Election 2016

Cruz Won Iowa Because of Evangelicals, Would Lose General Election For Same Reason

Was tops among voters who want a candidate that "shares my values."

|

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz handily won the first contest of the Republican nomination process last night in Iowa, picking up eight delegates to Donald Trump's and Marco Rubio's seven delegates a piece.

What pushed Cruz over the top? According to entrance and exit polls, it was both the size of the record turnout and the character of the folks who turned out. Specifically, nearly two-thirds of Republican voters last night described themselves as "born-again or evangelical Christian." With the possible exception of non-factor candidates (and past Iowa-caucuses champs) Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, Cruz is by far and away the most socially conservative and rhetorically born-again among the GOP contenders. "Any president who doesn't begin every day on his knees isn't fit to be commander-in-chief of this country," Cruz has said, and he pals around Kevin Swanson, a death-to-the-gays pastor, and Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue any marriage licenses once same-sex couples were given the ability to marry publicly.

Toss in Cruz's anti-immigration sentiment along with his relgiosity and there you have it. Forty-four percent of Trump supporters said that immigration was their top concern. Cruz's supporters had the second-highest total in that category, with 34 percent.

Notes Johm McComack of The Weekly Standard:

In 2012, 57 percent of Iowa GOP caucusgoers were evangelical Christians, but the final Des Moines Register poll that showed Trump winning indicated that only 47 percent of 2016 caucusgoers would be evangelical Christians. "When re-weighted as a scenario test for the higher evangelical turnout seen in 2012 entrance polls, the race is closer, with 26 percent for Trump and 25 percent for Cruz," Bloomberg reported.

Well, OK then. The race is on for New Hampshire, where RealClear's aggregated polls show Trump up by 25 points and Cruz and Ohio Gov. John Kasich tied for second (before last night, Rubio was showing fourth in New Hampshire, behind Jeb Bush).

One question for the Republicans is this: How do you win a national election with leading candidates who are at odds with the bulk of the country over immigration? Seventy-two percent of Americans favor some path to legalization, while leading GOP contenders accuse each other of being "pro-amnesty." When asked about abortion, 55 percent say it should be "legal in all/most cases," while Republican candidates say it should not be. Something similar goes for pot legalization too, though not as extreme (Cruz, for one, has channeled his situational federalist lately and now says it's a state issue). The point isn't that culture war issues decide national elections, but that exactly what puts Republicans over the top in Iowa is likely to alienate them from centrist voters in the general election. 

So how do you win a general election if you're a Republican? Well, you run against a Democrat, especially Hillary Clinton, whose negatives rival those of Trump and Cruz. RealClear's tally of head-to-head matchups is less up-to-date than its other polls, but the site currently shows both Trump and Cruz either in a dead heat with Hillary Clinton or slightly ahead.

Clinton barely eked out her own "win" over Bernie Sanders, an independent who calls himself a "democratic socialist." That spells bit trouble for the former senator and secretary of state even if and when she ultimately secures the Democratic Party nomination (more on that in a separate post). But the 2016 general election is already shaping up to be a battle between two incredibly rightly unlikeable candidates who nonetheless perfectly represent all that is awful about the Republican and Democratic Parties. Which is its own sort of victory when you think about it.

NEXT: A.M. Links: Cruz Beats Trump to Win GOP Iowa Caucus, Clinton Declares Victory Over Bernie, Bernie Fans Call Clinton 'Liar'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. …and he pals around Kevin Swanson, a death-to-the-gays pastor, and Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue any marriage licenses once same-sex couples were given the ability to marry publicly.

    Now, let’s not bring the culture wars into this analysis of how the culture wars put Ted on top.

    1. EVANGELICALS ARE HANDING THE COUNTRY TO THE SOCIALISTS

      With their inane Wars on Women, Gays and Drugs evangelicals would rather their children, grand-children and great-grandchildren live the lifestyle of the 1950 Russians than to allow people to live their own lives.

      The GOP hasn’t won the female vote in a presidential election since 1988.

      They’ve NEVER won the gay vote.

      And I can’t even remember the last century they won the youth vote.

      But don’t worry. The cloud in the sky gave them a sign this morning and our Lord is coming to save the day. Just you wait and see.

      Run Ted Run!

      1. I think they won every catehory on1984. Except the Minnesota vote.

      2. A Dem Prez with a GOP Congress is safer than a GOP Prez and Congress. Hillary is the worst of the lot with her long experience in backstabbing and being backstabbed, but Congress is unlikely to go Dem. Bernie is probably the safest of the bunch, since his plans are so marginal that a GOP Congress will stimy just about everything he tries, and he will veto just about everything they try to do.

        1. Scarecrow — You said, “A Dem Prez with a GOP Congress is safer than a GOP Prez and Congress.”

          I don’t know about that. How safe have we been with Obama and a GOP congress?

          1. A lot safer and better off than the Bushpigs reign of error..

            1. “Bushpig errors created or saved”

              1. Unfalsifiable claims are fun

            2. Once again, a half-truth hiding the full truth. Bush Jr with the GOP Congress certainly was a disaster, but the 2006 change wasn’t any better, and things would have been much worse for the last 7 years if Congress had stayed Dem. Contrarily, if Gore had won in 2000, the GOP Congress probably wouldn’t have put up with the prescription raid on the treasury, and a Dem Congress with Gore would have made Obama and Bush II look like amateurs.

          2. I meant specifically for this election, but a split does generally mean more deadlock and less action, which is better than having the two in cahoots. I believe things would have been worse with Romney being led around by the nose, or Obama backed by a Dem Congress.

      3. Yes, the GOP should take advice from someone who uses the term “war on women” unironically

        1. lapDance — I’m just speaking the truth.

          1. So am I. Republicans deserve plenty of criticism, but the war on women rhetoric is shrill bullshit that deserves nothing more than mockery and derision. Btw, in the 2014 exit polls more white women voted Republican.

            1. lap — The majority of women in this country do not want a bunch of old white men (for the most part) telling them what they can or cannot do with their own bodies. How is that “shrill bullshit”?

              Call it a War on Women, as the majority of women in this country do, or call it a War on Reproductive Rights or call it What Happens When Mickey Mouse Meets Minnie Mouse but the results are the same. The GOP loses presidential elections.

              And it is the evangelicals/catholics/religious right/born again contingent that have made this an issue and have women running to the democrats causing the GOP to lose presidential election after presidential election

              How else do you explain why more women are voting for the democrat nominees for presidents than the GOP nominees since 1988?

              Btw, 2014 wasn’t a presidential election. I said “presidential election”. More republicans go to the polls in non-presidential elections than democrats.

              I notice you didn’t oppose my identifying the War on Gays and Drugs with the evangelicals. I guess you’re ok with sending the gays and youth of America into the arms of the socialists. As if they don’t count for much.

              1. There is no credible war on gays or women in the US. Well unless you count single payer healthcare systems, then gov employees will have total control of women’s bodies. Drugs sure but the Progs also support that.

                1. Sey Us — What proof have you got? Make your case. I made mine.

              2. You’re so full of shit it’s ridiculous. You’re a progressive troll, not a libertarian.

          2. Uh huh.

            The only Congresscritter I can recall with a confirmed kill in the ‘War On Women’ is Ted Kennedy.

            1. So call it the “war on reproductive rights” then.

              1. or taxpayer funded non-reproduction rights

                1. Social — Not all abortions are taxpayer funded. That’s a separate issue.

                  I can be for a woman’s right to an abortion and that the taxpayer shouldn’t have to pay for it.

                  1. Wrong.

                    You’re either on board with government funded abortion and birth control, or you’re officially part of the War On Woman (TM) just as much as those pro-life evangelical troglodytes you love to bash.

                    Every major Democrat has called for the repeal of the Hyde amendment. And they make no distinction between people who are totally against abortion and people who just don’t want to pay for it. Because to them, making someone pay for an abortion is the same thing as banning it.

              2. Yes, how dare those Rethugs not support taxpayer subsidized abortions & birth control.

                That’s the same thing as forcing women to be barefoot & pregnant in the kitchen!!

                1. If only they stopped at merely not supporting taxpayer subsidized abortions and birth control, which is a reasonable position. They often go beyond that (or want to go beyond that) and try to force women to remain pregnant against their will using the power of the government.

              3. “So call it the “war on reproductive rights” then.”

                So your saying Republicans are against reproduction? How do they get all those big families? Oh never mind, you were using code words weren’t you. What you really meant was “War on abortion”.

                Why don’t you just say that? You’d come off as a lot more intelligent and straight forward.

                1. JWatts — You can’t really be this fuckin’ stupid can you?

                  There is “the war on reproductive rights.” This is completely different than “a war on reproducing.”

                  If you actually had a brain you would know the difference.

            2. Buddy — What, you don’t count the wacked-out evangelicals who have killed abortion doctors?

              Uh, huh.

      4. Gosh, you’d think evangelicals are all old grumpy single men…how do they reproduce?

      5. Republicans will continue to miss out on the female vote and the gay vote when these mythical wars are not corrected.

        I don’t like using the word “war” when it is more of an ideological goal, but I’ll keep the term here… there is a war against abortion, a war against re-defining marriage, and a war on drugs.

        Most evangelicals believe that abortion is murder… how is that justified by the common libertarian definition of “your right to swing your fist stops at my face?” Your right to do what you want with your body stops when it will intentionally kill a fetus. Of course even then there are a lot of caveats, just like there are a lot of valid justifications for killing an adult that won’t land you in prison. Let’s stop furthering the myth that there is a war on women.

        Most evangelicals believe that everyone is a sinner and that we all need help. However, the fact that they even call homosexual behavior a sin means that they will never get the gay vote.

        We are likely in agreement over the war on drugs. My biggest surprise with Ted Cruz is that he ignores the fact that federal drug enforcement is not an enumerated power. Unfortunately we don’t have any candidate on either side that will push for that change so if this is a deal-breaker for anyone, they are already staying home or voting 3rd party.

        1. Noel — Obviously the majority of women and their supporters in this country believe there is a War on Women. For some strange reason women don’t like it when old white men, for the most part, tell women what they can or cannot do with their own bodies.

          I know if ANYBODY tried to tell me, a man, what I can or cannot do with my body, with every fiber of my being I would try to kill that person. Much like I’m sure women feel about this subject.

          On the other side of the war you have the wacko-evangelicals who are killing doctors who perform abortions. Make no mistake, people are dying. This is just as much of a war as fighting ISIS is. The only difference is the evangelicals are too stupid to realize that they lost this war 40+ years ago.

          Let’s continue the truth-telling by calling this EXACTLY what it is, a War on Women.

          You say:

          “Your right to do what you want with your body stops when it will intentionally kill a fetus.”

          WRONG! Obviously the intentional killing of a fetus is NOT a crime as decided by the Supreme Court, therefore my “right to do what [I] want [does not stop] when it will intentionally kill a fetus.” You appear to have great difficulty comprehending logic, huh?

          Is there anything else I can inform you on? I’m here to help.

    2. GET A BEST TOP259-CAREER:::GET A BIG DEAL OF FOOLPROOF PROFIT.No Risk,No Tention,Just Stay At home and You Can Make 97$ Hourly.I have Bought a Acura getting 10524.24$ this month and also 10-k this past month . this is really the easiest work I’ve ever had . I actually started 6 months ago and practically straight away startad earning at least $94.p/h.visit…

      Going Here
      you Can Find
      Out .

      http://www.Home-Job-ConceptsBest1/top0/yes...

  2. and the pants-shitting begins…..

  3. RealClear’s tally of head-to-head matchups is meaningless, because presidential elections are not decided by the popular vote, but by electoral college totals which are won on a state by state basis.

  4. I was really hoping, after hearing Cruz won, that Trump was going to go off on a rant about Iowa, either in his speech or on social media. Damn his handlers.

    1. Trump is not stupid. I don’t know why the half wits in the media continue to believe he is.

      1. You don’t have to be stupid to lack a filter.

      2. There are many types of stupid. Trump is inflicted with many of them and he’s a carrier for the remaining varieties.

        1. In other words you disagree with him and think he is ICKY. Got it.

        2. Will — Be specific. How is Trump “a carrier for the remaining varieties” of stupid?

          Can’t tell us, can you?

          Just as I thought.

          All talk. No brains.

  5. So I guess since Trump lost, we can put the pants shitting over that on hold and let the pants shitting over the evil Evangelicals begin. Nick is so invested into the narrative that only minorities and people under 30 matter in the country. Jesus Nick, why don’t you just propose a final solution for the nations’ evangelical problem.

    Nick is utterly unbothered by candidates appealing to specific groups in other context. But my God let a candidate dare to get any votes from the dreaded EVANGELICALS!!! and Nick immediately starts having kittens.

    1. The man is among other things downright nasty towards gays – that might fly in Iowa but not in large parts of the rest of the country. The “evangelical problem” is that pandering to them loses national elections.

      1. No one cares. That is 2012. No one is voting on the social issue bullshit anymore. That is the one upside of the gay marriage decision. Most people think the gays got what they wanted and want to move onto other issues.

        And Cruz is no nastier to gays than Nick is to evangelicals. I have never once heard Cruz say that gays have no right to be heard in the political process and any party that listens to them deserves to lose. Nick says that about evangelicals once a week.

        1. Um. They’re definitely voting on kultrkampf. Ergo why Cruz won Iowa, but will bomb in a general.

          1. Even if they are, that doesn’t mean everyone else is. If Evangelicals vote for Cruz for culture war reasons that in no way means anyone is not going to vote for him for culture war reasons. The rest of the country has moved on and isn’t going to vote on those issues one way or another.

        2. “No one is voting on social the issue bullshit anymore”

          Interesting analysis shame it’s not based in reality.

          1. Yeah, that is why the sensation of the last year in the GOP has been Trump, a guy who is pro abortion and pro gay marriage. Why? Because normal people are not voting on those issues right now. Evangelicals are, but they vote GOP. The rest of the world did in 2012 as an exercise in virtue signaling. Not this time, however.

            1. Not this time, however.

              Lol. It worked for prog-tards last time in the face of awful economic malaise. And the time before that. It’ll work again.

              1. Then you should be happy. You clear care more about social issues than you do smaller government. Sadly, you can’t have both. So if you have to pick one, vote Progtard and at least get the one that you value the most.

                1. Not sure how you magically inferred that I somehow care more about social issues.

          2. true…its a hard pill to swallow for some. another hard pill to swallow for the gop is ted will not get the Hispanic vote…. 🙂

            1. “true…its a hard pill to swallow for some. another hard pill to swallow for the gop is ted will not get the Hispanic vote…. :)”

              Cruz doesn’t have to get the Hispanic vote. GWB got 44% of the Hispanic vote and won. If Cruz matches or beats that he would (everything else being equal) win the general election.

        3. John — Oh come on. You can’t be serious.

          You said, “No one is voting on the social issue bullshit anymore.”

          Are you telling us the evangelicals aren’t voting on the abortion issue?

      2. And maybe the fact that gays are now known for suing the fuck out of anyone who doesn’t recognize their marriage has engendered a little bit of backlash. You guys are all about backlash when it comes to Muslims. Maybe the gays should think about why people hate them like you expect the rest of the country to do.

        1. Maybe the evangelicals should think about why people hate them.

          1. No need to think, Bible says anyone who disagrees is in league with the Devil.

          2. The evangelicals do seem like a more predictable bloc than “the gays” except in John’s head.

            1. More evangelicals voted for Obama than gays voted for Romney, I would guess.

              Especially due to the large number of black evangelicals.

        2. I didn’t really have a desire to reply to your douchery, but I decided against my better judgment, if only to tell you how much of a douche you are.

    2. Eh. Evangelicals are pretty annoying though.

      1. So are a lot of people.

        1. Yeah, but SoCons are a special sort of shitty. And moreover are the reason why Dems win presidencies.

          1. Special how? Are they out destroying free speech on campuses? Are they rioting and poisoning the well on racial issues and police brutality issues?

            Just exactly what do they do other than exist?

            1. They just don’t have popular momentum right now is all (and are generally starting extinction in the face). Were the situation inverted and cultural shifts in their favor, they’d be just as dogmatically repressive as any SJW.

              1. So because of what you imagine them to be, you are totally down with letting the Progs fuck them over. Don’t worry, I am sure that will work out real well. The progs will step on your face last.

                1. Again you’re inferring things which I’ve not suggested to represent my opinions.

                  Keep going.

              2. Extinction? I wouldn’t bet on that.

              3. It’s not what they are imagined to be. It’s what they were under Bush.

                The last 8 years gave us the rise of the social justice warrior, but under Bush it was the SoCon. The only difference is – SJW’s have more clout in the media across the spectrum. SoCons are fairly limited.

                One thing not factoring in for a lot of people is what happens culturally with another wave of Democrats. Especially an outright socialists or Hillary who will play the vagina card. We are dangerously close to identity politics becoming entrenched in the mainstream, and that and Bernie’s socialism are the worst things that can happen to the country right now.

                Yes, worse than Trump.

                1. SoCons don’t have a widespread cultural base of support for a lot of the agenda they’d like, and any media coverage of anything they did accomplish at the state or local level would temper that a lot. SJWs have fawning support from the media and many people who just nod along and will go with the flow. I know which is more dangerous from personal experience. I grew up in the Unitarian Universalist Church, which is to say, the original SJW church. The branch my family went to failed to go to full derp while we were there, but the two other churches in my home city were absolutely aboard the full SJW platform, including the other kids my youth group interacted with literally wanting reeducation camps for anyone who didn’t want Big Brother. I am much more concerned with those people being in control, especially given that a lot of them did work for the government at various levels, and that they were still coming up with those answers even though most were well credentialed.

                2. The last 8 years gave us the rise of the social justice warrior, but under Bush it was the SoCon. The only difference is – SJW’s have more clout in the media across the spectrum. SoCons are fairly limited.

                  That is just absurd. I cannot think of a single thing Bush did as President that would fit that narrative. Bush was a big government save the world Wilsonian moderate Republican.

          2. Socon != evangelical

          3. There have been 18 Republican presidents and 14 Democratic presidents–and the Dems got a head start.

            Just some facts in amongst all the mind reading and supposition.

          4. Dems win presidencies because slightly more than 50% of the population wants the government to take care of them.

    3. Right on cue.

    4. “Jesus Nick” like he needs an ego boost

      1. he pronounces it “hey Zeus neek”, so it’s cool

    5. So here’s Cruz’s victory speech, He tanks God a few times but doesn’t sound all that preachy to me.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCAkw3fgZeo

  6. And there is also the issue of Ted Cruz being the one Republican who told the ethanol lobby to fuck off and still winning Iowa. That seems to be moderately good news. If the ethanol lobby can’t win in Iowa, where can it win?

    1. I dream of a commercially successful corn-sourced bioplastic that generates so much demand for corn it shoulders corn syrup and corn liquor out of profitability.

      1. corn liquor out of profitability.

        FUCK. YOU.

        1. THIS^^^

          /Bourbon drinkers everywhere

          1. My apologies, I didn’t mean to include the consumable variety of corn liquor when I chose that phrase over “corn derived fuel alcohol”.

        2. Rye…amateur.

    2. That was pretty surprising, and welcome.

    3. I agree. That’s the weakness in this analysis. Ted Cruz won despite fighting the poi-business wing of his own party on their viggest issue. He doean’t need evangelical turnout in NH or SC because he doesn’t have this weakness in those states. Also, the TX Monthly article posted in a thread last night which walked you through the writer’s wxperience with Cruz up to this point makes me think he might actually be smart enough to pull this off. Remember that he beat the Lt. Gov to win his Senate primary. That’s taking on Mr. Establishment in Texas. It doesn’t nexessarily translate, but he’s not a one trick culture warrior wither.

      1. You need to verk on yorn spellink and gremmar.

    4. If you count it that way, “the ethanol lobby” got more votes than Cruz and Paul.

    5. Ya, that’s one of the reasons I consider Cruz to be the least shitty but still viable option. He told the ethanol lobby to screw off. I.e. he shares my values.

  7. Oh, Christ, Gillespie’s at it again–babbling away as if someone cares what he thinks.

    Could someone wipe the drool of his face? It’s gonna drip and shock him again and nobody wants to clean him up after THAT again.

  8. Nick Gillespie ?@nickgillespie 3m3 minutes ago
    Attn @TedCruz: #IowaCaucus historically picks losers for GOP nom https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UfNjfbm8AvE ? @reason @heylexyg

    He should refuse those delegates?

    1. Cruz is not a libertarian by any stretch. He is, however, a lot closer to being one than any GOP nominee since Reagan. I don’t expect Nick to vote for Cruz. I would however expect him to be a little less butt hurt over the prospect of the GOP finally moving his way. In the end, Nick hates evangelicals more than he wants a smaller government.

      1. Well let’s face it – a smaller government is easier to populate it with Evangeliculz. Smaller government is only good when it’s the right smaller government.

        1. What is the “right small government”? And how is saying what you said any different than “I hate SOCONs more than I hate big government”.

          1. No idea, and it isn’t any different.

      2. Agreed. Totally.

      3. Evangelicals are not a big problem. That is one of the groups for which Big Media will do its job. Turning back the clock on issues close to your average Evangelical is not going to happen.

        So big deal made about nothing by Nick.

  9. So how do you win a general election if you’re a Republican? Well, you run against a Democrat, especially Hillary Clinton, whose negatives rival those of Trump and Cruz.

    That and you stop throwing gays and immigrants under the bus.

    1. Serious question. Is any form of border control now “throwing immigrants under the bus”? The people of this country are now under the obligation to let anyone and everyone is and see their country transformed into something entirely alien in order to avoid being racists?

      Is Europe and the rapefugees the only alternative to “throwing immigrants under the bus”?

      1. Is Europe and the rapefugees the only alternative to “throwing immigrants under the bus”?

        That would have been a great question back when Trump was saying every other Republican running was in favor of “amnesty.”

      2. There is no difference between illegal and legal. They just want to build a better life for themselves – all of them. There isn’t one nefarious actor in the bunch. The rapefugees is more hype than anything else – where;s the proof in this age of cell phone cameras everywhere?

        1. ” The rapefugees is more hype than anything else – where;s the proof in this age of cell phone cameras everywhere?”

          You’re seriously going with the “Those girls are lying” regarding the sexual assaults in Europe? There was a lot of collaborating evidence supporting that there indeed dozens of sexual assaults across various German cities on New Years Eve.

      3. Lol you trolly ass motherfucker. You are everywhere on this post. Go fucking make love to Cruz already, he’s waiting for you.

        1. Does your mom know you are posting without adult supervision? You know she likely has a key stroke tracker and will find out eventually.

      4. Is Europe and the rapefugees the only alternative to “throwing immigrants under the bus”?

        Only for people who tend to lurch from one extreme to the other.

        1. I don’t see how Cruz is extreme. How about we just enforce the laws and kick out immigrants who commit crimes and not allow cities who arrest them to refuse to turn them over to the ICE for deportation? That would be a nice start and one that would get you called a racist by about 90% of the media and the entire Democratic party.

    2. Exactly how are gays being thrown under the bus? Sorry, I see little evidence of this and virtually no serious conversations about homosexuality in the Republican agenda.

      1. Then open your eyes.

        Cruz brought up a fellow on stage the other day to explain how wicked and evil they are for wanting to get married.

        1. Words are “the bus”?

          1. Words are the only thing happening at all right now, so yes.

          2. Of course “words are the bus”. He is basically telling a not-insignificant chunk of the population to fuck off, because he can.

            1. You’re just supposed to listen with a smile, Rhywun, because obviously they don’t mean it. They say it because millions of people want to hear it, but no one actually has a problem with you, so sit back, close your eyes, and vote.

              1. Unless they make libertarian-sounding comments on economic issues, then they are totes serious and will fight tooth and nail to get those policies enacted.

              2. Meh, I get his shtick but nevertheless I fully expect him to tone it down if he makes it to the general because optics.

            2. Of course “words are the bus”. He is basically telling an insignificant chunk of the population to fuck off, because he can.

              FTFY.

              Everyone can.

              There are not enough of them to be a factor in any but the closest local elections.

              They tend to live in places where the vote is deep, deep blue.

              When they refuse to take part in herd mentality, they tend not to care what evangelicals say.

        2. Democrats bring up plenty of black pastors who don’t like gays either.

          1. Yeah, but that’s okay because reasons.

  10. “Any president who doesn’t begin every day on his knees isn’t fit to be commander-in-chief of this country,”

    Are we not doing phrasing anymore?

    1. Yeah, I would never have guessed that Cruz of all candidates was into that sort of thing.

      1. I think he pulled that line out of a South Park episode.

      2. Cruz is talking out of both sides of his mouth. In public, he puts on the holy roller act with full force. In private, he gives less attention to that and more to “constitutional” government.

        Which one is the real Cruz? Your guess is as good as mine, but I’m somewhat inclined to believe he actually is a middling proponent of limited government.

        I don’t know whether I should be disgusted with his act or disgusted with the evangelicals who will support any candidate who gives them the most outrageous display of piety no matter what else the candidate does or says. Maybe both.

        1. I agree with your analysis. I’d prefer a libertarian super man that could get elected with no pandering at all. Don’t see that happening though.

    2. I wanna get on my knees and please you, Jesus.

      1. What I wanna know is, why isn’t Faith Plus One’s album available on amazon/itunes.

    3. Any president who doesn’t begin every day on his knees isn’t fit to be commander-in-chief of this country,

      jesse.in.mb for president!

  11. From my wife’s cousin on Facebook:

    So now that Cruz apparently won Iowa, I almost ALMOST want Trump back.

    To be clear, Trump isn’t much better, but Constitutional ammendments for balanced budget? Dont encourage exports? Block net neutrality? Abolish the IRS??? Holy crap people believe this crap is even possible?

    1. Aren’t all of those things in line with the Libertarian position? Why do those positions not count in Cruz’s favor or if they do count less than the taint of “the wrong people voting for him”?

      1. I thought this guy was conservative/libertarianish, but apparently I was wrong. But even if he is conservative/republican, his critique really has me scratching my head.

        1. Economic illiteracy. They believe in mercantilism, that sort of thing.

          Net neutrality because its convinced shallow reddit thinkers that its a good idea.

          1. “Net Neutrality” is all about branding and phrasing. It’s not a “Neutral” position. Instead, it’s a government oversight over business decision position. To big government types, they don’t even understand how that’s not a neutral position. You can’t even explain it to them.

    2. I don’t see how any of Cruz’s suggestions are less realistic than what Bernie wants. $1.5 trillion in new spending a year (an incredibly low estimate)?

    3. Back in my younger, more naive days, I used to muse to myself, “all a candidate needs to do win the presidency is to promise to abolish the IRS. Everyone hates those fuckers!”

      Now that I’m older I’ve come to realize that people take comfort in having that boot grinding their faces.

      The world is a terrible, terrible place filled with horrid people.

      1. At least half the people want a Lord of the Manor to take care of them. They can accept that the Lord lives comfortably off their labor.

      2. “Now that I’m older I’ve come to realize that people take comfort in having that boot grinding their faces.”

        The Republicans with Democratic assistance have lowered the tax rates on the lower incomes to such a low level, that they look at the paltry amount they pay and they can’t understand why people are upset about high taxes. And remember, half of FICA taxes are hidden. The ruse is that the Employer pays, but numerous studies have confirmed that the Employer merely pays less for employees who have the FICA tax deducted than contractors who don’t.

      3. “The world is a terrible, terrible place filled with horrid people.”

        I want this as a bumper sticker..

  12. Cruz’s whole culture war shtick is as tiresome to me as the next guy from Portland, Oregon, but can we at least admit that Ted Cruz is the most libertarian candidate running that actually has a shot at winning? I’m celebrating the fact that an anti-ethanol Repub actually won Iowa. Also, if we’re going to rag on anyone who dabbles in to culture war crap, let’s give equal time to SJWs who are WAY more statist than Evangelicals. Seriously, the number of policy issues that Evangelicals decisively brake in a statist fashion is so few compared to the “throw due process out the window” hysterical college campus left.

    1. I’ve seen nothing to indicate Cruz as being remotely Libertarian. He’d made some opportunistically good-sounding arguments to score points w/ limited-govt advocates, but that’s about it.

      1. Most Libertarian doesn’t mean Is Libertarian. When everyone else is a statist of one stripe or another, well let’s just say he’s the smallest turd in the punch bowl.

      2. GOP small gov preachers = Lucy. Actual small gov lovers = Charlie Brown.

      3. So there is nothing Libertarian about balancing the budget, restoring the federal government to some kind of constitutional size? Is he a Libertarian? No. But to say there is nothing Libertarian about him is to say Libertarianism is nothing but pot, Mexicans and gay rights. In fairness, that is what Libertarianism is for Reason. But I honestly don’t think that is the full meaning of the word.

        1. Being a self-proclaimed Constitutionalist doesn’t make a person ideologically Libertarian.

          1. Nope, but it does make him more Libertarian than any of the other fucktards, and was doingprettygood’s point.

            1. I see nothing inherently Libertarian about being a Constitutionalist, so no I don’t think it necessarily makes him “more Libertarian” either.

              1. Got it – he fails the Purity Test. Looks like you are our new Arbiter.

              2. Haven’t you noticed all the shitty un-libertarian stuff the federal government does? In Ted Cruz’s opinion, most of it’s unconstitutional. That makes him a de facto libertarian of sorts.

        2. So there is nothing Libertarian about balancing the budget, restoring the federal government to some kind of constitutional size?

          Yeah. Gonna balance the budget while not touching the military or Social Security, and reduce the size of government while maintaining the drug war and stepping up border security.

          Only a moron would believe that load of horse shit.

          1. So I guess you do?

            1. You apparently do or you wouldn’t all butthurt and defending the guy.

          2. Sarc, considering that a common critique of Cruz from other Republican Senators has been for some time that he will gut the military and that he plans to de-escalate the war on drugs, I’ll take that as a moderately good sign RE: his budget commitments.

            1. I’ll believe it when I see it.

        3. Balancing the budget is secondary to stopping such massive violations of our liberties. He also doesn’t want to restore the federal government to a constitutional size; just the opposite.

          Does he support completely ending mass surveillance? Judging by his recent comments about Snowden, no. What about completely ending the drug war, stopping other kinds of unconstitutional surveillance (Stingrays), abolishing the TSA, ending all forms of ‘obscenity’ censorship, ending FCC censorship, opposing stop-and-frisk-like policies, etc.? Sure, the president does not have absolute power, but what matters more is whether or not he would actually be willing to take a stand against all the unconstitutional activities our government engages in. From what I’ve seen, he wouldn’t.

          I don’t vote for evil scumbags, even if they are less evil than their opponents.

        4. Ted Cruz is Libertarian except for drug policies and foreign policy. Even on homosexual marriage and abortion, he merely wants to kick them back to the states which are the same positions as Ron Paul. All of the hate for Ted Cruz on this site has to do with his being an evangelical Christian, not his political positions–most of which benefit Libertarians.

          1. “All” of the hate? Can you read minds? The fact that Rand Paul has similar positions is just an indication that he’s not good either, not an indication that Ted Cruz’s positions are okay. There are far too many things that he wants the government to do that are simply unconstitutional. I don’t believe that “most” of his desires would benefit libertarians.

            This has nothing to do with him being a Christian for me; it has to do with him not actually wanting a government that, at the very least, follows the constitution.

      4. I seem to recall he gave Rand a pretty good breather during the filabuster showdown with Obumah’s “justice” department about drones; even quoting Shakespeare for a bit. Maybe not perfect, but he was believable in his support of due process. We could do far worse that Cruz.

        1. A fair point.

          1. We could *always* do worse.

            1. Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton, Rick Santorum, Bernie Sander all come to mind.

        2. I’m sick of voting for “we could do worse”. Further, you’re voting for the whole apparatus involved in electing them. Attorney General, Sec State, and every other executive department asshat that goes with them. Not to mention federal judges. I’d rather not vote at all than implicitly support another John Ashcroft or Eric Holder.

          And this shouldn’t matter but it does: Ted Cruz is the ugliest, blob-faced, greasy looking weasel of the bunch. He’s far too punchable to be our executive. His tone and mannerisms reminds me of a big tent revivalist mixed with a high-school thespian. Putin with wedgie the hell out of him.

          1. OK, so I”m sick of it too. Whom do you suggest voting for? Paul? Assuming he won, I don’t think he could govern, he’s just too thin-skinned.

            Coolidge isn’t available this time ’round, being rather dead.

            Let’s not have a repeat of the previous two elections where the loosing candidate lost because he wasn’t ideologically pure enough for the fringes, so they stayed home. Yeah, it sucks.

            1. What incentive do they have to not be evil if you will reward these scumbags with your vote if they are merely less evil than their opponent? None. They can merely continue their scam of having one candidate be less evil than the other, and fools will keep voting for them. This is a dead end.

          2. These are the ones we have, unless Warren and Biden get in. You have to pick the best of what’s there.

            For me:
            1) Cruz
            2) Rubio
            3) ???

  13. “But the 2016 general election is already shaping up to be a battle between two incredibly rightly unlikeable candidates who nonetheless perfectly represent all that is awful about the Republican and Democratic Parties.”

    True. And it would have maybe been the perfect opportunity for a third party libertarian presently holding office (like Ron was once and Rand is now, and Johnson is not) to actually compete. Sadly the party of choice for most libertarians is the GOP.

    “Which is its own sort of victory when you think about it.”

    Which is sort of a lost opportunity for libertarians. When you think about it.

    1. Nice try with the concern trolling.

      1. Nice try with the douchy non-response trolling.

        1. Hello, Jackand Ace sockpuppet.

    2. party of choice

      Choice, not as in “preference” but as in “the lesser of two evils” (and just barely, at that).

  14. Cruz won “handily”? It was basically a 3-way tie.

    1. Yes he won handily because Trump didn’t run away with it – and they disappointed?

  15. Interesting that today’s Reason’s piece on Sanders is more favorable.

    1. I think we’ve all seen this coming for months.

    2. You mean the one that calls his domestic policy proposals “crazy” and says there was “much to despise” in his speech?

      1. Robby balanced that bit out by saying his domestic policy was no crazier than anyone else’s.

        Bernie is the last candidate I want from either party. Period.

        1. With Bernie we get more grid lock in DC, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing?

          1. Yes, we need to stay right on the current trajectory of spending and taxation. It’s perfect

            1. I must have missed something. Which candidate is talking about taking the steps necessary to cut spending, reform entitlements and the tax code, and reduce the outstanding debt?

              Oh, right, that guy – MR. NOBODY. How’d he do last night?

              1. Which candidate is talking about taking the steps necessary to cut spending, reform entitlements and the tax code, and reduce the outstanding debt?

                Crazy talk, that’s what that is.

              2. With Bernie you get more strangulation by executive order.

              3. I think he got 0.1 % of the Democratic vote according to CNN.

          2. With Bernie you will lose the entiredy of 1st Amendment protections.

            1. I doubt it.

              1. If Bernie had his way, you’d lose every bit of the 1st Amendment protections that have any cross over with business. And that’s a pretty huge chunk. Now, you might doubt that he’d be able to get anything actually passed, but that’s a risky position to take.

  16. “Cruz Won Iowa Because of Evangelicals, Would Lose General Election For Same Reason”

    Can we apply that thinking to the other side?

    Whomever really won between Hillary and Sanders last night, wasn’t it because they out did each other making their case to minorities and self-described socialists?

    I have a hard time believing that either one of them can win in the General Election without finding some way to appeal to the middle class. Does the Democratic Party have anything but contempt for the white middle class anymore?

    If Hillary or Bernie lose in the general election, it may be for the same reason they did as well as they did last night.

    1. The basic assumption of Nick’s post is that anyone who is tainted by having evangelical supporters is doomed in the election. Cruz got evangelical support but he is not an “evangelical” candidate by any reasonable definition. Cruz is not a one note candidate like Huckabee and Santorum and Nick knows that. Nick is just butt hurt.

      1. I’ve forgotten – how did Bush II do with the evangelical vote?

        1. I think he may have gotten one or two votes from them but I can’t quite remember.

          1. Obviously that cost him both elections. Big mistake.

      2. Aren’t blacks more evangelical than the general population?

        Latinos are becoming more and more evangelical all the time.

        Here’s right-wing Think Progress on the topic:

        http://thinkprogress.org/polit…..wing-vote/

        1. Yes they are Ken. And last I looked the Muslims do on occasion hold socially conservative views. But Nick is all about appealing to the Muslim vote.

        2. They just have to be convinced to not look at the government to provide them everything. Asians understand that.

    2. Bernie came close because the Democrats are rejecting Hillary. If the DNC had a more acceptable top candidate, Bernie would be polling in the single digits.

      1. Biden should be kicking himself for not running. What a dumb pussy.

        1. I really think Biden is just keeping his powder dry in the event Hillary implodes. I have zero belief that, even after the convention and her coronation, that the Democratic Party would allow the GOP to win on the “technicality” of Clinton being incapable of being President because she suffered a massive stroke. No matter what the state election committee rules on ballot access, timelines, etc were they’d get Biden on the ballot; or at least get him on the ballot in enough states to win the election (having CA in their backpocket is really a huge advantage for the Democrats).

          1. I don’t think a stroke will do her in. But an indictment sure would.

        2. Biden was convinced to not run against Hillary because “it’s time for a woman.” Bernie, not being a Democrat or being taken all that seriously by the Democratic machine, didn’t get that memo not that I think he would heel anyway. O’Malley was probably just running to make it not look too obvious the party was to anoint Hillary unopposed. But just like Obama in 2008, Bernie is putting a wrench in the Machine’s plans.

        3. Darn straight. His slogan should be “Biden 2016: I’m a bigger dumb pussy than Hillary ever was”.

  17. Lol at over analyzing an 8-7-7 split.

    I thought it was democrats who were supposed to suck at math.

    1. Game over, man!

  18. I’ll take evangelicals over progtards any day.

    1. As Evangelical Bush II and Progtard Obama I showed, they are really just two sides of the same coin.

      1. True, but at least the media will speak “truth to power” to an evangelical candidate instead of unquestioning fawning.

        1. I agree with both Hero and spqr2008. Another thing is the the Supreme Court still protects us from the worst of the evangelicals whereas it has utterly failed to protect us from progtards.

          1. Citizens United?

            McDonald and Heller?

            1. Best decisions in a long time – they read the constitution instead of making it up.

  19. In either case, it should be noted that trump and Cruz are probably not the favorites as of right now. Rubio’s suprising performance indicates that the GOP isn’t as anti-establishment as the media narrative has indicated of late. If he essentially tied Trump in Iowa, there are many more states where he will dominate. Besides, the betting markets have him as the front runner, which should say something.

    I’m not saying this is any better than anyone else, he is downright terrifying in his disregard for individual liberties (he will do ANYTHING) to combat terrorism. But simply, putting too much stock in the minutia will cause you to lose the forest for the trees.

    1. Yes, it will be Rubio. And barring some major catastrophe, Clinton. Rubio will eke out the win.

      1. Will Rubio tap Fiorina to get the vaginavote?

        1. Without regard to Carly’s lady parts – she is good at explaining conservatism, will not accept false premises for questions, and as a former CEO could apparently handle well the job of VP as manager.

    2. The irony of Republicans nominating an inexperienced young senator after complaining about Obama being an inexperienced young senator is almost too great to fully comprehend.

      He’s just of an empty suit as Obama was 8 years ago. Apparently, that’s who our presidents could be from now on. God forbid somebody with a record actually obtain a nomination.

      1. It’s not irony. It’s a learned lesson. The Republicans learned that no one really cared much about the “inexperience” issue.

        And in any case Rubio was first elected 16 years ago in 2000. Donald Trump is the candidate with no legislative experience.

  20. I’m voting for the lesser of a dozen evils.

  21. Rubio is going to Romney this thing. That much is clear to me now.

    1. Make it profitable?

    2. That is entirely possible. Though, who is to say Rubio isn’t at his ceiling? None of the other candidate sans Rand Paul even got 4%. The establishment hates Trump and Cruz. So Rubio got the entire pro establishment vote and still finished third. How many Trump and Cruz voters are going to leave and go for Rubio? Maybe a lot of them but that is hardly certain.

      The other thing is Trump should do better in the Northeast and Cruz should do better in the South than they do in Iowa. So where does Rubio win?

      1. If Rubio leaves Cruz a distant 3rd in NH, he’ll probably do well in SC as well.

        1. Newt Gingrich won the last SC primary after Romney got almost 40% in NH

          1. I don’t foresee Cruz doing the same though. The people who voted for Gingrich last time likely lean more towards Trump IMO.

            1. And Trump is up big in South Carolina. If Trump wins both New Hampshire and South Carolina and Cruz finishes second, it is likely a two person race at that point. Rubio will have won nothing and finished third in two out of the three races up to that point.

              1. Rubio will be around for awhile at this point. The strategy is for Trump and Cruz to knock each other out eventually, so Rubio can sail to the nomination.

                1. That only works if you can be a viable contender. I don’t think a string of thirds makes you viable. He’s got to win something.

        2. It is hardly clear Rubio will do that. Rubio is going to lose establishment votes to Christie and maybe Bush in New Hampshire. And even if he does finish second, he still will not have won anything while both Trump and Cruz will have.

          And what possibly makes you think Rubio will win South Carolina? Real Clear Politics currently has Rubio a distant third there.

          http://www.realclearpolitics.c…..-4151.html

          1. Wasn’t prognosticating Rubio as #1 in SC. At the moment I think it’ll be Trump Rubio Cruz, with NH likely to look the same.

            1. Finishing second and third isn’t good enough. At some point Rubio has to win something. And I am just not seeing where that will be. Cruz is going to win a lot of states in the South and Trump is going to win in the North and apparently South Carolina if the polls hold. Where does Rubio win?

              1. Finishing 2nd or 3rd won’t be good enough for Cruz either. And Rubio will have the ‘establishment’ behind him.

                In a 3-way race between Cruz, Trump, Rubio, I see Cruz as the eventual loser of that in the longer run.

      2. Eh, Iowa means nothing in the grand scheme of the Republican primary. Don’t read too much into it.

        1. Iowa is a weed cutter. At this point you can discount anybody that’s pretty far down the pact. Does anyone think that Jeb Bush can pull it out now?

    3. Be painted as a dangerous extremist by the democrats and the media?

    4. He’ll become a mormon? Maybe that would help, dunno..

  22. I wish Gary Johnson were the face of the Republican Party rather than Cruz, Trump, or Rubio. I guess I’ll need to work on making pigs fly.

    1. SoCons is why that won’t happen.

    2. It’s bizarre that libertarians continue to believe that their home is in the Republican Party, alongside crony corporatists, socon social warriors and disgruntled blue collar workers, three groups that don’t really care about the vast majority of libertarian values (except when it’s convenient to do so).

      1. No one says there home is there. The question is is it more there or more in the Democratic Party. And unless your definition of Libertarianism begins and ends with gay rights and abortion, the answer is pretty clear.

      2. Right on. Look at what happened between 2000-2006 with Republicans in control of Congress and the presidency.

        1. OTOH, spending skyrocketed after the Democrats took over Congress.

          1. When it comes to spending they are opposite sides of the same coin.

      3. It isn’t their home, but where else are they going to go? Reasonable fiscal policy is most important to me, even if it comes with dumbass SoCon bullshit.

        But I’ll persist in my belief that SoCons are and will continue to sink the GOP.

        1. Reasonable fiscal policy is most important to me

          That disqualifies the Bloods. They ran up deficits and spending just as fast as the Crips.

          1. Indeed. Let’s not forget the large number of Republicans who scream in terror at the idea of cutting military spending. And how many are for scaling back entitlements or domestic spending? I haven’t seen too many specifics… ever.

          2. “That disqualifies the Bloods. They ran up deficits and spending just as fast as the Crips.”

            I think the Crip Sanders wants to set the record straight.

      4. When given a choice between Democrats who are openly hostile to economic liberty while paying lip-service to personal liberty, and Republicans who are openly hostile to personal liberty while paying lip-service to economic liberty, I guess a lot of libertarians choose the ones who are not openly hostile to economic liberty.

        1. Correct. Personal liberty is meaningless if I’ve little to no economic means to pursue it.

          1. Personal liberty is meaningless if I’ve little to no economic means to pursue it.

            And money is meaningless if my personal expression is suppressed.

            Wow, it’s almost like people have different preferences.

            1. Shrug. It’s obvious that if one’s only ways of making a living are dictated by the whims of state, they’re inevitably not going to have much personal liberty available either. Whereas economically self-sufficient people tend to be far more able to set their own terms.

              1. Nuh uh! Uber changes everything!!!

                Or you can look back and empirically determine that all of your social liberalism is coming to be on its own, which can’t be said on the economic side with the regulatory and redistributionist state. Quite the opposite in fact.

        2. Well said.

        3. To me, both parties are hostile to both personal and economic liberty, in deeds if not in words.

          In the name of “fighting terrorism”, the Republican Party has been just as horrible if not worse to economic liberty than Democrats. I guess it’s because I work in an industry directly affected by these economic restrictions — finance — that I may have a different perspective on it. “We can’t let terrorists get money” to me means “we’ll drown your financial services company in know-your-customer and reporting requirements and fine you $5MM if you don’t file a suspicious activity report where we think you should have”.

          1. Well, one thing is certain. The online ‘training’ modules ostensibly designed to help prevent fraud as well as keep ‘Murica! safe from terrorists are totally useless and only seem to line th pockets of test center operators.

          2. ‘Terrorists’ are the excuse for those rules, bassjoe, not the reason. The reason’s the War on Some Drugs. Which we’re not OK with either, true.

            All of the Patriot Act surveillance and banking laws have been on the wish list of the Executive branch long before W sniffed the White House. Two skyscrapers collapsing just gave people enough of a reason to enact them into law.

          3. “In the name of “fighting terrorism”, the Republican Party has been just as horrible if not worse to economic liberty than Democrats. I guess it’s because I work in an industry directly affected by these economic restrictions — finance — that I may have a different perspective on it.”

            That doesn’t make much sense. Republicans have been bad on the issue, but Democrats are openly promising to be much worse. WTH do you think Bernie Sanders would do to the finance industry if he got his way?

        4. Republicans who are openly hostile to personal liberty without personal responsibility

          FTFY

      5. Social liberty is marching forward with each generation. What little benefit Dems give to it is measured in years and is often negative due to backlash. Economic liberty is decreasing constantly. It makes sense to throw weight behind the party that might forstall some of the worst economic liberty destruction.

        1. Er. Where do some of you people even get this idea that social liberty is somehow advancing?

          1. Sanders is tied for the lead insteaf of in jail?

          2. True dat.

            Chattel slavery is still the law of the land, and wimmenz stay at home on voting day.

            Just like always.

    3. Sounds like a good party mascot. Penguins are dumb.

  23. No, he’s going to lose because he’s the ugliest man to run for president since Nixon.

    1. ugliest man to run for president since Nixon.

      I thought that was HiLIARy ….

  24. A more interesting article than “what’s wrong with candidate X” would be an in depth discussion of what Libertarians should do once “their” candidate is eliminated: go home or pick the next best (esp for congressional elections). Parsing the pros and cons of either decision is important to the future of small govt advocates. I HATE hearing I should vote for the smallest turd, but I also know you can’t win if you don’t play. Might be THE problem we must resolve before realizing any major political goals

    1. Unless Paul charges back, I am voting for Gary Johnson. And hoping Cruz wins.

      I wont vote for Cruz, but he is preferable to everyone else with a chance. But Im voting for what I want.

  25. Ah, the thread where we are supposed to pretend the state that went for Huckabee and Santorum has no Evangelical tilt.

    1. The evangelical perception is due to them showing up at the caucuses in higher proportion than they are in the general population.

  26. Uh, what? Plenty of Republicans have won *because* of teh scary evangelicals, rather than in spite of them. Honestly, if Cruz is the SoCon candidate he’s remarkably restrained compared to, say, Santorum or Huckabee. I don’t see how having evangelicals on board will be any more of a liability than it has been for republicans in the past.

    Put down the gay Mexican pot brownie and think before you write, Nick.

    1. The country has changed a lot in the past 15 years though. Most politicians (including Obama and Hillary) were against gay marriage until fairly recently. I think evangelical support is going to become a liability in the future if it hasn’t already.

      1. If we were talking about a level of pandering equivalent to, say, Huckabee I would agree. But what has Cruz really said about SoCon issues? Pretty much the same line as all the other candidates: he’s a Christian, he’s for leaving gay marriage to the states, and he’s for a federalized abortion policy — big whoop. None of these things has been or is currently a dealbreaker for the electorate, and none of them seem like they will be anytime soon. Were Cruz-style statements of support a dealbreaker in the 2014 election? Doesn’t seem that way to me. So unless he goes insane and starts going full Santorum, I don’t see how this is anything other than a particularly nasty wish from Nick and others that those dirty SoCons will be completely ostracized from the public scene altogether.

        1. Perhaps evangelical support per se wouldn’t be a deal-breaker. The deal-breaker would be the policy proposals from candidates. Huckabee/Santorum-type rhetoric about making gay marriage federally illegal, for example, would be the liability. I guess maybe this shows that even evangelicals have shifted if they support the idea of states deciding on gay marriage rather than outright making it illegal at the federal level. However, I think it’s probably due to pragmatism rather than a change in ideas. SoCons probably realize federally banning gay marriage won’t happen, so the next best thing is allowing states to do it.

          Rhetoric can also have an influence too though. If somebody made it a point to say that marriage between two people of the same sex were an abomination, or something along those lines, it would likely be a turn off for most people.

          (I might be wrong about what candidates are saying or have said. I haven’t followed things too closely.)

          1. Huckabee/Santorum-type rhetoric about making gay marriage federally illegal, for example, would be the liability[…] If somebody made it a point to say that marriage between two people of the same sex were an abomination, or something along those lines, it would likely be a turn off for most people

            I’m with you there 100%.

            I just haven’t heard it from anyone outside the usual suspects (Huck, Santorum).

            maybe this shows that even evangelicals have shifted if they support the idea of states deciding on gay marriage rather than outright making it illegal at the federal level. However, I think it’s probably due to pragmatism rather than a change in ideas

            Probably a bit of both. Whatever the reason, it makes evangelicals a viable group to court for Cruz and other Rs looking to win the general.

            1. And the fact is the evangelicals are getting stomped all over by the Progs. The Progs have declared war on religious freedom in this country, sand protected minorities like Muslims. And Reason still concerns itself with the dreaded SOCON menace more than it does with the threat to actual freedom posed by the Progressives.

              1. sand protected minorities like Muslims

                Another delightful typo or Freudian slip? You be the judge.

                On a related note, I find it peculiar that the same people who insist that social conservatives will be the death of liberty, are also the same people who insist on no restrictions to importing as many Latin Americans (predominantly Catholic and more socially conservative than the average, secular American) and MENA ‘refugees’ as possible (almost universally Muslim, plus think that a stereotypical Waco Baptist is Oscar Wilde reincarnated.).

      2. It’s always been a liability. Goldwater was already bitching about them for the right reasons decades ago.

        1. As someone who lost in record numbers, he would know.

          Hell, I’m from AZ, I like Goldwater, and last time around my guy was Gary Johnson for the Republican primary and for the general election — but let’s not kid ourselves. While libertarians bitch on the internet, religious voters work their asses off for their candidates of choice. The only exceptions to this in my lifetime has been in the Ron Paul campaign (and apparently, most of that support was really anti-establishment Trump-style support).

          Regardless of what you think about this dynamic, it means that courting religious voters within reason will not be a political liability for quite some time.

          1. The “within reason” is what remains to be seen. We’ll see what types of overtures to evangelicals or SoCons work and if they are acceptable to other elements of the electorate.

  27. I posted it upthread, but am going to reiterate:

    STOP USING SOCON AND EVANGELICAL INTERCHANGEABLY, THEY ARENT THE SAME FUCKING THING!

    Thanks.

    1. Good point. Obama and Hillary were against gay marriage until a few years ago after all.

      1. That isnt my point, but okay.

        1. Yeah, I added something else.

    2. How the F*** would you know?

  28. I’m beginning to think Nick either doesn’t like Cruz or is just striking him down so that he becomes more popular than he can possibly imagine.

    1. “… or is just striking him down so that he becomes more popular than he can possibly imagine…”

      So, the Jacket is kind of like the Mask? http://www.starwarshelmets.com…..d_Icon.jpg

  29. Cruz appeals to Evangelion voters? Hmm… I do want a candidate who shares my values of giant cyborg mechs and schoolgirl uniforms…

    Sidenote: Evangelion 3.33 was released in North America today! 🙂

  30. Opposition to gay marriage and legalization of pot and prostitution is higher among non whites than whites. And Huckabee made no noise this time. Cruz almost certainly did not win because the white evangelicals chased just social issues.

    Could it be that both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio were big name Tea Party figures in the past and white conservatives weren’t simply going to abandon the stars they put in power not too long ago? Or maybe enough conservatives there found Trump’s abrasiveness to be distasteful and shunned him? They get no credit?

    You can advocate for strict immigration policy without advocating for massive deportation or forcing Mexico to build our walls. Lumping Trump, NRO and Ted Cruz into one “anti immigrant” group is laughable. 70% of Americans apparently favor path to legalization, yet it wasn’t a winning issue for the dems outside of the bluest of states.

    A Republican can’t win in the general election arguing for amnesty, becuase he won’t win in the primaries. Mccain sort of flipped flopped on that issue and still lost.

  31. just before I saw the bank draft 4 $9950 , I didn’t believe that…my… brothers friend had been actualey bringing home money in their spare time on their apple labtop. . there friend brother has been doing this 4 only about and recently cleared the dept on there place and bourt a new Jaguar XJ . linked here

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??….

    ????????? http://www.Jobstribune.com

  32. what this really means is that i was smarter than many analysts. therefore, until the next time, i’m officially the establishment. first order of business….toga party.

  33. Wha? I thought Trump had the evangelical vote all tied up, indeed they were fleeing to him in droves and revealing their true hypocritical evil stupid nature blah blah blah. Oh crap, I forgot to read N.G’s spin on the results and then vent his anger at the voters…meh don’t care.

  34. ?
    GET A BEST TOP259-CAREER:::GET A BIG DEAL OF FOOLPROOF PROFIT.No Risk,No Tention,Just Stay At home and You Can Make 97$ Hourly.I have Bought a Acura getting 10524.24$ this month and also 10-k this past month . this is really the easiest work I’ve ever had . I actually started 6 months ago and practically straight away startad earning at least $94.p/h.visit.

    Going Here
    you Can Find
    Out .

    http://www.Home-Job-ConceptsBest1/top0/yes...

  35. just before I saw the receipt that said $7527 , I accept that my mom in-law woz like actualey making money in there spare time from there pretty old laptop. . there aunt had bean doing this for less than twentey months and at present cleared the depts on there appartment and bourt a great new Citro?n 2CV . look here…….
    Clik This Link inYour Browser.
    ???????? http://qr.net/bvXsV

  36. just before I saw the bank draft 4 $9950 , I didn’t believe that…my… brothers friend had been actualey bringing home money in their spare time on their apple labtop. . there friend brother has been doing this 4 only about and recently cleared the dept on there place and bourt a new Jaguar XJ . linked here

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??….

    ????????? http://www.Jobstribune.com

  37. Cruz will switch to a non Evangelical campaign as soon as he needs to(after SC and the southern Primaries). He will concentrate on conservative economics and minimalist interpretation of the Constitution. When people bring religion back in, he will shrug his shoulder and say yes, but these(economic and the Constitution) are what I offer.

  38. Cruz will switch to a non Evangelical campaign as soon as he needs to(after SC and the southern Primaries). He will concentrate on conservative economics and minimalist interpretation of the Constitution. When people bring religion back in, he will shrug his shoulder and say yes, but these(economic and the Constitution) are what I offer.

  39. The media cant have it both ways. If he will lose the general because of evangelicals, then how come Romney and McCains losses were blamed on evangelicals staying home.

    The “evangelical” vote is bogus.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.