Republicans: Are they about to select the worst possible candidate for November?


According to the latest polls, the best candidate for the Republicans to nominate out of the "Final Three" is John Kasich. It's not even close. Those who read here regularly know that I do NOT like John Kasich AT ALL! I regularly call him Governor Sick, but the numbers are fairly consistent throughout February and March.
When running against Hillary, Kasich is a clear leader in all recent polls:
When running against Hillary, The Donald is clearly trailing. And, he does statistically worse in March than he did in February. In other words, as I have consistently predicted, the longer The Donald keeps spewing his vitriol against women and various minorities, the more he energizes those groups to organize and vote against him:
Ted Cruz is, at best, in a toss-up situation. IMHO...if Cruz would emerge as the Republican leader, or even the Republican nominee, once the groups insulted by The Donald focused in on Cruz's positions, they would find that Cruz may even be more extreme and more hateful than The Donald, and his poll numbers would suffer accordingly.

In short, the best of the three candidates -- if the Republicans really want to win in November -- would be Governor Sick! And how much could this affect other races, especially those for Congress? But, the Republican voters and caucus attenders seem determined to nominate the xenophobic, misogynistic, narcissistic, flim-flam artist, instead of a real Republican candidate. Welcome to the 21st Century! We Americans do love our celebrities!

No votes yet

Means folk will vote for whoever they perceive will deal with
Islamic brawlers . Trump or Cruz will win , easily defeat Hilary . Primary voters want a brawler

for POTUS would beat ANY Democratic candidate for POTUS, having the best possible candidate would help the entire ticket. Governor Sick would be that candidate.

Do not underestimate the ability of The Donald to energize the voting groups he attacks as much or more than the voting groups to which he appeals. Here's a link to an article which refers to the push to increase voter registration among the Muslims who are American citizens. And most of them are not voting for a Republican for POTUS!
The Donald alienates them, Hispanics, African-Americans, women, the list goes on and on. The Donald could win among white Christian males overwhelmingly, and still lose in most states. As I've stated before, you can't keep kicking people in the face and expect them to vote for you. And Ted's positions on issues are almost exactly the same as The Donald's. He would alienate those same groups nearly as much.

Let me address one more topic. Anyone who believes that any POTUS would be so negligent as to ignore the safety of American citizens for any reason, is a liar or an idiot! Remind me. Under whose leadership did the 9/11 attack take place? And, during this current POTUS's administration, how many similar attacks has America endured? And, under whose leadership was Osama Bin Laden hunted down and killed?
To a far too great an extent, bluster is mistaken as toughness. Obama has been as tough as any POTUS in recent history. Here are some facts, not "gut feelings," that may surprise you. Under Obama, the violent crime rate is about half of what it was 20 years ago: (The violent crime rate in 2012 was virtually the same as it was in 2011. And in 2013 it dropped to 367.9!) That's toughness!
Every single year under Obama, more illegal aliens have been deported than any year before Obama's presidency: That's toughness, too!

Too often, tough talk is just empty rhetoric. Often, too, quiet resolve gets more done, and epitomizes real toughness! Personally, I prefer a tough POTUS to a tough-talking POTUS!

You're misrepresenting the stats. Violent crime was already dropping before the President took office. In the last two years it's been increasing.

He may be deporting more but illegal immigration is rising. So he's bailing out the Titanic with a bucket.

Why do you keep cherry picking stats. You know how easy it is to prove them wrong.


First of all, the article to which you link compares the number of murders in 2014 with the number in 2015. That's a one year rise, not two years as you fallaciously charge!
Secondly, the cities listed only include selected cities. The article itself "misrepresents" the statistics it reveals. Where are the rest of the top ten U.S. cities in population? Why no L.A., no Houston, no Phoenix, no San Antonio, no San Jose? Why?
Thirdly, New York, the largest city in America, only had a one year increase of 9%, and Philadelphia only had a 4% increase.
And, finally, these increases are all from the very low levels of 2014. Remind me, who was the POTUS for the 6 years including 2014?
Facts speak volumes. The violent crime rate when Obama came into office was 458.6. By 2014, it had dropped to 365.5. And violent crime peaked back in the years 1991 and 1992 at nearly 760! Remind me. Who was POTUS in the 1980s and early 1990s when violent crime got so high?

By the statistics cited in the article to which you link, while the number of illegal immigrants went up by 14% [which they refer to as a "spike"], the writers of the article refer to the raw numbers when enumerating the increase in illegals sent packing. In actuality, the increase of deportations in the same one year time period was over 15.6%. Why is that not a "spike," too?

My statements remain valid, Mikey. I have written ad nauseam that the public perception is wrong. The public perception is that violent crime is worse than ever. Anecdotally, my wife and I have asked this question of friends. Every one of them believe this fallacy! When we tell them that the statistics show that the violent crime rate is about 1/2 of what it was 25 years ago, they are incredulous! They question the statistics, even when we point out that the FBI has been collecting the data the same way for several decades and are non-partisan.

Never, never, never allow facts to get in the way of your partisanship, Mikey! Are you also going to deny that Obama had Bin Laden hunted down and killed, too? Hasn't Obama done anything right in your eyes?

an article:

IMHO -- Cruz's defense of his wife would seem to be offensive to many modern women. Instead of saying something like, "Oh boy, Donald. You're messing with the wrong woman. I may be insulted by what you said, but my wife can stand up for herself. Look out!" Instead, Ted acted like John Wayne in the Ol' West, "Don't mess with my woman, pilgrim!" How patronizing is that?
Now, if The Donald threatened Heidi with physical violence, and she doesn't work out with Ronda Rousey, of course Ted should take the macho position. But, if we're talking about defending oneself verbally, why does Ted think that he has to protect his "little woman?" Isn't that position just slightly antiquated?

now-defunct super-PAC has stated what I have been saying to people for months. In her opinion, and mine, but she was much closer to The Donald than I have ever been, The Donald never really wanted to be the Republican nominee for POTUS. He wanted to have a respectable showing so he could improve the Trump brand! It was all a form of merchandising!
Now that he is leading, as in any game he might play, any contest he might enter, The Donald cannot bear to lose. It really is amazing how what I supposed to be the case as an outside observer, seems to be in fact true according to the conclusion reached by someone who was actually involved in The Donald's campaign!
Read for yourself, and you decide. Here's the link:

article is written by a former Republican operative. It speaks volumes about where the Republican Party is headed this year. I do NOT agree with the writer that, if The Donald gets the nomination, it will be the death knell for the Republican Party. But both of the most likely choices for the POTUS nomination seem to be disastrous for the November election this year. I guess we'll see.

Here's a link to the article:

Here are the exact words taken from the transcript of the exchange between Chris Matthews and The Donald following a common question about abortion:
"MATTHEWS: No, should the woman be punished for having an abortion?
TRUMP: Look...
MATTHEWS: This is not something you can dodge.
TRUMP: It’s a -- no, no...
MATTHEWS: If you say abortion is a crime or abortion is murder, you have to deal with it under law. Should abortion be punished?
TRUMP: Well, people in certain parts of the Republican Party and conservative Republicans would say, 'yes, they should be punished.'"

IMHO -- As in so many things, The Donald stated on the world-wide media what most conservatives refuse to say in public. Apparently, The Donald has heard this time and again from conservatives. Conservatives who want abortions made illegal, want to punish women who get abortions. They view women who have unwanted pregnancies as immoral, and undeserving of any compassion. If they were to stone to death such a woman, and Jesus came down from heaven and stated, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her,” [John 8:7] would these extremist ideologues not only stone the woman, but stone Jesus as well?

Republican conservatives also deny they have a general war on women's rights. I wonder what The Donald has heard about other women's issues in those private conversations he has had with conservative Republicans?

admittedly partisan Democrat, I don't want the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate to act upon the nomination by President Obama of Merrick Garland to the SCOTUS -- at least, not now. What I do want is for the Republican-controlled Senate to meet in panic mode the day after the November elections, after Hillary or Bernie win, and immediately take up the Garland nomination. That would prove to all how hypocritical these so-called leaders are.

Merrick Garland may be, not only one of the brightest, most capable people ever nominated to sit on the SCOTUS, he is politically moderate. By most accounts, he would not be a reliable "liberal" vote on issues before the SCOTUS, he would be a so-called "swing" vote. He deserves to have hearings and to be fully vetted by the Senate right now. Politically, I prefer that the Senate not hold hearings.

Hardly a day goes by when I do not receive a message from either a union source or a political source -- a plea to add my name to those "demanding" that the Senate hold hearings and vote upon Garland's nomination. I have refused to add my name, even though I believe that Garland deserves the consideration. Why? Well, I can be as political as the Republican Senate leadership. And, I hope that there is a Democratic victory for POTUS in November, followed by a "change of mind" by the Republican Senate leadership about considering Garland's nomination.
Should there be a Democratic POTUS elected in November, I expect President Obama to remove Garland's name from consideration, and/or for Garland to withdraw his name from consideration. Then, for the betterment of the country, I hope that the new Democratic POTUS will ask Merrick Garland to once again submit his name for consideration by the newly sworn-in Senate in January, 2017. While I want the political issue for this election cycle, I do not want the new POTUS, and/or the new Senate, to ignore someone who is so well qualified to join the nation's highest court. That's called compromise. It is not surrender!

what may well happen if Hillary or Bernie wins in November. Here's an article which includes an answer Justice Sotomayor gave to a question about the need for "diversity" on the SCOTUS:
Wouldn't it be a prototypically political move for the Senate Republicans who question the right of Obama to even nominate a candidate for the SCOTUS in the last year of his presidency, then to turn around and try to approve Merrick Garland before a new POTUS is sworn in, who may nominate a more "diverse" [read liberal here] candidate to a new, more amenable Senate in January? Of course, President Obama could pull his nomination of Merrick Garland before the Republican hypocrites could act in a lame-duck session, too.

Once again, IMHO, Merrick Garland is not only amazingly qualified to sit on the SCOTUS, he has the potential to be a true "swing" vote on many vital issues. And, also IMHO, government governs best from the political center. It would seem that he would be the best possible addition to the SCOTUS in the interests of the country. But, does serving the nation come ahead of serving political and ideological considerations among these Republican political hacks? Sadly, I think not!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.