Lindsey Graham: Cruz’s pro-life stance not electable

One News Now ^ | December 5, 2015 | Michael F. Haverluck

[2ndDivisionVet]

Presidential candidate Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) took a bold step away from many in the pro-life camp Thursday when taking aim at his rival for the White House, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), over his allegedly extreme stance against abortion.

The South Carolina senator indicated that taking a hardline pro-life stance, in essence, will preclude any presidential candidate from winning the 2016 election.

“You can be pro-life and win an election, but if you’re going to tell a woman who’s been raped she has to carry the child of the rapist, you’re losing most Americans,” Graham argued.

The 60-year-old GOP member took specific aim at Cruz, telling the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) that his conservative rival for the Republican ticket is not appealing to the mainstream American woman, asserting that if Cruz beat out other GOP members going into the November 2016 election, he would surely fall to his Democratic contender....

[4rcane]

sound like he formed his pro-life opinion based on poll numbers

[FlingWingFlyer]

Thank you for sharing that with us Lindsey. You can go back outside to play now.

[exit82]

Lindsey—you are a big fat zero.

[demshateGod]

South Carolina, why?

[gwgn02]

Goober Graham...Goober Graham. SMH

[IncPen]

Lindsey Graham: Cruz's pro-life stance not electable

It is electable if you frame abortion as racial cleansing.

#Black Lives Matter, don't you know...

[Bubba_Leroy]

Republicans must pick a moderate to win.

Just ask Presidents McCain and Romney.

[FourPeas]

Lindsey, dear? Have you seen where you’re polling? What makes you think you have *any* idea what opinions effect whether a candidate is or is not electable?

[Uncle Miltie]

What’s Linda Graham’s position on _n_l sex?

Top or Bottom?

[Uncle Miltie]

What’s Linda Graham’s position on _n_l sex?

Top or Bottom?

[Calpublican]

Lindsey, Lindsey, Lindsey,
Here, take this Beauregard Funeral Home fan and go sit.
Honey, you’ve been warned about getting overwrought and moist.
Now here’s a nice dipper of cool water.
Bless your heart.

[nathanbedford]

Lindsey Graham's opinion about abortion and election numbers is of absolutely no value. I disagree with Lindsey Graham entirely but my opinion is of no value either.

A study appearing in MIT Technology Review suggests that the age of punditry and the age of polling for gross numbers is rapidly passing to be replaced by intensive application of technology to elections. To some degree, it is not only the opinions of Lindsey Graham and myself which are no longer credible, it is the data which is King and not the data alone but how it is analyzed, individualized, and exploited to shape results at the polling booths.

We armchair pundits are often guilty of confidently asserting as unassailable an assertion that we want to be true. The media does the same but they generally invoke a friendly pundit or a questionable poll to further their agenda. This new way of winning elections exploited by Obama in 2012 makes those opinions irrelevant but, within the limits of close elections, might even make the issues themselves irrelevant.

The article is worth a look.

[Calpublican]

Oh, Stop. It’s bottom and you know it.

[definitelynotaliberal]

The hell is wrong with this jackass, and why is he still in the race?

[svcw]

Lindsey needs to go away and stfu.

[so_real]

When a person who is not electable tells you that you are not electable ... you're electable.

[fieldmarshaldj]

And Dole and Ford and Dewey and Willkie and Landon...

[NorthMountain]

Linda Graham Cracker is not electable.

[twister881]

Top or Bottom? Neither — Gerbil Retrieval Team