Magox

Ted's limited appeal was on full display over the past 3 weeks. Outside of very conservative and Constitutionalist wing of the party, he just doesn't resonate. He'll be back for 2020 as will Rubio and they will both be near the top from the onset. It will be very interesting to see if Ted continues on with his shtick of being the "only true conservative" who is willing to try to shut down the government to continue building this brand he has or does he try to build a few relationships with leadership and try to expand his appeal?

I am going to so enjoy the next 6 months.

I am 99% sure that I am not misremembering this. You may have a new found theory on polling but that doesn't take away the fact that you have indeed cited polling data in the past to help bolster your case.

I remember a time when you use to cite polling data to back some of your claims.

Who cares about the Hispanic vote? Where do you clowns come from? It's this sort of mentality that is holding the conservative movement from becoming a party that can compete at the presidential level.

That's because when we talk about GDP growth it's a very abstract concept for most voters, they know it should be higher but don't really feel it impact their lives. However, "73 straight months of job growth" is more easily witnessed by the average voter. Democrats offer simpler solutions, free or subsidized healthcare, more money for unemployment insurance, more money for welfare assistance, punish banks for ripping you off (so they think), etc etc. It's tough to compete against that when you are dealing with a largely apathetic and ignorant population. Then again, elements of the other side aren't too much better, build wall keep "invaders" out, transgenders potentially could threaten our kids in bathrooms, just lower taxes and cut spending and watch the economy boom.

On his best day he's a pragmatist, typically he's just an opportunistic demagogue.

I'm just thinking it would be nearly logistically impossible.

Too bad for the GOP that the only person who defeats her isn't even running. I plan on doing it.

I don't believe he could do that. Each state approves the rate hikes, not sure how he could tell them to delay it. Not to mention you'd most likely see a decent bit of carriers abruptly drop out. However, I wonder if he could somehow insert the risk corridor via executive action.

The Conservative media hucksters. Don't forget about Levin, he certainly is anti Trump now, but when Cruz and Trump were playing kissy face back last year Levin wouldn't lay a glove on him. Levin helped prop him up, the only reason why he turned on Trump is because he went after his precious Cruz.

What should have Boehner and McConnell achieved with the House and Senate under their control?

Cruz was able to successfully build a brand, but that brand comes with a lot of baggage. You can not understate how detrimental it is to him not having hardly any support of the "establishment". I think it says a lot that just about everyone who has worked with him, can't stand him.

I wouldn't be surprised that he gets over 10% of the vote.

People often underestimate the power of government from the local and state level, where Obama has been the single greatest asset for the GOP. Over 60% of the states are under GOP control, from state and senate houses to Governorships all across the country, where in many cases meaningful and successful reforms have been put in place. Not to mention control of the house and senate. Obama's greatest "achievements" are Dodd & Frank and Obamacare and both are turning out to be a drag on the economy. It is the job of the minority party to block what they view as an over expansionist regime. Trump is simply a vehicle for the frustration that lies with some of these disaffected voters, they view the GOP as an impotent party that was unable to stop Obama's overreach on his executive actions on immigration, stances on social issues and the ramming through of Obamacare. Somehow, unreasonably these voters believe that this could have been stopped, which of course it couldn't have. I hear it all the time, "I don't agree with much of what Trump says, but he's not going to get bullied and he'll play dirty to win" *sigh* Well, I won't get into the flawed rationale but that's what you hear.

Yes yes yes! I've been hoping for him for about the last month, I think he may even be worth a "reach" in the 3rd round.

From my perspective, at some point the year before last I knew he wasn't starting NFL material. But, I have to agree that the Jags game did indeed seal his fate. It was horrific

If that's the implication, then it's very short-sighted.

If Trump wins Indiana it's over.

I enjoy the discussion Greg, and I share some of the concerns that you have, specifically the slippery slope aspect of it all and the need for more oversight. But as of right now, there is no definitive proof that shows that the government's NSA data collection program is spying on its citizens for purposes outside of its intended goal and that the motive to create such a program was for reasons not related to the defense of the homeland. That sir, is A fact. Doesn't mean that at the end of the day that is the correct position, just that what has been released doesn't prove that case. I think some people lose sight that the NSA data collection program is just a tool. Sort of like the debate about guns, does a gun kill people or do people kill people? Often people want to go after ways of regulating gun control with the hopes of reducing crime (or playing to their political base). And the other side blames it on the people in the hopes of preserving their gun rights. It's not a perfect analogy but I see the NSA data collection as something similar, the collection of data in itself doesn't do anyone harm. It's how that collection of data is to be used where the problems can arise. My view of the government is that often times its very incompetent and that politicians with their advocacies, proposed bills and moments of broadcasted faux rage can make things worse. But by in large, I believe that the overall intent of the government is to try to do some good. We aren't talking about a despot government but a government that has many checks and balances in place and a very curious privately owned media that helps in this regard as well. Its good that the media is shining a light on this, I welcome that. Helps keeps things more honest.

You've yet to present anything that effectively makes the case that the government is systemically breaching people's privacy rights outside of the 4th amendment. GG and I have both asked for you to present something that unequivocally backs up this claim but the only thing you have done is make your own opinionated case (which is fine because it adds your context, but doesn't prove anything) and provide a few links that offer opinions from other people that share your view. I thought that was part of your argument, then if it isn't part of your argument then why make it part of your case. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, I know it's pretty clear that your believe that the 4th amendment is being broken, that's fine, I disagree. But to my understanding you are taking it to a different level. Which is that the government is systemically spying on its own people for the purpose of "power". If I have misunderstood you, then why do you believe they are spying on us?

The closest thing you've produced to backing your assertion that the government is systemically legally breaching peoples privacy in order to spy on them for purposes of "power" outside of their stated confines has been this: I think the key word here is "routinely". If that is the case, then I would consider this to be a breach. However, the problem is this is her opinion, which not only was rejected by the court but hasn't even been brought back on appeal. I've done my homework and I've concluded that there is no such breach. Not to say that this is definitive, because there is a possibility that it exists, but I have yet to see any evidence that proves your argument that the government is spying on its citizens for purposes of "power".

Just copy and paste an example of the government involved in a definitive systemic legal breach of peoples privacy. I want to give what you are saying a shot of being true. Nothing you have provided shows this or even comes close to proving your point.

It may help make the case but it doesn't prove anything.

Yep, that's a ringing endorsement. Yes, it will be awesome to witness the epic smack down and meltdown come November.