Skip to main content

Conservatives delusional about Ted Cruz

Want to know why the Republican Party has had so many problems during the past couple presidential elections? Their candidates are moving further and further to the right (either by their own volition or being forced in that direction), while this country is seemingly moving further and further to the left. Both John McCain and Mitt Romney were viewed as moderate Republicans heading into primary season, but were forced to appear further to the right on the political spectrum than they actually were to become the party's presidential nominee. This resulted in flip-flopping, and with that, trust issues when election season was officially underway. This played a factor in their eventually losing the elections. If they had run as the moderates they had always been viewed as before the primaries, they would have likely had much greater chances of appealing to a wider array of voters - independents, in particular. But moderate Republicans appear to be going the way of the Dodo bird - either being voted out of office or changing party affiliation.

All poll numbers show that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, so long as he held true to his beliefs during primary season, would give the Republican Party its best chance of winning the presidential election in 2016. However, would he be able to win over enough conservatives during the primaries to become the party's nominee? According to the new straw poll, that seems unlikely at this point.

The Family Research Council Action conducted a straw poll on who conservatives want to be the party's next presidential nominee and released these results:

1. Ted Cruz (Texas Senator): 42%

2. Ben Carson (Fox News contributor): 13%

3. Rick Santorum (former Pennsylvania Senator): 13%

4. Rand Paul (Kentucky Senator): 6%

5. Marco Rubio (Florida Senator): 5%

The vice presidential straw poll results looked like this:

1. Ben Carson: 21%

2. Ted Cruz: 17%

3. Michele Bachmann (Minnesota Congresswoman): 9%

Here's the problem with these results - none of these potential candidates have a very realistic shot of winning the presidency. The most likely of the bunch would be Rand Paul or Marco Rubio if they ran as someone's vice presidential pick.

According to the latest such Gallup poll, only 28% of people in this country hold a favorable view of the Republican Party (an all-time low for either party), while 62% hold an unfavorable view of the party. I would like to believe these kinds of horrific numbers would smack many Congressional Republicans in the face and make them realize some changes need to be made within the party if they're going to win another presidential election anytime soon. However, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Take conservatives' top selection for their 2016 presidential nominee, Ted Cruz, who finished with over three times the vote of the second-place Ben Carson. According to a new Gallup poll, only 62% of Americans know who Cruz is. Only 26% of people hold a favorable view of him, while 36% hold an unfavorable view of the Texas Senator. Not only that, but 74% of Americans don't like how Congressional Republicans have handled the shutdown - of which Ted Cruz is seen by many as the architect. The longer the shutdown continues, the more Ted Cruz's name will pop up, and the more people will dislike him.

I read an article the other day by a conservative columnist. He said that Ted Cruz is a shoo-in to become president one day. I suppose, looking at the poll numbers I've posted (and others), if elections played out like the game of golf and the low score won, the columnist may have a point. Since elections don't work that way, however, I have a feeling this writer is smoking something that is not only damaging to his own health, but to the health of all his readers as well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/10/12/cruz-wins-key-conservative-straw-poll/

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/360950/poll-cruz-increasingly-unpopular-katrina-trinko

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"