• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2016 Republican Primary

REPUBLICANS ONLY PLEASE- YOUR TOP CHOICE FOR 2016 REPUBLICAN NOMINATION FOR PRESIDENT

  • Ted Cruz

    Votes: 8 10.0%
  • Rand Paul

    Votes: 23 28.8%
  • Marco Rubio

    Votes: 2 2.5%
  • Mike Huckabee

    Votes: 2 2.5%
  • Chris Christie

    Votes: 16 20.0%
  • Rick Perry

    Votes: 2 2.5%
  • Rick Santorum

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Jon Huntsman

    Votes: 11 13.8%
  • Paul Ryan

    Votes: 4 5.0%
  • Other (Please specify)

    Votes: 12 15.0%

  • Total voters
    80
actually no, the house has passed a lot of legislation, and i mean a lot...but its has not gone anywhere becuase harry reid, will not bring it to the floor of the senate.

With legislative riders and refusing to go to joint conference--next
 
With legislative riders and refusing to go to joint conference--next

sorry......but you stated the house was a party of "no" in the past, and has not passed legislation.

i stated to you they have passed a lot, which you acknowledged by stating...." riders and refusing to go to joint conference".

so they have passed a lot of bills, ....but according to your mind.... harry shares no faults with them not reaching the senate floor.
 
And though state exchanges were GOP ideas, the GOP refuses to open these exchanges they control

This is called moving the goal posts...it's a wonderful fallacy of someone with an inability to backup their argument.

You claimed that the GOP "Wrote" ACA back during Reagan's presidency. Even if we are giving you the benefit of the doubt that you mean figuratively rather than literally (since we know literally ACA was just recently written), it's still RIDICULOUS inaccurate as the there are a multitude of differences between what was put out by the Heritage Foundation and the PPACA.

Randomly throwing out a SINGULAR seperate instance of something and bitching about it doesn't change the amazingly dishonest and factually incorrect claim you previously made. All it does is demonstrate your refusal to acknowledge your mistake (shedding more light onto the notion that you intentionally lied about it rather than simply spoke from a state of ignorance on the topic) and highlights your need to deflect.
 
This is called moving the goal posts...it's a wonderful fallacy of someone with an inability to backup their argument.

You claimed that the GOP "Wrote" ACA back during Reagan's presidency. Even if we are giving you the benefit of the doubt that you mean figuratively rather than literally (since we know literally ACA was just recently written), it's still RIDICULOUS inaccurate as the there are a multitude of differences between what was put out by the Heritage Foundation and the PPACA.

Randomly throwing out a SINGULAR seperate instance of something and bitching about it doesn't change the amazingly dishonest and factually incorrect claim you previously made. All it does is demonstrate your refusal to acknowledge your mistake (shedding more light onto the notion that you intentionally lied about it rather than simply spoke from a state of ignorance on the topic) and highlights your need to deflect.
Going on a rant to defend the indefensible is par for the course for you and the GOP which lies around every corner in their sabotage of ACA..Try Kentucky and get back to me..Thank your lucky stars this Christmas you don't need the Medicaid extension that 25 GOP governors are denying millions of citizens..Obviously you don't believe in preventative care for the uninsured--just go to the emergency room and raise both of our insurance rates..Try danarhea's story of a close friend who died due to lack of insurance, which PPACA would have given..Now go back to slinging insults and showing that you're for the GOP of hate and NO .
 
This is called moving the goal posts...
something I must have learned from Cons on DP..
it's a wonderful fallacy of someone with an inability to backup their argument.
When you bring nothing to the table as a bill yourself, trash others..

You claimed that the GOP "Wrote" ACA back during Reagan's presidency.
Not exactly, as you mention later in your diatribe..
Even if we are giving you the benefit of the doubt that you mean figuratively rather than literally (since we know literally ACA was just recently written), it's still RIDICULOUS inaccurate as the there are a multitude of differences between what was put out by the Heritage Foundation and the PPACA.
Thank you for capitalizing your random, ridiculous, and singular words..
Randomly throwing out a SINGULAR seperate instance of something and bitching about it doesn't change the amazingly dishonest and factually incorrect claim you previously made.
Imagine how well ACA would be doing with a LOYAL opposition..The GOPee and their supporters have ended all hope of collegiality and doomed the USA to "an enemy within" scenario..
All it does is demonstrate your refusal to acknowledge your mistake
The mistake again please..Go with the individual quotes, it helps..
(shedding more light onto the notion that you intentionally lied about it rather than simply spoke from a state of ignorance on the topic) and highlights your need to deflect.
You can also take it where the sun doesn't shine around Debate Politics, a very sick basement indeed .
 
sorry......but you stated the house was a party of "no" in the past, and has not passed legislation.

i stated to you they have passed a lot, which you acknowledged by stating...." riders and refusing to go to joint conference".

so they have passed a lot of bills, ....but according to your mind.... harry shares no faults with them not reaching the senate floor.
The House, by your admission, has passed nothing that even the Senate GOP could go along with,
you know, the GOP that filibusters its own bills and amendments..
If you pass something a jobs bill while also trying to change federal abortion laws,
and then refuse to go to a bi-cameral conference,
this is called Grand Obstruction .
 
The House, by your admission, has passed nothing that even the Senate GOP could go along with,
you know, the GOP that filibusters its own bills and amendments..
If you pass something a jobs bill while also trying to change federal abortion laws,
and then refuse to go to a bi-cameral conference,
this is called Grand Obstruction .

thats wrong, the GOP in the senate has no power at all to bring bills to the floor.

so by your admittance, you are stating the GOP in the house has passed bills, while you stated they were a party of "no", and did nothing.
 
thats wrong, the GOP in the senate has no power at all to bring bills to the floor.
Try again--with the fact that the Senate bogs down unless the GOP can put forth endless amendments..

so by your admittance, you are stating the GOP in the house has passed bills.

The GOP House of NO has passed bills on a bridge to nowhere, by their own admittance..
Don't blame me, ask Boehner why he wants a net negative number of bills passed .
 
Try again--with the fact that the Senate bogs down unless the GOP can put forth endless amendments..



The GOP House of NO has passed bills on a bridge to nowhere, by their own admittance..
Don't blame me, ask Boehner why he wants a net negative number of bills passed .

try again nothing, the GOP has no power to bring bills to the floor, in the senate ...harry reid is in charge of that.

bridge to no where......,what does this have to do, with a party of "no", and no legislation passed.....when its clear legislation has passed the house many times.
 
try again nothing, the GOP has no power to bring bills to the floor, in the senate ...harry reid is in charge of that.
wrong again troll--you're unaware of the amendment process--the same process that the GOP
insisted upon with state exchanges in PPACA..
and then voted NO of course..

what does this have to do, with a party of "no", and no legislation passed.....when its clear legislation has passed the house many times.
Nothing "clear" about any legislation from the House of Horror, as you admit..
You believe poison pills from the House are legislation--good day .
 
wrong again troll--you're unaware of the amendment process--the same process that the GOP
insisted upon with state exchanges in PPACA..
and then voted NO of course..


Nothing "clear" about any legislation from the House of Horror, as you admit..
You believe poison pills from the House are legislation--good day .

if the GOP, had the power to bring bills to the floor of the senate, ...then why are all of those republican bills which have been passed in the house, have not found their way to that senate floor?

so in your mind, anything you dont like is not legislation, and is not allowed.........hmmmmmmmmmm
 
Going on a rant to defendthe indefensible is par for the course for you

What was I defending? I didn't "defend" anything. I attacked your ludicrous factually incorrect statement. That's not "defending" anything.

and the GOP which lies around every corner in their sabotage of ACA.

Which is irrelevant to your own dishonesty, ignorance on this topic, or outright lying that you did when claiming that the ACA was essentially written by Republicans.

Try Kentucky and get back to me.Thank your lucky stars this Christmas you don't need the Medicaid extension that 25 GOP governors are denying millions of citizens..Obviously you don't believe in preventative care for the uninsured--just go to the emergency room and raise both of our insurance rates..Try danarhea's story of a close friend who died due to lack of insurance, which PPACA would have given..Now go back to slinging insults and showing that you're for the GOP of hate and NO .

Lets see. Distraction that doesn't address my point. Pointless emotional platitude to try and distract. Ignorant assumption of my beliefs in an effort to change the subject. Further attempt to distract from actually admitting your glaringly dishonest statement. And then baseless accusation.

Truly, you've put up a wonderful defense of your outright falsehood.
 
Hey Zyphlin - you know there's no way that Christie would ever pick Rand Paul to be his running mate right? I doubt Nikki Haley too.

Christie - if ever nominated - would pick someone similar to himself with a legal background - assuming Susana Martinez was interested in it I think she would be his top pick. Otherwise a moderate like Brian Sandoval. That's ONLY judging based on how he picked his running mate in the 2009 and 2013 election. And also some of his cabinet members too. And also a moderate.
 
something I must have learned from Cons on DP..

So? The fact others do it doesn't make it any ****tier of a tactic.

When you bring nothing to the table as a bill yourself, trash others..

I brought plenty to the table. I gave you SPECIFIC examples where Heritage Bill you use to suggest the GOP "Wrote" the ACA differs on significant issues with the ACA. You on the other hand are the one whose brought nothing to the table but attempts to distract rather than either admit your error OR counter my claims.

Not exactly, as you mention later in your diatribe..

Oh yes exactly, I can go get the quote for you. That's the wonderful thing with the internet. Your bull**** is kept for public record.

Thank you for capitalizing your random, ridiculous, and singular words..

Distraction again

Imagine how well ACA would be doing with a LOYAL opposition..The GOPee and their supporters have ended all hope of collegiality and doomed the USA to "an enemy within" scenario.

Look, a straw man again.

What you just said has ZERO to do with my counter to your ridiculous claim that the GOP wrote the ACA

The mistake again please

Suggesting that the GOP wrote the ACA, whether you meant it literally or figuratively. In either case, it's factually incorrect and laughably wrong.

Go with the individual quotes, it helps..

It does help. It helps to show your utter dishonesty

NIMBY said:
I said hysterical fear, not historical fear, though the GOPees have more raw skin in the ACA law going back to when they wrote the damn thing during Reagan's 2nd term .

Not only did the GOP not "write" the ACA, they suggestion put out by the Heritage Foundation during Reagan's 2nd term is not identical, or even LARGELY similar, to the PPACA. Rather, a few portions...such as the individual mandate...have some similarities. That's it. Your claim that they "wrote it", figuratively or literally, is just factually incorrect. I highlighted multiple examples of how they're STARKLY different, which you've yet to actually address as you've instead attempted to battle strawmen, move goal posts, and basically all around distract and deflect.
 
Hey Zyphlin - you know there's no way that Christie would ever pick Rand Paul to be his running mate right? I doubt Nikki Haley too.

Well, thank you for your opinion. Given I've seen VERY little from you during your time on this forum, and from what I've seen it's been largely stereotypical in nature, please forgive me if your opinion isn't enough to deter me from stating my admittedly far fetched but hopeful ticket.

Christie, being a relatively adept politician from what I've seen of him thus far, would be someone I could see understanding and recognizing the benefit of utilizing the Vice Presidential nomination as a means of securing a subsection of the voting block and adding to your totals. With any election requiring one to take a strong base and add moderates/independents/crossover votes to that number, I would assume Christie would have the foresight to see the problems other top of the ticket politicians have had in terms of the base and turnout/support and would utilize the VP selection to shore that up. Additionally, Rand Paul's connection with his father can potentially prove a boon for libertarian minded voters and with youth voters.

Is it LIKELY he'd pick Rand? Probably not, but I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility nor do I think it's an absolute given he'd pick someone with a legal background. A national election is a majorly different animal than a state election and I don't know how much stock I'd put in the potential personnel choices he's made then (if he even really CHOOSES a running mate, which I'm not familiar with how that works in NJ but I know here in VA it isn't the case generally).
 
Broken and short quoting--you get the last word here
What was I defending? I didn't "defend" anything. I attacked your ludicrous factually incorrect statement. That's not "defending" anything.



Which is irrelevant to your own dishonesty, ignorance on this topic, or outright lying that you did when claiming that the ACA was essentially written by Republicans.



Lets see. Distraction that doesn't address my point. Pointless emotional platitude to try and distract. Ignorant assumption of my beliefs in an effort to change the subject. Further attempt to distract from actually admitting your glaringly dishonest statement. And then baseless accusation.

Truly, you've put up a wonderful defense of your outright falsehood.
 
Well, thank you for your opinion. Given I've seen VERY little from you during your time on this forum, and from what I've seen it's been largely stereotypical in nature, please forgive me if your opinion isn't enough to deter me from stating my admittedly far fetched but hopeful ticket.

Christie, being a relatively adept politician from what I've seen of him thus far, would be someone I could see understanding and recognizing the benefit of utilizing the Vice Presidential nomination as a means of securing a subsection of the voting block and adding to your totals. With any election requiring one to take a strong base and add moderates/independents/crossover votes to that number, I would assume Christie would have the foresight to see the problems other top of the ticket politicians have had in terms of the base and turnout/support and would utilize the VP selection to shore that up. Additionally, Rand Paul's connection with his father can potentially prove a boon for libertarian minded voters and with youth voters.

Is it LIKELY he'd pick Rand? Probably not, but I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility nor do I think it's an absolute given he'd pick someone with a legal background. A national election is a majorly different animal than a state election and I don't know how much stock I'd put in the potential personnel choices he's made then (if he even really CHOOSES a running mate, which I'm not familiar with how that works in NJ but I know here in VA it isn't the case generally).

I do not like hearing that "newby" talk just because you have been on "this" forum for 8 years and were given moderator status and think that means that any new person to this forum's opinion doesn't matter against your's - if you really feel that way then perhaps don't welcome the idea of allowing new people in here. I have been through the Marines, military school, martial arts, studied criminology, philosophy, politics - been elected to my County's Republican Committee in 2008. I've been around the internet for years - and have links to my blogs and other things that you can read more about me and my opinions and such. I won't disrespect you for disagreeing with me so please do not pull that on me.

I am not stereotypical (at least not entirely) but then again I'm not perfect. I have my beliefs that I feel very strongly about. People are required to stand up and fight for what they believe in - even if they disagree. You can disagree with me and I can still respect you. I can enjoy disagreements and debates - after that, that's what this forum is about, no?

Anyway - Reagan who was a conservative chose a moderate in 1980 (and again in 1984) - and in the lead up to the 1976 GOP National Convention - actually announced that if nominated, that a liberal Republican U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania named Richard Schweiker would have been his running mate - which likely hurt his chances there - but anyway, I do not normally see moderates picking conservative running mates.

I don't think Christie is a good choice. He supports Gun Control & NSA Spying. And he sells out on GOP both nationally and in his state, and helps out Democrats more than he does GOP - under the disguise of working together. I don't think people care who is working together, if it isn't in the best interest of the people.

I like Rand Paul and don't necessarily consider him a bad choice, although occasionally I see him sell out on his principles by supporting Mitt Romney in 2012, and Mitch McConnell in 2014 - and also by accepting Obamacare. I usually like how he votes on legislation in the Senate (except for his Yay vote on the confirmation of Chuck Hagel as Defense Secretary).

I do not know much about Nikki Haley's policies other than that she is for the Tea Party - which is good.
 
Last edited:
You get the last word here also on playing word Semantics..You also admitted that my false statement about the ACA being written by the GOP might not have been literal..On its merits, that statement was wrong, I admit it..And you stomped it to death in what seems a dozen paragraphs..I'll take that as a compliment to be held to a higher standard than others around here who speak incorrectly--Notice I didn't need to tirade on words like lie and dishonest .
So? The fact others do it doesn't make it any ****tier of a tactic.



I brought plenty to the table. I gave you SPECIFIC examples where Heritage Bill you use to suggest the GOP "Wrote" the ACA differs on significant issues with the ACA. You on the other hand are the one whose brought nothing to the table but attempts to distract rather than either admit your error OR counter my claims.



Oh yes exactly, I can go get the quote for you. That's the wonderful thing with the internet. Your bull**** is kept for public record.



Distraction again



Look, a straw man again.

What you just said has ZERO to do with my counter to your ridiculous claim that the GOP wrote the ACA



Suggesting that the GOP wrote the ACA, whether you meant it literally or figuratively. In either case, it's factually incorrect and laughably wrong.



It does help. It helps to show your utter dishonesty



Not only did the GOP not "write" the ACA, they suggestion put out by the Heritage Foundation during Reagan's 2nd term is not identical, or even LARGELY similar, to the PPACA. Rather, a few portions...such as the individual mandate...have some similarities. That's it. Your claim that they "wrote it", figuratively or literally, is just factually incorrect. I highlighted multiple examples of how they're STARKLY different, which you've yet to actually address as you've instead attempted to battle strawmen, move goal posts, and basically all around distract and deflect.
 
The Apollo Alliance is a project organized by the Institute for America's Future and the Center on Wisconsin Strategy. The Alliance is a project of the Tides Center.

Its goals include establishing energy independence for the United States of America, as well as developing cleaner and more efficient energy alternatives. Its allies are drawn from businesses, environmental organizations, and over 30 labor unions.

The Alliance's current Chair is former California State Treasurer Phil Angelides, who is currently the Chair of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.

Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader (2007-present) from Nevada, credited the Apollo Alliance with helping to create the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (also known as the stimulus bill): “This legislation is the first step in building a clean energy economy that creates jobs and moves us closer to solving our enormous energy and environmental challenges,” he said. “We’ve talked about moving forward on these ideas for decades. The Apollo Alliance has been an important factor in helping us develop and execute a strategy that makes great progress on these goals and in motivating the public to support them.”

Apollo Alliance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apollo Alliance Writing Legislation.... Stimulus Bill, Cap and Trade Bill, Healthcare Bill? who knows
 
If stupid people were prevented from voting, both parties might actually have to run on substance and a good platform and plan rather than "don't let gays get married" or "My health care reform is better than your nearly identical health care reform."

I don't disagree.
 
Cruz will lose his Senate reelection in 2018 to one of the Castro brothers .

The Castro brothers are slick, but not slick enough to hoodwink Texas. I'd expect to see them move to NM or AZ...
 
When a so called joke goes flat it is the teller of the so called joke that needs to examine their delivery if not also the content.

Says the one looking around wondering why everyone else is laughing.
 
Well, thank you for your opinion. Given I've seen VERY little from you during your time on this forum, and from what I've seen it's been largely stereotypical in nature, please forgive me if your opinion isn't enough to deter me from stating my admittedly far fetched but hopeful ticket.

Christie, being a relatively adept politician from what I've seen of him thus far, would be someone I could see understanding and recognizing the benefit of utilizing the Vice Presidential nomination as a means of securing a subsection of the voting block and adding to your totals. With any election requiring one to take a strong base and add moderates/independents/crossover votes to that number, I would assume Christie would have the foresight to see the problems other top of the ticket politicians have had in terms of the base and turnout/support and would utilize the VP selection to shore that up. Additionally, Rand Paul's connection with his father can potentially prove a boon for libertarian minded voters and with youth voters.

Is it LIKELY he'd pick Rand? Probably not, but I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility nor do I think it's an absolute given he'd pick someone with a legal background. A national election is a majorly different animal than a state election and I don't know how much stock I'd put in the potential personnel choices he's made then (if he even really CHOOSES a running mate, which I'm not familiar with how that works in NJ but I know here in VA it isn't the case generally).

I agree with you that what someone does in a state election, isn't necessarily going to carry over to a national election. In a blue state like New Jersey, Christie can't afford to be seen as too far right, so moderates are going to be his likely running mates. On a national stage, Christie has the opposite issue. He can't be seen as too moderate by the base, so he's far more likely to nominate someone who can keep in the base loyal without alienating the moderates and centrists he'll need. He's smart enough to realize this and would likely pick someone who will play well to the right.

That said, I do have strong doubts that it would every be Paul. They seem to have very striking differences on foreign policy. After Paul made his filibuster about drones, Christie came out saying that libertarian views on foreign policy were dangerous. What I've heard from Christie makes me think he's a staunch neoconservative. I can't see him wanting a non-interventionist like Paul, nor can I see Paul being willing to go with Christie. But you never know. Politics do make strange bedfellows.
 
I do not like hearing that "newby" talk just because you have been on "this" forum for 8 years and were given moderator status and think that means that any new person to this forum's opinion doesn't matter against your's - if you really feel that way then perhaps don't welcome the idea of allowing new people in here.

I have no problem with new people and welcome them. However, I do have issue with anyone who tries to talk down to me through the presentation of their opinion as fact as you did with the "you do know" start and proceeding to claim there was "no way" Rand would be picked.

My comment in terms of your newness was based on your statement. I was suggesting that someone whose opinion I have learned to respect over a period of time interacting with them...be it on this forum, in real life, etc...could speak in the way you just did and proclaim their opinion as fact and I may give it some credence because they've shown a history of their opinions being solid and credible. I have no basis on which to weigh your opinion outside of this thread, because you're new. This isn't a slight on newness, but rather stating a fact in terms of the immediete information present to form an opinion.

Over time I may come to actually respect and put value in your opinion, and as such a comment like you made would not have such a negative response from me. HOWEVER, at this point in time, I have not had anywhere near sufficient interaction with you to garner such an opinion.

Hope that clears that portion up a bit.

I am not stereotypical (at least not entirely) but then again I'm not perfect. I have my beliefs that I feel very strongly about. People are required to stand up and fight for what they believe in - even if they disagree. You can disagree with me and I can still respect you. I can enjoy disagreements and debates - after that, that's what this forum is about, no?

Absolutely.

You may not be stereotypical in your views, however from this thread thus far you've seemed like a typical social tea partier. Nothing wrong with that, but at the same time it shades the things you say. Perhaps over time my perception may change, but that's all that I had seen from you up to the point where you talked down to me and threw my point based on opinion presented as fact.

Anyway - Reagan who was a conservative chose a moderate in 1980 (and again in 1984) - and in the lead up to the 1976 GOP National Convention - actually announced that if nominated, that a liberal Republican U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania named Richard Schweiker would have been his running mate - which likely hurt his chances there - but anyway, I do not normally see moderates picking conservative running mates.

Paul Ryan was widely heralded by the Tea Party prior to...well, pretty much the past few months...and was selected by Romney. Sarah Palin is still BELOVED by many of the socially conservative tea party supports and was chosen by McCain. George W. Bush was considered the "Conservative" option in that particular republican primary, so would not really fit the bill.

Both of the last two "moderate" Republicans nominees have selected individuals well liked and thought to be strongly conservative by the base at the time of the selections.

I don't think Christie is a good choice. He supports Gun Control & NSA Spying.

My take on the NSA spying is actually one that follows along a message George Bush had for the candidates in 2008. Paraphrased...be careful what promises you make now because you aren't seeing what I see yet. This type of thing has been carried on in some fashion under Presidents on both sides of the aisle and under congresses controlled fully by each part. Does it bother me? Yes, it does. However, I'm leery to take a strong stance on it because its the type of thing I simply recognize I can't possibly make a fully well informed decision on. It's also something that I think there's enough public problems with that it will continue to transition to a point that both serve our NatDef needs while being more reasonable towards privacy.

In terms of Gun Control, I agree with you...it's an area I'm nervous about towards Christie. That said, because his views are less in line with mainstream Republicans that would be in teh House and/or Senate I'm less worried about the impact of his views there. Though in research, it defintely seems a mixed bag. It's fair to call him moderate, but probably not fair to call him liberal. You don't find many folks liberal on gun control getting this kind of article written about them by the NRA (LINK). I by no means think Christie is a perfect candidate, he has his issues. But I think the most important things for us in this country right now is getting our fiscal house in order and stimulating the economy and I believe he has the skills and ideological mindset to do that.

Also, where we seem to split is in terms of electability. You seem to be more in the "Limbaugh Rule" camp...it's impossible to know the answer about electability, so vote for the most conservative and give it a go. I am more in the Buckley Rule" camp...I'm more in favor of getting the most conservative person (and particular, the most conservative on the issues I think are more important in a given election) that has a reasonable shot to win. Now, I'm probably a lot more lienent about reasonable shot than most Buckley Rule types....if it's a coin flip with a big conservative, and a sure thing with a moderate conservative, I don't mind the coin flip depending on the situation.

I also think that all elections aren't equal. Primarying out a moderate Republican in a House race right now is a gamble to take even if the more conservative Loses. Primarying out a moderate Republican in the Senate for a seat typically held by Democrats and where we're either unlikely to win or lose the Senate by "playing it safe" is a worth while gamble. Right now, I don't know if 2016 and 4 more years of a Democratic presidency is a worth while gambling point.

This was my issue with the government shutdown as well, and part of my issue with Cruz. I don't blame Republicans for going the shutdown route if they campaigned that they'd do everything in their power to stop Obamacare...they were trying to do what they were elected to do. HOWEVER, I think even going into that position was a stupid choice. Why? Because it's a poor gamble. It was like putting $1000 on a $13 on a routlette wheel...if you win, you win big, but the odds are MASSIVELY stacked against you. There was VERY little real chance that they were going to stop Obamacare with a shutdown and all the reasons in the world to believe that the population would in large part blame the republicans more than the Democrats for the shutdown. It was also a HORRIBLE move fiscally in the end, at a time when we're supposed to be worried about getting our fiscal house in order. It was a POOR gamble in the name of ideology that ended up with a result that not only didn't reach its intended result but ALSO did damage to things we'd ideologically care about.

I do'nt mind a little gamble in my Presidential elections...I have a significant issue with a big gamble. And an inexperienced Senator whose beloved by the base but is unpopular with pretty much everyone else and is the FACE of the shutdown which was wildly unpopular and unlikely to be completely forgotten in at least one swing state is someone, at this time, I'd consider a big gamble. There's time between now and 2016, but that's my view at the moment.
 
Back
Top Bottom