ADVERTISEMENT

POLL: Who Is the Worst Remaining Major GOP Candidate?

Vote for up to 2 "worst" GOP candidates, to see who gets the fewest votes and is "best."

  • Trump

    Votes: 28 44.4%
  • Rubio

    Votes: 12 19.0%
  • Cruz

    Votes: 52 82.5%
  • They are all really really really good.

    Votes: 4 6.3%

  • Total voters
    63
Nov 28, 2010
87,543
42,365
113
Maryland
Vote for the 2 worst and let's see who ends up with the fewest votes (and is the presumptive best).

You don't have to vote for 2, but it's recommended for the best poll results. If you actually like 2 of them, just vote for the worst 1.
 
Vote for the 2 worst and let's see who ends up with the fewest votes (and is the presumptive best).

You don't have to vote for 2, but it's recommended for the best poll results. If you actually like 2 of them, just vote for the worst 1.

Here is what is amazing. Trump is like a fictional version of the world's worst candidate. Spewing hatred and lies at a level never before imagined. Take everything bad about any politician, multiply it by ten, and you have Donald Trump.

Most people agree with all of that. And yet, most of us then turn around and say, "But honestly, Cruz is worse."

Holy crap what a statement that is about Cruz!

And that these are the two leading GOP candidates is quite a statement about the GOP base.
 
Here is what is amazing. Trump is like a fictional version of the world's worst candidate. Spewing hatred and lies at a level never before imagined. Take everything bad about any politician, multiply it by ten, and you have Donald Trump.

Most people agree with all of that. And yet, most of us then turn around and say, "But honestly, Cruz is worse."

Holy crap what a statement that is about Cruz!

And that these are the two leading GOP candidates is quite a statement about the GOP base.
I think there is a belief that Trump is a blow hard who says far more outrageous things than he actually wants to do. Where we feel the opposite about Cruz, that he wants to do a lot of crazy, but he's smart enough to keep quiet about a lot of it.
 
I think there is a belief that Trump is a blow hard who says far more outrageous things than he actually wants to do. Where we feel the opposite about Cruz, that he wants to do a lot of crazy, but he's smart enough to keep quiet about a lot of it.
Yep.

It's hard to take Donald too seriously. And that goes for both the crazy shit and for the good things he says. Would you bet on any of them? But when you start discounting the extremes, you are left feeling he is more moderate than his words. Kinda weird how that works.

Cruz often seems to be very carefully and tightly wound. So the tendency is to think he isn't being carelessly hyperbolic or incendiary - but that's the real Cruz. Except for the obvious lies and snake oil. But the obvious lies and snake oil just add to the worry about the type of leader he'll be.

Bottom line, when Donald tells us how bad a leader he'll be, we chuckle and don't really take him completely seriously. But when Cruz tells us how bad a leader he'll be, we take him completely seriously and figure he'll be even worse.

Rubio is somewhere in between. Because he says things like he's been told what to say, we don't quite know where he really stands (like Donald) but he seems serious about it, so we tend to take him seriously, but not infer that he's even worse underneath, like we do with Cruz.
 
Last edited:
You forgot the "they are all better than the democratic candidates" option.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Gimmered
Yep.

It's hard to take Donald too seriously. And that goes for both the crazy shit and for the good things he says. Would you bet on any of them? But when you start discounting the extremes, you are left feeling he is more moderate than his words. Kinda weird how that works.

Cruz often seems to be very carefully and tightly wound. So the tendency is to think he isn't being carelessly hyperbolic or incendiary - but that's the real Cruz. Except for the obvious lies and snake oil. But the obvious lies and snake oil just add to the worry about the type of leader he'll be.

Bottom line, when Donald tells us how bad a leader he'll be, we chuckle and don't really take him completely seriously. But when Cruz tells us how bad a leader he'll be, we take him completely seriously and figure he'll be even worse.

Rubio is somewhere in between. Because he say things like he's been told what to say, we don't quite know where he really stands (like Donald) but he seems serious about it, so we tend to take him seriously, but not infer that he's even worse underneath, like we do with Cruz.
There's one other thing that I'm not sure quite how to describe. Trump maybe isn't viewed as ideological as the other two. When the other two talk it sounds like the traditional right wing national review talking points you would get from any conservative. Talk about free markets and individual freedoms and government is bad, etc. When Trump talks you don't hear that. In fact you hear a guy who actually wants to make the government work. His plans aren't for the government to do less, he wants them to do more, just more effectively. He doesn't want to privatize the VA, he wants to whip it into shape. He doesn't want to deregulate trade, he wants to regulate it to our favor. He doesn't want the government out of healthcare, he wants the government to get a better deal on drugs, etc.

He sounds a lot like what I imagine a Dixiecrat must have sounded like back in the day. He's sort of a "good government" conservative. Lots of personal color, lots of inflammatory nationalist rhetoric and pro using the tools of government to address real problems. Who knew it would be so easy to turn Rs into Ds just by adopting a belligerent tone?
 
Last edited:
There's one other thing that I'm not sure quite how to describe. Trump maybe isn't viewed as ideological as the other two. When the other two talk it sounds like the traditional right wing national review talking points you would get from any conservative. Talk about free markets and individual freedoms and government is bad, etc. When Trump talks you don't hear that. In fact you hear a guy who actually wants to make the government work. His plans aren't for the government to do less, he wants them to do more, just more effectively. He doesn't want to privatize the VA, he wants to whip it into shape. He doesn't want to deregulate trade, he wants to regulate it to our favor. He doesn't want the government out of healthcare, he wants the government to get a better deal on drugs, etc.

He sounds a lot like what I imagine a Dixiecrat must have sounded like back in the day. He's sort of a "good government" conservative. Lots of personal color, lots of inflammatory nationalist rhetoric and pro using the tools of government to address real problems. Who knew it would be so easy to turn Rs into Ds just by adopting a belligerent tone?
Good points.
 
You forgot the "they are all better the democratic candidates" option.
That option wouldn't draw any votes, and you know it. This is THE worst GOP field in recent memory AINEC!

Picking a Republican nominee is like choosing between death by A. Firing squad, B. Lethal injection, or C. Electrocution.

Thanks, Priebus... you putz!
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Oh this seems way worse. Like actual throwing up our hands. 2004 was more of a Wtf?

You are correct, but probably not the way you mean it. In 2004, the rest of the world was indeed shocked that the country reelected Bush. But the "WTF" part of it was much more an indictment of the democrats' candidate choice. The rest of the world was wondering just how bad the opponent must have been to lose to him?
 
You are correct, but probably not the way you mean it. In 2004, the rest of the world was indeed shocked that the country reelected Bush. But the "WTF" part of it was much more an indictment of the democrats' candidate choice. The rest of the world was wondering just how bad the opponent must have been to lose to him?
I don't think there was anybody the democrats could have put up to beat the incumbent Bush that year.
 
A lot of people still think that Kerry won that 2004 election. There was the infamous hanging chad controversy in Florida where some dude named Jeb ran things. But a lot of people forget about what happened in Ohio.

"Certainly the election had its share of irregularities, especially in Ohio, the battleground state each side had to win. In the days after the election, newspapers nationwide carried accounts of how voters in and around Columbus, the state capital, had to stand in line for hours before casting ballots. It turns out the Franklin County Board of Elections had reduced the number of voting machines in urban precincts—which held more African American voters and were likely to favor John Kerry—and increased the number of machines in white suburban precincts, which tended to favor the president. As a result, as many as 15,000 voters in Franklin County left without casting ballots, the Washington Post estimated—a significant amount in an election that Bush won by only 118,775 votes (out of 5.6 million cast). But except for one-day stories in the Washington Post and New York Times, these revelations triggered no broader investigations, or if they did, the results went unpublished."

http://www.motherjones.com/media/2005/11/recounting-ohio
 
I don't think there was anybody the democrats could have put up to beat the incumbent Bush that year.
I believe this to be correct. In American history... No sitting U.S. President has ever lost a reelection bid while a war(declared or undeclared) was in progress. I know I read an article at the time that stated this.

As despicable an individual that Karl Rove is... no one will ever call him stupid. He and Cheney basically adopted the campaign strategy about half way thru the first term that this was a sure way to have Bush2 reelected. This plays to the theory that they convinced Collin Powell to lie regarding WMDs. Or at least they formulated "evidence" that this was the reason to go to the ME.

Since American lives have been lost... to a certain degree... because of these two lying SOBs, some of the problems in America today can be traced to both Cheney and Rove. I hope those two smug bastards rot in hell when the time comes.
 
I believe this to be correct. In American history... No sitting U.S. President has ever lost a reelection bid while a war(declared or undeclared) was in progress. I know I read an article at the time that stated this.

As despicable an individual that Karl Rove is... no one will ever call him stupid. He and Cheney basically adopted the campaign strategy about half way thru the first term that this was a sure way to have Bush2 reelected. This plays to the theory that they convinced Collin Powell to lie regarding WMDs. Or at least they formulated "evidence" that this was the reason to go to the ME.

Since American lives have been lost... to a certain degree... because of these two lying SOBs, some of the problems in America today can be traced to both Cheney and Rove. I hope those two smug bastards rot in hell when the time comes.
They were making Iraq invasion plans before 9/11.
 
You are correct, but probably not the way you mean it. In 2004, the rest of the world was indeed shocked that the country reelected Bush. But the "WTF" part of it was much more an indictment of the democrats' candidate choice. The rest of the world was wondering just how bad the opponent must have been to lose to him?
I don't think they were wondering that.

bush_dailymirror_dumb_people.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gimmered
A lot of people still think that Kerry won that 2004 election. There was the infamous hanging chad controversy in Florida where some dude named Jeb ran things. But a lot of people forget about what happened in Ohio.

"Certainly the election had its share of irregularities, especially in Ohio, the battleground state each side had to win. In the days after the election, newspapers nationwide carried accounts of how voters in and around Columbus, the state capital, had to stand in line for hours before casting ballots. It turns out the Franklin County Board of Elections had reduced the number of voting machines in urban precincts—which held more African American voters and were likely to favor John Kerry—and increased the number of machines in white suburban precincts, which tended to favor the president. As a result, as many as 15,000 voters in Franklin County left without casting ballots, the Washington Post estimated—a significant amount in an election that Bush won by only 118,775 votes (out of 5.6 million cast). But except for one-day stories in the Washington Post and New York Times, these revelations triggered no broader investigations, or if they did, the results went unpublished."

http://www.motherjones.com/media/2005/11/recounting-ohio
Yep.

The Republican strategy in 2004 seemed to be to steal it big enough that people would shrug it off, thinking "well, yeah, they stole some precincts but they won it by so much that they would have won it anyway if they had been honest."

The analyses don't really support that they would have won it anyway. But it's hard to prove to everybody's satisfaction. And if 2000 showed us anything it's that if you steal it you get to keep it.
 
I believe this to be correct. In American history... No sitting U.S. President has ever lost a reelection bid while a war(declared or undeclared) was in progress. I know I read an article at the time that stated this.

As despicable an individual that Karl Rove is... no one will ever call him stupid. He and Cheney basically adopted the campaign strategy about half way thru the first term that this was a sure way to have Bush2 reelected. This plays to the theory that they convinced Collin Powell to lie regarding WMDs. Or at least they formulated "evidence" that this was the reason to go to the ME.

Since American lives have been lost... to a certain degree... because of these two lying SOBs, some of the problems in America today can be traced to both Cheney and Rove. I hope those two smug bastards rot in hell when the time comes.
People were already talking about Bush being a 1-term president in summer, 2001.

Then 9/11 happened.

We know from multiple sources (Treasury Sec Paul O'Neill among them) that immediately after 9/11 Team Bush was trying to link it to Iraq.

By summer of 2002 Cheney was stating as fact that Iraq had WMD. Look it up. August 26, 2002. I call it the "there can be no doubt" speech, because Cheney uses that phrase several times.
 
Fascinating results really. The guy was never a republican before this run,runs his campaign like a bad reality show - insulting everyone in sight, but by donning the republican colors the majority of you will line up and vote for him anyway.
 
I think there is a belief that Trump is a blow hard who says far more outrageous things than he actually wants to do. Where we feel the opposite about Cruz, that he wants to do a lot of crazy, but he's smart enough to keep quiet about a lot of it.
Yeah, I pretty much agree. I think Cruz is the worst because he really believes the crazy crap that he pours out. Trump is mostly doing a PT Barnum thing where he shouts outrageous stuff to draw an audience but doesn't really believe anything that doesn't put money in his pocket.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT