Ted Cruz for President

[FrankDK]

It's going to be fun watching the same people who said Obama wasn't an American because he wasn't born in the US (even though he was) explaining how Ted Cruz is an American even though he was born in Canada.

Frank

[Solitary]

:rollin:  #-o  :roll:   Solitary

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Won't happen.  It breaks the pattern.

1976, Ford won the nomination, Reagan was second place.
1980, Reagan won the nomination, Bush was second place.
1984, insignificant challenges.
1988, Bush won the nomination, Dole was in second place.
1992, insignificant challenges.
1996, Dole won the nomination, McCain was in second place.
2000, Bush Jr. cut to the front of the line on his father's name, McCain was in second place.
2004, insignificant challenges.
2008, McCain won the nomination, Romney was in second place.
2012, Romney won the nomination.

Ted Cruz wasn't in second place.

[mykcob4]

I hope Cruz wins the GOP nomination. That means there won't be a GOP prez!

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Cruz is an asswipe to be sure, but a well educated Ivy Leaguer from Harvard who uses his education to manipulate dumber gop dolts. He won't win even if he runs, but he can drag many through the mud with him including those in both parties.

[Shiranu]

At this point I see so little difference between the two parties that I wonder if I actually do really care one way or another who wins. If we get a Republican, it will be worse, sure... but the Democrats are leaning more and more right wing and nothing is getting done, especially not shit that REALLY needs to get done. Democrats are in favour of spying on American citizens without cause, using corporations to provide health care at jacked up costs instead of a government run health program, using drones to kill civilians, were pushing for war in Syria until the public backlash was just too strong, propose no meaningful gun regulation laws, do nothing to fix the problem of millions upon millions of Americans going hungry every day... they at least put band-aides on the problem, but band-aides aren't going to help fix the problem.

Perhaps a couple of terms with absolutely horrible GOP candidates that fuck everyone over will make more people politically active. Probably not though.

[hillbillyatheist]

at least the democrats aren't trying to rig the elections so liberals never have a chance in hell of winning again.

what with citizens united and such we're already fighting an uphill battle.

if the GOP wins, they will lock up the supreme court, rig the election system further and even if the population at large wakes up there may be little they can do. The democrats are flawed to be sure but still a far better outcome.
as the older people die off and younger more liberal types take their place I think we will see this country move left. but right now we live in perilous times where our democracy itself hangs in the balance. we let these gOP thugs in right now and the war may be over. we'll have an ever increasing liberal population and a far right tea bagger government completely insulated from the people. so yes it very much matters.

[BarkAtTheMoon]

Won't happen.  It breaks the pattern.

1976, Ford won the nomination, Reagan was second place.
1980, Reagan won the nomination, Bush was second place.
1984, insignificant challenges.
1988, Bush won the nomination, Dole was in second place.
1992, insignificant challenges.
1996, Dole won the nomination, McCain was in second place.
2000, Bush Jr. cut to the front of the line on his father's name, McCain was in second place.
2004, insignificant challenges.
2008, McCain won the nomination, Romney was in second place.
2012, Romney won the nomination.

Ted Cruz wasn't in second place.

Who was second, though? It switched around so much, everyone ended up dropping out other than stragglers, and none of the nominees from last time including Romney have even been talked about for the next election. It's going to have to be someone new. To answer my own question, it was Santorum who's pretty much disappeared since he dropped out followed by Ron Paul who trucked along at a steady mediocrity and is allegedly retired now. I guess his jackass son is about the closest it can get to following the pattern.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

At this point I see so little difference between the two parties that I wonder if I actually do really care one way or another who wins.

There are still plenty of people who think there's a difference.  This is important to them.

at least the democrats aren't trying to rig the elections so liberals never have a chance in hell of winning again.

You mean like those bi-partisan ballot access laws and those bi-partisan campaign finance laws?

Won't happen.  It breaks the pattern.

1976, Ford won the nomination, Reagan was second place.
1980, Reagan won the nomination, Bush was second place.
1984, insignificant challenges.
1988, Bush won the nomination, Dole was in second place.
1992, insignificant challenges.
1996, Dole won the nomination, McCain was in second place.
2000, Bush Jr. cut to the front of the line on his father's name, McCain was in second place.
2004, insignificant challenges.
2008, McCain won the nomination, Romney was in second place.
2012, Romney won the nomination.

Ted Cruz wasn't in second place.

Who was second, though? It switched around so much, everyone ended up dropping out other than stragglers, and none of the nominees from last time including Romney have even been talked about for the next election. It's going to have to be someone new. To answer my own question, it was Santorum who's pretty much disappeared since he dropped out followed by Ron Paul who trucked along at a steady mediocrity and is allegedly retired now. I guess his jackass son is about the closest it can get to following the pattern.

It was Santorum, with a respectable showing by Rick Perry.  Ron Paul won't run again, though he got far more actual votes than counted votes.

Those who really like Ron Paul are still keeping Rand Paul at arms length because every time he shows promise he goes and does something to disappoint us.

[Special B]

At this point I see so little difference between the two parties that I wonder if I actually do really care one way or another who wins.

There are still plenty of people who think there's a difference.  This is important to them.

Yeah, they are called "informed people".

The two main parties have different donors, different ideologies, and vastly different tactics. Obama was always a blue dog democrat (socially progressive, fiscally conservative), not a far-left progressive. Anyone that was actually informed knew before he even won the nomination that he would be a very moderate president that leans right on fiscal issues and wants to compromise with the right. It should be no surprise. He does not represent the entire party.

Obama may be very Bush-like in some ways (NSA, ACA insurance mandate vs. single payer), but in other ways (Syria, Iran, gay rights) he is not. Obama is near the center but not a neo con, and not a tea bagger. The liberal party has many members to the left of Obama. Don't be blinded by one blue-dog. If the GOP really was "the same" as Obama, the GOP wouldn't be so bad. But they are. They are very, very bad. So bad that they make Obama look good, which is hard to do.

If you cannot tell the difference between people like Alan Grayson and Allen West, then you just aren't paying attention.

I find it funny when people parrot the lie that both parties are the same, then support Koch puppets like the Pauls as an alternative to the "broken two-party system". Yeah, back a theocratic buffoon in the pocket of the oil companies.... that'll show the GOP who is boss...

[Shiranu]

but in other ways (Syria, Iran, gay rights) he is not.

So... the Republicans WEREN'T pushing for war in Syria, since Obama was?

I find it funny when people parrot the lie that both parties are the same, then support Koch puppets like the Pauls as an alternative to the "broken two-party system".

I voted for Obama because he was the less worse of the two, but I am not going to lie and pretend he is vastly different from Republicans.

[Atheon]

Special B is absolutely right. Though the Democrats maybe not be anything near angels, the Republicans are so depraved, corrupt, insane, and downright evil that they're like the Devil himself.

Anyone who sees the Democrats and Republicans as being the same has not looked at their policies or their records.

[mykcob4]

I see this alot. People say that "all politicians are all the same." I don't think that they actually believe it but they say it because they are extremely frustrated. It is a cynical statement.
Of course there are many corrupt politicians on both sides. The biggest difference between the two sides is that Dems are for fair oppertunity and the Repubs are for status quo and protecting the assets of the rich.

[FrankDK]

> So... the Republicans WEREN'T pushing for war in Syria, since Obama was?

That's exactly right.  When Obama was threatening to bomb Syria, many of the far right (i.e., anti-Obama) wing nuts were saying that was the worst thing the US could do.  Then when peace broke out, they castigated Obama for not bombing Syria.

They've done exactly the same thing on many issues.

Frank

[Jason Harvestdancer]

At this point I see so little difference between the two parties that I wonder if I actually do really care one way or another who wins.

There are still plenty of people who think there's a difference.  This is important to them.

Yeah, they are called "informed people".

It does take a lot of research to find the micro-differences, but that doesn't mean the person doing the research is informed.