Cruz 1st Official Entry

[De Selby]

He was born in Canada but his parents were US citizens which makes him a US citizen. 

So what was the issue with Obama?  His mom was a citizen

[Perd Hapley]

So what was the issue with Obama?  His mom was a citizen

It turns out to have been a problem with the birth certificate. When the doctor had to wake up in the middle of the night, to attend a birth in a Bethlehem stable, he didn't bring with him all the necessary documentation.

[charby]

2. The GOP base is better informed than the typical low-info voter and will be less likely to turn out for a mush-middle GOP candidate.

There is zero upside to running a mushy middle candidate when it comes to getting votes.

Many of the GOP base are parrots, they just keep repeating what they are told via a news pundits and other sources of information. Usually lacks any substance, they normally can't explain the facts behind why they think that way or if they have "facts" they are very skewed to fit their feelings/ideals/theory.

Same applies to the left, why do you think political information is condensed into a 30 second commercial.

[makattak]

Many of the GOP base are parrots, they just keep repeating what they are told via a news pundits and other sources of information. Usually lacks any substance, they normally can't explain the facts behind why they think that way or if they have "facts" they are very skewed to fit their feelings/ideals/theory.

Same applies to the left, why do you think political information is condensed into a 30 second commercial.

The same applies to every faction in the history of humanity.

Let me make you more cynical. Keep in mind that these people on the left and right are concerned about the country and care enough to pay attention (at least marginally) to what is going on in the country.

They are, therefore, above average.

[charby]

The same applies to every faction in the history of humanity.

Let me make you more cynical. Keep in mind that these people on the left and right are concerned about the country and care enough to pay attention (at least marginally) to what is going on in the country.

They are, therefore, above average.

There was a time when more people where informed/cared. Somewhere between western expansion of literacy and mid 20th century.

If people really were concerned why do they keep electing people who are tied to big money?

Sound bites and catchy phrases have always been around, it is easy to associate a person with a popular +/- slogan.

[brimic]

There was a time when more people where informed/cared. Somewhere between western expansion of literacy and mid 20th century.

If people really were concerned why do they keep electing people who are tied to big money?

Sound bites and catchy phrases have always been around, it is easy to associate a person with a popular +/- slogan.

Its just the Milgram experiment on a large scale. Big money picks the candidates or at least rigs the system to get the desired candidates and then tells the masses who to vote for. Its almost certain that the next president will have a Harvard/Yale connection.

[makattak]

There was a time when more people where informed/cared. Somewhere between western expansion of literacy and mid 20th century.

If people really were concerned why do they keep electing people who are tied to big money?

Sound bites and catchy phrases have always been around, it is easy to associate a person with a popular +/- slogan.

People were more involved/cared because their representation was far closer to them, so they would actually have an interest and an effect on the government.

Our country has put far too many decisions out of the reach of normal politics. (It's further a function of the size of our country and our representative units.)

Far more ought to be done locally and far less done at the Federal level. We have it reversed. People don't care or vote locally because there is very little of value done there and don't care or vote nationally because there is very little they can affect there.

It ought to be the other way around. The federal government does only a VERY limited number of things and the state and local governments do anything else the people of that area desire.

[makattak]

There was a time when more people where informed/cared. Somewhere between western expansion of literacy and mid 20th century.

If people really were concerned why do they keep electing people who are tied to big money?

Sound bites and catchy phrases have always been around, it is easy to associate a person with a popular +/- slogan.

As an example:

In 1900 (right in the middle of the time you have referenced), there were 357 Representatives in the House, for a population of 76 million. Making each Representative represent (on average) 212,885 people (about twice as high as I would prefer.)

In 2015, there are 435 Representatives for a population of about 319 million. Each representative represents (on average) 733,333 people.

So, in 2015, our representative represent over 3 times the people in 1900. So, each voter has less than a third of the influence of any voter in 1900.

This is, of course, without also noting the massive increase in the power of the federal government that has accompanied the diminution of accountability to the voters.

[roo_ster]

There was a time when more people where informed/cared. Somewhere between western expansion of literacy and mid 20th century.

If people really were concerned why do they keep electing people who are tied to big money?

Sound bites and catchy phrases have always been around, it is easy to associate a person with a popular +/- slogan.

Let me amend that:
"There was a time when those with the franchise were informed/cared."  

Every expansion of the franchise beyond male property owners entailed going deeper into the barrel until we have been not only scraping the bottom, but are pounding on the bottom with a 4# sledge while screaming maniacally "Moar voterz better!"

Two party system + huge growth in size/scope of gov't = those with big $$$ having greater influence.  Crony capitalism, regulatory capture, etc. are the same thing with the same cause: expansion of gov't until it is the major player in the economy and it makes economic sense to influence gov't policy.  The best bet for a crony capitalist being to fund BOTH parties so that whomever wins the election, the crony capitalist is on the winning side.  Entrenched two party systems make that easy (two, not many parties), though it is by no means limited to two party political systems.  The ROI of these expenditures is enormous.  Think all the bailouts for the last several decades as just one effect of a bought & paid for political class.

Our country has put far too many decisions out of the reach of normal politics. (It's further a function of the size of our country and our representative units.)

I would include as causes of this judicial activism, the unconstitutional judicial power grab of Marbary vs Madison, and the rule by bureaucrat regulation/bureaucratic legislation.

[Ben]

If people really were concerned why do they keep electing people who are tied to big money?

Is there a way, at least in the current structure for national, and even statewide elections, for someone not tied to big money to run? I don't believe there is. I'm sure there are hundreds, if not thousands of people out in BFE that would make a better operational President than anyone potentially running in the current cycle, however they lack the one key ability to run in a modern election - salesmanship.

You can still potentially run for Congress and win if you hock the gun collection, but unless you know millionaires / billionaires or are one, forget running for Governor, the Senate, or President.

https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/elec_stats.php?cycle=2012

https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/wherefrom.php?cycle=2012

[Jamisjockey]

The real fear of the BHO birther crowd is that he's a Mooslim Manchurian candidate.   

While it's not a debate, here's Cruz at CPAC taking questions from Hannity, answering questions that seem to be on the fly
https://youtu.be/RYkdxc6GkjA?t=14m

[TommyGunn]

So what was the issue with Obama?  His mom was a citizen

  Obama was born on the Klingon Homeworld.  THAT'S what was the issue .....

[charby]

Is there a way, at least in the current structure for national, and even statewide elections, for someone not tied to big money to run? I don't believe there is. I'm sure there are hundreds, if not thousands of people out in BFE that would make a better operational President than anyone potentially running in the current cycle, however they lack the one key ability to run in a modern election - salesmanship.

It could be done, but it would be next to impossible. You'd have to be a master of social media and MSM, not come off as loon and be popular with members of both parties and the independents.

That and have a very thick skin, because you will be attacked from both sides.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Let's see.

George HW Bush: voodoo economics liberal.
Bob Dole: semi-incoherent senile looking third person speaking moderate liberal.
George W Bush: war mongering moderate liberal.
John McCain: ditto
Mitt Romney: liberal with an unconvincing conversion story to "severely conservative."

I think you your moderate friends should let Goldwater go already. He lost because he was a nutter. not because he was too far right.

Sez you.  Ask a center right partisan and he'll give you a different description of each presidency/candidacy.  A centrist/moderate/independent would say something different still.  And who knows what any of flavors of lefties would say.

There's no objective right answer for questions like these.  The opinions you'll hear are defined by the biases of the person rendering them.  That's why I called it mythmaking, they're mental models created by people to justify their emotions and desires.  Nothing wrong with that, let's just be aware of its limitations.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I was prepared to overlook Cruz's relative lack of experience, but that got a lot harder this week.  He's made 2 major unforced errors in just a few days.  First was not locking up TedCruz.com before going public.  The second was saying he'll sign up for Obamacare after his wife leaves Goldman Sachs and gives up her employer health care there. 

The Obamacare thing is especially disappointing.  I sure hope this is part of some clever ploy to rope in the opposition before dropping the hammer on 'em.  If it's not, then it's a low-level disaster.

[makattak]

I was prepared to overlook Cruz's relative lack of experience, but that got a lot harder this week.  He's made 2 major unforced errors in just a few days.  First was not locking up TedCruz.com before going public.  The second was saying he'll sign up for Obamacare after his wife leaves Goldman Sachs and gives up her employer health care there.  

The Obamacare thing is especially disappointing.  I sure hope this is part of some clever ploy to rope in the opposition before dropping the hammer on 'em.  If it's not, then it's a low-level disaster.

On both of those, he's following the law.

A lawyer in Arizona has owned that website since 2004 (and given what is on it, he's probably not all that disposed to help the more prominent Mr. Cruz) and he's required by law to get his healthcare through the exchange, because Congress shouldn't be above the law and have to deal with the same crap as other citizens.

Are you suggesting he should avoid that nasty healthcare for the proles?

Please note: Mr. Cruz is not my first, second, or third choice due to his lack of experience running any large organization. I'm just not understanding why these are disasters.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

You can still buy health insurance directly from insurance companies, same as you always could have, yes?  He should've just done that.

It's a disaster because it undercuts his biggest selling point, that Obamacare is bad and needs to be repealed and that Cruz is the guy to do it.  Instead he's saying that it's better than the alternatives, and it's worth signing up for.

[makattak]

You can still buy health insurance directly from insurance companies, same as you always could have, yes?  He should've just done that.

Yes. But he also insists that Congress ought to be subject to the same laws as the rest of us. I see this as walking that walk.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

How is buying private insurance, same as the any of us can, make him not subject to the same laws as everyone else?  This is not some secret loophole that only congressman can use.  

My mother was one of the millions who got cancelled because of Obamacare.  She went out and bought insurance herself, no Obamacare needed.  Lots of self-employed and small-biz people had to do that.

If Cruz has some master plan in here, some secret strategy, I'd sure like to see it.  For now, all I can see is the obvious response he's handing to our opponents for if/when we win in 2016 and want to repeal Obamacare.    

"Why should we repeal Obamacare, even President Cruz used it when he needed insurance.  How dare he try to take that away from everyone else?"

[Balog]

There was a time when more people where informed/cared.

[citation needed]

[charby]

[citation needed

I will, just really busy with life. It is something I heard on NPR, but I don't want to quote from NPR because of the skeptics in here.

[Brad Johnson]

Watching people bog down a thread arguing over political minutia is like watching two old women blocking a church aisle while they fight over who's bisquit recipe is better. Entertaining for a bit, but eventually you wish they'd shut up and move on so the rest of us can do something useful.

Brad

[charby]

Watching people bog down a thread arguing over political minutia is like watching two old women blocking a church aisle while they fight over who's bisquit recipe is better. Entertaining for a bit, but eventually you wish they'd shut up and move on so the rest of us can do something useful.

Brad

I wish Hillary would *expletive deleted*it or get off the pot. I'm really curious who wants to run on the Democratic ticket. If the same GOP clowns or similar ones show up like in the past, I may change my party affiliation.

[charby]

[citation needed]

This covers some of it, it's a long long long read....

http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/ve/onePage

[MechAg94]

[citation needed]

I think the root of that is just that fewer people actually voted.  There was talk of electioneering in big cities going back to the 1800's and further.  I don't think it is new.