Revealed: Ted Cruz Is Crushing Hillary In This Big Indicator Of Electoral Success

Western Journalism ^ | May 22, 2015 | B. Christopher Agee

[2ndDivisionVet]

The Clinton camp is scrambling to catch up.

Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz is off to a booming start in terms of super PAC fundraising. His campaign’s primary political action committees reportedly took in a combined $31 million in just their first week of existence last month. Compared to his chief Democrat rival, Hillary Clinton, Cruz’s haul is even more impressive.

Projections indicate that, even by the end of next month, Clinton’s Priorities USA Action super PAC will bring in less than half of what Cruz was able to raise in just a week.

In response to the disappointing numbers, Clinton backers have replaced high-level committee officials in an effort to attract new donors. One insider told the Wall Street Journal that some involved in the campaign had “unhappiness with the lack of leadership in the organization.”

Another source confirmed there was a unanimous opinion among staffers that “fundraising needed to be stepped up significantly.”

Meanwhile, Cruz is amassing a war chest his supporters hope will take him through the nomination process and into the general election, at which time he can go head-to-head with Clinton – assuming she fulfills expectations by securing her party’s nomination.

Political analyst Mark Halperin concluded that the Cruz campaign and its “eye-popping” ability to raise money is not only a threat to Clinton, but “instantly raises the stakes in the Republican fundraising contest.”

As multiple scandals continue to take their toll on Clinton’s candidacy and reputation, only time will tell if a few personnel changes at Priorities USA Action will bridge the fundraising gap.

Are you encouraged by Ted Cruz’s ability to raise campaign funds? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

[rockinqsranch]

I didn’t think they did. I just want what I wrote.

[anoldafvet]

If Cruz keeps raising money, maybe one of the pollsters will include him in their poll.

[dowcaet]

Correction. I know the Hillary campaign has raised more than the half million I stated. She’s raised millions already but the fact remains it isn’t the huge bounty her campaign expected, and her campaign has troubles ahead.

[bramps]

The more Cruz speaks, the more fans he will get. Thanks for the posts.

[TNMOUTH]

ARe you smoking crack or something? The only way we win is a bunch of RINO’S? Did you miss the last 2 elections against Obama?

Cruz is capable of winning and will win. He is outpacing everyone on money and the only reason you don’t think he can win is because you support someone else.

I stand with Ted!

[arbitrary.squid]

In 2012, Super PAC spending between Romney and Obama was 397 million to 249 million.

[dangus]

BUSH??? BUSH??? ARE YOU F_ING OUT OF YOUR EVER-LOVING MIND????? He’s the most unelectable man in America.

[trebb]

Have you bought your white flag of surrender yet?

Ironic comment considering your tagline.....

[21twelve]

“In response to the disappointing numbers, Clinton backers have replaced high-level committee officials in an effort to attract new donors.”

I’m thinking it isn’t committee officials that need replacing.

[SoConPubbie]

    Ted Cruz Ping!

    If you want on/off this ping list, please let me know.
    Please beware, this is a high-volume ping list!

    CRUZ or LOSE!

[PIF]

Combined in one ticket!

Bush/Clinton

Clinton/Bush

becaise no one can tell the difference ...

[Yosemitest]

Vote for Hillary Clinton





FOR THE
CHILDREN


Elian Gonzalez seized from his Miami home, April 22, 2000 ( 5:58 )


The Federal Siege at Ruby Ridge: In Our Own Words


WACO SIEGE EXPOSED

Bush might have been in office,
but it was Bill and Hillary Clinton's Administration, with Janet Reno and Louis Freeh,
that directed and did the coverup of the investigation into the Ruby Ridge,
the Government MURDER of Weaver's 14 year old son Samuel, and the MURDER of Vicki Weaver,
while she was holding her baby in her arms at the front door of their cabin.

< /sarc>

[Popman]

....the only way the Pubbies will win is with either Walker, Bush.......and wait for this one.......in a convention battle.......Romney.

Bush, Romney...???

Did you just land here from a far away planet ?

I have serious doubts Bush could win Florida...

[terycarl]

ARe you smoking crack or something? The only way we win is a bunch of RINO’S? Did you miss the last 2 elections against Obama? Cruz is capable of winning and will win. He is outpacing everyone on money and the only reason you don’t think he can win is because you support someone else.

I did not miss the last two elections but a whole lot of so called REPUBLICANS DID BECAUSE THEIR PET CANDIDATE WAS NOT NOMINATED....That is the story of pubbies lately.....nominate my guy or I'll sit home....Obama thanks them every day.

Cruz is great and I like him a lot as Walkers vice-president.....but he will NEVER be nominated.

[Popman]

-——CRUZ/PALIN is the key ! ———

The key to lose...

Seriously, why would Cruz throw an anchor like Palin on his ticket?

I love Palin, but she would drag Cruz down and give the media and dems lots of ammno to discredit Cruz for picking her...

She is damaged goods, the left have done a spectacular job of demonizing her to the point no return...

[nopardons]

Neither Bush and especially not Romney will EVER be the GOP ‘16 candidate.
You’re just plain old nuts!

[Yosemitest]

She’s a hell of a lot better than SELLOUT Walker !

[PIF]

Bush=Jeb Bush. Not Geo Bush.

Jeb and Hill are very much twins on policy and outlook.

[TNMOUTH]

Tell me, why won’t Cruz be nominated? You must have been there in 1976 when people said the same thing about Reagan.

Walker is not the guy for the establishment either...and, Cruz would be better served to stay in the senate than serve in the VP roll.

We shall see, but Ted is VERY much capable of being elected

[Yosemitest]

Jeb on the General Ballot would cause me to vote for whomever I thought had the best chance of DEFEATING that ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICAN" !

I WILL VOTE AGAINST ... AND TO DESTROY ANY "Establishment Republican" !
Compromisers ALWAYS LOSE !

"Establishment Republicans" lose everytime they're listened to.
They wouldn't care if they DO lose.
If they can't be in power, they don't want US in power.
It's just that simple.
It's WAR!

We will never unify under "Establishment Republicans" .
"Establishment Republicans" have more in common with the Democrats, than they do with Conservatives.
The weak candidates are "Establishment Republicans", weak on national security, amnesty for illegals, abortion, and government spending.
"Establishment Republicans" scream "COMPROMISE".
And people who study the Bible know that COMPROMISE almost always leads to destruction.
Someone once said [We're] 'Not victims of "the Establishment." '
I disagree.
I ask you again:

Who was it that dumped all those negative adds on Conservative Candidates in the primary?
Who was it that constantly battered each leading Conservative in the primary with an average of three to one negative ads against our real candidates?
Who's money was dumped against the conservative choices?

It WAS Mitt Romney, leader of the "Establishment Republicans"
and it WAS the "Establishment Republicans" who funded all those negative ads against Conservatives.

So conservatives, the BASE of the Republican Party, WERE ' victims of "the Establishment." '

These "Establishment Republicans" are being weeded out, one by one, and slowly but surely, the TEA Party is taking over.

"Establishment Republicans" Want to Redefine the Term "Conservative"

"DO CONSERVATIVES WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?"

DO CONSERVATIVES "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" WANT TO WIN IN 2016 OR NOT?

Jack Kerwick wrote an article on May 24, 2011 titled The Tea Partier versus The Republican and he expressed some important issues that I agree with.

Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isn’t looking too terribly promising.

This, though, isn’t meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure
that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing.
Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them.

It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country
that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement.
But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected.
That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our “compassionate conservative” president, George W. Bush,
which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party.

It is this frustration with the GOP’s betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers’ threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.

If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct but interrelated objections.

First,
they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate.

Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party,
they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.



Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.

Let’s begin with the argument against “purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming.


No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, don’t exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.

A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:
“I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing;
“I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely.



As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.

Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.”

Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.

For example,

as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the country’s leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.


It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win.

If he didn’t know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.

Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.

I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.
Take a good long look at where "Establishment Republicans" ALWAYS take us.



The "Establishment Republicans" can GO TO HELL !