Posted on 04/29/2016 11:43:13 AM PDT by COUNTrecount
From the outset, and particularly since the ridiculous “Never Trump” campaign began, we have outlined the most damaging aspect to Senator Ted Cruz’s presidential bid is his continued visibility. The reasoning is simple: the more people see and hear Cruz, the more the average electorate are turned off by Cruz. He’s just not a likeable man.
A CNN article today points out the internal polling within Indiana is following this consistent pattern:
Cruz allies and people close to the campaign describe a budding sense of gloom, with internal polls diving as Trump mounted even stronger than expected showings in his native northeast. In Indiana, which Cruz backers once believed they were favored to win after his strong defeat of Trump in Wisconsin, Cruz’s numbers have fallen precipitously: Once leading, Cruz now trails in the state by eight to 10 points, according to a person who has seen the numbers, with Trump over the 40% mark. Cruz’s campaign did not respond when asked about those figures.
Indiana is the absolute last chance for Senator Ted Cruz and the entire coalition behind the #NeverTrump movement. Like Florida in March, tens of millions are now being spent to psychologically target the larger electorate in Indiana with a constant barrage of negative attack ads.
Trump internals from Indiana as of today: Trump – 51% Cruz – 32% Kasich – 13%
— The Kincannon Show (@kincannon_show) April 28, 2016
Cruz Campaign Can’t Fill A Rally: An NBC news truck was parked outside of the center. There were also five marked police cars as well as a couple of fire department vehicles. There were some cars being used to block off a sidewalk on the side of the building, but other than that nothing else stood out
(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativetreehouse.com ...
>>> I am not persuaded by “argumentum ad populum”.
I agree that just repeating stuff is not an effective argument, so I will specify the things that turned me from Cruz. First was after Jeb dropped out, Cruz took on the Bush finance team to his campaign, including brother Neil S&L-fiasco Bush (http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/08/politics/neil-bush-ted-cruz-finance/). That shocked me and I didn’t quite know how to set things in their place.
But the one that pushed me over the brink was his yabuttal after the Chicago riots (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmxBp4IFe_I). He spends 5 seconds (at 1:15)saying, “ya, the protesters were wrong, BUT...” and then launches into a 40 second diatribe on why Trump had it coming and encouraged the riots. A Constitutional lawyer should understand the notions of free speech, that crashing private venues like Trump rallies in an effort to disrupt American’s freedom of assembly is legally no different than a home invasion.
That was it for me and Cruz. But I would not that since then, I’ve learned additional things, like Ryan and Cruz pushed Obama’s fast track authority for TPA (http://www.wsj.com/articles/putting-congress-in-charge-on-trade-1429659409). That is certainly working with the globalists.
Finally, his refusal to concede after New York when victory became numerically closed to him can only be taken as doing the bidding of the Romney/Bush clan. A brokered convention is already a losing proposition (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3416210/posts). In the last 100 years (8 brokered nominees) only one defeated a non-brokered nominee in the general election. And that one, FDR in 1932, came to the convention with the most delegates, in fact over 50% (back then, 2/3 was required for nomination). So, the whole notion of arguing for a brokered convention to allow a second tier candidate to pushed to the top, as Cruz continues to do, is to basically call for Prez. Hillary. History shows it to be true and as a scholar, Cruz should know the history better than I.
So there you have it. These are the reasons I stand against Cruz.
I was unsure regarding the source (a tweet) that Sundance used in his article.
But I did find this other source which claims the Trump campaign released the internal polling and distributed it to the media ...see below.
“With just a few days to go before the votes are all counted, separate polling data obtained by PPD and conducted for the two campaigns show Sen. Cruz trailing Mr. Trump by double digits.
The Cruz campaign, which would not release their numbers as of today and did not respond when asked about the new figures, claimed Thursday he was down in the state by only 8 to 10 points. However, polling we have seen showed Sen. Cruz down by double digits over the weekend, which was prior to his poor performance on Tuesday.
On the hand, Mr. Trump clocked in over the 40% mark in each of the days the surveys were conducted. The Trump campaign’s numbers paint a far rosier picture than recent public polling. As of Thursday, Mr. Trump led Sen. Cruz by 19 points, 51% to 32%. Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who refused to tell his voters to support Sen. Cruz, was polling at 13%.”
My main no-go with Ted is his Goldman Sachs wife—you do know Goldman Sachs is the most evil “heads I win with government bailouts, tails you lose” blood-sucking parasitic corporation on the planet, right? They place risky derivative bets by the trillions, yes that right, trillions, so they can get big fat bonuses when they win and then depend on the corrupt Congress (who they have bribed and own) to bail them out if they lose.
Has GS always been that hated here on FR?
Just since 2008 when we found out that we were responsible for their losses and Congress was on their payroll.
Nate Silver now has Trump with 97% chance of winning Indiana with polls only, and an 83% chance with polls plus.
-PJ
I was not at all shocked by that. I saw it as an effort by the Bush clan to maintain some sort of relevance to the corridors of power. It is *them* trying to stay connected. As for Cruz, he needed support from any direction he could get it. Trump is a very formidable opponent because Trump doesn't need any money, and he knows how to fight in the court of public opinion.
I didn't like Cruz making allies with the Bush clan, but I also saw it as something he couldn't win without. (Like Reagan in 1980. He did the same thing.)
But the one that pushed me over the brink was his yabuttal after the Chicago riots (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmxBp4IFe_I). He spends 5 seconds (at 1:15)saying, “ya, the protesters were wrong, BUT...” and then launches into a 40 second diatribe on why Trump had it coming and encouraged the riots.
I saw that as a candidate trying to make hay out of anything he can. It was a dumb effort, and he would have probably gotten more accolades had he not attempted such a cheesy stunt, but that's all I saw it as; A Cheesy stunt.
A Constitutional lawyer should understand the notions of free speech, that crashing private venues like Trump rallies in an effort to disrupt American’s freedom of assembly is legally no different than a home invasion.
I don't think Cruz was being serious. I think he was just flinging poo. It just happened to be the only thing he could get his hands on at the time. He doesn't have the natural flair for politics that Trump or Bill Clinton has. (Remember when Trump waited for Ben Carson at that one Debate? Very smart. That incident paid dividends for him.)
That was it for me and Cruz. But I would not that since then, I’ve learned additional things, like Ryan and Cruz pushed Obama’s fast track authority for TPA (http://www.wsj.com/articles/putting-congress-in-charge-on-trade-1429659409). That is certainly working with the globalists.
I looked into that. It is not so cut and dried as people would have us believe. My recollection is that he said he was against it, but he ended up voting for it because of some stupid and convoluted effort to delay it. I do not believe that Ted Cruz has any desire to do anything to help Obama. I think this was just a misguided blunder where he thought he was being clever, and it didn't work. I've been noticing quite a few incidents where he thought he was being clever, and it didn't work.
Finally, his refusal to concede after New York when victory became numerically closed to him can only be taken as doing the bidding of the Romney/Bush clan. A brokered convention is already a losing proposition (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3416210/posts).
I never thought he had any chance of winning anything in New York, especially after people blew up his comments about "New York Values." I think he knew quite awhile before New York that the only way he was going to be able to stop Trump was to throw the party into a brokered convention.
Again, Trump is a very effective campaigner. He's likable, and Cruz isn't. Trump can do political mockery on his feet and he's good at it. Cruz hasn't mastered that at all. He's more of a contemplative man.
Cruz needed Trump in the beginning to keep the fire off of him, (Because all the establishment candidates hated Cruz at that point.) but Cruz needed the field to narrow much faster than it did. Rubio and Bush hung in far too long.
In the last 100 years (8 brokered nominees) only one defeated a non-brokered nominee in the general election. And that one, FDR in 1932, came to the convention with the most delegates, in fact over 50% (back then, 2/3 was required for nomination). So, the whole notion of arguing for a brokered convention to allow a second tier candidate to pushed to the top, as Cruz continues to do, is to basically call for Prez. Hillary. History shows it to be true and as a scholar, Cruz should know the history better than I.
Yes, a brokered convention is very likely to be a disaster. If the man with the most votes doesn't win, a lot of voters will be turned off and resentful. It would possibly be enough to let that Witch-Hag win.
But on the other hand, the possibility of that Witch-Hag becoming president would probably get people to overcome their resentment and vote for anyone but her.
I don't know. What I *do* know is that this is the worst mess i've ever seen.
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.