Cruz Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter_J
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mary_bobo said:
Maybe all these folks who want Trump have not heard that he polls badly against Hillary.
Click to expand...
Ah, I follow. Thank you.

But Cruz polls badly against her as well. In any event, what do polls really know about the general election at this stage of the game?

I really do think that, thus far, it seems like Trump is the man Republican voters want to take on Clinton.

I’m fine if he’s not that man, but I think it’s uncool to do a runaround on the vast majority of voters.

As you know, my personal opinion is that neither front runner can beat HRC in the general, but the general is a long way away and I have been wrong about HRC winning before! :o
 
Peter_J said:
Nice loaded question (wink).

I have no doubt that having a plurality of delegates on the first ballot will help whichever candidate (not just directly, but also in the sense that other delegates, once unbound, will be more inclined to vote for that candidate). But there’s no rule that says that, if candidate A has 1100 delegates and candidate B has 1099, then A gets the nomination immediately without having to get a majority of delegates.
Click to expand...
Not meaning to be loaded. I do believe Trump will get to that magic delegate number and I do not think he will have any close followers. After that first vote, I guess all bets are off!
 
Little_Sheep said:
Why is there reason to believe it could be true? I’ll give you that the NE has scooped some meaningful stories - particularly as regards the personal lives of US political candidates. I am not someone who discounts the NE.

But I am also someone who understands that if you say a lie about someone long enough, that lie still sticks to that person (as a HRC supporter for many years, I learned this lesson the hard way)! So, I’m not willing to accept the NE wholesale during this insane primary race.
Click to expand...
The rumor mill started quietly circulating six months ago, around the time a Cruz Super PAC inexplicably donated $500,000 to a Super PAC supporting Carly Fiorina. One of the women happens to have been a deputy campaign manager for Fiorina. Brietbart has also acknowledged it has been sitting for months on footage of Cruz wining and dining an unidentified woman and exiting hotels with her on multiple occasions.
 
OK. “Awhile” is up.

Little Sheep. You asked:
Do you not think it would be the apex of hypocrisy if Trump got the most votes and the most delegates by far and then they didn’t make him their nominee?
Click to expand...
No I don’t.

What would be inappropriate is to RE-DEFINE a first-ballot winner as anything less than the threshold amount of delegates on the first ballot (1,237) and not proceeding the way the rules are outlined.

The rules are set up this way to put forth the best candidate.

If it were a “simple majority” it would result in “tag-teaming” primaries. Some people have suspected that may already be going on now.

So you set your rules, then the candidates can campaign with THOSE RULES in mind.

Trump has said he wants Ted Cruz “one-on-one” before. But every chance he’s had, he ducks, backs out, and changes the subject.

If Trump doesn’t get a first-ballot victory, Trump will likely get his “wish”.

Trump WILL have to face Ted Cruz one-on-one.
 
Cathoholic said:
OK. “Awhile” is up.

Little Sheep. You asked:

No I don’t.

What would be inappropriate is to RE-DEFINE a first-ballot winner as anything less than the threshold amount of delegates on the first ballot (1,237) and not proceeding the way the rules are outlined.

The rules are set up this way to put forth the best candidate.

If it were a “simple majority” it would result in “tag-teaming” primaries. Some people have suspected that may already be going on now.

So you set your rules, then the candidates can campaign with THOSE RULES in mind.

Trump has said he wants Ted Cruz “one-on-one” before. But every chance he’s had, he ducks, backs out, and changes the subject.

If Trump doesn’t get a first-ballot victory, Trump will likely get his “wish”.

Trump WILL have to face Ted Cruz one-on-one.
Click to expand...
Catholholic, thanks for answering me! I appreciate and understand your response. I am all about the Republican (and Democrat) candidates campaigning and winning and losing within the rules that have been established.

Tell me this, if Trump rolls into the Republican Convention this summer with wins that earn him, let’s say, 1301 delegates per the vote of the people in each state, do you think Trump should then be the Party’s nominee in the general election?

Am I just completely missing the fact that many Republicans are praying for Trump to roll into the Convention with 1198 delegates?
 
Cathoholic said:
Trump has said he wants Ted Cruz “one-on-one” before. But every chance he’s had, he ducks, backs out, and changes the subject.

If Trump doesn’t get a first-ballot victory, Trump will likely get his “wish”.

Trump WILL have to face Ted Cruz one-on-one.
Click to expand...
It’s only a head to head between those two if the other candidate, Kasich, exits the race. If all three of them stay in, then we follow the rules which say that, in many of the coming races, a plurality of votes gets all that state’s delegates.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
The rumor mill started quietly circulating six months ago, around the time a Cruz Super PAC inexplicably donated $500,000 to a Super PAC supporting Carly Fiorina. One of the women happens to have been a deputy campaign manager for Fiorina. Brietbart has also acknowledged it has been sitting for months on footage of Cruz wining and dining an unidentified woman and exiting hotels with her on multiple occasions.
Click to expand...
Cruz says the allegations are “completely false.”
 
Tomdstone said:
Cruz says the allegations are “completely false.”
Click to expand...
So did Hart and Edwards. Would you expect him to react differently? If its true, and I suspect that it is, then he will deny it until he can’t.
 
Cruz said the strangest thing today that I’ve ever heard a candidate say. “Trump may be a rat but I have no desire to copulate with him.” Huh?:confused:
 
Songcatcher said:
Cruz said the strangest thing today that I’ve ever heard a candidate say. “Trump may be a rat but I have no desire to copulate with him.” Huh?:confused:
Click to expand...
One headline I saw preceded that quote with the question “Is Trump starting to get to Cruz?” I have to think the answer is yes.

Sad.

Possibly if he had left off that last sentence and ended his speech with “He [Roger Stone]’s a man for whom a term was coined for copulating with a rodent.” that would have been a good speech – possibly, I’m not really seeking to debate it one way or the other, as it seems completely moot.
 
Little Sheep.

You asked (assuming 1301 delegates) . . .
. . . . do you think Trump should then be the Party’s nominee in the general election?
Click to expand...
Sorry. I didn’t think you meant threshold numbers.

I only meant to convey that it would be . . . .
. . . . inappropriate is to RE-DEFINE a first-ballot winner as anything less than the threshold amount of delegates on the first ballot (1,237) and not proceeding the way the rules are outlined.
Click to expand...
Who do I think “should” be the party’s nominee should be?
Whoever has the threshold votes or if no threshold votes completed follow those rules.

I also understand “the rules” are purposefully written nebulous enough, where if something catastrophic occurs, the party can side-step sending in a candidate who is in trouble with the law, or some other serious issue.

So far there is NOTHING in either party that would over-rule the will of the people.

That may change. For example in the Democratic Farmer Labor Party, which has seemed to morph into he Democratic Party, which seems to further be morphing into the Democratic Socialist Party . . . if Hillary is indicted, there will be “rules” which change the complexion of the race drastically.

The Democrats could not run Hillary in that situation.

If you are asking is Cruz or Trump hit 1,237 then that’s the will of the people. That may or may not be the “will” of me.

If nobody gets to 1,237, its a very different campaign complexion but it clearly involves Trump and Cruz.

If the RNC tried to impose a different candidate than either of those two, especially in a year like this (where virtually EVERYBODY in the Republican voting block is watching and paying attention) it would have dramatic fallout for the “back room dealers in the Republican Establishment”.

It would change the Republican Party. The people would be upset. Big donors would see no chance of winning and withdraw support. Public relations with their own base would continue to deteriorate.

Establishment leaders would likely be forced to resign (there would at lease be public calls to replace them).

I think this election probably will result in drastic changes in the Republican Party no matter what at this point, but I’ve been wrong before.

Peter J You said:
It’s only a head to head between those two if the other candidate, Kasich, exits the race. If all three of them stay in, then we follow the rules which say that, in many of the coming races, a plurality of votes gets all that state’s delegates.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info. I was under the impression that Kasich would be eliminated by virtue of the fact that he hadn’t won an eight state minimum (which I don’t think he can) in addition to his already being mathematically eliminated from first-ballot contention.

Apparently Kasich could re-emerge (from what you are saying) after the first ballot. Makes sense.

Doubtful though. Why?
  • Kasich has an embarrassingly low delegate count for a serious candidate.
  • Kasich has merely one state-wide win (Ohio–his home state).
  • Kasich does not do well under intense pressure (see here, here, and here).
  • Kasich negatives only now being revealed as he hasn’t been much of a contender earlier compared to other candidates (see his tantrum against a well-mannered police officer (I give details here) and the fact that Kasich is NOT 100% Pro-Life (see here).
  • Kasich has a poor ground game (back on March 10th Kasich wasn’t even on the Pennsylvania Republican Primary ballot).
  • Kasich suffers from lack of name recognition (you have to wonder WHY he ducked the Utah debate when he was saying he wanted more national exposure).
  • Kasich has a lack of money (the $700K that Kasich got from liberal activist George Soros and his associates is likely close to running out at this point. Before Soros helped him out, Kasich was crying for “oxygen” back in New Hampshire.
I think the Republican establishment is using Kasich to block out Cruz. But I do not think the Establishment wants Kasich. The Establishment would pick someone who is a better fund raiser I think (again, I could be wrong though).

Thanks for the info.

(Or do you think somehow Kasich is going to win 8 states??)
 
Cathoholic said:
Peter J You said:

Thanks for the info. I was under the impression that Kasich would be eliminated by virtue of the fact that he hadn’t won an eight state minimum (which I don’t think he can) in addition to his already being mathematically eliminated from first-ballot contention.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But that rule doesn’t really do anything until the convention. In the meantime if, say, in such-and-such state Kasich gets 25% of the vote, Cruz 35%, and Trump 40%, then Trump wins it. Granted, voters *might *say “This candidate has no chance of winning. I won’t vote for him because I want my vote to count.” but they also might not.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
So did Hart and Edwards. Would you expect him to react differently? If its true, and I suspect that it is, then he will deny it until he can’t.
Click to expand...
John Edwards was caught red-handed. How often does that happen in tabloid reporting?

Also, I seem to recall a comment on another thread criticizing the truthfulness of tabloids…😊
 
Little Sheep;13776994]I don’t understand your post. Are you saying I’m the left? What two things am I tying together for nefarious purposes?
Click to expand...
Let me just say it’s good policy to discuss comments not accounts on the News Forums, and I don’t know for sure about any account’s particular intentions.

I am saying in response to the following comment:
I want Trump to get the Republican nomination because that is clearly what most Republicans want. I believe Trump will get the 1237 fair and square. It is clear that the Republican leadership doesn’t like either frontrunner. Sadly, the party is deeply fractured.
Click to expand...
The left and their allies in the mainstream media clearly want the current frontrunner because they think he’s the easiest to beat.

It’s very, very obvious what the left is doing, and for some reason, certain liberal activists and various members of the mainstream media do like to pick our candidates.

I can only imagine their reaction if we tried as hard to pick Joe Manchin or Collin T. Peterson to be the Democratic Party nominee.

This wouldn’t be something the left would be promoting if the frontunner were up by 15 points.

Now, as far as being fair goes----the RNC has rules that every single candidate knows about before they enter the race, including rules for contested and brokered conventions.

I see no problem whatsoever for using the rules to nominate a viable, nominally pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-religious freedom candidate against funding human cloning who can win.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top