Prediction: Rubio Will Be the Nominee
My natural pessimism is coming out in this post. Basically, if we were a nation that cared about limited government and Constitutional principles, Ted Cruz would run away with it. But we’re a nation that knows Snooki is on Jersey Shore but not the year that we gained our independence. And so we’re probably going to have to settle for someone like Rubio.
It’s early to be certain, of course, and I hope I’m wrong (unless the alternative is Trump, in which case I hope I’m right). But Bobby Jindal just endorsed Rubio, Romney will certainly endorse Rubio, and every nasty Establishment senator who has trashed Ted Cruz is going to endorse Rubio. Santorum endorsed Rubio (even though he clearly can’t justify why), and once Jeb and Christie are out, they’ll endorse Rubio. Basically, the whole establishment is going to line up behind Rubio. He’s gotten as much of a bump in the polls by coming in third in Iowa as Ted Cruz got from coming in first. And he’s bound to outperform Cruz in New Hampshire.
He’s the pretty boy with the vapid rehearsed lines. He’s the guy who won the student government positions. He doesn’t have a long pointy nose or other unattractive features like Cruz.
He’s not very smart, of course. He’s far, far too bellicose. He has supported every moronic Obama intervention under the sun. He is in the pocket of Big Sugar, which is a minor issue in the grand scheme of things but speaks to his character. I doubt he’ll repeal ObamaCare — and if he does, he’ll replace with something that retains 95% of its bad anti-market features.
And we all know that in his first four years — should he beat Hillary or Bernie or whatever other 115-year-old the Democrats put up — he is going to pass legislation to legalize millions of illegals and cement the permanent Democrat majority in our lifetime.
We know this.
But at least our President won’t have a large nose! Large ears, perhaps, but not a large nose!!
There are silver linings. He has an even chance of putting good Justices on the Supreme Court — and the next President could easily replace three of them. The Democrat fossil will have a zero chance of doing the same, and an even chance is a lot better. He has a pretty conservative voting record in the Senate, as a general rule.
And he’s not Donald Trump. In a normal election cycle, constitutional conservatives like myself would be appalled at a Rubio. But we have seen a possible future in which an Emperor Donald Trump runs amok, and Rubio will seem like a welcome exit ramp from that Highway to Nightmaresville.
Other than that, meh. Government will continue to grow. The debt will continue to grow. People like me will get angrier and angrier.
I’ll continue to support Ted Cruz and to hope beyond hope that the American people will overcome their usual ignorance and choose someone who can start to fix this mess.
I’m just not going to hold my breath.
Sorry to be a wet blanket. I’m just being realistic.
Patterico (86c8ed) — 2/5/2016 @ 6:00 pmI’ve said that I’d vote for Trump if I could be confident he’d appoint good judges so I have no problem voting for Rubio either if he’s the nominee, for the same reason. Judges are one of 3 things that live on long after the President has left. The other two are foreign policy mistakes and huge new entitlement programs.
Gerald A (7c7ffb) — 2/5/2016 @ 6:08 pmPatterico, unfortunately I concur. Though, I will contribute to his campaign and volunteer in TN. Pretty sure all for naught.
pieter (ec44a2) — 2/5/2016 @ 6:08 pmThe fact that the big names are lining up behind Rubio again demonstrates why it’s ignorant to link Cruz with the establishment types, as some Trumpers keep trying to do.
Gerald A (7c7ffb) — 2/5/2016 @ 6:11 pmI don’t mind Marco Rubio, but you basically just conceded several major issues so long as Donald Trump doesn’t get anywhere near the White House. I get it–he’s brash, he’s arrogant, he’s a prick, he doesn’t understand the political game, but at this point, I’ll take it over the typical Republican candidate. We’ve been trying these crappy “establishment” candidates for over 20 years and they always fall well short of what we want. We know that Hillary Clinton is hated by the majority of Americans and that Bernie Sanders is a total quack (though he is genuine in his beliefs). Who is to say that Donald Trump cannot, at the very least, shake things up to the core? I’d rather gravitate towards the unknown than the typical Republican candidate that will cave to Democrats when their back is against the wall.
David Kerr (7e75d3) — 2/5/2016 @ 6:13 pmOn a note to get us off the ledge and back in the building…the ever present LIVs are about to get bombarded by adverts clearly illustrating Trump and Rubio history. Not many are tracking Rubio’ s pat on trade, foreign workers and Libya. Perhaps it will make a difference.
pieter (ec44a2) — 2/5/2016 @ 6:13 pmI don’t know what will happen. I almost wonder if the dems don’t want to win the presidency, expecting the poop to hit the fan in the wake of Obama,
sort of like when Kerry ran for president in 04 on the “reporting for duty” obscenity
(though I knew at least one smart young person who fell for it, not knowing any better what Kerry really did to undercut and slander the US in the 70’s),
of course it could also be they just don’t have any reasonable candidates.
I would expect, though, if Rubio wins in ’16 and acts like the current senators of which he is one,
expect who knows what turmoil will be in ’18.
I am real disappointed, though, in many of the people endorsing Rubio.
MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (deca84) — 2/5/2016 @ 6:18 pmVery disappointed.
Trump supporter Schlafly regarding Rubio…
http://www.eagleforum.org/immigration/rubio-record.html
pieter (ec44a2) — 2/5/2016 @ 6:22 pmAt what point in our nations history did we decide that to be a leader of our nation you had to decide to do it early and make a career of it? This is crazy. We are crazy.
Immigration is THE ONLY ISSUE…everything else pales compared to it. Judges you say…I say if you allow a permanent Democratic majority by importing another 30 million Mexicans that it won’t make a difference if we have 12 Scalias.
John Paul Jones (9e8f8d) — 2/5/2016 @ 6:34 pmAt this point I would vote for either Carson or Cruz.
I might consider voting for Fiorina.
Under certain, very specific situations, I might consider voting for Trump.
I would never vote for Christie, Rubio, Bush or Kasich.
I honestly didn’t realize Gilmore had not dropped out.
At this point, I will probably end up voting for The Constitution Party candidate like I did in 2008.
WarEagle82 (3f92a9) — 2/5/2016 @ 6:34 pmTrump is the ONLY candidate who has come out forcefully against immigration. He is the only one who gets it. He can scream f-words from the balcony of the White House if he follows through on his promises regarding immigration. All the other candidates, including Cruz have at best waffled about fixing the problem…
John Paul Jones (9e8f8d) — 2/5/2016 @ 6:36 pmI agree you are a wet blanket. Rubio and Cruz are my 1 and 2 choices and have been for quite some time. I’d gladly support either and anyone running for the Republicans except the Donald. If it’s Donald v Clinton or Sanders I may have to revisit MY dual Canadian/US citizenship.
Charles Harkins (acd486) — 2/5/2016 @ 6:37 pmPersonally, I have exactly the same worries (Rubio being the nominee)since before Iowa, but even more since. In fact, though I’m a Cruz supporter, I was disappointed in the Iowa results due to Rubio’s strong 3rd.
I’ve said since last summer that, though there are several candidates in the race I strongly dislike (Huckabee and Kasich being examples) there are only two I absolutely will not vote for in November; Bush and Rubio. (Nor will I donate to the party, nor do my usual GOTV November volunteer work).
I’ll still go to the polls to vote for my congressman, but if Rubio is the nominee, I’ll be choosing between leaving my ballot blank, voting 3rd party, and voting for the Democrat nominee for the first time in my life. Immigration is part of it, but far from my only reason (Patterico mentions a few, but there are more… Rubio’s past support for Cap and Trade and now proposing a new big entitlement program being just two).
I also predict that if Rubio is the nominee, he’ll probably lose. It’s the Romney problem; Romney lost due to lower voter turnout among Republicans (he carried independents, which is the usual path to victory). Why? Because many didn’t trust him on healthcare (I didn’t, but I voted for him anyway). This year, immigration is a top concern of a significant percentage of both Republicans and independents. The same is true for foreign policy (And Rubio did indeed publicly back the Obama/Clinton Libya fiasco, and the undercutting of Mubarak in Egypt (Arab Spring), etc.). So, I suspect there will be, as with Romney, a few percent of R voters who will stay home. That’s enough. The whole Rubi-is-electable thing is a lie, and his numbers will wither as Democrats obliquely pound him on it (like Obama did with Romneycare to Romney).
Arizona CJ (da673d) — 2/5/2016 @ 6:45 pmRubio was elected as a Tea Party candidate. The GOP wanted Crist. Remember that. You can’t always get what you want. But if you try some times….
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/5/2016 @ 6:46 pmThat’s pretty vague. Vague stuff seems to be what his candidacy is all about – besides the border and I guess Muslims.
Gerald A (7c7ffb) — 2/5/2016 @ 6:50 pmrubio/amnesty
mg (31009b) — 2/5/2016 @ 6:58 pm2016
That’s pretty vague. Vague stuff seems to be what his candidacy is all about – besides the border and I guess Muslims.
Gerald A (7c7ffb) — 2/5/2016 @ 6:50 pm
You are kidding right? He is against the TPP, he will reign in the Chinese currency manipulation, he will end the Dept of Education, severely curtail the EPA, end illegal immigration and keep the muslims out…that is vague?
John Paul Jones (9e8f8d) — 2/5/2016 @ 6:59 pmBTW, of course it will be Rubio. That’s been a given for a while now. Given Trump, Rubio is a BIG win. I wanted Walker. Failing that, I’d rather have Romney than Cruz (and those that hate Romeny CGFT) because I want to get the economic thing back on track. After that, Fiorina, but that doesn’t seem likely. After that, Rubio is better than what’s left.
So. Rubio. Thoughts:
* Half a loaf.
* A strong candidate.
* A carrot to the Hispanic community for the stick that must come (e.g. no path to citizenship).
* Some chance down the road that the Hispanics will not be the Democrat gimmes that that blacks have become. There are differences.
* The military will do well.
* Foreign policy will be robust, which is probably necessary after an era of leading from behind.
* I worry about his economic sense — he seens a bit too cozy with big business.
* His H1-B policy is either ignorant or corrupt. Perhaps both.
* He will cut deals
* He will probably not prosecute the Obama folks.
If Sanders is the nominee, Rubio will win in a landslide.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/5/2016 @ 7:00 pmThe Democrats will make Rubio look like a teenager.
DRJ (15874d) — 2/5/2016 @ 7:07 pmRepublicans are for amnesty. No conservative worth their salt would vote for rubio.
mg (31009b) — 2/5/2016 @ 7:09 pmshut up c.s.
Off topic but decidely noteworthy.
Apollo 14 Lunar Module Pilot Edgar Mitchell has died. Mitchell was the sixth man to walk on the moon. He was 85.
Mitchell, along with the late Alan Shepard and the late Stu Roosa, crewed the Apollo 14 mission, with Shepard and Mitchell landing their Lunar Module, Antares, in the Fra Mauro region of the moon in February, 1971– 45 years ago this month. And it was a harrowing mission with docking glitches and a powered descent plagued with radar problems and computer program issues threatening an abort. The landing site was originally selected for the aborted Apollo 13 mission.
14’s color television from the moon for Mitchell and Shepard’s two lengthy moonwalks may seem primitive by today’s standards but it was extensive and groundbreaking for its time — televising their uphill trek toward Cone Crater, setting up instruments and the broadcast of Shepard’s famed lunar golf shots. And their use of a wheeled tool cart expanded the work envelope for the astronauts. More famously, after splashdown, Mitchell revealed his experimental attempt at ESP from their Apollo spacecraft.
Much of Mitchell’s accomplishments can be searched on the web. But now, there is no living memory of Apollo 14, America’s third lunar landing mission. But Mitchell’s footprints, along with Shepard’s, the descent stage of their LM, their ALSEP instrument site and the U.S. flag they planted remain undisturbed on Luna- and will for centuries. They can be seen in recent b/w images taken by a NASA lunar satellite. As of this writing there are seven of the twelve Apollo moonwalkers left with us. Seven in the whole history of everything who have been there: Buzz Aldrin, Alan Bean, Dave Scott, John Young, Charlie Duke, Harrison Schmitt and Gene Cernan.
And unlike Marco Rubio, Edgar Mitchell showed up for work— and it took him to our moon and back.
Ad Astra, Ed. Ad Astra. God Bless.
DCSCA (a343d5) — 2/5/2016 @ 7:10 pmIn the normal course of things, people who want to be president go around making friends for years before they fun. Cruz went around pissing people off. You may feel he was fighting the good fight, but they saw him tilting at windmills and risking the family jewels doing it.
Whatever. When it came time to actually run, NO ONE can say they are surprised that he got no support from the people whose toes he stepped on.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/5/2016 @ 7:11 pmYeah, I’m thinking it will be Rubio. The recent set of polls show he would beat both Hill and Larry David and that might be enough for most Republicans, hungry to take back the WH.
Eric Lindholm (0210b4) — 2/5/2016 @ 7:12 pmAnyone who thinks the GOP is a conservative party or ever has been is smoking crack. It is a broad-based center-right party. Just as the Dems are supposed to be a broad-based center-left party. Their current excursion will cost them badly unless the GOP matches their stupidity.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/5/2016 @ 7:13 pmmg, what is the LEAST thing you would not call “amnesty”
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/5/2016 @ 7:14 pmA little off topic, but I found it too funny not to pass along… http://americandigest.org/sidelines/2016/02/#a032439
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/5/2016 @ 7:19 pmThere’s gotta be something better than this.
SarahW (67599f) — 2/5/2016 @ 7:19 pmI will also point out that with a GOP President there is a LOT more reason to push Congress to pass the bills conservatives have been wanting since they will likely not be vetoed. And we still need to put more people like Lee and Cruz in the Senate so that it doesn’t go back to the earmarking pork-barrel ways of the Bush administration, or pass Denticare or some such.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/5/2016 @ 7:21 pmI abjure this prediction it is no good
happyfeet (831175) — 2/5/2016 @ 7:22 pmCruz could win in a landslide if he would:
1) Get in the ring at the WWF
navyvet (c33501) — 2/5/2016 @ 7:26 pm2) Win a NASCAR race
3) Win the SuperBowl as quarterback for any NFL team
4) Star in any major reality TV show
5) Wipe his email server with, like, a cloth
Such are the paths to victory in USA 2016.
People we could had who would have been better than Rubio:
Walker – didn’t feel like competing with Trump for air
Romney – chased off after stopping Bush from preempting the field
Cruz – still maybe, but he dug this hole himself
Fiorina – MSM doesn’t want a GOP woman
People we could have who are much worse than Rubio:
Trump
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/5/2016 @ 7:27 pmhttp://www.capemaycountyherald.com/news/government/article_93b2278a-cbcd-11e5-ab38-333e40ce738f.html?mode=jqm
How could a “republican” Senate let this pass on a voice vote where was Marco Sleazio
Where
where was he how did this happen
happyfeet (831175) — 2/5/2016 @ 7:34 pmI guess I prefer to try something new. As I said, I don’t hate Rubio, but I don’t prefer him either. While it is portrayed that the majority want true change from the status quo, it always seems that everything gravitates back towards the usual establishment candidates. This shtick is getting old.
David Kerr (7e75d3) — 2/5/2016 @ 7:35 pmMust I trust this content from Patterico? 😉
For Cruz to win the nomination, he has to have the first ballot votes in his pocket. I doubt he even has more than Rubio, and I would be stunned if Cruz somehow did have enough delegates going in. So, in a brokered convention, with an establishment 95+% behind Rubio, Cruz falls short.
Eric Erickson put it very well today. Cruz is your guy if you think the Republic is pretty much done. You will go for Rubio if you think it is basically still OK, in need of some fixing.
Me? I’m a Fiver. It’s over, absent a wrenching article V convention and deeply divisive, and somewhat violent, shifts to a responsibility culture.
Ed from SFV (3400a5) — 2/5/2016 @ 7:51 pmI can’t even hold my nose and vote for this slimy snake. He’s just a greedy, power-hungry liar and doesn’t even try to hide that fact.
Al (24290b) — 2/5/2016 @ 7:52 pmHow would Trump be worse than the scenario you just mapped out?
Come on now. Be rational.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 2/5/2016 @ 7:56 pmHow about Cruz on the Supreme Court?
Simon Jester (c950f7) — 2/5/2016 @ 7:59 pmI can’t see why you’re bailing on Cruz. If people gave Jindal’s thoughts such respect, he wouldn’t have dropped out of the race half a minute after the starting gun.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 2/5/2016 @ 8:00 pm@ DRJ,
Thus giving Hillary the opening she’ll need:
Dana (86e864) — 2/5/2016 @ 8:00 pmThe people vote for President, which means Cruz has a chance. He has no chance to get on the Supreme Court because it requires Senate confirmation. Democratic and Republican Senators would pay money to Bork Cruz.
DRJ (15874d) — 2/5/2016 @ 8:03 pmJimmy Carter endorsed Cruz. Even Donald Trump endorsed Cruz. Were did I read that?
Can’t find the link because I’m standing on it.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 2/5/2016 @ 8:05 pm“My opponent, Senator Clinton, has raised the issue of our respective ages. I am forty-five and she is seventy. Is that difference significant? Depends.”
nk (dbc370) — 2/5/2016 @ 8:06 pmWould prefer Trump, but like Cruz.
Simply Rubio would get spanked in the Electoral College vs.Hillary!, probably merely lose to Bern or Crazy Joe.
The GOPe doesn’t get it. You cannot win elections picking a candidate who gives away your best issue. Again. If you give away immigration enforcement you-again-tell middle and working class typcial white people to stay home. And you will lose.
The K Street rent boy would be THE END. Certainly of the GOP, may be the death knell of the Republic.Yes, we would still have the pretense an structure of government institutions, but we would have the kabuki theatre akin Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Camacho’s Idiocracy. This is not hyperbole.
Bugg (fa64ec) — 2/5/2016 @ 8:12 pmHow could a “republican” Senate let this pass on a voice vote where was Marco Sleazio
Why bother? We don’t know what to do with all the natural gas we produce now. I suspect it’s being flared in places. Let them have their win for now.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/5/2016 @ 8:15 pmEd–
In a brokered convention, Romney gets it before Cruz does.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/5/2016 @ 8:16 pmCruz is your guy if you think the Republic is pretty much done. You will go for Rubio if you think it is basically still OK, in need of some fixing.
I would think though, even if you were a pessimist, if your choice is Sanders or Rubio, you’d go for Rubio just in case you were wrong about that end-times bit.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/5/2016 @ 8:18 pm“My opponent, Senator Clinton, has raised the issue of our respective ages. I am forty-five and she is seventy. Is that difference significant? Depends.”
nk (dbc370) — 2/5/2016 @ 8:06 pm
And he loses the senior vote…
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/5/2016 @ 8:21 pmHe has no chance to get on the Supreme Court because it requires Senate confirmation. Democratic and Republican Senators would pay money to Bork Cruz.
I disagree. If he is still a Senator, they may view it as a way to be rid of him. But if they hate him that much, he would be a TERRIBLE presidential candidate as the infrastructure of the party would be denied him.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/5/2016 @ 8:22 pmFrom the article:
But he’s made more public statements suggesting he thinks withdrawing from Iraq was a bigger error than invading in the first place and he’s been supportive of repeating the regime change experiment in Libya and Syria.
This is reason to think Rubio is right on US foreign policy, or at least this particular aspect of a very mixed bag under the current President.
The proof in the regional pudding will be how he handles items like a newly “invigorated” and assuredly zealous, but insecure Islamic Republic of Iran.
His refusal to denounce the “Saddam had no WMDs” canard is distressing, though – either he does not know that the position was and is false, or he does not care to press the issue.
JP (adebcd) — 2/5/2016 @ 8:24 pmThe GOPe doesn’t get it. You cannot win elections picking a candidate who gives away your best issue.
So, you think that the GOP’s best issue is “Let’s pack up 15 million people and their children and dump them in Mexico. Who wants their stereo?”
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/5/2016 @ 8:26 pmYou want old? I’ll give ya old… http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/225970/
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/5/2016 @ 8:29 pmWhat country do you live in Kevin? This is a police state, with it’s fingers in every transaction. If they can track down when an ex Speaker of the House leaves money to his out of wedlock child and respond with FBI in real time, then they are lying about not being able to track illegal aliens and visa overstays.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 2/5/2016 @ 8:31 pmThere is no difference between Rubio and Cruz’ bottom line on immigration, which is:
There will be a wall/effective border control.
Many will stay.
There will be no path to citizenship, at least for adults.
There will be costs/fines/taxes.
There will be reform from the current system where only welfare recipients are allowed to come legally.
Both of them have come to the same positions by separate paths, but this is where they are now.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/5/2016 @ 8:31 pm#52: What do you think that non sequitur relates to?
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/5/2016 @ 8:33 pmI can’t find where he’s going to “end the Dept of Education” or “severely curtail the EPA”. I see these interviews where he talks about wanting to cut funding for them.
I’m not sure what it means to “severely curtail the EPA”. He does say there’s too many regulations coming from EPA, but he doesn’t name anything specific he wants to repeal. In other words, vague. I don’t think he’s said anything so far about the war on coal.
I said he’s vague “besides the border and I guess Muslims”.
Gerald A (7c7ffb) — 2/5/2016 @ 8:33 pmEisenhower did much the same, very quickly, along the same scale, in mere months. Failing to address major problem is how you end up with 15 million illegals stealing jobs, filling ERs and schools and sending currency south. And how you end up $19 trillion in debt. If you throw your hands up already what’s the point of any of it? So yes, in such circumstances a handsome fancy man of empty suits and words like Rubio then makes perfect sense. We’re done.
Bugg (fa64ec) — 2/5/2016 @ 8:35 pmWhat really annoys me about this whole campaign is that Trump has managed to direct all domestic policy to a single topic. We have not talked about the size of government, or what might be cut, or what programs could be consolidated. We have not talked about civil service reform or restructuring. We have not talked about balanced budgets and how to enforce them. We have not talked about how to return power to the states.
All we have talked about is that there are all these damn immigrants and how we wish they would all go away. When we know they won’t.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/5/2016 @ 8:39 pmRubio is malleable.
He’s adopted Trump’s positions for the duration of the primary, but that expires once he’s the nominee.
Then he will revert to the guy who voted with the gang of 8, except the next time he’s holding the pen.
If you don’t think Cruz is going to make it to the White House, you have to be with Trump.
Rubio endorses Trump. Check Rubio dot com for Marco’s newly adopted positions if you doubt it.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 2/5/2016 @ 8:42 pmPat – good to see you arrive at the position I arrived at a long time ago, pre-Trump.
JD (b3cb62) — 2/5/2016 @ 9:07 pm@papertiger #58
I didn’t get a vote until March 22nd (Arizona primary) but my #1 criteria will be who is best positioned at that time to stop Rubio. If Rubio is no longer a threat, I’ll vote my real preference, Cruz, so long as he’s still got a shot. But if not, I’ll vote for whomever has the best shot at beating Rubio, no matter who it is.
Currently, by backup preference to Cruz is Trump.
Arizona CJ (da673d) — 2/5/2016 @ 9:22 pmMore important than even immigration is Rubio co-sponsoring a Left Wing Bill That Strips College Students Of Their Rights? No due process. How would you like a Rubio with those views appointing to SCOTUS.
“The Washington Examiner’s Ashe Schow asked each sponsoring senator’s office how CASA would ensure due process for accused students. An Ayotte spokesperson declined to answer Schow’s questions, justifying the senator’s co-sponsorship by repeating the canard that one in five college women is sexually assaulted.
A Rubio spokesperson replied, “This bill does not address this issue.” When asked whether college officials or law enforcement would have the most authority to investigate allegations, the spokesperson responded: “The victim will have the most authority.” This reflected (at best) an astonishing misunderstanding both of the need for impartial adjudication of such serious charges and of the fact that at the investigative stage there is no “victim”; there are an accuser and an accused.”
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/01/05/marco-rubio-co-sponsoring-left-wing-bill-strips-college-students-rights/
davod (b85153) — 2/5/2016 @ 9:24 pmPS. The rush to crown Rubio after he ran third in the first, yes first, primary, is not only unseemly, it’s sickening. As if his proponents are afraid to let the primary process work its magic on all the candidates.
I read to-day that he has a good conservative rating, and I questioned whether the rating period included his time in the senate, with immigration and no due process on his record. But then someone else mentioned that maybe that’s why Rubio has been away for much of his term, he doesn’t have much of a record to evaluate.
davod (b85153) — 2/5/2016 @ 9:34 pmWhatcha mean, exactly? That Rubio will be the guy? Or something more general . . . like the notion that we are gonna get stuck with an inferior candidate who will do little to nothing of consequence because the electorate is ignorant and doesn’t recognize the predicament we’re in?
Or something else?
Patterico (86c8ed) — 2/5/2016 @ 9:36 pmThis is about the size of things:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRZZpk_9k8E
We have problems folks.
Simon Jester (c950f7) — 2/5/2016 @ 9:46 pmJust in case the Sanders campaign is is getting away scottt free, F***k it.
And, oh by the way, your a$$hole stinkz, too. “Feel the bern.”
Which I haven’t, since penicillin.
Steve57 (f61b03) — 2/5/2016 @ 9:53 pmBoth
JD (34f761) — 2/5/2016 @ 10:15 pmWhat Simon said there, that is the reason exactly. Because he will give us the positions in earnest, that Rubio only pantomimes until the general.
TRUMP> or if you absolutely have to, “#$^& darned Trump.
Either or. He pushes past that problem Simon highlights.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 2/5/2016 @ 10:16 pmCruz has done almost nothing managing expectations in NH. Now, Hugh Hewitt is calling Kasich for third place. Ted is gonna need one helluva good debate, with lousy moderators and one decent questioner. I hope he repeat his Iowa victory speech tactic of talking to the Southern electorate and not the live audience in front of him.
Speaking of…Someone please put my eyes out if Kasich manages to win Ohio and be the Kingmaker at a brokered Cleveland convention.
Ed from SFV (3400a5) — 2/5/2016 @ 10:20 pmRight. Not sure if you noticed or not, but that video was linked at the end of this morning’s post.
It’s fine if you didn’t. I’ve learned blog readers aren’t generally link clickers. If you want readers to know what is at the link, tell them, explicitly, in the post. That way they’re only about 50% likely to miss it, rather than 98% likely.
But again, not bagging on you, I promise!
Patterico (86c8ed) — 2/5/2016 @ 10:21 pmZero chance I will vote for Rubio. He’s not smart. He’s a liar who couldn’t even wait 6 months before turning his back on the voters who elected him to office. He is way too comfortable doing politics as usual in DC.
He will legalize 30 million plus socialist voters and guarantee our nation become a 3rd world puppet state.
No thanks.
NJRob (a07d2e) — 2/5/2016 @ 10:23 pmThere may be a pony in the pile!
“Poll: 25% of federal employees would consider quitting if Trump becomes president.
Colonel Haiku (ca2d1a) — 2/5/2016 @ 10:26 pmOr, the Jews and the Christians blasph3me.
Steve57 (f61b03) — 2/5/2016 @ 10:44 pmThe candidate who gets out the vote, is the candidate who wins. Or rather, government goes to those who show up.
Keep in mind, the Republican Party has always lacked the skill/or desire to get out the vote; they think spending millions on TV ads and giving campaign speeches is the way to win elections. Democrats dominate the get-out-the-vote ground game.
With the help of Tea Party activists getting out the vote, Rubio won his Senate seat running against the Establishment candidate. Once elected Rubio abandoned the those who ‘brought him to the dance’ by joining with the Establishment.
With the help of Tea Party activists getting out the vote, Cruz won his Senate seat running against the Establishment candidate. Once elected Cruz remained loyal to those who brought him to the dance by standing up to the Establishment.
There is a reason why Cruz was able to garner the most Iowa caucus votes in the history of the Iowa Republican primary despite running against Establishment’s King Corn. Cruz has an outstanding get-out-the-vote ground game that is on-par/perhaps superior to the democrat ground game. When Cruz began his campaign he was on the bottom of the polling radar, now he is one of three top contenders despite all the ‘negative media’ against him.
When JFK ran against the Eleanor Roosevelt’s Democrat party, he defeated a well-oiled machine by going around the party. Ronald Reagan did the same. Cruz is doing what JFK and Reagan did to get elected, he is going around the party.
Senator’s endorsements and millions of dollars of TV ads are not going to help Rubio do the hard work of getting out the vote. And, at this point there is little time for Rubio to set up a solid get out the vote foundation throughout all the important primary states; this must be done many months prior to the campaign season.
Trump has no ground game, he thinks holding big rallies with thousands of people hearing him rage anger is somehow going to motivate people to do the hard and necessary work of connecting with as many voters as possible to persuade them to show up to vote. Getting out the vote is a skill and Trump is an amateur.
Cruz is exceptionally skilled at getting out the vote so I would not count him out should the race come down to Cruz-Rubio. Rubio will be confined to the Establishment’s losing way of campaigning while Cruz is free of that burden.
Susan (b75f73) — 2/5/2016 @ 10:47 pmI have said this before but it bears repeating.
I absolutely LOVE the fact that Ted Cruz takes very seriously the notion that he must turn out his voters, and has shown that he can build and has built a competent and indeed excellent organization for doing so.
This was one of the prime failures of the Romney campaign. Cruz will not repeat that mistake.
Go Ted!
Patterico (86c8ed) — 2/5/2016 @ 10:57 pmPatterico, I am sorry I missed your link. I have a lot on my mind this evening.
But I get to experience the subject of that kind of video pretty much every day on campus.
Simon Jester (c950f7) — 2/5/2016 @ 11:07 pmIndeed.
Patterico (86c8ed) — 2/5/2016 @ 11:17 pm25 – Enforce the laws on the books, Kevin M.
mg (31009b) — 2/5/2016 @ 11:26 pmKevin M – When the illegals cross the border – they have just committed a felony. Arrest and deport.
mg (31009b) — 2/5/2016 @ 11:34 pmInstead we get them comfy and let them stay. Pathetic. No Amnesty, turkeys.
Rubio stinks on ice.
mg (31009b) — 2/5/2016 @ 11:36 pmhttp://www.breitbart.com
I am going to go out on a limb here and invite hatred, condemnation and spite:
If you are a conservative, you have to go with Cruz. From my perspective, he is the only candidate who was elected to his office and actually did what he said he would do. Robustly. Now he is hated by many.
That’s why I like him. Republicans hate him because he doesn’t toe the line. Democrats and Republicans hate him because he’s a conservative. My right-leaning kids don’t like him because he looks like Smithers.
Of course, I will vote for Rubio if he is the nominee.
There always is another clear choice, though: Ag80. He should be President because what the hell, he ain’t a socialist.
Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 2/5/2016 @ 11:42 pmI think I would vote for Ag80 over Rubio.
But not over Cruz. Sorry. You can be Cruz’s VP.
Patterico (86c8ed) — 2/5/2016 @ 11:43 pmmg–
Yes. And going back to 1988 and doing that would have been a good idea. Produce your Tardis or find a solution that works.
And it is more pernicious than that. The people we should NEVER have let in are the legal immigrants from Mexico. They are uniformly old people who will never contribute to our society and will just consume, particularly Medicare which everybody gets. Why did we do that? Because Teddy Kennedy and the trade unions made DAMN EFFING SURE that no workers would come in under their immigration laws.
Instead, the people who contribute, who (would) pay taxes, who would actually make up for the pitiful Gen X baby drought and allow some leeway on entitlements*, they are only able to come in illegally because we are too stupid to get rid of Ted Kennedy’s laws.
—
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/6/2016 @ 1:15 am* of course, Obama is looting the SS and Medicare Trust Funds by allowing long-term unemployed to claim “disability” benefits without and real checks. Gets the unemployment rate down, you see.
Cruz has run a crappy long-term campaign. He has run something that wins conservatives and only conservatives. And not all of them. Yes, he has some really good ideas, but that doesn’t get you elected. What gets you elected are an appeal to a wide coalition and Cruz is too pure and clean to do that.
He may still win. He may actually get elected if he does because the Democrats are in even worse shape and coming off a terrible 8 years. But he will have done it the hardest of ways.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/6/2016 @ 1:22 amCan we all agree on Fiorina for VP?
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/6/2016 @ 1:24 amNo on Fiorina. She was in bed with old man boosh at the C.I.A.
Sorry, but this country needs Cruz/West 2016
mg (31009b) — 2/6/2016 @ 2:24 amWe need trump to go after the anchor baby nominee, hopefully trump will do a huuuuuge job and take himself out as well.
mg (31009b) — 2/6/2016 @ 2:39 amCruz/West
my prediction for NH goes like this…
Trump takes 1st place, Rubio claims 2nd and Ted Cruz either barely makes 3rd… or if he is extremely unlucky falls to 4th place.
ultimately the best person though to beat hillary… seems to be Trump.
YourMaster (c7e392) — 2/6/2016 @ 2:42 amThey are afraid of Ted.
link
mg (31009b) — 2/6/2016 @ 2:50 amIf, as claimed in #24, the Republican party is not a conservative party, then it doesn’t want my vote. (And it didn’t get it in the last go-round.)
Luke Stywalker (46b0f3) — 2/6/2016 @ 3:03 amI can’t find where he’s going to “end the Dept of Education” or “severely curtail the EPA”. I see these interviews where he talks about wanting to cut funding for them.
I’m not sure what it means to “severely curtail the EPA”. He does say there’s too many regulations coming from EPA, but he doesn’t name anything specific he wants to repeal. In other words, vague. I don’t think he’s said anything so far about the war on coal.
I said he’s vague “besides the border and I guess Muslims”.
Gerald A (7c7ffb) — 2/5/2016 @ 8:33 pm
Does any other Republican candidate say as much? Does Rubio say that he thinks the EPA is out of control? What about Cruz did he say prior to Trump that the EPA was out of control? Vague is better than non-existent. Vague means we know the general direction you are heading with a bit more specificity that all the Republicans who only say that they want to get rid of burdensome regulations…like when Bush signed into law the foolishness of getting rid of CFL’s.
John Paul Jones (041bd0) — 2/6/2016 @ 3:43 amI will most assuredly not vote for Rubio…not in a thousand years. Rubio will be destroyed shortly anyways…he seems to have a very colorful past.
John Paul Jones (041bd0) — 2/6/2016 @ 3:45 amTo number 84, absolutely not. I wouldn’t vote for a ticket that included Carly Fiorina.
David Kerr (7e75d3) — 2/6/2016 @ 4:26 amTo me, Davod in #61 hit the nail on the head, and I haven’t seen much mention of this elsewhere (other than one or two hits on Ace of Spades in the sidebar). When there are more and more lawsuits against colleges for their kangaroo courts against men (and that’s an insult to third-world juntas, because at least they would let you smoke a cigarette and offer you a blindfold before carrying out your sentence), there is no reason to sponsor an unconstitutional bill like this that codifies the practice.
If Rubio is counting on such legislation going nowhere but hopes to blunt the “war against women” trope that will be thrown against every Republican anyway, it’s still a bad idea. The Republican position should be “Accusations of rape should be investigated by sworn officers of the law, not untrained college administrators.” If you want to soften it up some, you can encourage colleges to offer various support services to victims* as they currently do, but make clear that disciplinary actions will not be immune from lawsuits unless they are investigated by the police.
* I don’t put quotes around victims because there are true sexual assaults that take place at colleges and universities, and the subsequent trauma is real. The fact that there are many who, as Stacy McCain has pointed out, suffer only from regrets of participating in the hook-up culture does not take away from the needs of real victims.
Bottom line, by co-sponsoring this legislation, Rubio has again demonstrated that he does not mind collaborating with the Democrats to propose liberal, constitutionally problematic legislation. Has he been co-sponsor or author of anything that is actually conservative?
Virginia SoCon (58bdcf) — 2/6/2016 @ 4:35 amAnd he loses the senior vote…
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/5/2016 @ 8:21 pm
The Fixodent generation voting for Hillary is a problem that is its own solution. Can you say “death panels”?
nk (dbc370) — 2/6/2016 @ 5:23 amI reluctantly concur, Roobs via the backdoor.
Another prediction: LA becomes zombie infested backwater–
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-05/fukushima-class-disaster-la-gas-leak-spewing-lethal-levels-breathable-nuclear-materi
DNF (755a85) — 2/6/2016 @ 5:29 amJohn Paul – lay out this “colorful past” for us
JD (34f761) — 2/6/2016 @ 5:33 am73. “The candidate who gets out the vote, is the candidate who wins.”
This mantra is false, even in primary states as the RNC has retained the lion’s share of delegates. On the Donk side the meme is even less true.
DNF (755a85) — 2/6/2016 @ 5:35 amGlobal monetary deflation is only getting its pants on, China must devalue by 50% before the end of 2017 and will be crushed under non-performing loans in excess of 20% of those outstanding.
US domestic markets will be the only markets for our goods and services and the US consumer cannot take on more debt to keep our businesses solvent. We have yet to deleverage and any handouts by the Fed directly to the unwashed 99% will be used to pay down existing debt.
Eat your peas.
DNF (755a85) — 2/6/2016 @ 5:50 amhttp://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/bombshell-report-marco-rubios-gay-scandal-surfaces/
John Paul Jones (9e8f8d) — 2/6/2016 @ 5:50 amDoes Mark know about this?
nk (dbc370) — 2/6/2016 @ 5:53 amMARK!!!!
Thanks for self-identifying as a loon, JPJ
JD (21d5ac) — 2/6/2016 @ 5:54 am98. Of the Keynesians, Monetarists and Austrians I would only lend an ear to the latter:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-04/visualizing-worlds-most-famous-case-deflation-part-1
Note that the Baltic Dry Index is setting new record lows monthly, rail engines lie idle in their thousands and fleets are cancelling new tractor orders en masse.
DNF (755a85) — 2/6/2016 @ 5:56 amIf economics were an actual science we’d call the following ‘wiggle matching’.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-05/key-technical-indicator-just-rang-bell-cyclical-bull-market
This is your last warning, get out of equities and pay down your debt, now.
DNF (755a85) — 2/6/2016 @ 6:12 amWhy bother? We don’t know what to do with all the natural gas we produce now. I suspect it’s being flared in places. Let them have their win for now.
first of all they’re banning exploration not production – they’re making it illegal to where it’s against the law even to make an inventory of our east coast hydrate resources
it’s unscience!
what this means is they’re tryng to make it to where nobody can go to the voters of hard put-upon states like south carolina and say hey there’s lots of jobs for you guys and if you want we can help you recover methane from the ocean
methane – not petroleums hello?
no worries about messing up beaches – odorless colorless gas not unlike nitrogen really just more ert
failmerica – such a failed cowardly b!tchstate it’s afraid of air
disgusting
happyfeet (831175) — 2/6/2016 @ 6:12 am*trying* to make it to where… i mean
happyfeet (831175) — 2/6/2016 @ 6:13 amYou can turn methane into methanol, a non-topsoil depleting fuel alcohol. California explored that a while back but the Corn Children killed it.
nk (dbc370) — 2/6/2016 @ 6:26 amFrom Breitbart, “Rubio’s 7 Achievements”…
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/04/marco-rubios-7-top-achievements-u-s-senate/
pieter (ec44a2) — 2/6/2016 @ 6:40 amAccidentally posted the another thread,
From Ace regarding Cruz…
“The case involved an illegal alien, Jose Medellin, who was convicted of raping, torturing, and murdering two girls. The judicial branch of the U.N. tried to intervene, demanding a new trial for this scumbag.
Unfortunately, because of particular political circumstances at the time, President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and the U. S. Solicitor General Paul Clement (all Republicans and all people Ted Cruz respected highly) decided that Texas should obey the World Court’s decision. This would have meant that Jose Ernesto Medellin, a rapist, torturer, and murderer of two young girls, could have been set free. Gov. Abbott agreed that Ted Cruz should go before the U. S. Supreme Court to plead Texas’ case, saying that no President — not even a friend and fellow Republican — should be allowed to defy the Constitution by allowing the UN World Court to bind the courts of the United States. Strong forces were gathered against Ted Cruz — opposing legal briefs from 90 foreign nations, the European Union, experts on the World Court, the American Bar Association, and one of the biggest law firms in the world that represented Jose Medellin. After using amazing strategies, Ted Cruz was able to convince six out of eight members of the U. S. Supreme Court to vote his way even though it meant he had to stand against his friends and members of his own Republican Party (e.g., Pres. Bush, Ms. Rice, and Paul Clement).
A couple of days ago on the ONT we were reminded that Ted Cruz is only five months older than Marco Rubio. That’s one month for every case he’s won before the Supreme Court. So don’t let anyone tell you Cruz has no accomplishments.”
pieter (ec44a2) — 2/6/2016 @ 6:43 amyes yes Mr. nk
GTL plants could spring up all over the eastern seaboard – creating tons of jobs and helping to keep energy dollars in the local economies
why does the Senate keep raping America mommy
happyfeet (831175) — 2/6/2016 @ 6:45 amIt was Perry governor; Abbott AG. Medellin is important not because some skag got fried, but because Presidential Memoranda of Understanding with foreign powers do not have the force of treaties and are not the supreme law of the land. Hint, hint: Obama’s Iran deal.
nk (dbc370) — 2/6/2016 @ 6:52 amTed has a great night in the snow. Love his ground game.
mg (31009b) — 2/6/2016 @ 6:55 amhttp://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/06/ted-cruz-courts-former-rand-paul-libertarian-vote-at-packed-nh-town-hall/
mg, the MFM is touting the republicans now supporting Rubio (ie Jindal, whom I like)…sometimes I wonder if the party is even capable of recognizing that a portion of the electorate is unwilling to stomach any form of business as usual.
pieter (ec44a2) — 2/6/2016 @ 7:08 amnk, I noticed that, too. Perhaps the author was inappropriately touched by Perry and had a mental block.
pieter (ec44a2) — 2/6/2016 @ 7:10 amDid you hear that Cruz critics are making hay of his missing a recent vote on reducing subsidies to the oil industry? Pretty sure he knew it was just another show vote to placate LIVs.
pieter (ec44a2) — 2/6/2016 @ 7:13 amthis tells you GE must see potentially enormous liability costs associated with its toxic squiggle bulbs
thank you GE for helping to simplify my choices
i was having a hard time
happyfeet (831175) — 2/6/2016 @ 7:24 ampieter – The message I hear is they want nothing to do with my vote. I have been a rump swab for team republican since Nixon. Those days are over.
mg (31009b) — 2/6/2016 @ 7:47 amI think running Roobs and expecting me to vote is a symptom of tertiary syphillis.
DNF (755a85) — 2/6/2016 @ 7:54 amI want a card game with all these republicans who show their cards immediately after the deal.
mg (31009b) — 2/6/2016 @ 7:59 amI see what you’re doing here counselor. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
crazy (cde091) — 2/6/2016 @ 8:02 am“There always is another clear choice, though: Ag80. He should be President because what the hell, he ain’t a socialist.”
– Ag80
You got my vote. Can we please make this a thing? Ag80 2016?
Leviticus (f8d544) — 2/6/2016 @ 8:04 amWhen an idea is a flat bust for years like Fed QE we complain, but if it continues for centuries its just part of the woodwork:
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
Your government has no reason to exist except to bleed you dry.
DNF (755a85) — 2/6/2016 @ 8:07 amYep, unless a proven agent for government reform…no incumbent this year gets my vote, to include judges. Both senators from TN are part of the problem.
pieter (ec44a2) — 2/6/2016 @ 8:30 am@nk 106: You should see the hoo-raw of objections in my neck of the woods regarding a proposed giant methanol plant. My favorite part is that the most outspoken are people I *know* do not know a thing about chemistry.
Remember the principle of NIMBY (not in my backyard).
My progressive buddies believe in BANANA (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything).
The ironic part is that the well to do will be fine. So despite all the social justice pandering, the poor get soaked still more.
Simon Jester (c950f7) — 2/6/2016 @ 8:33 amOther than Reagan, who’s the great “conservative” GOP nominee since Coolidge who actually won the general election?
There hasn’t been one.
As Kevin M pointed out, the GOP is not a majority conservative party—it’s merely a center-right party. With that in mind, we just have to get out there and continue to fight to nominate the most sufficiently conservative nominee. Certainly, one man’s “conservative” is another man’s stealth Communist, as there appears to be a lot of people who are willing to throw a candidate out in the street as punishment for one or two bad votes. Even Reagan had a few missteps on his record as Governor. But once Reagan became President, he was able to slowly affect hearts and minds.
Let’s keep in mind that Ted Cruz had to go to a run-off against the establishment’s darling David Dewhurst in the GOP primary in 2012. Cruz actually finished BEHIND Dewhurst in the initial primary. And that’s actually in Texas. (It went to a run-off because Dewhurst failed to reach 50%.)
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/6/2016 @ 8:59 amooh look failmerica is getting its ass kicked in syria
failmerica should focus more on things like oscar equality and leave the geopolitics to the adults i think
happyfeet (831175) — 2/6/2016 @ 9:12 amspeaking of scientific stuff and also ass kickings
once again albedo kicks carbon dioxide’s ass
global warming hoaxers make sad face
happyfeet (831175) — 2/6/2016 @ 9:50 amCruz/West
A one-term Congressman who lost two out of three? Not going to happen. He will probably never hold federal office again. Again, the GOP is not a Conservative party. Never has been. It’s a broad-based center-right party in a two-party system.
God knows I have swum against this tide, but the choices are: find a pure fringe party that suits you better and make a statement, or try to move Leviathan a bit your way.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/6/2016 @ 9:53 amHey, could I see the hands of those who think that the GOP (or any party) has to get their approval before nominating someone? These would be the folks that miss the whole effing POINT of big tents and major parties, of course. But then they know that.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/6/2016 @ 9:59 amThe Hill says the GOP wants to end attacks on Rubio:
So Rubio won the Iowa Caucus, not Cruz.
And who is this “us” you want to win, Senator — yourself and the current GOP Senators? Every election is about self-interest, especially in Washington.
DRJ (15874d) — 2/6/2016 @ 9:59 amcoats is a longtime america-raping indiana sleazey-poof
Coats Says Bipartisan Budget Only Way To End Sequester
loves him some deficits loves him some roobs
happyfeet (831175) — 2/6/2016 @ 10:04 amlongtime america-raping indiana *sleazy*-poof i mean
happyfeet (831175) — 2/6/2016 @ 10:05 amMore important than even immigration is Rubio co-sponsoring a Left Wing Bill That Strips College Students Of Their Rights? No due process.
Yeah, this is a problem. I expect Rubio to get his mind right on this and a few other things, but this is disheartening as it’s being done now with bureaucratic action and those a President has a lot of power over.
I don’t FAVOR Rubio. I’d rather have Cruz as president, but I don’t see the path. In the end, I favor the GOP nominee, whoever it is. Unlike our host I would vote for Trump (but absentee so no one would see me do it) if I had to.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/6/2016 @ 10:06 am“Electable”!
When I saw the Luntz group choose him for that reason, I realized it was all over. Electable? Just like nice guys Romney, McCain, Dole? A Democrat Lite? Why don’t they look to Reagan for campaign inspiration, who won in landslides by being a full-voiced outsider?
smh
Patricia (5fc097) — 2/6/2016 @ 10:10 amcan the chambermaids dig up another 100+ mil to shower on roobs you think?
that would mean they were hedging on bushfilth
happyfeet (831175) — 2/6/2016 @ 10:13 amJeb’s got no mojo. He’s insanely angry at Marco for running for President during an election cycle when Jeb believes it’s is turn to become the nominee. See, neither Marvin, nor Neil, nor Dorothy was planning to run, so naturally it’s Jeb’s turn.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/6/2016 @ 10:14 amEverybody’s a Democrat-lite. Or a RINO.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/6/2016 @ 10:22 amOther than Reagan, who is the great conservative Republican nominee who won a general election? There hasn’t been anyone since Coolidge in 1924.
Rubio is too slick by half. Another Paul Ryan sell-out.
mojo (a3d457) — 2/6/2016 @ 10:35 amtoxic squiggle bulbs
They also use more than twice as much power as LEDs.
We’d held off on converting from incandescents for all but the most crappy lighting (hall lights , outdoor lights) due to the awful color issues mainly. Recently through we did a major overhaul — got rid of the 70’s cottage cheese ceiling, installed a LOT of recessed LEDs and we now have almost exclusively LED lighting. Turns out that 2700K LEDs are pretty much the same color as old GE soft white incandescents. We also got rid of a bunch of floor lamps as our previous lighting situation was terrible. The power bill shows we are saving 5KWh/day which is probably most of the lighting cost we used to have.
CFLs were terrible, but I’m pretty impressed with LEDs. Anyone want my Incandescent stash?
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/6/2016 @ 10:37 amLED’s cost like 30 times more than incandescents Mr. M
we need to make it to where you can buy light bulbs with food stamps
poor failmericans gonna bump they heads in the dark then they have to go use the obamacare to get stitchers!
this is suboptimal
happyfeet (831175) — 2/6/2016 @ 10:43 amooh look here’s even more super-smart america-raping diplomacy from president jarrett
Iran wants to dump dollar in crude trade – report
happyfeet (831175) — 2/6/2016 @ 10:45 amThe Luntz group was heavily salted. From day one Luntz has been totally 100% in the bag for the GOPe. His groups are no more a reliable indicator than Mrs Lincoln’s Weegie Board.
ropelight (665ef3) — 2/6/2016 @ 10:46 ammethane – not petroleums hello?
Yes. CH4. Got it. Actually the purest hydrocarbon you can have — everything else has more carbon by weight and may have other stuff like sulfur or GKW. But natural gas is mostly methane and we have a LOT of natural gas. So much that we don’t need any more for the rest of my lifetime and likely yours. Our real problem is how to use what we have now.
It’s really not worth stirring up the warmists over.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/6/2016 @ 10:46 amyou say that now
happyfeet (831175) — 2/6/2016 @ 10:47 amDRJ, hear hear. This election…this election will drive me to an absolute wit’s end. Two terms each of Bush and Obama, now a clear opportunity to attempt to stear towards sanity. Nope…like Patterico, pretty sure the bulk of the electorate will piss it away. If after supporting in the primary your good judgement and more important conscience, well…
Don’t vote for the wrong answer, buy ammo, and pray for your progeny. What is left?
pieter (ec44a2) — 2/6/2016 @ 10:50 amMy progressive buddies believe in BANANA (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything).
There is an “environmentalist” conspiracy to prevent any increase in energy capacity whatsoever. They have even opposed solar power arrays. I call these people “Bikists”
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/6/2016 @ 10:52 amPatricia–
Dole was never chosen because he was electable. He was chosen because it was his GD TURN and he would gut anyone who said different. We might still have lost with Gingrich, but it would have been a LOT more interesting.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/6/2016 @ 10:57 am127-
mg (31009b) — 2/6/2016 @ 10:59 amracist
LED’s cost like 30 times more than incandescents Mr. M
Well, no, but they are expensive. The real issue is that a decent LED that fits ina lamp socket doesn’t have a lot of brightness yet. A CREE 60W A-series bulb is physically the same as a incandescent, and costs about 10x (~$8), not 30x a brand-name bulb. But they cannot make a 100W bulb or a 3-way without an external heat sink yet.
With my cost savings, though, I am “buying” one of my LED lamps every 3-4 weeks AND getting much better light than I use to have. The cost savings for the same recessed lighting with incandescents would be much larger, but I never had that situation for comparison.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/6/2016 @ 11:04 amHear that
mg (31009b) — 2/6/2016 @ 11:05 amteam republican stomping their feet, because conservatives won’t kiss booty.
Energy should be driven by the market and willing investors…good for everyone. We have killed our industrial might due to expensive energy. The sole culprit is government cheered by self-serving interest groups (communists). Enough already, when are we to wake up to the greatest force in human history for our species’ well being…capitalism.
pieter (ec44a2) — 2/6/2016 @ 11:06 amracist
Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/6/2016 @ 11:07 amrecessed lighting omg who are you mitt romney
happyfeet (831175) — 2/6/2016 @ 11:07 amDon’t vote for the wrong answer,
Not voting for the wrong answer may bring the terrible answer. And “they” will always have more ammo that you.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/6/2016 @ 11:11 amrecessed lighting omg who are you mitt romney
Yes. We also change for dinner.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/6/2016 @ 11:12 amHardwood floors are next.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/6/2016 @ 11:13 amis so much opulunce!
happyfeet (831175) — 2/6/2016 @ 11:14 amWhen Al Gore bought a gas-guzzling Maserati for one of his daughters, it was a sign that he didn’t even believe what he believed. Unbelievable!
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/6/2016 @ 11:25 amPieter, you have made the common mistake of confusing “capitalist” (a communist word and concept) with Free Market as defined by guys from Smith to Friedman.
Rev. Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 2/6/2016 @ 11:27 am@Patterico:I’ve learned blog readers aren’t generally link clickers. If you want readers to know what is at the link, tell them, explicitly, in the post. That way they’re only about 50% likely to miss it, rather than 98% likely.
I’m more than happy to click links, but not to video, unless there is transcript. Video is a very slow way to transfer information, and it is difficult to fact check because you have to stop it and note what was said, and then you can’t search it or quote it easily.
Gabriel Hanna (3d8e32) — 2/6/2016 @ 11:32 am@happyfeet:toxic squiggle bulbs
Pretty tired of the fearmongering from the Right on CFLs. They are no worse than the hundreds of millions of four-foot fluorescent tubes that are everywhere we go every day. The consequences of dropping one are no worse, and they are no more “toxic” to clean up after or live around.
CFLs are phasing themselves out now anyway–if you want to save energy and don’t care about cost, LEDs are better, and if you don’t care about saving energy then incandescents and halogens are the way to go.
Gabriel Hanna (3d8e32) — 2/6/2016 @ 11:42 am@Kevin M:The real issue is that a decent LED that fits in a lamp socket doesn’t have a lot of brightness yet.
I haven’t had that problem. The strategy I use is, if I want to replace a 60W incandescent, I get an LED that says “100 W equivalent”. The watt equivalent is nothing but a dumbed-down lumen rating, and the actual lumen ratings for LEDs always seem to be well under those of their “watt equivalent” incandescent.
Lamps safety ratings are based on incandescents. A 100 W bulb is putting about 98 W as heat. So you get a really big “120 W” or “150 W” LED, because it’s only going to put out about 20 W as heat.
Bought my house two years ago and have been gradually replacing all the incandescents. We don’t have AC, and our climate doesn’t get very cold in the winter, so I’d rather pay for the light than the heat.
Gabriel Hanna (3d8e32) — 2/6/2016 @ 11:50 amthey are no more “toxic” to clean up after or live around
oh please drinking out of a glass of water that you broke a squiggle bulb in is 400 times more toxic than water from the taps of Flint Michigan and you can google it mister
happyfeet (831175) — 2/6/2016 @ 11:53 amSome things you have to see, Gabriel. Patterico’s link is one of those things. It is at a college campus in a conservative part of Texas, and the young people who go there are not liberal by today’s standards. It will make you despair for our future in a way that words alone can’t.
DRJ (15874d) — 2/6/2016 @ 11:57 am@DRJ: It will make you despair for our future in a way that words alone can’t.
I taught at a state university for four years; the experience convinced me that instead of sending my own son to college I will teach him how to raid outlying villages for their stocks of ammunition and canned goods.
I do not have any more capacity for despair for the future left in me.
Gabriel Hanna (3d8e32) — 2/6/2016 @ 12:11 pmYes.
Ted Cruz, June 15, 2015:
Trump announced his run the next day.
Patterico (86c8ed) — 2/6/2016 @ 12:22 pmthe EPA’s been trying to destroy Texas jobs in particular for a long long time now
happyfeet (831175) — 2/6/2016 @ 12:30 pmDo you actually bother to look into what they say, or just make assumptions?
Ted Cruz to Cheyenne: Let’s end war on coal
Rubio Energy Speech
I don’t know why the exact phrase that the EPA is “out of control” is important. I guess because Trump said it. In fact it’s not really out of control at this time – it’s doing what Obama’s appointees want it to. That statement implies something erroneous, like there’s these rogue regulators who do unauthorized things – although that can happen on occasion – but that’s not really what’s going on at this time. The illegal war on coal is Obama policy. Anyone who is serious about the EPA would specifically mention that, which is exactly what Cruz did.
Cruz is virtually alone among leading politicians directly challenging the AGW claims (which makes him better than Rubio). I haven’t heard Trump directly challenge the global warming story or mention the war on coal. For all I know he agrees with AGW. Everyone he rubs elbows with at the parties he attends agrees with it.
Gerald A (7c7ffb) — 2/6/2016 @ 12:58 pmKevin M – I thought “racist” was a continuous gag around here.
mg (31009b) — 2/6/2016 @ 1:03 pmMy apologies.
mg,
It is. It’s JD’s line. Generally we like to use it in the plural:
Racists
And most often as a general pejorative thrown in at the end of a discussion that has little or nothing to do with race.
Explaining the gag sometimes ruins it, but anyway.
Racists
Patterico (86c8ed) — 2/6/2016 @ 1:15 pmI can’t actually find where Trump said the EPA is “out of control”. But if he did, and didn’t connect it to the Obama admin., that would not even be particularly encouraging, for the reasons I said in #167. It would be misleading.
Gerald A (7c7ffb) — 2/6/2016 @ 1:55 pmyou have made the common mistake of confusing “capitalist” (a communist word and concept) with Free Market as defined by guys from Smith to Friedman.
Perhaps we have been slow to recognize that scoundrels like Trump and the Putins of the world have hijacked the term to mean “rule by money and power” rather than “rule by choice”, but if you look at Smith, he suggested that the MARKET would FORCE commerce to do what the people CHOSE.
Crony capitalism is a scheme to prevent people from having choices, and therefore prevent the market from operating as intended. It is actually closer to state capitalism (aka communism) than a free market. But when most people say “capitalism” in any kind of hopeful or approving way, they mean the free market meaning. When commies say “capitalism” they mean that part that escapes their control.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/6/2016 @ 3:35 pmcrony capitalism is a scheme to prevent people from having choices
“Now is the right time to transition from CFL to LED,” said John Strainic, chief operating officer of consumer and conventional lighting at GE Lighting. “There are so many choices that a consumer has for one socket in their home that it’s overwhelming. This will help simplify that.”
happyfeet (831175) — 2/6/2016 @ 3:37 pmIf consumers are so much smarter than the government, how do you explain Coca Cola?
nk (9faaca) — 2/6/2016 @ 3:44 pmcoca cola’s of the south i love it a lot just not in my mouth
happyfeet (831175) — 2/6/2016 @ 3:45 pmif you want to save energy and don’t care about cost, LEDs are better
Energy = Money.
Incandescents are about the most expensive bulbs you can operate. They are only cheap if you never turn them on. If you operate a bulb more than 3 hours a day, the LED will be cheaper than the equivalent incandescent after a year (@0.20/KWh). Scale as needed.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/6/2016 @ 3:46 pmfearmongering from the Right on CFLs
They just suck. They should have been permitted, but really forced to compete and sink or become popular, with old tech.
They are more toxic, expensive, with uglier light and slow lighting (dangerous in a stairwell or place where instant on/off is a safety issue.) They give off no heat, which is a negative in some cases. They burn out and use more energy than touted anywhere there is frequent on/off use. They make a high-pitched whine that I find unbearable. I have bought some on purpose knowing all this – for a property I rarely visit where a few lights are on timer in the summer.
SarahW (67599f) — 2/6/2016 @ 3:47 pmI don’t allow them in my own home. They won’t be missed like cheap incandescents in proper wattages will be.
Gabriel,
My issue has been that a lot of lamp brackets will not accept the heat-sinks that the higher lumen LED A-series bulbs seem to need. CREE’s 3-way bulb is a case in point; the heat-sink is freaking huge.
As it happens though, this is much less of an issue now, with my new recessed lighting in every room, combined with the backlit Kindle. If I need an addition lamp for reading (or whatever) the light required is modest. I really like the new 4-flow CREEs. They’re half the cost, too.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/6/2016 @ 3:52 pmKevin M – I thought “racist” was a continuous gag around here.
My apologies.
It is and I’m sorry for my thin skin.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/6/2016 @ 3:57 pmIN EVERY ROOM!!!?!
happyfeet (831175) — 2/6/2016 @ 3:58 pmpetroleum, methane, natural gas, all natural products, yet the skydragon worshipers, don’t want to use extract any of it,
narciso (732bc0) — 2/6/2016 @ 4:00 pmome things you have to see, Gabriel. Patterico’s link is one of those things.
As I was watching that, I just had to think that it was edited to highlight the stupidest people. I know that something like 10% of adults cannot name the president (yes, really) at any given time, but I refuse to be believe that 98% of students at a selective college are that incredibly stupid.
Part of the clue may be the majors. Psych mostly. No poly sci. No history. Not even engineering or math (not that math majors are worldly or anything). No grievance studies (who would at least be expected to know the civil war thing).
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/6/2016 @ 4:04 pmIN EVERY ROOM!!!?!
OK. Not the bathrooms or garage. But if you are going to scrape of the g.d. cottage cheese ceiling in every room and have to resurface and repaint, it is by gum time to poke holes if you ever were going to.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/6/2016 @ 4:05 pm“Now is the right time to transition from CFL to LED,”
Translation: “Well, we seem to have squeezed the last possible dollar out of CFLs. 1) The Chinese own that market now. 2) Anyone who was going to change to these crap bulbs already has. 3) They last so long there’s no money there. So, let’s make them throw them away and buy something new.”
Me, I waited until there was something worth switching to.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/6/2016 @ 4:13 pmIf consumers are so much smarter than the government, how do you explain Coca Cola?
You should see real Coke imported from Mexico fly off the shelves at a big premium in Los Angeles. When they killed New Coke what they went back to was not what they had before. They replaced the sugar with HFCS. But not in Mexico.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/6/2016 @ 4:18 pmSo, Kasich today suggested he ought to be running in the Democrat primary, yet he will b again taking up space at the debate tonight despite losing in Iowa to Carly Fiorina, who ABC and the RNC have decided to keep out.
Fiorina has bought time during the Super Bowl in New Hampshire.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/6/2016 @ 4:53 pmI don’t share our host’s gloom about Sen. Cruz’ chances. Neither, although I support Sen. Cruz, do I share nearly the same degree of dismay he has over the prospect of Sen. Rubio getting the nomination.
And I thought that if there were a very good chance of Trump being able to sucker a large enough plurality of voters to ultimately win the nomination, Iowa was a pretty good state for him to do that in. He didn’t; I’m relieved.
I wouldn’t have given Sen. Cruz one-in-three odds last August. I think his odds are much better than that now, though — I’d say 50/50.
I don’t think Trump will be one of the last two candidates standing (i.e., with a realistic mathematical shot at the nomination). I think that will be Cruz and Rubio.
That prospect doesn’t displease me at all, when I look at what’s going on with the Dems.
On the subject of odds: Someone named Paul Krishnamurty, described as “a British professional political gambler currently touring America to watch the primaries firsthand — and to bet on the election,” has written a piece on that P*litico website (which I shan’t link here) entitled “Trump is Falling Fast,” in which he makes these assertions:
That’s part of what I meant when I wrote in a comment here, just after the Iowa result, that I think Trump is “brittle.” When he collapses, he’ll collapse a long way in a big hurry. (I’m again confident that this is a “when” question, not an “if” question. Trump’s post-Iowa petulance and immaturity, his utter lack of self-control in the face of adversity, confirms that to my utter satisfaction.) And he’ll quit.
That’s what he’s done throughout his business career, isn’t it? What more proof that he’s a quitter and a loser do you need than the four waves of bankruptcies through which he’s dragged the fortune his daddy gave him?
I’m more optimistic than our host about Sen. Cruz’ chances against Rubio, too — ironically, because of Trump, sorta. That is to say: The opinion polling numbers that Trump has been pulling all last fall and up until Iowa do indeed reflect a profound state of agitation in the national electorate — not just the Republican Party or among conservatives. When Trump drops out, that agitation isn’t going to suddenly vanish. And those are not voters who are likely to flock to an Establishment candidate.
The part of Marco Rubio’s well-polished pitch that is least persuasive is his claim to be from outside the GOP Establishment. He’s just young and Establishment, but my gosh — he’s Jeb Bush’s protege, how can that not be considered Establishment? Rubio is a younger and much hipper version of Mitt Romney or George H.W. Bush — both of whom I’ve voted for without regret, even in losing causes when I nevertheless felt very strongly that the GOP had stronger candidates to put forward.
I’ve written here before, I think, that as a Texan, I’m entirely satisfied to have, as my two U.S. Senators, one who’s a workhorse, absolutely conventional and Establishment (John Cornyn), and one who’s a showhorse, throwing hand grenades and driving the crony-capitalists from the temple (Ted Cruz). If the party is going to select an Establishment nominee, I’d rather it be Rubio than Jeb, Kasich, or Christie. But this election cycle increasingly reminds me of 1980, when George H.W. Bush was the GOP Establishment favorite and Ronald Reagan, despite his considerable success in 1976 before Ford locked down the nomination, was the revolutionary who supposedly was “un-electable.”
I think Ted Cruz is exactly as “un-electable” now as Ronald Reagan was in 1980; Reagan carried 44 states in 1980 against Jimmy Carter. And in 1984, Ronald Reagan carried every state except Minnesota, even running against a centrist Democrat in Mondale.
Be of good cheer. Soldier on. It’s still very early, and there is hope on the horizon.
Beldar (fa637a) — 2/6/2016 @ 5:17 pm@Kevin M:When they killed New Coke what they went back to was not what they had before. They replaced the sugar with HFCS. But not in Mexico.
Timing is wrong. HFCS was introduced to Coke in 1984, New Coke came out in 1985.
I used to think I could tell the difference between tap water and Evian. Double-blind test convinced me I couldn’t. I’m skeptical that anyone can tell HFCS from sugar in Coke, and until I see someone pick it 9/10 times, double blinded, I don’t believe they can.
If wine experts can’t tell red from white double-blind, then no one can tell sucrose from fructose.
Gabriel Hanna (3d8e32) — 2/6/2016 @ 6:30 pmRomany picked up like 11% of Indies over that hauled by McVain but lost ground with the base.
Expect the same with anyone to GOPe’s liking.
They intend to lose elections and retreat in opposition. You sheeple are so co-dependent.
DNF (755a85) — 2/6/2016 @ 8:48 pmHere at Femail, we ordered a few bottles from Molcajete Taqueria in NoHo, at $2.50 a pop, to compare and contrast with a bottle of regular American Coke.
We found that while most said they preferred the Mexican version when they could see which was which, half failed to correctly identify the two drinks when they did a blind test.
Indeed, a 2010 Food Politics study suggested that there may not be a difference at all between the two versions.
Researchers who examined a sample of Mexican Coke could not find any sucrose in it, but they ‘did find plenty of glucose and fructose’.
They noted that their findings meant either that Mexican Coke is also made with high-fructose corn syrup, or that the bottle had aged, causing the sucrose to ‘invert’ into its constituent glucose and fructose.*
happyfeet (831175) — 2/6/2016 @ 8:57 pmThis post is a perfect example of people who are so chained to the idea of “for the party” that they cannot possibly imagine any other way of moving forward. You say Trump is no good but reluctantly put your support behind yet another corrupt, stupid GOP “electable” idiot? When you KNOW he will betray you. When you know the PLAN is to betray you. You are the reason the GOP keeps putting up these idiots, because they know people like you can’t help yourselves, you have to pull the lever for them. Trump is offering to rock the boat, perhaps so much that the GOP might have a chance at reforming itself. Maybe, maybe not. But I’d rather take a chance at change than a vote for certain betrayal.
Mr Black (3efb66) — 2/7/2016 @ 1:10 amI’m skeptical that anyone can tell HFCS from sugar in Coke, and until I see someone pick it 9/10 times, double blinded, I don’t believe they can.
High fructose corn syrup is sticky (when it dries a little) Sugar isn’t.
Sammy Finkelman (dbec95) — 2/7/2016 @ 11:05 am