Posted on 11/30/2015 12:47:05 PM PST by ghost of stonewall jackson
THE presidential candidate who has most harmed American politics this year is Donald Trump, a bully who has prospered by inciting rage. Yet from the narrower perspective of the Republican Party, the most dangerous candidate of the 2016 pack may just be Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who is rising in the polls by telling conservative activists a seductive but misleading story about how their party wins elections.
Since launching his presidential run, the 44-year-old Texan has built his campaign around a simple pitch: assuring the most conservative third of the Republican electorate, from born-again Christian voters to hardline members of the Tea Party, that they form a natural majority of the conservative movement, and indeed would decide general elections if they would only turn out and vote. In his telling, this stirring truth frightens a cowardly Republican establishment in Washington, which urges conservatives to run to the middle as "Democrats-lite"—whereupon, Mr Cruz argues, "We get whipped." By way of proof, the first-term senator informs Republican crowds that in 2012, when the party nominated Mitt Romney, roughly half of all born-again Christian voters and millions of blue-collar conservatives stayed home.
New polls show Mr Cruz rising to second place behind Mr Trump in Iowa, which will hold the first contest of the presidential primary season on February 1st.
(Excerpt) Read more at economist.com ...
Remember Reagan? Peddle your moderation faggotry somewhere else.
Saying "The moderates support the Dems, have supported the Dems for several decades now, and will continue to support the Dems for the foreseeable future" sounds like writing a lot of voters off.
How about appealing to them on the basis of our principles? We believe those principles are correct, and if we are right, we should be able to state our case and win over some people who don't agree with us. If we don't believe our principles can win people over, then why do we bother to believe in them?
You've got immediate goals and long-range goals -- high priority items and lower priority items -- things you need to do ASAP, things that can wait, and things you can only dream about. Reagan knew the difference. Post-Reagan candidates have had trouble with that.
This weekend there was an article about Republican "plans" to do away with the IRS, with the author attacking them as "crackpot." Seriously, though, does anybody expect that the next Republican President will abolish the income tax? That's something people regard as a worthy goal, but not something anybody's going to be doing any time soon. Voters and candidates probably understand the difference, but a lot of people get scared into voting against what sounds to them like impractical plans.
I am also very worried that Cruz is easier to demonize ala Sarah and Newt than Trump is. I think because people feel like they already know Trump, they don’t buy into the demonization.
Too bad, Cruz has a far superior intellect to run and Executive Branch.
what about 1988?
Bush the elder road the Reagan wave to victory only to lose to Clinton four years later
The Economist is fundamentally a European establishment publication, reflecting a post WWII belief in stability to the detriment of both representative government and Conservatism / Classical Liberalism. They distrusted Reagan, Thatcher, had faith in Gorbachev and then the EU.
Their world view is fundamentally at odds with the Conservatism and belief in both God and our Constitution that Cruz represents. They do not understand him, and default to fear and dismiss him.
BS.
Look it up!
The Economist actually liked Reagan and Thatcher.
They endorsed Reagan in 1980.
What was the alternative in Britain? Foot and Kinnock?
Of course, they preferred Thatcher.
The magazine changed later in the Blair-Clinton era.
yep
Oh! Lordy! I am dyin laughin my A off....Bwhahahahah
I never liked Cruz or Lose as a slogan because it subliminally says lose.
Yeah, I recall they swung left about the time of the dot com crash. 2000-2001
Yeah, but losing also means getting the wrong candidate which will no doubt affect turnout..and the future...so the statement to me is essentially the hard truth of it. It does not suggest anything, it say it loud and clear.
“I am also very worried that Cruz is easier to demonize ala Sarah and Newt than Trump is.”
Actually Trump is a far more fertile target for the MSM but who gives a FF?
If your vote would be determined by who would, or would not be more “easily” demonized by the MSM....you truely have lost your political soul.
In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled With Cruz, they’d lose, ghost of stonewall jackson wrote:
Remember Barry Goldwater? He lost 44 states;
While Goldwater was the harbinger, warning of an increasing intruding government. Government was still workable and bipartisanship a reasonable quest. But times have changed
Maybe you were not around when that happened but I was.
Even then as LBJ began his Great Society programs and began to blow up in our faces. Bumper stickers began to appear reading; Dont Blame Me I Voted For Goldwater . Which btw I did.
Today under the same name political party used by todays socialists. Who are now controlling the God denying in name only democratic party. (Also in many states they dropped their Jackson dinner fund raisers.) We have an in your face; bedroom,kitchen,church,school,back yard,gas tank,and electric lines, government.Creating regulations that raised the costs on vehicles which require a rocket scientists to work on.Even manipulating innocent children by promoting programs creating confusion as to wonder if they are what they are born with.
Todays GOPES (goverment over the people elite statists) are still in the last century and unable to cope with reality and if they continue will cease to exist.
Are you one of those people who doesn’t care who the nominee is but you’ll vote anyway?
Not me. I’m dine voting for the one the media chooses for me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.