Friday, February 12, 2016

To Any Discerning Christian, this Trump Quote Says Volumes About His ‘Faith’

Whether or not Donald Trump is a repentant born-again Christian is between him and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I won’t even attempt to judge him since it’s not my place. However, when deciding who to vote for in the coming election, it’s important to take faith into account. We’ve seen what happens when we keep faith out of the White House as we have for the last seven years.

Personally, I read the Bible daily. I pray regularly. I write about faith and attempt to answer questions of people who are interested in learning about Christianity. I know with certainty that I am not a “great Christian.” I am a sinner who doesn’t deserve the Salvation that is granted through Grace. Any discerning Christian knows that nobody is a “great Christian.” None of us are good, let alone great. Trump has demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding about the faith he claims to hold.

There are Christians who choose to vote without applying faith into their decision and that’s perfectly fine, albeit not advisable considering how the country has fallen through seven years of a President who does not possess a Biblical worldview. However, it’s ridiculous for any evangelical to say that they are voting for Trump based upon his alleged faith and his ability to defend out religious rights.

I attempted to listen to the speech so I could find the exact point that he makes the statement about being a great Christian, but I couldn’t sit through it. I’ll leave it at the bottom so anyone who wants to check for the quote can listen, though I don’t recommend it. If you can trust ABC News, they quoted him saying it as well.

I’ll also leave a couple of other videos that I do recommend watching simply because they will do a better job at pointing out the fallacies of Trump’s alleged faith.

via Soshable

Marco Rubio Is Not The Most Electable Candidate

I consider Erick Erickson to be one of the least appreciated conservative commentators out there. He is a smart and disciplined Christian conservative who holds the improved prosperity of Americans in the highest regard. I rarely disagree completely with him. This time, I do.

His article, Marco Rubio As The Most Electable Candidate, makes a declaration rather than making a case. Nothing wrong with that; in-depth articles detailing evidence that supports a premise are less valid in today’s drive-by digital media consuming society. It’s better to get in, get out, and make a statement since fewer people today are willing to read long articles or watch long videos. To keep it fair, I’ll attempt to do the same thing. I could go into great detail about why I think Rubio is the third most electable rather than the most. Erickson could do the same with a long piece supporting Rubio as the most electable.

It should be noted that I support Ted Cruz first with Rubio a distant second… but second nonetheless. Erickson, who has stated that he won’t endorse a single candidate, likes both of them. He’s friends with both of them. That gives his insight a lot more direct influence. I fear, though, that it also adds a personal haze to his discernment.

Let’s begin.

Rubio is Not the Most Electable This Year

In any standard Presidential campaign cycle, Marco Rubio would clearly be the easiest choice for the Republicans looking for the most electable candidate. If he had been 44-years-old with five years in the Senate under his built in 2008, he would have been a better choice than John McCain and we probably wouldn’t be suffering through the Obama administration right now. The same can be said about 2012. In fact, if you could transpose his current self back to any of the previous five elections, he would have been the likely GOP nominee. He would have done better than Bob Dole in 1996. He would have probably defeated George W. Bush in 2000… you get the picture.

Rubio is a great candidate. He’s the right mix of evangelical fervor, conservative values, and the occasional willingness to get his hands dirty with the Democrats a la Gang of Eight.

Here’s the problem with 2016. He would likely beat Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, but he would have a harder time than Cruz. The reason is in the matchups themselves. He shares weaknesses with the Democrats that Cruz does not share. He still has contrasts, but not nearly as many. For example, one of the digs against Clinton is that she hasn’t been able to accomplish much as a politician. Every Republican candidate has more accomplishments in their lives than Hillary Clinton except for Rubio. Chris Christie pointed this out in the last debate, but it was obviously overshadowed by the RoboRubio exchange. In the general election against Hillary Clinton, she’ll be able to point to more accomplishments in her time in the Senate than Rubio has had in his time. His most notable moment in the Senate was the Gang of Eight bill. When someone is running away from their landmark achievement in government, we have a problem.

Against Sanders, Rubio matches up a little better. An argument can be made that Sanders represents an ideological extreme while Rubio plays better to the masses, but this argument fails to understand the way that Independents vote in the general election. If you were to look at the campaign platforms of every winning President since 1968, George H. W. Bush was the only one who ran on a less-extreme platform than his competitor (and one can argue that his victory was really a mandate for a third Reagan term). Every winning Democrat has run on a platform that was more liberal than his competitor’s platform was conservative. Every Republican winner other than GHWB has run on a more conservative platform. Independents are not necessarily moderates. Many (most?) are simply wanting to be inspired to follow one direction or the other in any given year. Polarizing platforms win general elections.

Perhaps most damaging for Rubio against Sanders is that one of Rubio’s strengths – his appeal to young voters – is all but negated going head-to-head with Sanders.

There’s another ding against Rubio that plays against him matching up against either Democrat. His history of personal finance irresponsibility will be put on wide display in a general election matchup. Sanders is offering free school and will say that, “Not every student will get a book advance of $800,000 to pay off student debts and buy a 24-foot speedboat.” Clinton will be able to wash away her own scandals by pointing out that “Rubio used government credit cards to pave his driveway and go to a family reunion.”

In a sound bite society, their talking points will play well with the electorate. Cruz, on the other hand, will have an unwavering history of conservatism to counteract Sanders’ socialism and a proven record of incorruptability to match up against Clinton’s lifetime of scandal and deceit.

Rubio would have been better than Cruz against Barack Obama, John Kerry, Al Gore, or Bill Clinton. Against either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, Cruz is better suited to take them on because he matches up in ways that Rubio simply doesn’t.

via Soshable

Thursday, February 11, 2016

Trump’s proposed budget increases make his tax plan ludicrous

There’s a major contradiction between Donald Trump’s love for bigger government and his tax plan. He’s proposing infrastructure, defense, and immigration cost increases that require Clintonesque increases in tax revenues, but his tax plan calls for a $9.5 trillion reduction in those revenues.

In other words, he plans on spending much more while bringing in much less. It’s mathematically impossible for the two plans to coexist.

This represents the biggest problem with the populist movement that Trump embraces. He promises the best of both worlds because he knows that the average American voter will never look at the actual numbers behind his proposals. This cannot be stressed enough: neither Trump nor any human being alive can improve the economy quickly enough or substantially enough to make his tax plan and his spending plans reconcile. To put it into perspective, he would need to triple the export revenue across the board within his first six months in office and somehow sustain it throughout his first term in order to make his plans work together. This is, of course, impossible considering that export revenues move up by small percentage points annually. Instead of the average 4.2% increase in annual export revenue, Trump’s plan would require over a 300% increase in the first six months.

Since most Americans won’t dive into the numbers, let’s look at a sports analogy. Say that the United States is an NBA team. The players are the economic factors that influence revenues such as trade deficits, oil prices, the stock market, etc. For his plan to work, he will need all of his “players” to average 30 points, 10 rebounds, and 10 assists per game while keeping the other teams scoring at half their average. Why? Because his tax plan reduces revenues so dramatically that we are starting each game with a 40-point handicap. In other words, at tipoff the score is 0-40. Then, achieve his plans, his NBA team would have to win every single game throughout the season. A single loss would be catastrophic and the economy would collapse.

I know it’s a clumsy analogy but the point is to highlight the impossibility of what Trump is proposing. As the Tax Policy Center noted in their analysis of his plan, the tax portion would encourage growth but that growth would be offset unless its accompanied by “very large spending cuts.” Otherwise, the national debt would rise faster than it has under the Obama administration and every ounce of economic stability that we’ve been able to precariously maintain since the recession would be abolished.

He has to make major cuts but his proposals on the other side of the fence speak of big government and increased spending. He wouldn’t just need to get Mexico to build his wall. For his proposals to reconcile with his tax plan, he’d need Mexico to pay for the wall, roads, dams, bridges, Social Security, Medicare, and a good chunk of the US military.

It’s just not possible.

His supporters will say, “he’s rich and a winner and he knows better than everyone else how to run a business and make America great again.” They don’t realize two things: (1) He’s rich because he was born into an empire and did a good job of maintaining it, and (2) The country’s economic structure is exponentially more complex than building a real estate company and a reality TV show.

The post Trump’s proposed budget increases make his tax plan ludicrous appeared first on We Heart World.

via We Heart World

Did New Hampshire Reset the Race for Jeb Bush? Probably Not.

Following his fourth place finish in New Hampshire, Jeb Bush’s Presidential campaign was upbeat. They had a reason to be. They beat their nemesis, Marco Rubio, by several hundred votes. It’s not much, but it’s something.

Now, the campaign is calling this a “reset” of the political atmosphere surrounding the race. This, it is not. Nothing has changed for Bush. It changed for Rubio who now has to scramble to save face and reinsert himself as the Republican Establishment choice. It changed for John Kasich who has been vindicated as a potential player in a race that seemed to be passing him by the week before. It changed for Ted Cruz who is now positioning himself as the only viable alternative to Donald Trump. It changed for Trump who now has big momentum and will try to steamroll over the field.

For Bush, nothing changed. He’s still the disappointingly weak candidate that had the nomination in the bag a year ago before he even announced his intention to run. Nothing has changed with the sentiment surrounding his campaign. Nothing has changed with his goals. He still needs to notch a big win – either 1st or second – in South Carolina and/or Nevada or his campaign will not survive through March. It might not survive into March if he finishes low in South Carolina and Nevada.

Here’s the fiction:

Here’s the reality: Jeb Bush is pretty much done. Everyone seems to know it but him. George W. Bush campaigning for him in South Carolina isn’t going to change anything for him.

The post Did New Hampshire Reset the Race for Jeb Bush? Probably Not. appeared first on Conservative Haven.

via Conservative Haven

Before He Could Use Them as Political Props, Trump Gave More to Hillary Clinton than Veterans

With all of his yuge billions in the bank that he brags about, it’s noteworthy that Donald Trump’s foundation had donated $57,000 to veterans before his Presidential run. Compare that to the $100,000 he gave to Hillary Clinton’s foundation in 2009 alone and we can see where Trump’s heart really was before he ran for President.

Of course, now the draft-dodger is all about the veterans. He loves the veterans so much that he’ll skip debates and raise money for them. He’ll even offer them money to stand as props at his campaign events.

My father and step-father were veterans. My mother is a veteran. Had my heart not given out when I was in boot camp, I would be a veteran. It infuriates me that Donald Trump’s sudden interest in veterans echoes with complete insincerity, yet so many past and present military and their families still support him. That infuriates me the most to the point that I really can’t even write this article. In lieu of finishing about this important topic, I’ll leave the links that will allow you to do your own research and come to your own conclusions.

It’s not just veterans, though. Despite being very rich, he may very well be the least charitable billionaire in the United States, literally.

Why do veterans and active duty military support this draft-dodger? Before he could use them as political pawns, he had no interest in them. It makes zero sense for a man who has shown contempt towards the US military throughout his life to be elevated to Commander-in-Chief.

via Soshable

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Of All the Years for Trump to Run, Why Do it When the Democrats are So Weak?

Since 1996, every Republican nominee for President (yes, even George W. Bush) has been weak. Any of those years, we could have used Donald Trump. He’s the wildcard who could have had a chance against (misleadingly) strong Democratic nominees like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. I would have supported him. This year, we have the strongest group of Republican candidates, any of whom (yes, even Jeb Bush) would have been better than Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Bob Dole.

On the other side of the fence, we have the weakest Democrats running for President. Hillary Clinton has a distinct history of corruption and Bernie Sanders is a crazy socialist. A strong candidate like Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, or Marco Rubio would beat them easily. Even Bush or John Kasich would likely win.

Why are so many Republicans going for the wildcard in the one election where we don’t have to take our chances? I get it. Donald Trump has a great sales pitch and he’s extremely likable with his sound bites. However, he also represents the best chance the Democrats have of pulling off the miracle they need in order to put another Democrat in the White House for four more years.

This image tells of my frustration with the Republican party. We are finally given the opportunity to nominate a real Reagan-conservative and we’re going to counter one of two weak Democrats with the wildcard Republican/Democrat/Businessman/Entertainer hybrid. Makes no sense at all.

The visual nature of social media means that from time to time we will be sharing messages that should resonate for our audience. To see more of them, which are great for sharing on social media, simply click on the Messages category.

via Soshable

Dispelling the fiction that the Democrats fear Donald Trump

Donald Trump Media

Here’s a sad truth about American politics: if you want to see who the left really hates and fears, all you have to do is check mainstream media. Their puppeteers at the DNC and the moderate Republican Establishment tell them exactly who they want helped and who they want destroyed.

Perhaps the easiest place to see this in full form is to do searches for the candidates by name on Google News. The system is allegedly operated solely by algorithm and scans the most popular mainstream and semi-fringe news sites on the internet. Then, it orders the stories based on prominence, time decay, and clicks. It sounds pretty simple, but it’s actually a very sound system, assuming you’re not a conspiracy theorist who believes that Google News is manually edited for political reasons. Either way, it tells us where the narratives are being steered.

The general consensus among Donald Trump’s supporters is that the Democrats and therefore their mainstream media lapdogs are fearful of him. This is actually the exact opposite of reality. Mainstream media, through their own biases as well as the guidance they’re given by the power brokers, are giving Donald Trump a free pass on nearly everything. They’ll report the news, of course, but their general spin is neutral. As strange as it sounds, neutral is good in politics. An unbiased report that doesn’t go into the positives or negatives associated with a piece of news allows the readers or viewers to make their own assessment. This favors Trump.

What you won’t find are mainstream media talking heads bashing Trump. Before anyone starts to make the ignorant argument that Fox News is against him, look at what actually transpired without listening to Trump’s spin on it. The initial question that Megyn Kelly asked him at the first Fox News debate wasn’t unfair at all. It was very legitimate to ask him about his misogynistic history and he would address it with the Democrats if he’s the nominee since at the time it appeared that Hillary Clinton was the most likely Democratic candidate. PLEASE rewatch the question itself. If you’re discerning, you’ll realize that it was far from being in the same realm as “unfair” or off limits in a Presidential debate. If you watch it and think that it’s unfair, you clearly want your President to be someone who needs to be protected from the harshness of the world. If he can’t take Megyn Kelly, how in the world will he handle Recep Tayyip Erdo─čan or Vladimir Putin?

Now, let’s take a look at Google News from today. Here’s an unedited snippet of the stories found with a search for “Donald Trump”:

Donald Trump News

Pretty neutral. All of it seems to be newsworthy. There are a few inflammatory headlines, but the stories themselves turn out to be relatively Trump-neutral or even Trump-supportive.

Now, let’s compare that to Democrat Bernie Sanders:

Bernie Sanders News

Once again, some good, some bad, mostly neutral. When you look at almost all of these stories, even some of the Sanders-negative stories have positive spins to them.

So far, so good. Pretty consistent, right? It gets weird from here. Let’s look at Ted Cruz, this time with convenient notes so you can see the difference.

Ted Cruz News

I didn’t notate the last four because it would have been too many lines to maintain sanity. As you can see, the DNC and the Republican Establishment that guide the headlines and narratives of mainstream media have an extreme hatred towards Ted Cruz. One cannot look at this and have an ounce of reasonable doubt that they are in the midst of a concerted effort to remove him from his perch as one of the two Republican frontrunners.

It’s utterly blatant. They don’t attempt to disguise their viciousness towards him. Read those headlines, compare them to Trump’s, and ask yourself who the Democrats REALLY fear.

In case you think that it’s a case of the media just having anti-DC sentiment, let’s look at Mr. Establishment himself, Jeb Bush.

Jeb Bush News

Clearly, it’s more negative than the news for Trump or Kasich, but it’s not personal. It’s mocking, but it’s not a visceral series of attacks like they offer for Cruz.

If the liberal mainstream media wanted to take down Trump, they would roll out investigative reports and interviews with women, minorities, former business partners, and others who would paint Trump as evil. They won’t… until he gets the nomination. If that happens, they will unleash hell and put another Democrat in the White House.

The post Dispelling the fiction that the Democrats fear Donald Trump appeared first on Uberly.

via Uberly

New Hampshire Results from Top to Bottom Were IDEAL for Ted Cruz

Winning Iowa was somewhat of a bust for Ted Cruz based upon the media’s radio-silence and the Ben Carson campaign quitting controversy. The order in which the candidates finished in New Hampshire played out better than the Cruz campaign could have hoped. Funny how his 3rd place finish will work out better for him than when he finished first a week earlier.

To understand this, we have to understand the dynamic of the upcoming primary season. Momentum is everything and expectations versus results determine momentum. There are other factors such as prevalence in the news cycle and focus of attacks from other campaigns, but heading into South Carolina, those in the know realize that Cruz is best positioned to win it all. Here’s why…

The Three Lanes

Contrary to popular pundit belief, the Republican Establishment is not prepared to embrace the malleable Donald Trump. Just because they believe he is willing to make deals doesn’t dispel their notion that he would get crushed in the general election. They shifted to say nice things about him and even promote him in Iowa for one reason and one reason only: they wanted to get Cruz out of the way to make room for one of their guys to be the Trump alternative. It didn’t work. Cruz won. While they haven’t abandoned the need to move Cruz out of the way, they have bigger issues to deal with that we’ll get to shortly.

First, we have to assume that this year there are three lanes instead of two. There is the conservative lane with Cruz as the only contender there (though Trump and Marco Rubio can still pull many of those voters). There’s the anti-establishment lane with Trump as the only contender there (though Cruz and Carson can still play a bit in that lane). Then, there’s everyone else in the moderate Establishment lane.

The Establishment lane will attempt to take Trump down before the primaries turn to winner-take-all on March 15, but to do that they need to take out Cruz. To take out Cruz, they’ll first have to address their bigger issue…

The Muddled Middle

In past years, the problem has been reversed. The conservative lane has had a plethora of choices battling for a smaller chunk of voters and campaign funds while the Establishment lane coalesced early on a single candidate that could get love from the bigger donor base.

Now, they have a mess. Marco Rubio is in their lane. Jeb Bush and John Kasich are in their lane. Chris Christie may or may not be in their lane (as of the time of this writing he hasn’t dropped out, yet). Assuming Christie is out, that still leaves three candidates who each have enough people in their camp and enough strong points to make them viable for the lane. Kasich has New Hampshire momentum and Ohio on March 15, but he’s almost out of money. Bush has money but failed to crack the top three in Iowa or New Hampshire. Rubio has the charisma and some money but his momentum is currently negative.

Rubio looked like he would emerge from Iowa, but he fell flat on his face in New Hampshire.

Now that we understand the situation, let’s look at why the order was perfect for Cruz.

The Ultimate Cruz Top Five List in New Hampshire

Before anyone claims that he would have had to win it for it to be an ideal placement, we have to understand that there was pretty much no chance of him winning even under the best possible circumstances. He knew that going in. That’s why his campaign and his super PACs combined to spend $580,000 in New Hampshire. To put that into perspective, Rand Paul and Lindsey Graham spent more in the state and they dropped out. Everyone that placed below him combined to spend over $70 million in the state. Rubio alone, who finished 5th, outspent him nearly 30:1.

Then, there’s Trump. He outspent Cruz but not by much ($3.6 million), but more importantly the way that Independents are allowed to vote in the Republican primary and the fact that many in New Hampshire vote opposite of their actual party to “craft” their opponent in November made Trump’s victory a foregone conclusion. The venerable FiveThirtyEight put him at a 70% chance of winning, but in reality it was well over 95%.

Now, let’s look at the overall order so we can see why it favors Cruz so dramatically.

  1. Donald Trump: If anyone thought that Trump’s campaign wasn’t truly viable long term, they now know that it’s serious. His domination in New Hampshire will wake up many Republicans who do not support him to seek out the best option to beat him. That person is now Ted Cruz. Perhaps more importantly, it’s likely that some of the power brokers in the Republican Establishment will realize that they’re not going to get one of their guys in there, so they’ll have to choose between Trump or Cruz. As annoyed as they are with Cruz, many will realize that Trump is the existential threat to the Republican party itself if he gets nominated and summarily destroyed by the Democrats.
  2. John Kasich: Considering all of the money that was spent in New Hampshire by the Establishment candidates, Cruz couldn’t have picked a better person to finish second. It can be argued that this is a better result than had Cruz himself finished second. There’s a single delegate difference, but because Kasich beat his Establishment competitors by two spots rather than coming in third, he’s going to get more attention in the coming days. Cruz wants Kasich to have that attention because he’s the weakest of the Establishment candidates; Kasich and his super PACs have spent 89.1% of their money to get second in New Hampshire and acquire their 3 delegates. Kasich now has under $3 million cash on hand, less than Carly Fiorina or Ben Carson. He’s not built for the long haul, but placing second will keep him in the race longer than Cruz could have hoped.
  3. Ted Cruz: He over-performed. He wasn’t supposed to be third considering how little he spent and how much everyone else spent. As a result, he can’t be relegated to the status of Rick Santorum or Mike Huckabee, candidates who won Iowa but bombed in New Hampshire. He’ll take third as a victory and rightfully so.
  4. Jeb Bush: It was extremely important for Bush (and Cruz) that he finish ahead of Rubio. This perpetuates the suspension of disbelief that he needs to continue to retain the limited support he has.
  5. Marco Rubio: Had Rubio beaten Bush, Cruz, or Kasich, he would still be the Establishment’s best hope. Even a fourth place finish could have been chalked up as a temporary setback from his debate performance, one that he could bounce back from with a strong South Carolina debate and his powerful endorsements in the state. Now, the doubts will linger. All eyes will be on him for the next debate. He can’t have a good one. He needs an incredible debate to bounce back and reclaim his Establishment mantle.

Ted Cruz is well positioned going into South Carolina to take the lead in winning the nomination. He has a fight ahead of him, but the way that the New Hampshire primary shook out made it easier for him to focus on one target: Donald Trump.

The post New Hampshire Results from Top to Bottom Were IDEAL for Ted Cruz appeared first on Conservative Haven.

via Conservative Haven

The Five Candidates Cruz Beat Spent $72.1 Million in New Hampshire. Cruz Spent $580K.

There’s a reason Ted Cruz didn’t spend a lot of money in New Hampshire. It wasn’t because he had given up on him having an impact there even though most in the media had. It wasn’t because he didn’t think that the vote was an important one. It was because he’s smart enough to hold back when others are going all in. In essence, Ted Cruz let them burn through their cash while he looked at the long game.

To place an unexpected third in New Hampshire, Ted Cruz and his super PACs combined to spend $580,000. This is less than Rand Paul or Lindsey Graham spent before dropping out. It’s less than Carly Fiorina spent on a state where she expected to get less than 5% of the vote. It’s even less than Donald Trump spent… much less. His $3.7 million on top of constant free media coverage meant that Trump was in every household multiple times in the week leading up to the primary.

John Kasich, the other candidate who beat Cruz by placing second, did so by spending over 20x as much. It was a strong night for Kasich who wasn’t a blip on the radar in Iowa, but it also cost him the rest of the campaign barring a miracle; it took $12.1 million to get him second in New Hampshire, leaving him with less than $3 million cash on hand. Unless he can turn this second place finish into an unprecedented fundraising run, his campaign won’t have enough cash to survive into March. Pundits will paint his finish as a strong play for him, but he really needed to finish 1st to justify using nearly 80% of his campaign funds to earn three delegates.

Meanwhile, Cruz has the most cash on hand and the second most super PAC money. As the other candidates proved in New Hampshire, cash isn’t everything. Jeb Bush, who finished fourth, spent $36.1 million. Marco Rubio outspent Cruz nearly 30:1 in New Hampshire to finish fifth. Chris Christie, who will likely drop out, spent even more than Rubio to finish sixth.

All of this points to two possibilities for the race ahead. Trump and Cruz are leading and have a victory notched on their belt, but perhaps more importantly the primaries and caucuses in the next month favor them to remain on top. This means that the Establishment can embrace Cruz as the only candidate that can defeat Trump or they can try to sort through their mess and unite behind one of the Establishment candidates. Rubio was supposed to be that unifying force, but his failure at the New Hampshire debate and the subsequent primary make him harder for them to back. Bush still has money but doesn’t seem to be able to muster any real momentum. Kasich is nearly broke. Christie is going to drop out.

The Establishment has no valid choice.

They could get behind Trump as they started to do before Iowa, but that was a play to clear out Cruz and make room for one of their candidates. Since it didn’t work in Iowa and following their abysmal night in New Hampshire, their choices are limited. As I wrote on a sister site, their only viable option is to reluctantly get behind Cruz rather than suffering the existential threat of a Trump nomination.

Things haven’t looked this bleak for the Republican Establishment since the New Hampshire primary of 1980. Of course, their loss was America’s gain since it gave us President Ronald Reagan. Perhaps we’ll see the same type of principled conservative win the White House once again 36 years later.

via Soshable

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

It’s time for Republicans to unite behind Ted Cruz before we get stuck with Donald Trump

Conventional thinking dictates that this early in the race, it’s still anyone’s ballgame. Looking at the election flow, campaign statuses, primary matchups, and voter sentiment, the GOP is already faced with a two-man race.

Before going into detail about why Ted Cruz is the only candidate with a real chance of defeating Donald Trump, let’s look at the other candidates to understand their current and future situations.

Marco Rubio had his chance with a strong third place finish in Iowa but fell to a dismal fifth in New Hampshire. The “RoboRubio” concept is going to stick with him through the remainder of the campaign.

John Kasich spent six times more money in New Hampshire than he has remaining in the bank. With under $3 million cash on hand (less than Carly Fiorina or Ben Carson), he will need a massive influx of dollars in the next two weeks just to stay afloat until Ohio in five weeks. Barring fundraising numbers higher in the next two weeks than he’s had in the past six months combined, that’s not going to happen.

Jeb Bush and his super PACs have spent nearly as much as all of the other campaigns combined. The fact that he has a lot of cash on hand (though less than Cruz) and the presence of his super PACs will not be enough to overcome his personality challenges with the electorate. You know it’s bad when his biggest claim to fame so far is that he beat Rubio in New Hampshire by placing fourth.

Chris Christie will likely be out of the race by the time you read this. Despite claims otherwise, Carly Fiorina is in the middle of a job interview for VP, a cabinet position, or a cozy ambassadorship. Ben Carson is preparing for post-campaign life by building up a massive contacts and email list to fuel his future endeavors in case he’s not picked to be a VP or Surgeon General.

This leaves Cruz and Trump.

Cruz Would Win the General Election

The first notion that needs to be dispelled is the idea Ted Cruz couldn’t win the general election. These rumors have been tied to concepts that he’s unlikable, too polarizing, not malleable, and too detached from the Republican Establishment. Those who are old enough to remember may recognize these exact complaints about another candidate that was deemed likely to ruin the party: Ronald Reagan in 1980. In fact, some of the same players attacking Reagan back then such as Bob Dole and President Bush are saying the exact same things about Cruz today.

He has the ethical fortitude, strong moral values, and a history of keeping promises that run in stark contrast to Hillary Clinton. Her reputation of poor ethics makes Cruz the ideal candidate against her. If it turns out that Bernie Sanders is the nominee, Cruz is the ideological opposite of the socialist Democrat. Again, Cruz is the ideal foil to his liberal antics.

To those who have somehow fallen for the idea that moderates win general elections, it should be noted that the Democrats learned this wasn’t the case two elections ago while the Republicans still promote the concept. If you look at every election since the 1970s, the winner is almost always the one who runs the furthest to the right or left. Barack Obama was further to the left than Mitt Romney or John McCain were to the right. George W. Bush ran a campaign that was further to the right (though he turned out to not be a fiscal conservative) than John Kerry or Al Gore ran to the left. Bill Clinton was more extreme than Bob Dole or George H. W. Bush. The one exception to this rule is the elder Bush who beat a more extreme Michael Dukakis, but this had less to do with his stances than the idea of a third Reagan term.

As far as beating Donald Trump, Cruz needs Republicans to comprehend the apocalyptic demise of the GOP if Trump is the nominee. Today, the media is taking it easy on Trump. Mainstream media is the left-wing PR team for the Democrats. They have plenty of “juice” they’ll be able to use against Trump, but they dare not unveil any of it until he has secured the nomination. Once he does, they will unleash hell. They will roll out investigative reports that paint Trump as a dirty, greedy tyrant. They will run interview after interview with women, minorities, former business partners, and anyone else who hates him and who will make him seem like evil incarnate. If he gets the nomination, they will make the attacks against Romney in 2012 or Bush in 2004 seem like firecrackers compared to the napalm they’ll drop on Trump.

From the mainstream media’s perspective, Trump is their only hope of getting a sleazy politician like Clinton or an insane socialist like Sanders into the White House. That’s their ultimate goal. That’s why they’re barely scratching Trump’s surface. They hate him, but they’re saving their big guns for the general election.

Cruz vs Trump for the Nomination

Looking at the primary and caucus schedule, Cruz is the only candidate who has a chance of taking down Trump. Rubio had a chance, but there’s a reason why no GOP candidate in decades has lost Iowa and New Hampshire only to come back and win the nomination. Rubio needed the momentum in Iowa to carry over to a first or second place finish in New Hampshire so he could win or come in second in South Carolina. That’s not going to happen anymore.

Cruz has a much more clear path. If he does well in South Carolina and Nevada, he can take the lead during the “SEC Primaries” on March 1. They include Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and other states that would favor Cruz if he has support from the other candidates’ supporters. The other candidates have no chance of winning in most of these states, which means that continuing to support them is essentially handing them to Trump.

If Trump isn’t stopped on March 1, he’s pretty much guaranteed the nomination. The only person who has a chance of stopping him is Ted Cruz. With the support of Republicans who currently prefer other candidates, Cruz’s chance of stopping Trump becomes a likelihood.

If Republicans don’t unite behind Ted Cruz, Donald Trump will be the GOP nominee and either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders WILL win the White House. The other candidates simply do not have what it takes to defeat him. Only Cruz has the principles, infrastructure, ground game, and cash on hand to defeat Trump and return the Presidency to the Republicans.

The post It’s time for Republicans to unite behind Ted Cruz before we get stuck with Donald Trump appeared first on We Heart World.

via We Heart World