Posted on 02/24/2015 12:58:49 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Impressive, but how long realistically can Walker resist the Ben Carson juggernaut?
Actually — no fooling — I think Carson’s numbers are bigger news here than Walker’s, even though he’s the first guy in the developing field to establish something of a frontrunner status.
Walker is climbing fast in the polling because of his appeal to the most conservative elements of the Republican electorate. Among ‘very conservative’ voters he leads with 37% to 19% for Carson, 12% for Bush, and 11% for Huckabee. Bush has a similarly large lead over Walker with moderates at 34/12…the problem for Bush though is that there are two times more GOP primary voters who identify as ‘very conservative’ than there are ones who identify as moderates.
Bush is really struggling with conservative voters. Among ‘very conservative’ voters on this poll, just 37% rate Bush favorably to 43% with an unfavorable opinion. By comparison Carson is at 73/2, Walker at 68/3, and Cruz at 68/8 with those folks…
The struggles Bush is having with some Republican primary voters don’t seem to have anything to do with his brother’s legacy. George W. Bush has a 74/21 favorability rating with them, and the closest any of this year’s candidates get to that is a 56% favorability for Mike Huckabee. And the former President has plenty of credibility with conservatives- among those rating themselves as ‘very conservative’ his favorability is 81/14 compared to his brother’s 37/43. It’s Jeb’s record on certain issues rather than his last name that is causing his issues.
Yup. Being George W. Bush’s brother is a liability in the general election. In the primary, it’s probably either a small asset or neutral. Jeb’s problem in getting past Walker is that he’s seen as a true amnesty warrior, a dissident on the hot button of Common Core, and a guy who seems to enjoy boasting to his media friends that he won’t pander to the conservative rabble in the name of winning an election. Even so, he’s still much more popular than Chris Christie, who’s dunzo with a 28/45 favorable rating among Republicans overall and a 33/38 rating among moderates, his supposed base. (Among conservatives he’s at 20/61.) If he ends up running anyway, it’ll be because he has even more blind faith in his ability to win over voters on the stump than Ted Cruz has.
Speaking of which, how does Ben Carson continue to poll so well when there are more seasoned social conservatives like Cruz in the mix? Carson has a high media profile thanks to his Fox segments and he’s had grassroots buzz over the past two years, but the same’s true of Cruz. He’s a senator (from Texas!), he’s on Fox regularly, he proved his conservative bona fides in taking withering fire while trying to block ObamaCare’s implementation, even at the price of a government shutdown, and he’s probably the most polished speaker in the field — and yet Carson has more than three times his support here. What happened? The Carson balloon will eventually deflate but the more plausible social conservatives in the field simply cannot have this guy sticking around with some respectable level of support (say, 10 percent or so) in Iowa. It may well be the margin of victory, denying Cruz or Huckabee or even Rubio or Walker the votes they need to eke out a win. Why aren’t the numbers for Cruz and Carson reversed? I’m asking earnestly. I can’t figure it out.
While we’re on the subject of niche social-con candidates, though, here’s a pair of fun data points from the PPP poll:
Huckabee’s been giving interviews lately about his prospective candidacy claiming he knows that this time he can’t afford to be pigeonholed as the “Christian” candidate. Good luck with that, big guy.
Incidentally, fully 57 percent of Republicans polled think Christianity should be the national religion of the United States, Establishment Clause or not. Second look at conservative atheists going third-party?
What’s not true about that statement? The media is pushing the story to distract from what Obama is really doing, because they love to turn criticism of Obama’s actions, which are provable, into a personal criticism so they can charge racism. I do think people are sick of the press doing that, and in any case it’s irrelevant to the next election. Obama isn’t running.
I’m fine with Rudy pointing out Obama’s past, but there’s no reason for Walker to speculate on his motivations.
I’m sorry, but education is not part of the problem, nor are lawyers themselves.
The problem is that we have a legal system based on case precedent, rather than the adherence to the rule of law. The result over time is that precedent gets further and further from any direct relation to written law, and the Constitution and founder’s intent, to the Constitution’s limitations on government now having no relevance to court decisions.
The Constitution was deliberately lain out with the intent of strictly limiting government to only specifically enumerated powers, and among design is the intent to keep the Courts (government itself) from making laws from the bench. Courts only legitimately apply to the law to the facts at hand.
Contrary to popular understanding, the 7th Amendment does not actually guarantee the right to a trial by jury in all instances, but rather does so specifically in “suits at common law”. Common law is referenced, not to elevate it, but rather because under common law practice in Britain the Courts themselves decided “what the law is” in cases where there was no existing law. BY this, the 7th Amendment deliberately guarantees that right to a trial by jury in common law, where there is no applicable written law, so that the Court itself will not be creating law.
Yet in a judicial system so heavily based on precedent, rather than direct reference to written law, we are actually having the Courts write law from rationalizations of previous case decisions.
What is the deal with those pushing Carson?
He has about as much experience as Obama had. Maybe, he, too, can claim his executive experience is from running his own presidential campaign.
Conservatives need to get their heads out of their butts and start looking for potential winners, not feel-good-ism wannabes.
Huckster is now hawking herbals for diabetics on the radio.
Does that make him a snake herbal salesman?
I don't know a single person who falls into that tiny subset and I know a lot of Christian friends ranging from Catholics to Baptists to Mormons to Megachurch Evangelicals and every shade in between.
This makes the entire poll suspect.
Ben Carson sounds a good man, a smart man, and would probably be a good president. But he isn’t particularly charismatic, or engaging, and would be terrible “politician” (perhaps to his credit). Republican need to get over the desire to recruit a minority or woman to hide behind, and just pick a great conservative candidate, whatever the race/gender.
Ted Cruz is not the great attraction that many “social conservatives” make him out to be.
For starters, Cruz’s response to challenges to his qualification to hold the office, is that his “lawyer will handle it”. This is deeply disturbing from a guy that so many are anticipating will actually uphold that Constitution.
Cruz was born in Canada, to an American mother and a father who was a Cuban national who did not become a naturalized American citizen until 35 years after Ted Cruz’s birth. This is two strikes against Cruz being a natural born citizen: 1) birth on foreign soil, and 2) birth to a parent who was not a citizen of this country. Ted Cruz himself is actually a naturalized citizen, naturalized upon birth, by U.S. naturalization law, and not a natural born citizen.
By the terms consistently recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court over this country’s history, a natural born citizen is someone born on the country’s soil, to parents who were citizens, thereby from birth owing allegiance to no other country but this one.
It is rather disturbing that someone so many rely on to uphold the constitution and restore legitimate governance, would so readily put his political interests ahead of the Constitution itself.
However this is not the only cause for concern regarding Cruz, given his wife’s ties with investment banking generally and Goldman Sachs particularly. Cruz’s own campaign spokesperson in 2011 represented Heidi Cruz as an “expert in international trade” being a supporter of NAFTA under the Bush administration, and also a term member of CFR.
Ted Cruz is most likely to be a status quo supporter of big government, who only takes exception to certain overreaches, as seen being done by this Obama regime. We cannot afford the status quo any longer.
Ben Carson IS A DOCTOR?
Walker is in favor of turning red states into blue ones through amnesty. Will that work?
Unfortunately Walker has said he is opposed to building a fence. I like him other than his softness on illegals. I don’t think he can be trusted in this area.
So far, Cruz is the one I support.
First of all: FREEDOM OF RELIGION was established so as no ONE interpretation of Christianity could be favored or legislated by the government as was the case in the country which our pilgrims fled..oppression could and was implemented by whoever held the crown and such the initial boats to our republic’s shores. The biggest factor for our next President will be to turn the welfare and disability programs on their heads and put the allotment form of welfare back to the towns where they originate...beyond reform and brief period of NO immigration whilst the country purges with existing law ALL who are here illegally and especially drawing welfare of any form. (granted, asylum in realistic application has to be available) We as a country will be in shambles in less than 50 years if we do not address this first! One cannot borrow from peter to pay paul for such a length of time. The chaos that is now our federal government with executive agencies infiltrated with muzzies and liberal marxists/communists ruling through regulation and decree with NO OVERSIGHT from Congress who allows them to exist from the cash (TAXES) they allocate in which they obtain form our action in the marketplace...We THE PEOPLE generate...Power back to the towns for the dispersal of any WELFARE will straighten most problems out...1967 is when states took over allocating funds as opposed to towns handling their own welfare handouts...since then the shame and embarrassment of having food stamps and other forms of community has vanished. Work ethic is lost and a person is not phased when CASH shows up in the form of a magnetic strip with no effort except you know the pin number.No accountability..anywhere nowadays. I hope I do not come off as too cold ...there will always be amongst us those who CAN’T provide for themselves...and we will accomodate them in the biblical Christian manner ...that is an act of love from a christianed base society...sorry so long a ramble but I think I expressed a good outlook.
Which candidate are you supporting?
But remember that Dimocrats vote in a number of early Republican primaries that are OPEN primaries. They are still OPEN because the GOPe insists that they be OPEN.
And remember, the e in GOPe stands for excrement.
I know
“That is why I favor (prefer) a successful governor over (rather than) a senator or congressman - or doctor.”
Too early to be meaningful, but there is some good news The grass roots doesn’t want Jeb
-— What is the deal with those pushing Carson? -—
From people I’ve met, good-hearted but politically naive people
-— Power back to the towns for the dispersal of any WELFARE will straighten most problems out...1967 is when states took over allocating funds as opposed to towns handling their own welfare handouts... -—
Yup. Destroyed the country in 4O years.
I’ll certainly vote for the Cruzer if he makes the Nov election.
But he’s not my choice for the R candidate.
Giulliani did not “point out Obama’s past” but rather (appropriately) indicated that Obama does not love America, however Giulliani then went onto say he does not question Obama’s patriotism. It’s unreasonable that anyone might be patriotic when they do not love America, not to mention repeatedly violate this country’s principles and the Constitution.
Anyone relying on the “next election” for anything is foolish at this point, and beyond that, no election should be able to determine our form of government, much less serve as license for the wholesale thefts of our rights and property. Those depending on any election to restore things are inherently a part of the problem by validating that those rights and property are subject to populist whim, rather than any valid solution.
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.