Why aren't the "real conservatives" developing any 2016 support?

[The Rabbi]

The troll question, dumbshit, was why real conservatives werent developing support. Since fundraising is an important measure of support I showed that Cruz is in the top 3 fundraisers, top 2 of the GOP.
Now you can argue:
1) Fundraising isnt a measure of support. That would indicate you are completely ignorant of politics.
2) Cruz isnt conservative. That would indicate you are a babbling idiot.
3) The source is biased. That would indicate you dont know what you're talking about.
Take your pick. Or agree with me that I blew the thread away.

I don't deal with children who resort to personal attacks for communication. And you label anything you don't agree with as trolling. So you are both a child and someone who looks at things with tunnel-vision

Your admission of defeat here is noted and accepted. Move along, junior.

Welcome to my ignore list. And have fun watching Cruz and the others go nowhere in the primary. Ill make some TROLL THREADS about it when it happens

Good. Your butthurt confirms you arent worth debating. Cruz is currently a top money getter and that means something in politics.

To win, he need support. He need primary voters. It is possible for Cruz to out raise the majority of his field at the same time is stuck pulling up the rear in all the primary states.

That is a real possibility. The question the Cruz campaign need to address is how to convert their war chest into a lead among voters. His campaign has yet to demonstrate they know how.

In politics money usually translates into votes. If someone is willing to give you money, someone else is also likely to vote for you. It doesnt always work. Kay Hagan raised more money in the NC Senate race than anyone else and still lost. But usually the winner in votes is also the fundraising winner.
Maybe you can volunteer to be Cruz' campaign manager and teach him all about getting votes.

 

[daws101]

Ted Cruz is the third highest fund raiser in the race, behind Jeb and Hillary.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016-campaign-money-race.html?_r=0

Oops. Kinda blows that shit all to hell.

And what does that have to do with anything? Establishment candidates raise money as well. As your post said, an establishment candidate raised more than Cruz. So if raising money is your definition of success, than moderate candidates have never failed doing that, and the current establishment candidate raised more than the "real conservative"

The lie "real conservatives" have been spouting for years is that if you run a "real conservative", the GOP will win a general election. Well we have like 5 "real conservatives" running, and none of them are getting paid any attention or leading some swelling movement of heretofore seen support

The troll question, dumbshit, was why real conservatives werent developing support. Since fundraising is an important measure of support I showed that Cruz is in the top 3 fundraisers, top 2 of the GOP.
Now you can argue:
1) Fundraising isnt a measure of support. That would indicate you are completely ignorant of politics.
2) Cruz isnt conservative. That would indicate you are a babbling idiot.
3) The source is biased. That would indicate you dont know what you're talking about.
Take your pick. Or agree with me that I blew the thread away.

I don't deal with children who resort to personal attacks for communication. And you label anything you don't agree with as trolling. So you are both a child and someone who looks at things with tunnel-vision

Your admission of defeat here is noted and accepted. Move along, junior.

The false victory ploy how fucking typical.

 

[Darkwind]

Because we should rely upon the GOP's enemies to define who the real conservatives are......

 

[AceRothstein]

what the fuck is a real conservative?

The person who yells the loudest.

Howard Dean is not a conservative.

That was more of a shriek.

 

[amrchaos]

I don't deal with children who resort to personal attacks for communication. And you label anything you don't agree with as trolling. So you are both a child and someone who looks at things with tunnel-vision

Your admission of defeat here is noted and accepted. Move along, junior.

Welcome to my ignore list. And have fun watching Cruz and the others go nowhere in the primary. Ill make some TROLL THREADS about it when it happens

Good. Your butthurt confirms you arent worth debating. Cruz is currently a top money getter and that means something in politics.

To win, he need support. He need primary voters. It is possible for Cruz to out raise the majority of his field at the same time is stuck pulling up the rear in all the primary states.

That is a real possibility. The question the Cruz campaign need to address is how to convert their war chest into a lead among voters. His campaign has yet to demonstrate they know how.

In politics money usually translates into votes. If someone is willing to give you money, someone else is also likely to vote for you. It doesnt always work. Kay Hagan raised more money in the NC Senate race than anyone else and still lost. But usually the winner in votes is also the fundraising winner.
Maybe you can volunteer to be Cruz' campaign manager and teach him all about getting votes.

Sorry, the support of those you are trying to win over requires a lot from the candidate than the campaign manager anyway.

However, I think you are taking the money equation to liberally. The conversion of money to votes can work differently for each campaign.

A person that is charismatic, a sound debater and speech giver, can work in a team or lead it would most likely have the best exchange rate.

While someone who is quirky or weird,have to pay for or force an audience to listen to him, can not work in a team, and never actually led his peers would have a terrible exchange rate.

Yes, someone will vote for him. But put that war chest in the hands of Paul or Rubio and you could gather much more votes.

 

[daws101]

 

[BluesLegend]

Put up to shut up lib, you shot your big mouth off so lets here it. Maybe you don't have the guts, I have found many liberals are gutless cowards when called out.

asked and answered

Ah, you are in the gutless coward camp got it.

false I'm in the already made my point camp.
you never answered the question "do you support ted cruz or the Donald ?"

You shot off your mouth, I called you out on it, and you ran and hid.

False I handed you your ass .
damn you're a whininy bitch.

Control your crazy lib, I own you at will.

 

[BluesLegend]

what the fuck is a real conservative?

The person who yells the loudest.

Howard Dean is not a conservative.

That was more of a shriek.

It was a sneak peak into what goes on inside a mind infested with liberalism.

 

[The Rabbi]

Your admission of defeat here is noted and accepted. Move along, junior.

Welcome to my ignore list. And have fun watching Cruz and the others go nowhere in the primary. Ill make some TROLL THREADS about it when it happens

Good. Your butthurt confirms you arent worth debating. Cruz is currently a top money getter and that means something in politics.

To win, he need support. He need primary voters. It is possible for Cruz to out raise the majority of his field at the same time is stuck pulling up the rear in all the primary states.

That is a real possibility. The question the Cruz campaign need to address is how to convert their war chest into a lead among voters. His campaign has yet to demonstrate they know how.

In politics money usually translates into votes. If someone is willing to give you money, someone else is also likely to vote for you. It doesnt always work. Kay Hagan raised more money in the NC Senate race than anyone else and still lost. But usually the winner in votes is also the fundraising winner.
Maybe you can volunteer to be Cruz' campaign manager and teach him all about getting votes.

Sorry, the support of those you are trying to win over requires a lot from the candidate than the campaign manager anyway.

However, I think you are taking the money equation to liberally. The conversion of money to votes can work differently for each campaign.

A person that is charismatic, a sound debater and speech giver, can work in a team or lead it would most likely have the best exchange rate.

While someone who is quirky or weird,have to pay for or force an audience to listen to him, can not work in a team, and never actually led his peers would have a terrible exchange rate.

Yes, someone will vote for him. But put that war chest in the hands of Paul or Rubio and you could gather much more votes.

Was that what passes for deep and insightful analysis in your world?

 

[daws101]

asked and answered

Ah, you are in the gutless coward camp got it.

false I'm in the already made my point camp.
you never answered the question "do you support ted cruz or the Donald ?"

You shot off your mouth, I called you out on it, and you ran and hid.

False I handed you your ass .
damn you're a whininy bitch.

Control your crazy lib, I own you at will.

Only in your wettest dreams.

 

[daws101]

Welcome to my ignore list. And have fun watching Cruz and the others go nowhere in the primary. Ill make some TROLL THREADS about it when it happens

Good. Your butthurt confirms you arent worth debating. Cruz is currently a top money getter and that means something in politics.

To win, he need support. He need primary voters. It is possible for Cruz to out raise the majority of his field at the same time is stuck pulling up the rear in all the primary states.

That is a real possibility. The question the Cruz campaign need to address is how to convert their war chest into a lead among voters. His campaign has yet to demonstrate they know how.

In politics money usually translates into votes. If someone is willing to give you money, someone else is also likely to vote for you. It doesnt always work. Kay Hagan raised more money in the NC Senate race than anyone else and still lost. But usually the winner in votes is also the fundraising winner.
Maybe you can volunteer to be Cruz' campaign manager and teach him all about getting votes.

Sorry, the support of those you are trying to win over requires a lot from the candidate than the campaign manager anyway.

However, I think you are taking the money equation to liberally. The conversion of money to votes can work differently for each campaign.

A person that is charismatic, a sound debater and speech giver, can work in a team or lead it would most likely have the best exchange rate.

While someone who is quirky or weird,have to pay for or force an audience to listen to him, can not work in a team, and never actually led his peers would have a terrible exchange rate.

Yes, someone will vote for him. But put that war chest in the hands of Paul or Rubio and you could gather much more votes.

Was that what passes for deep and insightful analysis in your world?

Cue derisive laughter.

 

[amrchaos]

Welcome to my ignore list. And have fun watching Cruz and the others go nowhere in the primary. Ill make some TROLL THREADS about it when it happens

Good. Your butthurt confirms you arent worth debating. Cruz is currently a top money getter and that means something in politics.

To win, he need support. He need primary voters. It is possible for Cruz to out raise the majority of his field at the same time is stuck pulling up the rear in all the primary states.

That is a real possibility. The question the Cruz campaign need to address is how to convert their war chest into a lead among voters. His campaign has yet to demonstrate they know how.

In politics money usually translates into votes. If someone is willing to give you money, someone else is also likely to vote for you. It doesnt always work. Kay Hagan raised more money in the NC Senate race than anyone else and still lost. But usually the winner in votes is also the fundraising winner.
Maybe you can volunteer to be Cruz' campaign manager and teach him all about getting votes.

Sorry, the support of those you are trying to win over requires a lot from the candidate than the campaign manager anyway.

However, I think you are taking the money equation to liberally. The conversion of money to votes can work differently for each campaign.

A person that is charismatic, a sound debater and speech giver, can work in a team or lead it would most likely have the best exchange rate.

While someone who is quirky or weird,have to pay for or force an audience to listen to him, can not work in a team, and never actually led his peers would have a terrible exchange rate.

Yes, someone will vote for him. But put that war chest in the hands of Paul or Rubio and you could gather much more votes.

Was that what passes for deep and insightful analysis in your world?

You don't need deep analysis to realize that the exchange rate of money to votes is different between campaigns tactics and the candidate running.

It is a simple and pretty obvious realization that the exchange rate is not equal for everyone.