Posted on 09/25/2015 2:49:27 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
In June 2014, Senator Ted Cruz told The New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin this:
It is amazing that the wisdom of the chattering class to the Republicans is always, always, always ‘Surrender your principles and agree with the Democrats. That’s been true for my entire lifetime. The chattering classes have consistently said, ‘You crazy Republicans have to give up on what you believe and become more like Democrats.’ And, I would note, every time Republicans do that we lose.
Cruz went on:
And what does the entire D.C. Republican consulting class say? ‘In 2016, we need another establishment moderate!’ Hasn’t worked in four decades. ‘But next time will be the time!’
To Cruz, the logic is simple: more moderate Republicans have lost some presidential elections, so the party should nominate someone less moderate. It’s an unsurprising view from a guy who is on the conservative flank of the party and is now a presidential candidate.
It’s also a view that is largely wrong. Political science research shows that ideological moderation actually is rewarded at the ballot box in House elections and presidential elections. The same thing is true in the 2016 presidential race. In fact, we estimate that in 2016, the electoral penalty for choosing a true believer rather than a moderate is a 23-percentage point decline in the probability of winning the general election....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
What complete and utter RUBBISH!
LBJ would've bumped him off.
Well, THAT IS what the Washington Post democrats want, isn’t it?
Speaker Pelosi in charge again in 2016.
Why should the Washington Post give “good advice” to any repubbie anywhere? Listen to what they say, what they write. Then DO the exact opposite.
The comPost lying to us again.
Somebody needs to highlight what this article says about Trump’s probability of winning if he is the nominee. If I’m reading it correctly they give him a FIFTY FOUR percent chance of winning if he is the nominee. That’s shocking...
Thanks, libs, for warning us how we could lose to you. You sure are helpful like that.
We listened to you when you told us Romney had “elect-ability”
And when McCain was ‘Maverick’
Yep... you’re sure helful.
;-)
I’m not going to miss the weeping Cheeto.
Why Choose the lesser evil?
what’s the point of winning election if winning means losing
EXCEPT that she no longer has those luxury Air Force flights cross-country with the free booze and rides for her cohorts. Nor does she have the Secret Service to keep her safe.
Other than that, you are correct!
But with the millions her husband makes through his connections, she has plenty of money.
RIGGGHT, then all those democrats that voted for Republicans will vote democrat in protest I suppose.
FU WAPO!
Long hair and squeaky voice!
That’s right because after all they assured me that the second rate actor was too old, too far right, and too crazy to be a good president.
Since they were so right in 1980, these libs must still know what they are talking about
These two pixies need to be worrying about their idiot candidate who has REAL problems that “could hurt them on Election Day.” She might even be in prison election night, God willing.
The last time a conservative ran for President and was nominated by the GOP, he won in a landslide.
And if they do not, bye bye GOP and bye bye America.
Because ... global warming?
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.