Ted Cruz 2016

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
Aragorn: fully agree with all your talking points ! Back to the Cruz-zer.
Being he is the first to throw his hat in the three ring circus,
why did he do it in Virginia instead of his home state of TEXAS ?

That seems like it would have been a more logical place, no ?[/quote]

There is a need to start impressing and establishing relationships with people outside of Texas. Why he chose Virginia instead of, say, Iowa, I don’t know - other than the fact that he wantes to use Liberty University as a platform to attract and ignite certain parts of the base.

He likely has Texas sewn up, at least at this point.

I think Cruz has zero shot. In terms of approach, he is basically a right-wing version of 2008 Obama, minus the charisma and marketing as a moderate. Kudos for truth in advertising - and I mean that - but no way anyone of his ideological pedigree combine with inexperience will be the man in 2016.

82

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
but no way anyone of his ideological pedigree combine with inexperience will be the man in 2016.
[/quote]

Agree, he’ll drive the middle away, who is already weary of ideologues.

I’m sick of Senators as POTUS anyway. God damn, I think we had what, two, prior to Bam, and now it’s all that runs ffs.

83

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]knee-gro wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:

Texas loves him.[/quote]

Of course they do, people there aren’t exactly brainiacs. Anyone who’s ever been to Austin knows what I’m talking about.
[/quote]

What a fucking moron. Austin can be about as liberal as San Francisco.

The Angolan ignoramus.[/quote]

Ah give the lad a break, Push. The parts near Zimbabwe are still using dial-up. News travels slow.

84

[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
Aragorn: fully agree with all your talking points ! Back to the Cruz-zer.
Being he is the first to throw his hat in the three ring circus,
why did he do it in Virginia instead of his home state of TEXAS ?

That seems like it would have been a more logical place, no ?[/quote]

I agree with you, but I think the reason comes down to what thunderbold said about him having Texas sewn up and needing to start building relationships outside his home region. That makes sense to me.

I also agree he has no shot in hell. He will be eaten alive post primary if he makes it out. I believe the electorate wants a swing away from what they’ve had for the last 8 years but whether that plays out in the “not a liberal” way or the “not completely and totally fucking inexperienced” way I don’t know. Conventional wisdom has the party out of office for two terms with a slight advantage by way of the pendulum swing effect, but their pickings are shitty.

If it comes down to it, people may pick “liberal but has long experience” and that would favor HRC, even if her experience is not a good thing.

85

I love Cruz, but he is too polarizing in the general election to win. The only way a true conservative can win the general is with Charisma. A big personality and the looks and speech to swoon the uninformed.

Hell, the guy from Twilight could get 25% of the general vote.

86

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
but no way anyone of his ideological pedigree combine with inexperience will be the man in 2016.
[/quote]

Agree, he’ll drive the middle away, who is already weary of ideologues.

I’m sick of Senators as POTUS anyway. God damn, I think we had what, two, prior to Bam, and now it’s all that runs ffs. [/quote]

Completely agree. Why in the world are unaccomplished first-term Senators so popular for the job of president (both parties)? We should be telling them to check back in later after they’ve accomplished something other than make a few speeches that people are only listening to because you got elected.

87

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
but no way anyone of his ideological pedigree combine with inexperience will be the man in 2016.
[/quote]

Agree, he’ll drive the middle away, who is already weary of ideologues.

I’m sick of Senators as POTUS anyway. God damn, I think we had what, two, prior to Bam, and now it’s all that runs ffs. [/quote]

Completely agree. Why in the world are unaccomplished first-term Senators so popular for the job of president (both parties)? We should be telling them to check back in later after they’ve accomplished something other than make a few speeches that people are only listening to because you got elected.
[/quote]

Are a lot of Presidents former Governors? I know 42 and 43 were, but I’m not sure beyond that.

88

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
but no way anyone of his ideological pedigree combine with inexperience will be the man in 2016.
[/quote]

Agree, he’ll drive the middle away, who is already weary of ideologues.

I’m sick of Senators as POTUS anyway. God damn, I think we had what, two, prior to Bam, and now it’s all that runs ffs. [/quote]

Completely agree. Why in the world are unaccomplished first-term Senators so popular for the job of president (both parties)? We should be telling them to check back in later after they’ve accomplished something other than make a few speeches that people are only listening to because you got elected.
[/quote]

Are a lot of Presidents former Governors? I know 42 and 43 were, but I’m not sure beyond that. [/quote]

Yes. The way I’ve heard it explained to me is as follows:

Governors are used to running things. Executives that have a record to run on. Senators are used to placating each other and kissing ass etc to “get things done”. At least they used to be.

What I’m getting at is, my understanding was Senators were spineless compromisers that couldn’t stand on their own two feet and therefore were weak POTUS candidates because they never actually lead anything but a committee which is just a bunch of hand holding and ass kissing. Governors were seen as leaders, and people who can handle being in charge, running something bigger than a session of grabass.

I could be totally wrong here.

89

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
but no way anyone of his ideological pedigree combine with inexperience will be the man in 2016.
[/quote]

Agree, he’ll drive the middle away, who is already weary of ideologues.

I’m sick of Senators as POTUS anyway. God damn, I think we had what, two, prior to Bam, and now it’s all that runs ffs. [/quote]

Completely agree. Why in the world are unaccomplished first-term Senators so popular for the job of president (both parties)? We should be telling them to check back in later after they’ve accomplished something other than make a few speeches that people are only listening to because you got elected.
[/quote]

Are a lot of Presidents former Governors? I know 42 and 43 were, but I’m not sure beyond that. [/quote]

Yes. The way I’ve heard it explained to me is as follows:

Governors are used to running things. Executives that have a record to run on. Senators are used to placating each other and kissing ass etc to “get things done”. At least they used to be.

What I’m getting at is, my understanding was Senators were spineless compromisers that couldn’t stand on their own two feet and therefore were weak POTUS candidates because they never actually lead anything but a committee which is just a bunch of hand holding and ass kissing. Governors were seen as leaders, and people who can handle being in charge, running something bigger than a session of grabass.

I could be totally wrong here. [/quote]

I just meant in actual numbers, but I tend to agree with your logic here.

90

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
but no way anyone of his ideological pedigree combine with inexperience will be the man in 2016.
[/quote]

Agree, he’ll drive the middle away, who is already weary of ideologues.

I’m sick of Senators as POTUS anyway. God damn, I think we had what, two, prior to Bam, and now it’s all that runs ffs. [/quote]

Completely agree. Why in the world are unaccomplished first-term Senators so popular for the job of president (both parties)? We should be telling them to check back in later after they’ve accomplished something other than make a few speeches that people are only listening to because you got elected.
[/quote]

Are a lot of Presidents former Governors? I know 42 and 43 were, but I’m not sure beyond that. [/quote]

Yes. The way I’ve heard it explained to me is as follows:

Governors are used to running things. Executives that have a record to run on. Senators are used to placating each other and kissing ass etc to “get things done”. At least they used to be.

What I’m getting at is, my understanding was Senators were spineless compromisers that couldn’t stand on their own two feet and therefore were weak POTUS candidates because they never actually lead anything but a committee which is just a bunch of hand holding and ass kissing. Governors were seen as leaders, and people who can handle being in charge, running something bigger than a session of grabass.

I could be totally wrong here. [/quote]

I just meant in actual numbers, but I tend to agree with your logic here. [/quote]

17

92

Beans,

That is similar to the view I’ve heard re: Senators. The only ones who warrant presidential attention are those that “ran” the institution and got things done. Also, Senators used to take great pride in protecting their institution, especially against the executive - even if they were of the same party. Now, too often, even nationally prominent Senators are often lapdog to the president. Our system has tragically morphed into a de facto parliamentary system where the president is head of party and others just follow suit. It wasn’t always so, and Senators were more impressive (even if they still didnt become presidents) and we are the poorer for it.

Holding everything else constant, governors make the most sense. Bonus points for ones that also served in a cabinet position. Despite the calls for them, I don’t think business leaders without government experience can step directly into the White House and be effective.

93

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Beans,

That is similar to the view I’ve heard re: Senators. The only ones who warrant presidential attention are those that “ran” the institution and got things done. Also, Senators used to take great pride in protecting their institution, especially against the executive - even if they were of the same party. Now, too often, even nationally prominent Senators are often lapdog to the president. Our system has tragically morphed into a de facto parliamentary system where the president is head of party and others just follow suit. It wasn’t always so, and Senators were more impressive (even if they still didnt become presidents) and we are the poorer for it.

Holding everything else constant, governors make the most sense. Bonus points for ones that also served in a cabinet position. Despite the calls for them, I don’t think business leaders without government experience can step directly into the White House and be effective.

[/quote]

Agree on all points, but I would take a business leader over a junior Senator…or most Senators for that matter. Businessmen have more large scale executive experience than most all Senators, even if they have far less applicable experience than governors.

94

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

Agree on all points, but I would take a business leader over a junior Senator…or most Senators for that matter. Businessmen have more large scale executive experience than most all Senators, even if they have far less applicable experience than governors.[/quote]

Yup.

Having newbie senators be a serious contender for office just makes no damned sense at all.

Sorry for saying this (cause I know a couple here voted for Obama for precisely that reason), but I find it rather absurd that so many people bought into Obama’s “I can bring change!” claim.

95

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
I love Cruz, but he is too polarizing in the general election to win. The only way a true conservative can win the general is with Charisma. A big personality and the looks and speech to swoon the uninformed.

Hell, the guy from Twilight could get 25% of the general vote. [/quote]

I don’t know, I think Cruz might be that guy. IMO he has more charisma than all the other candidates combined. The more I listen to him the more I like him. Ive seen him on some of the liberal talk shows and he answers questions very well from people that hate his guts, all while smiling. He probably won’t win, but it’s going to be fun seeing him campaign. Hes good at it.

96

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
but no way anyone of his ideological pedigree combine with inexperience will be the man in 2016.
[/quote]

Agree, he’ll drive the middle away, who is already weary of ideologues.

I’m sick of Senators as POTUS anyway. God damn, I think we had what, two, prior to Bam, and now it’s all that runs ffs. [/quote]

Completely agree. Why in the world are unaccomplished first-term Senators so popular for the job of president (both parties)? We should be telling them to check back in later after they’ve accomplished something other than make a few speeches that people are only listening to because you got elected.
[/quote]

What you may very well be missing is that Cruz may not truly think he has a good shot at reclining behind the big desk in the Oval Office in January of '17 but rather is positioning himself for 2020.

Marketing.[/quote]

Could be, but if so, he’s banking on making his mark in a year where there will be an incumbent. 2024 probably makes more sense, but I don’t see Cruz being a factor by then.

97

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
but no way anyone of his ideological pedigree combine with inexperience will be the man in 2016.
[/quote]

Agree, he’ll drive the middle away, who is already weary of ideologues.

I’m sick of Senators as POTUS anyway. God damn, I think we had what, two, prior to Bam, and now it’s all that runs ffs. [/quote]

Completely agree. Why in the world are unaccomplished first-term Senators so popular for the job of president (both parties)? We should be telling them to check back in later after they’ve accomplished something other than make a few speeches that people are only listening to because you got elected.
[/quote]

Are a lot of Presidents former Governors? I know 42 and 43 were, but I’m not sure beyond that. [/quote]

Yes. The way I’ve heard it explained to me is as follows:

Governors are used to running things. Executives that have a record to run on. Senators are used to placating each other and kissing ass etc to “get things done”. At least they used to be.

What I’m getting at is, my understanding was Senators were spineless compromisers that couldn’t stand on their own two feet and therefore were weak POTUS candidates because they never actually lead anything but a committee which is just a bunch of hand holding and ass kissing. Governors were seen as leaders, and people who can handle being in charge, running something bigger than a session of grabass.

I could be totally wrong here. [/quote]

I just meant in actual numbers, but I tend to agree with your logic here. [/quote]

17

How Many United States Presidents Were Governors First? [/quote]

Thanks.

98

[quote]magick wrote:

Sorry for saying this (cause I know a couple here voted for Obama for precisely that reason), but I find it rather absurd that so many people bought into Obama’s “I can bring change!” claim.[/quote]

It’s a valid criticism for what I attribute, at least on my part to blatant ignorance.

It was a perfect storm. War weary and in the middle of the worst economic situation since the Depression, in walks a charismatic “outsider” who looks different, has a different sounding name and promises something different, something “better”.

FDR, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan… They all would have lost to Obama in 2008. The world was his to take, and the Democrats don’t tend to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory like the Republicans do.

99

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Despite the calls for them, I don’t think business leaders without government experience can step directly into the White House and be effective.

[/quote]

Me neither, different worlds, different rules of engagement, and totally different politicking.

That being said, I wouldn’t mind trying it just a little.

100

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

Sorry for saying this (cause I know a couple here voted for Obama for precisely that reason), but I find it rather absurd that so many people bought into Obama’s “I can bring change!” claim.[/quote]

It’s a valid criticism for what I attribute, at least on my part to blatant ignorance.

It was a perfect storm. War weary and in the middle of the worst economic situation since the Depression, in walks a charismatic “outsider” who looks different, has a different sounding name and promises something different, something “better”.

FDR, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan… They all would have lost to Obama in 2008. The world was his to take, and the Democrats don’t tend to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory like the Republicans do. [/quote]

Yeah, I hear this from a lot of my friends who were only moderately interested in politics at the time - and it makes sense, I think. He said all the right things - no red state, no blue state, let’s turn the page on partisanship, let’s turn government over to the smart, competent adults to dig us out of these messes - and that had visceral appeal to a lot of people. The Man - or more specifically, the Man’s Marketing - met the Moment.

And, candidly, if Obama was who he advertise himself to be, he could have been a good president. He would have been the Man for the Times. And I think eight years later, America is still waiting and longing for such a person to emerge.