I didn’t even get into voter turnout yet. Plenty of excited Trump voters. Hillary…not so much. Turnout alone will keep her from the Presidency.
I keep using Trump as the candidate. We do not know who yet will be the republican candidate. I hope it’s Cruz. As I said a Cruz/Kasich ticket would do very well.
Zeb, the amount of excited Trump voters doesn’t match those who will turnout solely to vote against him.
The following states produce the most coal in the US. All will go to the republican candidate based on Hillary’s own words
“There will be plenty of coal miners out of a job if I’m elected President.”
• Wyoming: 395.7 (40%)
• West Virginia: 112.2 (11%)
• Kentucky: 77.3 (8%)
• Pennsylvania: 60.9 (6%)
• Illinois: 58.0 (6%)
Losing PA and W. Virginia will be a horrible blow to the democrats.
This makes no sense - how could we be causing you to fear Cruz for his refusal to compromise when that isn’t something you’d fear, but rather see as a feature?
Setting aside that incoherence, the only thing this represents is a compromise of “strict constructionism” - isn’t that a no-no in your book?
As for compromising generally, that’s been a point I’ve raised all along - is there a chance he’s just promising all the Tea Party types he’ll govern as a “strict constructionist” to motivate them to get to the polls only to govern differently?
I thought maybe Cruz’s apostasy from “strict constructionism” on federal spending on education (hello, open-ended General Welfare clause, perhaps the worst of betrayals of “strict constructionism”) would raise red flags among CCs, but apparently it’s no biggie.
Color me surprised.
That would be true if it was any candidate other than Hillary (people love to hate me) Clinton.
Now if you said more people will stay home sure that’s a possibility. I agree Trump’s negatives are high. But I don’t think they will stay that high. He also has a way of bringing people down to his level. I hate it, and I dislike Trump for it. But, he will do this to Hillary. Trumps negatives will always be high. But what you are not counting on is Hillary’s negatives also being high and going higher once the actual general election gets in full gear.
It’s funny, the only person that either Cruz or Trump could beat in a general election is probably Hillary Clinton. If they threw in Biden, heck even Kerry I would not be at all sure of the outcome.
The rise of natural gas is much more responsible for the poor fortunes of coal than government energy policy.
Yep. Barring a major banana peel, I believe that Hilary is going to win, whether Trump or Cruz is the nominee. If it’s Trump, Democrats, independents, and NeverTrumps will give HRC the win. If It’s Cruz, I see Trump running a 3rd party campaign and taking the wind out of the GOP’s sails.
That could very well be the case. But, Hillary saying that there are going to be more unemployed coal workers if she’s elected President sure doesn’t help her with certain states does it? And she has to say that to win the left wing nuts over to her side. If not Bernie will get those votes. She’s generally being pulled to the left and that only helps Cruz, Trump, Kasich or whomever is the republican nominee.
If you tried you couldn’t be more wrong.
As for your assertion that Trump runs a third party campaign you obviously do not understand how the man thinks. Do you honestly think he wants to go down in history as a loser? On top of that you do realize that Trump has put very little of his own money in the race so far. There is a reason for that. The man is not cash rich. You would have to understand real estate to appreciate that. Every time you see a building with Trump’s name on it don’t think for a second that the particular building in question is all his. Most are financed to the hilt. Could he sell of some assets where he actually does have most of the investment? Sure…could he do it in a hurry without taking a major loss? Nope.
On top of all that it takes a great number of people working very hard to get a persons name on the ballot. People, money, organization… yada yada yada…Trump is not running third party. Not happening.
By the way, Perot did it in 1992 and 1996. He was coming off a huge sale of his computer company to GM and actually had billions in cash. He spent something like 2 billion trying to get elected and he only managed to achieve 19% of the vote in 92’. An I highly doubt Trump has anywhere near that sort of cash hanging around. Think property and value not liquidity when you think Trump. So…just forget it Bis…
I’m not a Sanders supporter and he will not win the nomination. What’s your point? Trump supporters are policy nescient. Ardent Cruz supporters aren’t too far behind.
The last thing the GOP (and the nation) is a maximalist candidate. Cruz is very much “my way or the highway”, often to the detriment of his party and the country.
The Tea Party platform contains several elements that are mutually exclusive. Not exactly cogent. And for all of his rhetoric prowess, Cruz many of his policy platforms are reductionist to the extreme or are underlinned by erroneous assumptions. He certainly isn’t an internationalist Republican with a strong blend of principle and command of policy like George H.W. Bush.
Lastly, several of Cruz’s advisor picks are disconcerting to say the least. The quality of advisors often says a lot about the quality of the candidate.
What is an independent voter? A voter not affiliated with a party, right? So why does everyone assume that an independent is more likely to vote Democrat?
Until this year I was an independent voter. The Republicans are usually left of my own politics. Point being, independent voters are not blank slates. They are just not in a party and it is very hard to assign which candidate they may vote for.
Like…? Don’t leave me hanging.
Actually, I did agree in that particular instance.
Well, thanks for the permission.
The chief foreign policy advisor for the Cruz campaign is an art historian that stumbled into the role. The GOP foreign policy and national security community is absolutely stacked with talent, and he picks a dilettante? Perhaps the actual subject matter experts stayed away because they recognize Cruz for what he is.
Frank Gaffney, an anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist.
William Boykin, a retired general with a religiously fuel Manichean view of counterterrorism.
A deeply religious Christian evangelical that believes in holy war that’s surrounds himself with likeminded advisors? What could go wrong?
That’s silly. You don’t need to make that kind of bet. We’ve already lost too many of the really good posters on this site. We don’t need you leaving, too.
Plus, I think you are wrong about Cruz. If there’s one thing he’s good at, it’s answering hard questions, under pressure, and making his position clear and palatable to his audience. Cruz beats anybody he goes up against, roundly. That’s my bet. But I’m not leaving if I’m wrong. 
I didn’t say that. I believe independent voters generally vote for more moderate candidates because they are not sold on either party. They like a little bit of one and a little bit of the other. A candidate, like Cruz (or Sanders), who is on the extreme does not appeal to the middle.
Edit: In the case of Hillary vs. Cruz I believe Hillary would win more independent votes.
That is your assumption. Just because someone is not a member of a party does not make them a moderate. Moderate and independent are not interchangeable words.
Dang Cruz missed a good opportunity to pick you. Everyone wants a know it all 20 something on their foreign policy team 
Sloth is overly emotional this year. Trump has sent him into a tail spin. But I am confident that anyone beats Hillary. I have never seen anyone less suited to run for President in my life. She has literally nothing going for her other than the novelty of being a woman…and that won’t be enough with all of her many deficits.