Cruz=Ouch

 

And I'd say that is almost entirely due to his flagrant behavior, not his positions.

You could also say he has most room to grow. Has the lowest unfavorable ranking. Most GOP have no opinion because he's so new to the scene.

 

While I admit not having an idea who Ted Cruz was before this thread, I wouldn't want to be in his position on that chart. As Clizzy said earlier, it's 2013 & plenty can change, but I can't see how 33% bodes well for him.

And I'd say that is almost entirely due to his flagrant behavior, not his positions.

 

I'm ignorant on Mr. Cruz. No idea where he stands & really no idea about the flagrant behavior you speak of. Will have to do my homework.

I'm ignorant on Mr. Cruz. No idea where he stands & really no idea about the flagrant behavior you speak of. Will have to do my homework.

 

I would say his views aren't entirely distinct from Paul's or Rubio's, but he's been a bull in a china shop for the Republican Senate caucus. You can find him now on a wrecking ball tour belittling his fellow Republicans over what is possibly the dumbest idea I've heard in a while.

I would say his views aren't entirely distinct from Paul's or Rubio's, but he's been a bull in a china shop for the Republican Senate caucus. You can find him now on a wrecking ball tour belittling his fellow Republicans over what is possibly the dumbest idea I've heard in a while.

Right now my two favorites in GOP Paul and Christie are fighting. But I like Cruz fighting the old guard. People like McCain and Graham need it. Its a risk I agree. But GOP needs it.

Relevant.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]40648[/ATTACH]

 

This is why I don't care much for polling. Cruz is immensely popular in his own state much more than any Bush (link.)

 

Rand, Ted and Christie are usually in the top tier for Republicans. To say Cruz isn't popular is illiformed. The tea party adores the dude -- even though I honestly don't even fully trust him to vote right on key issues.

 

You can look at any straw poll in the last few months and find Cruz in the top tier.

 

It should also be noted that he has the LOWEST unfavorable rating on that whole list. Like Randy Parker, a lot of people do not know who he is. But when it comes to the conservatives actually paying attention, he's loved.

I'm ignorant on Mr. Cruz. No idea where he stands & really no idea about the flagrant behavior you speak of. Will have to do my homework.

 

If you like your guns, low taxes, less aggressive foreign policy and you don't believe the fear mongering and hysteria the left attempt to surround with EVERY single tea party candidate, you'd probably like him. Its usually a good sign when Lindsay Graham and John McCain don't like you.

I would say his views aren't entirely distinct from Paul's or Rubio's, but he's been a bull in a china shop for the Republican Senate caucus. You can find him now on a wrecking ball tour belittling his fellow Republicans over what is possibly the dumbest idea I've heard in a while.

 

I also don't agree that Rubio is like Rand or Cruz. On the biggest issues, besides de-funding Obamacare, Rubio votes opposite. Key player regarding the immigration 'reform" bill and is a foreign policy hawk.

If you like your guns, low taxes, less aggressive foreign policy and you don't believe the fear mongering and hysteria the left attempt to surround with EVERY single tea party candidate, you'd probably like him. Its usually a good sign when Lindsay Graham and John McCain don't like you.

 

On guns, I believe in the right to bear arms, but it's not a huge issue for me.

 

On taxes, I like them low (and spending lower).

 

Foreign policy is tough for me to call. Ron Paul seemed too isolationist for me (although I did vote for him in the 2012 primary), but neither do I want a hawk.

 

Like almost every politician, I don't agree with Graham & McCain on everything; but I voted for Senator McCain & think he would have been a good President.

The label of independent voters can be deceiving. The vast majority of self-described independents favor one party or the other and vote nearly identically as their partisan brethren. With the influx of the Tea Party, I imagine there are many who left the Republican Party in protest, but continue to identify strongly with their candidates. My point being that independent doesn't simply mean neutral or "swing voters." So, the question is how those "independents" break down along party sympathy? Was Romney pulling "lean democrats?"

 

As to your second point, how many conservatives sat at home on election day? Most conservatives appeared to be fired up after the first debate and Romney's subsequent gains in the polls. I think the prospect of knocking off Obama was mouthwatering enough. So, how many were abstaining? There's enough polling going on during these election years that evidence for this phenomenon should be easily obtainable. Furthermore, if there are so many Republicans that want the hardliner candidate so much so that they refuse to participate in the general, why aren't they winning the primaries?

 

I agree with you that the label is deceiving and your spot on on your analysis with them already having their mind made up.

 

When I say Romney didn't excite his base and get them to the polls, I'm not talking about just his message and philosophy. That sucked too, but so did his ground game.

 

For instance, states like FL, VA, CO, and OH. All were in a margin of below 5%.

 

VA was lost by a margin of 3%. FL was less than 1% and OH was less than 2%.

 

VA is a state that has a Republican Governor and Legislature. They just nominated Ken Cuccinelli -- known as a right-wing tea partyer -- for their next governor. It's also a state where Rand's daddy got 40% of the vote in the primary with only Mitt Romney. That should give you some sign as to how the base felt about Romney.

 

FL is a state with a Republican Gov and Legislature as well. It's also a state that voted in tea party candidate Marco Rubio in 2010 -- which we all know was more about the anti-Obama sentiment than it was about electing a conservative -- first in the primary, ridding themselves of the Establishment, much like Romney is viewed as.

 

OH is an off and on state. You never know which way its going to go -- unless you have a superior game plan.

 

I'd say the biggest reason is Obama's team was able to pull these victories out wasn't because of his message, rather it was how he got his message out there. His team had an incredible ability to micro-target their voting bloc. They targeted likely voters and kept up with them, advertised to them and segmented them into multiple categories. They knew who their donors were, who their non-donors were. They knew who would be willing to volunteer and who wouldn't. They knew who to advertise to through the internet and how: google, facebook, youtube, email, video games -- the whole nine yards. They were able to track leaders and their best activists in the communities they needed to win and gave them the proper tools to target specific households via phones, door to door, literature, etc.It was all in a hegemonic fashion but it worked. If Romney wanted to win, he needed the proper ground game to get his people out. He lacked the necessary tools and capability. I'm not saying he didn't try - he did. But they didn't spend the time, resources or money that Obama did. And even if he did, it wouldn't of worked. They lacked the right people to put it in place. Regardless, I don't think he would of worked as hard as Obama to get his base to vote. Romney wanted the "middle" man vote. He got it and now he's not in the White House.

 

Which I'm totally OK with.

 

This is the biggest aspect of politics where the Democrats absolutely rip the GOP a new one.

 

Combine this with a boring candidate that no one was excited about... Fail.

On guns, I believe in the right to bear arms, but it's not a huge issue for me.

 

On taxes, I like them low (and spending lower).

 

Foreign policy is tough for me to call. Ron Paul seemed too isolationist for me (although I did vote for him in the 2012 primary), but neither do I want a hawk.

 

Like almost every politician, I don't agree with Graham & McCain on everything; but I voted for Senator McCain & think he would have been a good President.

 

Then you'd probably like him. Look at him speak on YouTube and in interview to get a feel for him. He isn't on the fringe as some would have you believe. Even though saying you will attempt to cut spending and then actually try to cut spending is a crazy, whacky thought for a politician.

 

I'm not too big on the Isolationist term. I tend to agree with Ron Paul's foreign policy and I've never understood how it turned out to be synonymous with Isolationism. Its based on Free Trade with all countries. How that is being isolated, I do not know.

Cruz=Ouch

Really? 53% admitted to having no opinion about Cruz, which means that many people who did claim to know enough to have an opinion just did not want to appear foolish by saying the same. Cruz has low national name recognition, which is common for somebody who has held national office for so short of a time. His negatives reflect the fact that both Democrats and establishment Republicans see him as a threat to their power.

 

You can make up a name and poll people about their opinion and many people will give one. If Cruz runs for President and avoids scandal, he will quickly build a large following among the tea parties and libertarians. Recall how high Herman Cain climbed in the polls with very little money once people heard his ideas. Of course, his affair and poor handling of the scandal drove Cain out of the race when his donors abandoned him.

 

This is why I don't care much for polling. Cruz is immensely popular in his own state much more than any Bush (link.)

 

Rand, Ted and Christie are usually in the top tier for Republicans. To say Cruz isn't popular is illiformed. The tea party adores the dude -- even though I honestly don't even fully trust him to vote right on key issues.

 

You can look at any straw poll in the last few months and find Cruz in the top tier.

 

It should also be noted that he has the LOWEST unfavorable rating on that whole list. Like Randy Parker, a lot of people do not know who he is. But when it comes to the conservatives actually paying attention, he's loved.

 

Gary Johnson was immensely popular in his own state. A Democrat-leaning state at that.

Really? 53% admitted to having no opinion about Cruz, which means that many people who did claim to know enough to have an opinion just did not want to appear foolish by saying the same. Cruz has low national name recognition, which is common for somebody who has held national office for so short of a time. His negatives reflect the fact that both Democrats and establishment Republicans see him as a threat to their power.

 

You can make up a name and poll people about their opinion and many people will give one. If Cruz runs for President and avoids scandal, he will quickly build a large following among the tea parties and libertarians. Recall how high Herman Cain climbed in the polls with very little money once people heard his ideas. Of course, his affair and poor handling of the scandal drove Cain out of the race when his donors abandoned him.

 

Maybe everything you say here turns out to be true. But I don't see how those numbers could be viewed in a positive way at all.

Gary Johnson was immensely popular in his own state. A Democrat-leaning state at that.

 

Exactly. Which goes to show people with libertarian leanings will by default attract other people across the aisle. It's even better when you have libertarian Republicans who appeal to the hardcore conservative base.

 

How do you feel about Cruz?