“Jeb” Kasich - for when you want a RINO but just can’t take another Bush.
YEB backup plan in operation by GOPe.
Whenever I read an article like this, I wonder if it was written in Washington State, or Colorado.
1. nO
2. no
3. no
4. no
5. no
Where is the barf alert?
These two, especially Kasich, are Frank Underwoods.
Is this a joke?
Bwahaha—more Establishment/RINO blather from NR.
this will guarantee a loss for the GOP as those who are against illegal amnesty will stay home
I’d rather vote for Hilary and get it over with.
Kasich will just bankrupt the country slower.
Both of those idiots think they are running for President of Mexico. Yeah, they’d probably win.
So Cruz’s view is different. He believes, as Reagan did (and Reagan was right...back then) that there are plenty of Dems., independents and sort of marginally involved citizens who will come out and vote for a bold pro-America, pro-freedom candidate. Gun-owning union members, anti-Communist Democrats, etc., pro-life Democrats, etc. This is what Reagan pulled off.
The problem with the “let’s not scare the beloved independent” line of analysis, and, with the “there are hidden conservatives out there” is that these are both essentially empirical questions, to which there is a FACTUAL answer. These are not matters of opinion. Either there is a block of fearful independents who want to vote GOP but are frightened by the true conservaties, or not.
Personally, I happen to think that is not the case, as all of us here do as well. We can point to the track record of moderates in losing elections. However, I also acknowledge that is an interpretation of less-than-complete data. It’s speculation as to the meaning of speculative and incomplete data.
With regards to the Reagan and now Cruz premise...well my fear is that no matter how much I want that to be true, I fear that the numbers actually (for real, empirically) are just not there.
So I am worried that Cruz is hoping for something...as we all are...that just isn’t true anymore.
But...since that is a question of fact, I acknowledge that I could be wrong. And I sure hope so.
What we do know is that Cruz will get any hidden conservatives that are out there. If there are enough, he will win.
(Of course one final caveat. I don’t guess I really believe that we have fair elections anymore...I think that 5 or 6 big cities are completely corrupt, and that is all it takes to swing a national election).
So ...net net net. What do we do?
Nominate Cruz. Win or lose, at least we will be articulating a vision of America that is deeply true and thus will give us a bit of hope and something to work towards when teh country truly hits rock bottom and we have to have a hard re-boot.
I’m not sure that the 2012 arguments hold water for 2016. Yes, the GOP has lost Ohio and Florida twice now, and that’s a problem. But a few things to take into account:
-In both 2008 and 2012, the GOP fielded a weak, “my turn” candidate in an adverse political climate. Neither of those things are likely to be true in 2016.
-in 2012, Obama saturated Ohio with almost $100 million (IIRC) worth of anti-Romney efforts before Romney even got the official nomination. Add to that the billions of dollars Ohio got as part of Obama’s Big Three Bailout, and you have a toxic quagmire for Romney to campaign in that he still came pretty close to winning.
-If Kasich is as well-support in Ohio as he seems to be, he could help deliver the state even if he wasn’t on the ticket. Sure, being on the ticket is going to have the biggest draw for the home crowd. But a popular sitting governor ought to be able to drum up some crucial votes for his party’s nominee, too.
Kasich/Rubio and I’ll vote Bernie
Kasich is too boring to win anything. I wouldn’t worry about this one!
That's too bad, in a way; because that means I can't cancel it.
This is why I haven’t read National Review since they canned John Derbyshire. It is the official publication of Cuckservatives. If you love to lose, FR is for you.
That was the thinking behind Romney in 2012, McCain in 2008, and Dole in 1996.
Why not stick with a proven strategy?
Not NO, Hell NO!
Five absolutely essential characteristics of an any Republican nominee.
1) Absolute loyalty to the United States and Americans. They come first, and they come exclusively before any foreign or internationalist power or foreign citizens.
2) They must *not* embrace the Whig idea that “What is good for business is good for America”. This is just as wrong for slavery as it is for internationalism, open borders and free trade agreements that hurt Americans.
3) They must realize that a hundred years of progressivist-socialism and fascist economics has devastated our economy and people. While endless Republican establishment types have been willing to ignore this in favor of “moving forward”, a new house cannot be successfully be built on a corrupt foundation. They need to systematically reverse this madness, while minimizing the harm doing so does to the people.
4) Part and parcel to this is slashing the size, scope and power of the federal government. Currently there are some 2,721,000 non-military federal employees. “Is firing 50% of them enough?”, should be a serious question.
5) The reorganization of the federal judiciary below the Supreme Court is totally in the purview of congress, and needs to be done, both structurally, and to retire a huge number of bad federal judges, which is faster than impeachment. Large parts of national law need to be “federalized”, in effect, returned to state jurisdiction.