'I want Ted one-on-one': Donald Trump calls on Marco Rubio to drop out of race

[Sanguine]

Nope.  Congressional approval dropped to 11% during the shutdown, edged down to 9% three weeks after it was over.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165809/congressional-approval-sinks-record-low.aspx

Yes, I should have pointed to R wins rather than approval ratings.

[Bill Cipher]

Yes, I should have pointed to R wins rather than approval ratings.

The wins were a little disappointing.  The bigger question, maybe not answerable, is how many more wins would there have been if the approval ratings hadn't dropped?

[sinkspur]

Yes, I should have pointed to R wins rather than approval ratings.

If it hadn't been for the disastrous rollout of the Obamacare website, the Republicans would likely have suffered major damage for a long time.

[Frank Cannon]

Was Bush I an attack dog as Reagan's VP?

If you recall, Bush was very combative in the '80 election cycle both as a candidate and VP nominee. He wasn't the milquetoast wimp he was in '92.

[Bill Cipher]

Which worries me about a Cruz in the general. The public at large knows very little about Ted Cruz and they will be bombarded (even if they are false) with anti-Cruz ads portraying him as a far right zealot who could not even get along with other conservatives in the congress. This is why I preferred and still do for now Rubio. Again, I repeat I have no problems getting behind a Cruz ticket if that is what plays out in the summer. I don't think his rhetoric about rounding up all illegals is what he truly would do, it is just fodder for some of his followers.

A primary usually elicits harder rhetoric for intraparty consumption; however, one has to be careful with that, especially in the internet age.  Harsh anti-immigrant rhetoric might play well to those who are so animated over it they'll go to the primaries, but it won't play out well with the general electorate, and the Dems will be pumping that stuff out over and over.

[HonestJohn]

Oh, come on, John.  Cruz didn't shut it down by himself, it had minimal effect on the day to day lives of.. anyone, and R approval ratings actually went up after it.

The point is... this is one of the lines of attack that will be used.  (I'd also point out it had a significent effect of our troops and their families.  And that was communicated to their extended families.)

The response will be weak to the eyes of the undecided.

And we've been consciously choosing candidates for the last 8-12 years that are very easy to attack in the general, despite running better choices in the primary.

---

I'm not too happy with Cruz; but if he's the only way to stop Trump, I can deal with it.  I've long argued a Rubio/Kasich ticket to be the best chance we had for a general election victory, though.

Unfortunately, too many conflate GOP primary voter patterns as how the general plays out.  And then are shocked when that doesn't happen.  (The "it's gotta be voter fraud" meme is, in my view, denial.)

[HonestJohn]

If it hadn't been for the disastrous rollout of the Obamacare website, the Republicans would likely have suffered major damage for a long time.

This. 

And imagine the damage had it been a Presidential election year.  (Democrats don't seem to vote on "off year" elections.)

[Frank Cannon]

The point is... this is one of the lines of attack that will be used.  (I'd also point out it had a significent effect of our troops and their families.  And that was communicated to their extended families.)

The response will be weak to the eyes of the undecided.

And we've been consciously choosing candidates for the last 8-12 years that are very easy to attack in the general, despite running better choices in the primary.

Utter nonsense. The MSM and Libs will attack anyone who runs against them. It doesn't even matter if there is an issue or not i.e.; the manufactured "War on Women" issue against Mitt. The problem is that the candidates do nothing to fight it. Bush I, Bush II, Reagan and Nixon fought it hard and won. The problem isn't perceived issues that the MSM will tag the candidate with, the problem has been weak candidates.

[HonestJohn]

Utter nonsense. The MSM and Libs will attack anyone who runs against them. It doesn't even matter if there is an issue or not i.e.; the manufactured "War on Women" issue against Mitt. The problem is that the candidates do nothing to fight it. Bush I, Bush II, Reagan and Nixon fought it hard and won. The problem isn't perceived issues that the MSM will tag the candidate with, the problem has been weak candidates.

Mitt couldn't really attack Obama on Obamacare without opening himself to being Obama's inspiration.  We picked a wounded candidate, unable to utilize all the political ammo out there.

Cruz will be similar.  Not as bad, but still open to attacks he can't shield against.  Still, he has a chance, since Hillary is so bad.

---

Democrats understand this and we used to.  Attacks on Reagan tended to just 'slide' off, leaving him unaffected in the eyes of the voter.  Clinton was the same, a 'teflon' President - even his impeachment boosted his ratings.

[Frank Cannon]

Mitt couldn't really attack Obama on Obamacare without opening himself to being Obama's inspiration.  We picked a wounded candidate, unable to utilize all the political ammo out there.

Cruz will be similar.  Not as bad, but still open to attacks he can't shield against.  Still, he has a chance, since Hillary is so bad.

---

Democrats understand this and we used to.  Attacks on Reagan tended to just 'slide' off, leaving him unaffected in the eyes of the voter.  Clinton was the same, a 'teflon' President - even his impeachment boosted his ratings.

Baloney. The issues that dinged Mitt the most were the phony tax return issue and the war on women. He ignored them at his peril. Also Mitt won decisivly the undecideds and moderates. He lost his base.

Cruz will have no issues with the shutdown for a host of reasons. First off no one cares. Secondly Cruz is a fighter and isn't going to just let an issue drag him down. Lastly this isn't an issue because a Senator cannot shut down the govt'. Only the House can do that, making it easy to knock down.

Kasich and Rubio are both Establishment candidates in an anti Establishment election cycle. They have the biggest baggage of all the remaining candidates.

[Bill Cipher]

Mitt couldn't really attack Obama on Obamacare without opening himself to being Obama's inspiration.  We picked a wounded candidate, unable to utilize all the political ammo out there.

Cruz will be similar.  Not as bad, but still open to attacks he can't shield against.  Still, he has a chance, since Hillary is so bad.

---

Democrats understand this and we used to.  Attacks on Reagan tended to just 'slide' off, leaving him unaffected in the eyes of the voter.  Clinton was the same, a 'teflon' President - even his impeachment boosted his ratings.

Of course all hindsight is 20/20, but I don't think Romneycare would have been quite so much of an albatross because Romneycare was state law, not federal law, and the states unquestionably have the right to enact that sort of thing.  Also, MA would have had something like that regardless of who was governor; Romney did, I think, introduce the personal responsibility tax, in order to make things a little less unsustainable (but still, ultimately, still unsustainable).  Romney tried to make it better than what it was when the democrats in MA introduced it.

One of Romney's flaws is that he wasn't willing to fight the fight of ideas even though he had it all over Obama nine ways to Sunday.