Well that "non" shutdown did something...

[Guest TankerHC]

According to Rasmussen and Newsmax.

 

Ted Cruz now the third most influential man in the world. Ted Cruz name recognition skyrocketed globally, not after the shutdown, after he was proven right. 

 

Supposedly he is third behind Obama and The Pope. MY opinion is that Obama is only first because he sits in the White House, if he were not put there for obvious reasons (none having to do with his ability to lead an entire Nation), Cruz (next to the Pope) would be the most influential man in the world, because Obama really has no influence. That guy is out of control and making his own law willy nilly, a President who does not act, a President who can only react, and stupidly. Putin has more influence than Obama. Even the NYP stated today that "Obama agreed to allow Putin to broker a deal to get control of Syria's chemical weapons....then Putin smirked. 

 

I don't know who the opposition will give the nomination to, but I doubt it will be Hillary, even the left is saying she will be too old to run by 2015. They are also pointing out that she has Benghazi and her comments on her shoulders.

 

I would think, at least from what I see, that a lot of Rep's in both the House and Senate are scrambling to line up other work at the moment. 

 

I know a lot of people here do not put a lot of faith in polls, but poll's = statistics, and there is truth in statistics. If what I heard last week were to turn out to be true, right now less than 10% of the current Rep's on both sides have an opportunity to stay in office, "The People" are highly PO'd. 

 

I took my own Poll, over a period of 6 months, it consisted of me reading TNGO posts.  :usa: . And my Poll supports the conclusion of an earlier (two weeks ago) Rasmussen Poll.

 

That Poll stated as of right now there are three Senators who have zero chance of winning re-election, according to the Poll if an election were held today (Two weeks ago), they couldn't garner 10% of the vote. At the top of the list was Lamar Alexander. 

 

But they are Polls, so Ill make a prediction, "The People" are only mad "right now", as soon as the election season goes into full swing and the ad's start appearing they will be buffaloed again and there will be 80%+ re-election of incumbents, including all the incumbents who voted against their Constituents, Left and Right. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Luke E.]

 Funny how a cleverly worded, warm and fuzzy ad can cause amnesia isn't it. I agree and disagree with your prediction, "The People" that are right now PO'd will still be PO'd and will vote the same way once election season rolls around as they would if the election were held today. Here's where the sad part happens, the votes of the engaged people that are paying attention year round will be diluted and/or washed out by the votes of the well meaning people that are just "to busy" to watch whats going up until election season when the ads are hard to miss. The group of well meaning people will happily run down to there local polling place and cast their vote for the folks they thought sounded best in the aforementioned ads without spending the first minute researching to see if the candidate that they fell in love with's voting and activity record even resembles the way they depicted themselves in the clever ad. Now it would certainly seem as though "The People" had forgotten how PO'd they were earlier in the year but in reality they are just out numbered by the uninformed hipster voters that eclipse them at the ballot box. As if this weren't bad enough, due to the TN insanity that allows Democrats to not only cast votes for their man (or woman) but also allows them to vote for which one of our men (or women) they would most like to see run against their Democratic candidate. Unfortunately the Democrats and the well meaning group oftentimes vote for the same man (or woman)to run on our sides which for all intents and purposes makes it impossible for us to get the right man (or women) for the job put in place. I almost have to laugh just to keep from crying.

[Guest TankerHC]

 Funny how a cleverly worded, warm and fuzzy ad can cause amnesia isn't it. I agree and disagree with your prediction, "The People" that are right now PO'd will still be PO'd and will vote the same way once election season rolls around as they would if the election were held today. Here's where the sad part happens, the votes of the engaged people that are paying attention year round will be diluted and/or washed out by the votes of the well meaning people that are just "to busy" to watch whats going up until election season when the ads are hard to miss. The group of well meaning people will happily run down to there local polling place and cast their vote for the folks they thought sounded best in the aforementioned ads without spending the first minute researching to see if the candidate that they fell in love with's voting and activity record even resembles the way they depicted themselves in the clever ad. Now it would certainly seem as though "The People" had forgotten how PO'd they were earlier in the year but in reality they are just out numbered by the uninformed hipster voters that eclipse them at the ballot box. As if this weren't bad enough, due to the TN insanity that allows Democrats to not only cast votes for their man (or woman) but also allows them to vote for which one of our men (or women) they would most like to see run against their Democratic candidate. Unfortunately the Democrats and the well meaning group oftentimes vote for the same man (or woman)to run on our sides which for all intents and purposes makes it impossible for us to get the right man (or women) for the job put in place. I almost have to laugh just to keep from crying.

 

 

I'm looking for the disagreement part, seems we agree pretty much across the board. Yes, there will still be people who are mad (And informed), unfortunately those people (us) are very outnumbered by people easily swayed to buy Pet Rocks.. (I think I just said what you said)

[Guest PapaB]

It would never pass but I know how to improve election results. Connect every voting machine to an EEG and make it so it won't cast a vote without brainwave activity. That'll cancel the votes of the idiots that show up to cast uninformed ballots because they can't, or won't, take the time to educate themselves about the candidates and issues.

[Luke E.]

I'm looking for the disagreement part, seems we agree pretty much across the board. Yes, there will still be people who are mad (And informed), unfortunately those people (us) are very outnumbered by people easily swayed to buy Pet Rocks.. (I think I just said what you said)

Ha! I think you did :)
Guess I understood you to mean that folks like us would change our minds and vote for the likes of Alexander. That was the disagree part.. So I thought anyways.

[Oh Shoot]

Ha! I think you did :)
Guess I understood you to mean that folks like us would change our minds and vote for the likes of Alexander. That was the disagree part.. So I thought anyways.

 

Lamar will win going away as usual. I'll vote against him in primary, and for him in the general. No other choice unless y'all think a Dem replacement will be better.

 

- OS

[Luke E.]

Lamar will win going away as usual. I'll vote against him in primary, and for him in the general. No other choice unless y'all think a Dem replacement will be better.

- OS

I'm pretty sure we were both talking about the primary, where there is a choice. I couldn't name one off hand but I'd say there are at least a few democrats out there that would be more conservative than Lamar. In the general I would vote for Lamar IF he's there because I would be left with no choice. My hand quivers anytime I am forced to vote for someone so void of integrity.

[Spiffy]

Would Cruz be there if Obama wasn't?  Can there be light without dark?  Can you be Conservative  without progressive liberals

[Oh Shoot]

..... In the general I would vote for Lamar IF he's there because I would be left with no choice. ...

 

Unless he croaks or something, he'll be there.

 

- OS

[JPS]

My prediction for the next elections:

I think Hillary will run, she will be the democratic nominee, and (it's painful to say) she will probably be elected. 

I'm watching for her to come out hard in the spring of this year saying that she can 'fix' everything that Obama got wrong, especially Obamacare.  (“We can fix it!” will probably her campaign slogan...)  House and Senate Democrats will then run on how they need to be re-elected to help her get elected, and they will promise a free lunch (health care, higher minimum wage, immigration) to everyone to buy votes.  The republicans will field a compromise, middle-of-the-road (e.g. Christie) candidate, and frustrated conservatives will give up before the election.  Low-information voters will turn out in droves again to vote for the first female president, just like they did for the first black president.  Then they’ll all spend the next 4-8 years blaming obstructionist republicans for all the country’s problems.

 

It worked once, it will work again.

[Oh Shoot]

My prediction for the next elections:

I think Hillary will run, she will be the democratic nominee, and (it's painful to say) she will probably be elected. 

I'm watching for her to come out hard in the spring of this year saying that she can 'fix' everything that Obama got wrong, especially Obamacare.  (“We can fix it!” will probably her campaign slogan...)  House and Senate Democrats will then run on how they need to be re-elected to help her get elected, and they will promise a free lunch (health care, higher minimum wage, immigration) to everyone to buy votes.  The republicans will field a compromise, middle-of-the-road (e.g. Christie) candidate, and frustrated conservatives will give up before the election.  Low-information voters will turn out in droves again to vote for the first female president, just like they did for the first black president.  Then they’ll all spend the next 4-8 years blaming obstructionist republicans for all the country’s problems.

 

It worked once, it will work again.

 

 

Yep, if BHO is still on the ropes by then, her campaign will be a "new New Deal" push. Basic brunt being that BHO was well meaning and all, but just didn't have the experience and smarts to effectively accomplish their shared goals -- and implied of course that she should have been elected in the first place, so let's get it right this time America.

 

- OS

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I hope people are not as stupid as JPS and Oh Shoot think, but maybe they are right.

[JWC]

I hope people are not as stupid as JPS and Oh Shoot think, but maybe they are right.

I would consider "maybe" to be ridiculously optomistic.

[Randall53]

People on Welfare, disability and food stamps have grown by double digits since Obama took office. Reports are normally between 30 and 45 percent. If these people didn't vote for Obama before, most probably did, they surely will now. More than likely immigration reform will be pushed through before 2016. That will add a lot of liberal votes to the base.

The only hope I see is if the young voters, and their are lots of them, get some sense about them, and start paying attention to what the dems are doing to them due to the raping Obamacare sent their way, finally realizing they are gonna have to pay for these debt limit increases, and they can talk some sense into momma and daddy about the evils of the liberal model......whew!!! THEN we might have a chance.

But then, if the RINOS don't get sent home, right is still gonna be left of center!!!

[Guest TankerHC]

Would Cruz be there if Obama wasn't?  Can there be light without dark?  Can you be Conservative  without progressive liberals

 

 

Every LIberal in the Country could pack up and leave, I would still be Conservative. Except they wouldnt call me Conservative, they would only call me "American".

Edited December 31, 2013 by TankerHC

[Guest TankerHC]

Yep, if BHO is still on the ropes by then, her campaign will be a "new New Deal" push. Basic brunt being that BHO was well meaning and all, but just didn't have the experience and smarts to effectively accomplish their shared goals -- and implied of course that she should have been elected in the first place, so let's get it right this time America.

 

- OS

 

 

Stop doing that. 

[Luke E.]

Stop doing that.

Come on Tanker, why would you not want to shoot yourself off at the knees before the race gets going?
Folks need to realize that even with the help of more illegals and handout Harry's we could still win this. Look at the voter turnout numbers for the last two elections.. There's an awful large chunk of us that are staying home on election day and finding a way to get them excited to go vote because they think it might actually do some good would be a good place to start. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic but it seems to me that admitting defeat before anything starts is the first best way to ensure that the folks continue to stay home and let us continue on this path to destruction.
I've been hearing folks talk about politics over the last year that I've never heard speak of it before and most are pissed off enough to vote next time around. Liberals are doing a real good job of keeping us supplied with things to be pissed off about so why not harness that and use it rather than throwing up the white flag now.

[Oh Shoot]

Come on Tanker, why would you not want to shoot yourself off at the knees before the race gets going?
Folks need to realize that even with the help of more illegals and handout Harry's we could still win this. Look at the voter turnout numbers for the last two elections.. There's an awful large chunk of us that are staying home on election day ...

 

Looking since 1960, national turnout for presidential elections, was about the same as since 1968, that being less than 60% of voting age population. 2008 was actually highest since '68 at close to 57%, 2012 was back to about normal at less than 54%. Highest I see was 1960 at 63% (JFK).

 

How ya gonna change a 45 year trend? Elections don't get much more contentious than the last two and they didn't draw any better to speak of.

 

Think that's depressing, midterm elections are well under 40% of voting age population.

 

And on the other hand, why do you think the results would be different if 90% voted? After all, the Dems are better at getting out the votes than the GOP. Not to mention averaging more than one vote per person, too. ;)

 

- OS

[Guest TankerHC]

Really why I "jokingly" said that was I am attempting to remain optimistic but oh shoots posts keep bringing me back to reality. I pay attention to a lot of so called Conservatives. These are not Conservatives, these are just mini Chamberlains. All I see is appeasement of the Socialists at every turn. Lots of Republicans send emails "We can win! Send money! " How? Where's the message? The left has chosen their message and have started their campaign. "We need to beat the Republicans or they will impeach the President". Of course the Republicans have tried nearly 40 times and it went nowhere. But they know that message will resonate because if the president is impeached then "You were all wrong twice". Your stupid. We need to target those on the left who have been walked over. Instead it's still "send money". I don't need to be told what's wrong. I already know what's wrong. Tell me how your going to fix it. If all you have is Send money" I won't be voting for you. Until someone actually comes up with a real plan, I'll remain optimistic, but in the back of my mind oh shoot just keeps posting what I'm really thinking. We don't have a plan. It was piss poor planning that got us in this situation in the first place. And the plan consisting of "Send money" which is no plan, will keep us heading off the cliff.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2

[JPS]

There's an awful large chunk of us that are staying home on election day

 

The republicans need to field a CONSERVATIVE candidate to get that chunk off their butts and into the voting booth.  McCain and Romney just didn't fire up the base enough to bring them out.

[Oh Shoot]

The republicans need to field a CONSERVATIVE candidate to get that chunk off their butts and into the voting booth.  McCain and Romney just didn't fire up the base enough to bring them out.

 

Let's see, last two elections, you call any of these folks conservative:?

 

Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Gary Johnson, Herman Cain, Paul Ryan?

 

What do they all have in common? Not enough votes to win.

 

So who ya think? Maybe Rand Paul, Ted Cruz? Huck again, Perry again? Won't get enough votes to win the presidency. And likely not even the nomination.

 

Problem is, the GOP can't win with a candidate that appeals to its most conservative base, but the Dems can with one that's the other extreme, and beyond. The reason? This country overall ain't nearly as right as some here would like to believe. Hell, Hillary might take TN for all I know -- after all, we went with her husband. Twice.

 

- OS

Edited December 31, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[JPS]

Let's see, last two elections, you call any of these folks conservative:?

 

Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Gary Johnson, Herman Cain, Paul Ryan?

 

What do they all have in common? Not enough votes to win.

 

So who ya think? Maybe Rand Paul, Ted Cruz? Huck again, Perry again? Won't get enough votes to win the presidency. And likely not even the nomination.

 

Problem is, the GOP can't win with a candidate that appeals to its most conservative base, but the Dems can with one that's the other extreme, and beyond. The reason? This country overall ain't nearly as right as some here would like to believe. Hell, Hillary might take TN for all I know -- after all, we went with her husband. Twice.

 

- OS

 

I disagree OS - and I've had the same argument with some liberal 'friends'..  I think the more conservative candidates fail because they are not getting support from the republican party establishment, which instead chooses 'middle-of-the-road' candidates they hope will win over some independents or democrats.  I think a true conservative candidate, possibly one from your list, that really had republican support behind them would energize the base and get them out to vote.  I can't tell you how many people I heard say that they didn't bother to vote in the last election because the candidate wasn't conservative enough.

[Oh Shoot]

..  I can't tell you how many people I heard say that they didn't bother to vote in the last election because the candidate wasn't conservative enough.

 

And how many who went for Mitt wouldn't have voted at all if a Cruz had been the candidate, who they consider a right wing lunatic?

 

Even many who wouldn't have voted for BHO instead will have no prob voting for Hillary instead next time around if a Cruz or Paul is their option.

 

- OS

Edited January 6, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Guest 6.8 AR]

A conservative candidate doesn't need the support of the GOP until he gets to the point of being a presumed winner. That's the

flaw most people think is the issue. The GOP is a huge problem in national elections, but when Republican public sentiment pushes

hard enough, the GOP has to cave. We haven't had an articulate Republican "conservative" in the race for a long time. We have

had articulate liars and progressives in the race, though. What I mean by articulate is one who sticks to the message, doesn't

allow himself or herself to be sidetracked by the media and other candidates.

 

Mac. I don't know why you mentioned Sarah Palin. She was the one good thing about McCain's failed attempt. But I do think out of

the ones you listed, she was probably the most conservative. Her stances on social issues may not be to some's likings, though. I

really doubt she will run for prez. She may be one of the next senators, or something else. But you were right last time, and you may

still be batting a thousand.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Bundle up. It's getting cold outside. :D