll eat my hat if a Tea Party Republican carries a national electoral map in the next 10 years. Just not going to happen unless their tactics change and by definition of the party they won't.

Not even trying to say my feelings on the guy one way or the other, but he barely won in TX. This state is far more conservative than most. Do you really think there is a reasonable chance for that winning on a national stage?

I think Rand stands a chance. His message will resonate with libertarians, college age kids and independents that are fiscally conservative but socially moderate.

IMO, Cruz doesn't have a chance, but I still like his moxy and forthrightness.

TVGuy wrote:

Jason K wrote:
....or those who better relate to Cruz would find anyone willing to vote for Bush, Romney, or Christie to be a lunatic.....what's that saying about doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result?

I'll eat my hat if a Tea Party Republican carries a national electoral map in the next 10 years. Just not going to happen unless their tactics change and by definition of the party they won't.

Not even trying to say my feelings on the guy one way or the other, but he barely won in TX. This state is far more conservative than most. Do you really think there is a reasonable chance for that winning on a national stage?

Barely won by 56.5%. If that's your definition of barely, I'll take it. Cornyn won in 2008 with 54.8% and in 2014 with 61.55%.

No one knows what will happen in 2016, and anyone who tells you they do is either lying or deluded. So many things can change during an election cycle that it's impossible to predict what will happen.

TVGuy wrote:

Jason K wrote:
....or those who better relate to Cruz would find anyone willing to vote for Bush, Romney, or Christie to be a lunatic.....what's that saying about doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result?

I'll eat my hat if a Tea Party Republican carries a national electoral map in the next 10 years. Just not going to happen unless their tactics change and by definition of the party they won't.

Not even trying to say my feelings on the guy one way or the other, but he barely won in TX. This state is far more conservative than most. Do you really think there is a reasonable chance for that winning on a national stage?

He's running for the Republican nomination and not the Tea Party. I would agree with you if he was running on a third party ticket.

Yes. I think with work by the right people, he can win. So can one of the others. The problem is, we have to be a passionate about getting them elected as some are getting free phones, monthly handouts and insurance.

I believe saying the right guy can't get elected nationally is a cop-out and taking a lazy easy way out. (not directed at you personally) We all know doing the right thing takes work and is sometimes hard.

Cant get elected. The same was said about Ronald Reagan. Twice. Who cares? Vote for continued Socialism and Tyranny disguised as a handout, vote for the Constitution or don't vote at all.
If those"Tea Party" candidates cant win an election it really doesn't matter in the end. We the people will be forced to right the ship or perish at some point anyway. I don't see these United States continuing either way and a drastic change back to our founding principles to get things moving quickly and be done with it is my preference. The continued slow destruction is getting annoying and the longer it goes the longer it will take to fix if it can be fixed at all. One way or another these United States will have a reckoning. Washington has already destroyed it we just haven't seen the aftermath. Let the cleanup begin already.

I'm all in for the Tea Party to get that reckoning started based on our Constitution first and our morality second as I believe it should be. If I'm not afforded the opportunity to vote "for the Constitution" I will be voting against it for the unbridled, rapid destruction of these United States with increased Socialism and in your face Tyranny. This is my duty to my children. Posterity. Texas. Free States.

I really don't care if Washington survives or not after what they have become. Either way its time to get on down the road and I will vote for the shortcut...

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Jason K wrote:

TVGuy wrote:
I would argue that what lost it last time was the rich and elitist aspect of Romney, not that he was a "ho-hum progressive republican". The majority of people found him to be out of touch. Too many people had too easy of a time picturing him sitting on a yacht noshing on caviar while wearing an ascot. He is also a very stiff, boring man. "A milquetoast enigma wrapped in a white bread conundrum".

I think that analysis might be out of touch. When it came down to voting for a Democrat or a Republican who inspired and enacted the same policies that the Democrats were pushing for on a federal level, most conservatives didn't see much use in wasting a vote. If Bush, Romney, or Christie run, I see a lot of conservatives not wasting votes again this year....

TVGuy wrote:
On the other side, I think that even of those that might be able to better relate to Cruz find him to be a lunatic.

....or those who better relate to Cruz would find anyone willing to vote for Bush, Romney, or Christie to be a lunatic.....what's that saying about doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result?

Picking a candidate that gains conservatives doesn't mean you keep the moderates or independents though. like him or not, Cruz is an insta lose for the independent vote and you risk moderates not voting.

Romney didn't lose because he was a moderate. Romney lost because he flip flopped, had the personality of a Buick, and there was no way a hyper rich founder of Bain Capital was going to win.

No Republican outside of Zombie Reagan would have beaten Obama. It was a nexus point in history with a wave of people voting for the first moderately acceptable African American candidate in history. On the positive I don't see the same translating for Clinton as she's been around the spotlight since before a lot of voters were even born.

Paul couldn't win either but he could angle for Sec of Commerce or such. But, like Cruz I welcome his hat in the ring. It puts more arguments on the table and frankly makes the race more fun.

Highlighted a couple of your statements to make a point. These same moderated and independents that you say a GOP candidate needs to win are the same voters who voted for Obama twice....or didn't vote at all. The big mistake that the GOP made in the last two elections was alienating their conservative base (which has usually been a reliable source of votes) to chase after the elusive "independent voter" that rarely votes at all....much less for a Republican.

Right now, the Republican establishment has made the party a distinction without a difference. If the GOP is going to support the same things that the Democrats support (illegal alien amnesty, single-payer health care, increased taxes and gov't intrusion), why vote Republican? If anything, the Democrats can get this stuff passed quicker.

Reagan brought different ideas to the table....not the same things that the Democrats were pushing. And Reagan won twice....with "independent" and Democrat voters. Cruz brings different ideas to the table. Paul brings different ideas to the table. What do Christie, Bush, and Romney bring?....

.....four more years of a Democrat POTUS, judging by recent history.

Need I define the word "insanity" again?