DON'T ASSUME A REPUBLICAN WIN - Moody’s model gives Dem candidate advantage in 2016

[HAPPY2BME]

I heard that same argument when Cruz decided to run against one of the most well known, and fabulously wealthy, politicians  around for the senate seat he now holds!  I would NEVER underestimate  him!

================================

Don't underestimate Cruz, but don't OVERestimate that he can possibly bring in enough swing votes to become POTUS.

The Grand Canyon may be wider than you think.

[Mod1]

I agree with you, Once-ler.  Hopefully the mods will edit that unnecessary slur out of the thread.  I thought that we got beyond this kind of juvenile nonsense some time ago, apparently not.

Can't be everywhere at once.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Yes! And the truth is that Ted Cruz is no Bush! 

True.  But what about O'Connor and Kennedy?  Does that mean Ted Cruz is no Reagan!?

The appointments to the Supreme Court are always a roll of the dice--and no one knows how the seat on the bench will actually affect their votes over the years.  But I do think Trump will be very open to another Scalia, if one can be found--and remember--the Democrats will fight this appointment with everything they've got.  Trump will be the one best suited to successfully win that fight.

[Bigun]

True.  But what about O'Connor and Kennedy?  Does that mean Ted Cruz is no Reagan!?

The appointments to the Supreme Court are always a roll of the dice--and no one knows how the seat on the bench will actually affect their votes over the years.  But I do think Trump will be very open to another Scalia, if one can be found--and remember--the Democrats will fight this appointment with everything they've got.  Trump will be the one best suited to successfully win that fight.

That's right! He IS no Reagan but HE is more uniquely qualified to make the next three SCOTUS appointments than ANY president in living memory has been!

Think about what he has done in his lifetime and the fact that HE won't have to rely on the advice of others to make those picks because he KNOWS them already!!
 

[Right_in_Virginia]

That's right! He IS no Reagan but HE is more uniquely qualified to make the next three SCOTUS appointments than ANY president in living memory has been!

Think about what he has done in his lifetime and the fact that HE won't have to rely on the advice of others to make those picks because he KNOWS them already!! 

Projection! Bigun!  With a dollop of wishful thinking!  IMHO!!

[jmyrlefuller]

True.  But what about O'Connor and Kennedy?  Does that mean Ted Cruz is no Reagan!?

The appointments to the Supreme Court are always a roll of the dice--and no one knows how the seat on the bench will actually affect their votes over the years.  But I do think Trump will be very open to another Scalia, if one can be found--and remember--the Democrats will fight this appointment with everything they've got.  Trump will be the one best suited to successfully win that fight.

Well, let's look at O'Connor and Kennedy. I can't really speak for O'Connor, but Kennedy's view of the world is more libertarian, but solidly so. Both were better than Souter and Stevens, both "establishment" appointees who voted solidly liberal—not to mention another infamous Republican nominee of years gone by, Earl Warren! Also remember that if Reagan had had his way, Robert Bork would've made it onto the Court.

There is a strong correlation: we had to pressure GWB to drop his appointment of Harriet Miers and pick Samuel Alito instead. We all know Roberts's treachery, and we all know (see Jeb's epic failure as a candidate) that Bush's brand of conservatism has no resemblance to the one we're looking for today. Generally, the more conservative the President, the more conservative the judicial nominees.

[HAPPY2BME]

That's right! He IS no Reagan but HE is more uniquely qualified to make the next three SCOTUS appointments than ANY president in living memory has been!

Think about what he has done in his lifetime and the fact that HE won't have to rely on the advice of others to make those picks because he KNOWS them already!!

===========================================

I really hate to pop your bubble, but Ted Cruz is not electable, even if he gets the nomination.

What you are completely assuming is that there are enough Republicans to elect him.  Hate to be the one to tell you this, but there are not.

Thanks to the massive, and completely intentionally designed social engineering of both the Democrats AND the Republicans, the voting demographics have now shifted towards the Left.  The injection of a minimum of TEN MILLION ILLEGAL ALIENS from Mexico who are now eligible to vote in national elections (THANKS TO THE RECENT VOTER ID RULINGS OF THE USSC) leave this coming election completely wide open, and quite significantly influenced by the very same illegal alien voters WE REPUBLICANS have been warning YOU REPUBLICANS about now for over twenty years.

It is here, and there is not one damned thing you or any other 'Republican' can do about it. 

Now the GOOD part about that is that either Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio are the ONLY ones THEY will vote for.  The bad part about THAT is that there are not enough illegal alien voters to get either Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio over the election hump.

That brings us back to the man you despise, which is Donald Trump.

You and the Republicans like you are in the 'Catch-22' of your lives.

[libertybele]

That's right! He IS no Reagan but HE is more uniquely qualified to make the next three SCOTUS appointments than ANY president in living memory has been!

Think about what he has done in his lifetime and the fact that HE won't have to rely on the advice of others to make those picks because he KNOWS them already!!

Exactly.  That is as plain as day and wanting Cruz to seat the next justices is a no-brainer!

[libertybele]

===========================================

I really hate to pop your bubble, but Ted Cruz is not electable, even if he gets the nomination.

What you are completely assuming is that there are enough Republicans to elect him.  Hate to be the one to tell you this, but there are not.

Thanks to the massive, and completely intentionally designed social engineering of both the Democrats AND the Republicans, the voting demographics have now shifted towards the Left.  The injection of a minimum of TEN MILLION ILLEGAL ALIENS from Mexico who are now eligible to vote in national elections (THANKS TO THE RECENT VOTER ID RULINGS OF THE USSC) leave this coming election completely wide open, and quite significantly influenced by the very same illegal alien voters WE REPUBLICANS have been warning YOU REPUBLICANS about now for over twenty years.

It is here, and there is not one damned thing you or any other 'Republican' can do about it. 

Now the GOOD part about that is that either Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio are the ONLY ones THEY will vote for.  The bad part about THAT is that there are not enough illegal alien voters to get either Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio over the election hump.

That brings us back to the man you despise, which is Donald Trump.

You and the Republicans like you are in the 'Catch-22' of your lives.

If you say so...still picturing the ostrich with it's head in the sand.   

[ABX]

Regarding the original post, I think the big buzz today about Bloomberg jumping in as an Independent 'no labels' candidate may change the entire paradigm of this race drastically.

[HAPPY2BME]

If you say so...still picturing the ostrich with it's head in the sand.   

==============================

You had your head in the sand when Romney was up against Obama.

You've got your head STILL in the sand if you think Cruz can carry the swing vote, which is the ONLY way any Republican can win.

[libertybele]

Regarding the original post, I think the big buzz today about Bloomberg jumping in as an Independent 'no labels' candidate may change the entire paradigm of this race drastically.

Interesting ... Billionaire Trump v. Billionaire Bloomberg.  I thought it would be too late for anyone to still jump into the race, but according to the article; " He has set a deadline for making a final decision in early March, the latest point at which advisers believe Mr. Bloomberg could enter the race and still qualify to appear as an independent candidate on the ballot in all 50 states."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/nyregion/bloomberg-sensing-an-opening-revisits-a-potential-white-house-run.html?_r=1

[HAPPY2BME]

Interesting ... Billionaire Trump v. Billionaire Bloomberg.  I thought it would be too late for anyone to still jump into the race, but according to the article; " He has set a deadline for making a final decision in early March, the latest point at which advisers believe Mr. Bloomberg could enter the race and still qualify to appear as an independent candidate on the ballot in all 50 states."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/nyregion/bloomberg-sensing-an-opening-revisits-a-potential-white-house-run.html?_r=1

=====================================

Did you know that the majority of USSC appointees are from ... NEW YORK?

This bodes terribly for Hillary, and fantastically incredibly positive for Donald Trump.

[aligncare]

With ALL due respect what data set underpins your belief that Donald Trump will do even a single thing that he promises to do if elected?  I can't seem to find that.

May I take a shot at the answer?

Trump's history. It's easy to look up in Google, Trumps' 40-year history in business is an open book. (But be wary of political analysis of Trump--those are suspect. Look in the trade publications. That's where you get unbiased analysis of Trump's past performance in the business community.)

When Trump announces to trade publications and to general public/media, that he plans on building a new skyscraper or shopping mall or golf course, and he gives the projected costs and completion date, guess what? The record shows he gets it done! Usually on time and on budget.

In other words, he has no history, none, zero, of saying he's gonna do something and then not following through. He makes a promise, he keeps that promise. People that work with him have all said that about him. By the way, there's also no record of any former employees of Trump saying negative things about him – and this is after a long career of hiring people, managing people, and running a successful business enterprise.

So, is that good enough for you? It is for me. If you want to see whether someone keeps their promises, look at the promises they've already made and kept as a guide post for future performance expectations.

[Right_in_Virginia]

When Trump announces to trade publications and to general public/media, that he plans on building a new skyscraper or shopping mall or golf course, and he gives the projected costs and completion date, guess what? The record shows he gets it done! Usually on time and on budget.

In other words, he has no history, none, zero, of saying he's gonna do something and then not following through. He makes a promise, he keeps that promise. People that work with him have all said that about him. By the way, there's also no record of any former employees of Trump saying negative things about him – and this is after a long career of hiring people, managing people, and running a successful business enterprise.

So, is that good enough for you? It is for me. If you want to see whether someone keeps their promises, look at the promises they've already made and kept as a guide post for future performance expectations.

    

[libertybele]

May I take a shot at the answer?

Trump's history. It's easy to look up in Google, Trumps' 40-year history in business is an open book. (But be wary of political analysis of Trump--those are suspect. Look in the trade publications. That's where you get unbiased analysis of Trump's past performance in the business community.)

When Trump announces to trade publications and to general public/media, that he plans on building a new skyscraper or shopping mall or golf course, and he gives the projected costs and completion date, guess what? The record shows he gets it done! Usually on time and on budget.

In other words, he has no history, none, zero, of saying he's gonna do something and then not following through. He makes a promise, he keeps that promise. People that work with him have all said that about him. By the way, there's also no record of any former employees of Trump saying negative things about him – and this is after a long career of hiring people, managing people, and running a successful business enterprise.

So, is that good enough for you? It is for me. If you want to see whether someone keeps their promises, look at the promises they've already made and kept as a guide post for future performance expectations.

With that being said ... he stated that he IS running as an outsider when he isn't.  I think Rand Paul summed it up quite nicely, back in August ... I at that time didn't believe him.  I do now.  IF he was an outsider he wouldn't have recently made the comment now "Let's get to be a little establishment".  Nothing could be more clear ... he is PART of the establishment. He duped people into believing he was an outsider.  Despicable.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/22/trump-lets-get-to-be-a-little-establishment-weve-got-to-get-things-done-folks-ok/
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/250663-paul-trump-is-an-insider-pretending-to-be-an-outsider

[Scottftlc]

May I take a shot at the answer?

Trump's history. It's easy to look up in Google, Trumps' 40-year history in business is an open book. (But be wary of political analysis of Trump--those are suspect. Look in the trade publications. That's where you get unbiased analysis of Trump's past performance in the business community.)

When Trump announces to trade publications and to general public/media, that he plans on building a new skyscraper or shopping mall or golf course, and he gives the projected costs and completion date, guess what? The record shows he gets it done! Usually on time and on budget.

In other words, he has no history, none, zero, of saying he's gonna do something and then not following through. He makes a promise, he keeps that promise. People that work with him have all said that about him. By the way, there's also no record of any former employees of Trump saying negative things about him – and this is after a long career of hiring people, managing people, and running a successful business enterprise.

So, is that good enough for you? It is for me. If you want to see whether someone keeps their promises, look at the promises they've already made and kept as a guide post for future performance expectations.

This is fascinating (and outstanding). We are used to dealing with people, and judging them, within a political framework, where thinking out loud and brainstorming out loud is extremely dangerous - every utterance ever made is parsed into nano-particles.  Politicians guard their speech like what they say should be in Fort Knox.  We twist words until we don't know what is is. The rest of the world doesn't operate in that way.  We haven't had a serious non-politician since Perot 24 years ago...and a really serious one since Eisenhower 64 years ago (and Ike worked within a political framework)  We are used to professional, life-long politicians. We aren't used to others coming into this theater.

[katzenjammer]

Can't be everywhere at once.

Granted; keeping out the riff raff would go far in obviating that need. 

[alicewonders]

The Dems are going to bring Julian Castro on the ticket to snag the Hispanic vote.......wait for it.

[libertybele]

"When Trump announces to trade publications and to general public/media, that he plans on building a new skyscraper or shopping mall or golf course, and he gives the projected costs and completion date, guess what? The record shows he gets it done! Usually on time and on budget."

He obviously is great in business or he wouldn't be as successful as he is.  I have never stated otherwise. The only problem is Trump as president wouldn't be running his own company or a business.  "We the People" are the government; in other words HE works for us; we don't work for him!  He would be running a government that consists of a Congress; House and Senate who are elected by their constituents and are supposed to vote on their behalf. In other words, Congress doesn't work for him, Congress works for us!   As you know, Congress is the legislative body of the government.  The presidency is the executive body of the government and is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress (those laws are supposed to be in line with the Constitution and our Congress and our President are supposed to abide by the Constitution - not side step it.) Of course, what is happening now in Congress is we have Mitch McConnel the leader of the Senate siding with the DEMS and Paul Ryan leader of the House just sold the GOP down the river and sided with the DEMS; in other words there is no longer two parties. We hold the majority...nothing is getting done...because that majority isn't interested in representing the voice of the people.  That majority isn't interested in doing what they were elected to do; they said what they needed to say in order to get elected and once they got onto their gravy train, they do and vote how they need to in order to line their own pockets. That's what I thought most of us were against and frustrated with.  The last thing we need is a president who is going to continue that.  Trump by his own words stated that's exactly what he's going to do in order to get things done ... only thing is ... Congress makes the laws ...unless Trump plans on vetoing what is proposed or has already decided that he will rule by Executive Order ... then ... we will have another president that is a dictator.  Transformation as Hussein wanted, will be complete.

[Scottftlc]

The Dems are going to bring Julian Castro on the ticket to snag the Hispanic vote.......wait for it.

In a way, I hope they do. Then they can snag what they already have.

[libertybele]

In a way, I hope they do. Then they can snag what they already have.

Be careful what you wish for.

[Carling]

The Dems are going to bring Julian Castro on the ticket to snag the Hispanic vote.......wait for it.

A part-time mayor and now head of HUD who is taking Spanish lessons to be more authentic.

Plus he doesn't look trustworthy, which matters to independents.



Now there's a resume'.  Tapping a "diverse" VP doesn't sway many votes, anyhow, as Walter Mondale found out in such a humiliating way back in 1984.

[Carling]

I give Castro credit in admitting he had no business being admitted to Stanford on academic merit!  I scored better on my SATs and Stanford and the Ivys were never even on my radar so I went undergrad at Montana State and MBA at Oregon.

Then again I'm just a white male entering middle age so I still have my Privilege (TM), which is nice!

Castro has credited affirmative action for his admission into Stanford, telling The New York Times, "Joaquín and I got into Stanford because of affirmative action. I scored 1,210 on my SATs, which was lower than the median matriculating student. But I did fine in college and in law school. So did Joaquín. I’m a strong supporter of affirmative action because I’ve seen it work in my own life".[11]

[HAPPY2BME]

I give Castro credit in admitting he had no business being admitted to Stanford on academic merit!  I scored better on my SATs and Stanford and the Ivys were never even on my radar so I went undergrad at Montana State and MBA at Oregon.

Then again I'm just a white male entering middle age so I still have my Privilege (TM), which is nice!

===================================

Hillary (if 'IT' survives) is leaning towards tapping Julian Castro as her VP.

Whoever wins the GOP nomination, there is also a very strong chance that VP pick will also be a Latino.

Demographically, scientifically, and statistically, Latinos will be the vast majority of the inhabitants of 'the USA' by no longer than 2050.  Probably 2025.