[2ndDivisionVet]

Agree? Disagree?

[hosepipe]

GOOD TAKE ON IT ALL...

America is not known for picking the best and brightest...
UNLESS the other options are so damned weak.. their pitiful.

I'm a Cruzer... but honesty think Trump is a poseur..
saying some things BUT prepared to do OTHER things..
you know... like Obama..

I doubt he is the happy free hearted guy(CONSERVATIVE) some think he is..
THEY are dreaming of themselves with all his money what would THEY DO.. "PROJECTING"..

Ted Cruz is best and brightest of them all.. agreed..
TRUMP... gives me the "watch him he's tricky" feeling..
SOoooo I have been...

[matthew fuller]

Rucker might be somewhat more successful as a commentator if he had more than a distant relationship with the English language.
“George W. Bush, Clinton, and Obama were both polarizing.”
“someone like Ben Carson would fair better against...”
“ and his chevalier attitude”

[rdcbn]

Sadly,I must agree.

So far, Donald Trump has not had even a minimal vetting to be President and there are potentially serious skeletons in his closet that could really hurt him, especially with moral majority conservatives.

Trump is not even close to being a conservative in any way shape or form and he is at best a socially liberal and economically moderate Libertarian.

It is in the interests of the Democrats to wait until after Trump has won the nomination to start a Trump assassination hit job

This is the risk Republicans run if they go all in for Trump.

He could be shown to be unelectable by the Democrat smear machine after he wins the Republican Nomination.

On the other hand, Trump does seem to be amazingly impervious to such attacks up till now so this may backfire on the Dems if Trump makes it to the nomination.

Trump would make a much better than average president and I am 100% confident he would appoint very highly qualified and capable people to run his administration.

[DoodleDawg]

Ben Carson is #2? What universe is he living in?

[kidd]

The order depends on who they are up against.

Clinton
1) Cruz
2) Fiorina (has been attacking Clinton effectively)
3) Rubio (also focused on Clinton)
4) Huckabee
5) Walker
(Trump is too friendly with the Clintons)

Sanders (socialist)
1) Paul (the perfect anti-Sanders)
2) Trump (capitalist vs socialist - no contest)
3) Cruz
4) Walker
5) Fiorina (another capitalist)

O'Malley
1) Cruz
2) Paul
3) Trump
4) Huckabee
5) Walker

Biden
1) Anything on two legs
2) Anything on legs
3) Anything with a pulse
4) Any organic matter
5) Anything with carbon in it

[Jim Noble]

You walk into the room like a camel and then you frown.

[SamAdams76]

[vette6387]

I agree with most of what you say, but although I too believe that Cruz would make an effective president, I am not convinced he has the “legs” to get there. Carson is by all appearances, a fine man, but like Walker he won’t wear will when the heat is really turned up. And sorry, but I would still today see Trump as #1 and definitely not #5. Paul and Rubio are not even on my radar as remote possibilities. Paul is querky and Rubio is a closet amnesty supporter.

[Chewbarkah]

This analysis was designed to promote Cruz, and surprise, it points to Cruz as the winner. I like Cruz in general, but by running a Crusade instead of a campaign, he is marginalizing himself. This will excite Christian social issues voters but he will not win the nomination or over 25% of the electorate in the general election. He is ruined in part by something very shallow - despite his intelligence and presumed probity, the guy somehow looks sneaky and sleazy. That sucks, but there it is.

[Chewbarkah]

This analysis was designed to promote Cruz, and surprise, it points to Cruz as the winner. I like Cruz in general, but by running a Crusade instead of a campaign, he is marginalizing himself. This will excite Christian social issues voters but he will not win the nomination or over 25% of the electorate in the general election. He is ruined in part by something very shallow - despite his intelligence and presumed probity, the guy somehow looks sneaky and sleazy. That sucks, but there it is.

[Gumdrop]

Scott Walker should have been in the top five - in place of Rand Paul. This far, he has disappointed in the give and take of the first months of campaigning. There is still a lot of time to go, however.

I am still leaning toward Walker and Cruz. As much as it alarms me to read the negatives about Trump, I am afraid the writer is correct. Because Donald Trump is voicing the frustrations of most Conservatives, he has vaulted to the forefront. He is fearless, and that is appealing. It remains to be seen whether this bravado personality trait wears well with the general public, however.

Although I would not like to see Trump as the nominee, I would certainly be willing to vote for him. At least he is intelligent, capable, and loves our country. He has the best interests of the USA in mind.

[entropy12]

Red State = Erick Erickson?

Sorry, he has lost all credibility to be unbiased.

[catfish1957]

Are you kidding, I have had at least 5 Trump koolaid drinkers tell me that Cruz can't win.

Ted Cruz 2016

[Georgia Girl 2]

#1. Trump
#2. Cruz

No one else has a chance to win the general election. Trump can easily do it Cruz is iffy.

[AllAmericanGirl44]

bkmk

[trebb]

Having Rubio ahead of Trump makes me wonder if the rest is solid - don't know the guy so it could be possible that he's following Erick's lead and paying some sort of "service" to Cruz in order to assuage folks while they figure ways to trash Trump.

I agree that Cruz should be the #1 choice though.....GO CRUZ!!!