Republicans want a candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton. A new Fox News poll finds Marco Rubio performs best against the presumptive Democratic nominee. Rubio has an eight-point edge: 50 percent to Clinton’s 42 percent.
No, the RNC wants a lapdog. That their usual followers filled with umbrage wouldn’t accept Jeb threw them off for a bit, but now that they’ve regrouped, have realized that Rubio will make just as satisfactory a toady.
It’s not about who can beat Hillary. It’s about who can lead this country the best. For me, that’s not a guy who is pro-amnesty, pro-TPP, wraps his arms around the NSA, and, worst of all, quit his JOB of representing the people of FL for whom he took an OATH to represent - while not actually “quitting” - so yet gets to take home the pay and bennies of said job.
Despicable, if you ask me.
So if somebody like that can beat Hillary, it sounds so simple a cave man could do it.
Well, 2cent, you certainly have the Jeb Bush talking points down pat - especially the one about Rubio not quitting his job to run for POTUS. I must assume you oppose Ted Cruz for the same reason, but somehow I doubt it, as Rubio appears to be your target of choice. But, I digress.
First of all, it is in large measure about beating Hillary, because whoever opposes her in November, if they lose to Hillary we get Hillary. I don’t know who would be best as POTUS from among those making up the Republican field, we all have our favorites - but if they don’t get elected, they don’t get to lead sh*t. Anyone that isn’t for a jack-boot roundup and the transporting of all 11+ million illegals out of the country is an RNC lapdog? So any Republican candidate you don’t like holding elective office who does not think it appropriate to round up and deport whole families, men/women and even their children, who have been here for many years and any candidate who also differs from you on TPP and NSA is an RNC lapdog? Brilliant analysis. Simply stunning.
Jeb Bush’s talking points? Ya gotta be kiddin’ me.
Ted Cruz missed all of 3 votes this year; meanwhile co-sponsoring 5 bills. His record is nothing less than stellar, so no, I don’t “oppose him for the same reason” - much less, at all.
(I’d say, “nice try”, but it was actually quite lame.)
First of all, it is in large measure about beating Hillary, because whoever opposes her in November, if they lose to Hillary we get Hillary.
Really? I hadn’t noticed.
I don’t know who would be best as POTUS from among those making up the Republican field, we all have our favorites - but if they don’t get elected, they don’t get to lead sh*t.
I’ve narrowed down who is best suited to straighten out this mess to two.
Anyone that isn’t for a jack-boot roundup and the transporting of all 11+ million illegals out of the country is an RNC lapdog? So any Republican candidate you don’t like holding elective office who does not think it appropriate to round up and deport whole families, men/women and even their children, who have been here for many years and any candidate who also differs from you on TPP and NSA is an RNC lapdog? Brilliant analysis. Simply stunning.
Why, thank you.
And to return the compliment, what a truly amazing job of putting words in someone else’s mouth!
Let’s not forget the rest of this poll! They all beat or tie Clinton:
It says very little about the GOP field. What this poll really points out is that the Hillary is in big trouble. She has to stay hard left to get the nomination. If she gets it she will start sounding a lot more like Jeb come next Fall.
Polls, I suppose, do serve a purpose. When numerous polls point in the same direction, for instance, they can’t all be lying. There is, no doubt, something to be gleaned from them.
To take it beyond gleaning, however, to point of basing one’s decisions on what the polls are saying, makes me wonder if that’s the way some people choose to buy their socks.
Old Dog, I completely forgot to add that you are decidedly correct in your observation:
The poll says FAR more about Clinton’s inability than it does about any candidate’s ability in the GOP field.
Excellent observation, Sir.
The woman just plain is NOT popular. So why anyone would base his choice of which RNC candidate to nominate on ‘who can beat Hillary’ is falling for one of the oldest RNC’s tricks in the book!
It’d be slightly humorous if it weren’t for how pathetic it is to think that people over the age of 40 still fall for it.
I think these gains are based on the last debate. The over protection and even coddling of Clinton has worked against her since the GOP field called out the bias of the questions and tone of the debates while at the same time asking where these questions are on all sides of the political spectrum. If I were the GOP I would add more national debates, maintain the 3rd hour and continue to question Hillary and her cheerleading Bernie Sanders during the debates as it has been effective.
I would openly ask why the Democratic debate organizers didn’t allow a woman who was heavily critical of her to be in the debate. As I posted before on here, none other than Wolf Blitzer questioned Debbie Wasserman Schultz aggressively on CNN about the decisions. For the record, he is my favourite reporter at CNN, his direct and dry approach is actually appealing for the most part. Gabbard was “disinvited” from the debates; the vice-chair of the DNC, due to her open admission that she will counter Clinton strongly and wants more debates, as she suggests “freedom of speech” which the public demands. Below is a link to her comments. In another interview that Wolf had with Wasserman Schultz he asks her if she is protecting Clinton, this link can be found on other sites.
Top Democratic official: I was disinvited from debate:
Democratic debate 2015: Gabbard says DNC disinvited her - CNNPolitics.com
This is a very unique election as it seems that the American public want the discussions to get serious and want to see opposing views and strong challenges of all candidates. The Democrats have had 8 years to focus on building the portfolio for their front runner but it has backfired since the voting public are yearning for more meat and potatoes rather than just presentation.
Yes, we have a golden opportunity in 2016 but the odds remain very strong that a united Democratic party will easily defeat divided conservatives, who are letting anger and fratricide trump common sense and solidarity.
So, back the nominee, whomever it is.
As you’ve demanded in the past.
LOL. Ain’t gonna happen. The ONLY “anger and fratricide” we’re seeing HERE is Jazz’s being adamant about the possibility of a Trump nomination “driving” him to the Democrat’s camp–where, incidentally, he’s been for some time now.
The one thing I THINK? we can all agree on is that Hillary, unless indicted, will be the Democrat nominee. I THINK? we also can agree that democrats will unite behind her. However, if some on this site are any indication, it is just as certain that republicans will NOT necessarily unite behind the Republican nominee and in opposition to her even though the worst among the current contenders would be superior to Hillary Clinton.
And that doesn’t even take into account the fools Hillary would appoint to cabinet positions, department heads and the judiciary, including appointments that are likely going to become necessary on the Supreme Court.
Oh, I can hear the moaning and whaling already from the usual suspects in response/opposition to this post.
I don’t think anything could drive me into the Democrat’s camp but it would drive me into the independents camp where a few here have already said they are.
I’ve been voting for almost 40 years, Dave, and have never voted for a Democrat for any federal office.
But if the GOP nominates that bigot, I’m gone. I will not be a good German.
Again with the Nazi reference.
I voted for Romnulus, McCain, GWB twice, Dole, and HW Bush. Why wouldn’t I do it again?
In 1933, Germans in a free election chose Hitler. Hitler, like Trump, appealed to fear and loathing of minorities and outsiders. I believe the comparison is apt. This is not a matter of opposing Trump on ideological grounds. I oppose Trump because I believe he is evil. The German electorate should have known better in 1933. So should the American people in 2016.
He’s not evil. He’s just playing to the GOP right which he thinks is just filled with hard line bigots and maybe he’s right. Look at how different he was before he actually entered the GOP race, warning the GOP not to be so mean to the Mexicans. He’s nothing like a Nazi. To me if you buy his act you are as deluded as his supporters.
That you are willing to blow due to some ill-conceived notion that loving and defending your own people automatically equates to being bigoted.
Some of us, otoh, have learned how to stand up to bullies, and applaud those who do.
but the odds remain very strong that a united Democratic party will easily defeat divided conservatives, who are letting anger and fratricide trump common sense and solidarity.
No, the odds are not that at all. That you allow polls and fear to rule your decision making only emphasizes the hold that the RNC has over too many voters like you.