Twotoplace Posted November 19, 2015 Posted November 19, 2015 Lots of BGP Republicans are now endorsing Marco Rubio for president. It's not because Rubio's views necessarily coincide with their own. Rather, they see Rubio as having the best shot to topple Hillary a year from now. But wait a minute. Romney was the "electable" candidate in '12 and he went down to defeat. Same with McCain in '08. Same with Kerry in '04. Isn't jumping aboard the "electable" bandwagon a losing strategy for Republicans? Shouldn't Bluegrass Republicans be paying more attention to Cruz and native son Paul? Your thoughts.
Clyde Posted November 19, 2015 Posted November 19, 2015 Why should people be paying more attention to those two?
bugatti Posted November 19, 2015 Posted November 19, 2015 Lots of BGP Republicans are now endorsing Marco Rubio for president. It's not because Rubio's views necessarily coincide with their own. Rather, they see Rubio as having the best shot to topple Hillary a year from now. But wait a minute. Romney was the "electable" candidate in '12 and he went down to defeat. Same with McCain in '08. Same with Kerry in '04. Isn't jumping aboard the "electable" bandwagon a losing strategy for Republicans? Shouldn't Bluegrass Republicans be paying more attention to Cruz and native son Paul? Your thoughts. I would say 99% of nominees are the nominee because the party feels, of those running, he or she has the best shot of winning. The 1% are incumbents. I know you are trying to stir up something, but I am not sure what you are getting at with the post.
Twotoplace Posted November 19, 2015 Author Posted November 19, 2015 Why should people be paying more attention to those two? Paul's ship may have already sailed, but he is a Kentuckian. As for Cruz, I feel that his firebrand style of politics aligns itself quite well with many Bluegrass conservatives -- who nevertheless are coming out for Rubio because they feel he is the "safe" or "electable" choice.
Clyde Posted November 19, 2015 Posted November 19, 2015 Paul's ship may have already sailed, but he is a Kentuckian. As for Cruz, I feel that his firebrand style of politics aligns itself quite well with many Bluegrass conservatives -- who nevertheless are coming out for Rubio because they feel he is the "safe" or "electable" choice. I guess I still don't get your point. You listed two people that can't win. You're saying ride that horse until you get beat?
Twotoplace Posted November 19, 2015 Author Posted November 19, 2015 I know you are trying to stir up something, but I am not sure what you are getting at with the post. I'm trying to have an intelligent discussion on whether going with a "safe" or "electable" candidate is, in fact, a losing strategy for the GOP. I'm not sure that Rubio would be a better candidate than Cruz or even Trump. Hence, I'm soliciting alternative viewpoints.
bugatti Posted November 19, 2015 Posted November 19, 2015 I'm trying to have an intelligent discussion on whether going with a "safe" or "electable" candidate is, in fact, a losing strategy for the GOP. I'm not sure that Rubio would be a better candidate than Cruz or even Trump. Hence, I'm soliciting alternative viewpoints. Whatever. Now if you want to discuss "is it flawed to have a system where people are forced to vote for who has the best shot of winning instead of who they may best politically align with", then that would be a more intelligent discussion.
nkypete Posted November 19, 2015 Posted November 19, 2015 If I vote for Rubio, it is quite simply because I think he is the best candidate to become POTUS...period.
MJAlltheWay24 Posted November 19, 2015 Posted November 19, 2015 Paul & Cruz are two of my least favorites left. I like Rubio and have for a little while now. Makes me feel even more confident that I'm making the right decision since it seems a lot of others are leaning that way as well.
gchs_uk9 Posted November 19, 2015 Posted November 19, 2015 If I vote for Rubio, it is quite simply because I think he is the best candidate to become POTUS...period. The problem with the primary system in America is that you (I'm assuming you live in Kentucky) won't really get much of a say in who represents your party because Kentucky has such a late primary. Many potential candidates will have already been eliminated before you have a chance to vote for them.
nkypete Posted November 19, 2015 Posted November 19, 2015 The problem with the primary system in America is that you (I'm assuming you live in Kentucky) won't really get much of a say in who represents your party because Kentucky has such a late primary. Many potential candidates will have already been eliminated before you have a chance to vote for them. I was being hypothetical in my comment (started with "If..."). I have my eye on 2 or 3 candidates that match what I'm looking for.
Twotoplace Posted November 19, 2015 Author Posted November 19, 2015 The most recent realclearpolitics.com average of national polling: Trump 24.6 Carson 21.8 Rubio 12.4 Cruz 11.0 Bush 5.4 I know a lot of BGP Republicans think Rubio will be the party choice, but he still has a long way to go if he's only the top choice of 1 in 8 Republicans.
nkypete Posted November 19, 2015 Posted November 19, 2015 Rubio has the Establishment vote. As candidates from the bottom drop out, their followers become "lookers" and roll-up into the numbers of somebody near the top. Still early.
capt278 Posted November 19, 2015 Posted November 19, 2015 It seems Rubio troubles the Left more than any other candidate. I think the Left sees him as the one that can beat Hillary. Honestly, if the Left actually looked at all the things Hillary has done, lying, bad decisions, etc., there is no way they could vote for her. The problem is, the party has anointed Hillary and they will fall in lock step and vote for her.
.png.ffa34568722b20f38e3c3ecfcb9a2cd2.png)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.