0 votes

Poll: Cruz 2016 Frontrunner, New GOP Leader

A Public Policy Polling poll of GOP primary voters conducted September 25-26, while Cruz was speaking on the Senate floor for 21 hours in support of defunding Obamacare, found Cruz is the top choice "among Republican primary voters to be their candidate for President in 2016":

He leads the way with 20% to 17% for Rand Paul, 14% for Chris Christie, 11% for Jeb Bush, 10% each for Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan, 4% for Bobby Jindal, and 3% each for Rick Santorum and Scott Walker.

Cruz received the support of 34% of "very conservative" voters while Paul received 17% and Ryan 12%. Those "very conservative" voters make up the greatest share of the GOP primary electorate at 39%.

Read More (by the way, the comments aren't in our favour):


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Man, this has me worried....

I cant imagine the heart break I would feel if we lost again... However, the one thing thats giving me some confidence is that Paul is much more likely to Iowa AND NH and if he does that, its pretty much a momentum very difficult to stop. I dont believe I can remember a single GOP candidate winning both Iowa and New Hampshire and still losing nomination?

Please God, if you have any compassion on us, please let Rand beat Cruz!!

By the way, Cruz would be a huge jerk to run against Paul, especially since Paul was instumental in Cruz even getting elected.

Ron Paul 2012

Prayers can help

but that is not the only answer.

You must do the job yourself and work local.

Organize meetup events at a local restaurant once per week or twice monthly. Poster board and magic marker is all that is needed, posted on a busy road.

Print out factual material and hand it out. Ask others to take empty committee seats, you can take one also. Meetings over coffee are only a few timers per year but that position is more powerful than you know.

BE the change that you seek. Then your prayers will be answered.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Cruz had to have known his supposed Friend Rand was planning...

... On running. Why would he do that to him and not wait? By the way, Cruz will get beat soundly against Hillary for moderates. Paul is considered hard conservative, but his hyphen "Libertarian" is what will help Paul in the general election by moderates. Paul would cream Cruz in a general, but I am worried about the southern red state primaries.

Ron Paul 2012

I would vote

for a Paul/Cruz ticket but not the other way around.

What lawmanjed said.

Also, consider if something very unfortunate happened during the presidency. Would you be ok with cruz running the show? History is there for a reason.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

I have to know

more about Cruz. I am not quite sure about him. But if he destroyed Hilary on a one on one debate, I might get excited.

Cruz is not eligible.

While I like his talking-points and most of what he has stood for, I can never vote for Cruz for POTUS or Vice POTUS because he is not eligible for the position, as he is not a natural born citizen.

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

hell with cruz. His wife works for goldman sachs

So we know who has him by his sach.


I have family that work for Goldman Sachs as financial advisors and they're not war loving RINOs, in fact their the exact opposite. Its not easy to find work nowadays and people need to pay the bills.


Cruz had me

...at Obamacare said every fauxnews watching sunshine conservative hypocrite ever.

They tried to bury us, they didn't know we were seeds. -mexican proverb

Please remember 2012.

It doesn't matter what the pollsters say today. When the real campaign begins, the pollsters, the media and the voting results will be harmonised to get behind the chosen one. The polls are fixed, the media are manipulated and the votes are rigged to reflect the determination of the establishment.

I am somewhat surprised that Ron Paul libertarians who followed last year's elections closely would still retain even a tiny vestige of trust in their political system. "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."

No matter what we WANT to believe the facts must be faced and dealt with. The elections for important gatekeeper offices in the United States will always be fixed. To join in them, to contribute funds to them, to expend energy on them is merely futile and only serves to give life to a corrupt system.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

David Robertson

You are correct. If people are not working local [and state], they have no room to complain.

Get involved. It may require a little work, but that is usually what is required. But it does not mean that you can not have fun in the process. Become a precinct chair. Start a meetup group, now not later. Print material and hand it out to people in your community.

RP: "If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right."

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

I agree.

That is the only direction to take if one believes that the answer to the problems is political. As I have mentioned before, I am Scottish, living in Scotland and not qualified to be involved in US elections.

Getting involved at lower levels and in less critical races to start with is a much better expenditure of energy and money. Inroads can be made from there to take over gatekeeper positions. Eventually these positions will be able to have influence but it will take many many years to accomplish this, just as the [real] opposition have spent many years infiltrating the government especially at the federal level.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

Blah blah. Cruz took up the

Blah blah. Cruz took up the most popular GOP cause de jour. Wow, what a hero. Once he's read a little Mises and advocated a non-interventionist policy, come back to me and ask again. Until then, he's just an opportunist with presidential ambitions who knows which way the wind's blowing.

That may be...

...but let's give the credit where it's due. If nothing else, Cruz stood up to the establishment. 'The most popular GOP cause'? Not so sure about that; a very risky perhaps?
We ought to be aware that everyone is different and may have a different style/approach to any problem.


Right. Just because a candidate doesn't have the last name Paul doesn't make him the enemy. Lets give him a chance but at the same time we must fully vet his future actions as any informed voter should!


Cruz is an insider

A career politician and a Republican dressed in libertarian clothing. Connections to Bush and the banks.

A cold day in hell, the day I vote for an insider again.



funny how the 1st most prominent push-poll results announced, post-Cruz 'filibuster' knocking Rand off #1 spot just a few days ago, is PPP, the de facto polling firm for the Democratic Party.


though, to be fair, if they polled RINOs, that result isn't that surprising. of COURSE: the RINOs would want someone who is much more AIPAC-acquiescent than Rand.

So what else is new? PPP just made WaPo's resident Likudnik שיקסע Jennifer Rubin go orgasmo!

Hm... or, maybe not: she now feigns outrage and calls Cruz a "fraud"!

What a biotch!! Is nothing enough for these neoCons? Even a slightly more AIPAC amenable one like Cruz? Lawd have mercy: guess these neoCon turds really won't be happy until America's engaged in wars, everywhere, all the time and the entire world is aflame!

Nope, not that Jennifer Collene Rubin, the former Calvin Klein Obsession model/actress, THIS Jennifer Rubin, the WaPo's icky insecure token warWHORE.

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

2 words

NOT eligible

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

One Word



Said this once, I'll say it again.

Obama and Cruz are two completely different cases. The official narrative, what the public believes, and what is told to be true is that Obama meets the requirements to be eligible. Cruz, however, has an obvious public record of not.

Yeah, and that's a problem.

So we should just cave, and let the Constitution continue to be destroyed?

Cruz is in the GOP and many DPers are registered republicans. I am. That means we do have say (allegedly) in who gets the nomination. While I like what Ted Cruz has stood for, mostly, so far as a US Senator, he is simply not eligible to become President. Constitutional Conservatives cannot sit back and just let the Constitution continue to be undermined. We cannot allow the precedent to be set in this party too.

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Although at the same time...

It is also important for us to realize that the Constitution does not explicitly define a natural born citizen. What the Constitution does say is, "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President". We must also take into account The Naturalization Act of 1790 which explicitly says, "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens".

As well as the Congressional Research Service Report that explains, "The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth""

So, since Cruz was born to an American and granted American citizenship AT BIRTH, he also would be considered a natural born citizen. It's funny because I too was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada to American parents and as a result I was born with American citizenship and thats why I not only have a Canadian passport but also an American one as well. But don't get me wrong I stand with Rand and Ron and always will unless they give me reason not too.


You are absolutely incorrect, but we can take this up here...


Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?


In your post on what constitutes a NBC you point to Minor v. Happersett which was a case where the Supreme Court upheld the law at the time which made it illegal for women to vote. Do you also agree with its ruling that women can't vote? Also If you took a closer look at that case you would also know that it was overruled by the Nineteenth Amendment which was adopted by the Constitution in 1920.



the following blog site (Attorney Apuzzo's) also cites Minor vs. Happersett and also espouses the same definition of 'Natural born citizen' as I had been taught decades ago...

He also cites the "Law of Nations", among other things...


O.P.O.G.G. - Fighting the attempted devolution of the rEVOLution
Ron Paul 2012...and beyond

Minor's ruling

The Supreme Court in Minor simply pointed out that the US Constitution did not grant voting rights to ANYONE, men or women. Voting rights were determined by the STATES, not the federal government, so there was no way for the Court to grant voting rights to women. Courts are not supposed to MAKE law, just interpret them. It would have been illegal and tyrannical for the Court to have overstepped its bounds and created or invented a federal right to vote; that is the job of the legislative branch, ie. the representatives of the people, to do, if granted that power under the Constitution, or by the people via constitutional amendment. I doubt you are an attorney or have legal training or you would know that.

In order to reach the issue of suffrage for women, the Court first had to find that Ms. Minor was a citizen, which they did. They determined that she was in fact a citizen, without having to define citizenship in general, because she happened to have been born in the US to US citizen parents, and therefore was a "natural born citizen"(NBC). And because she was a NBC, she was of course a CITIZEN!

The people remedied this dilemna for women suffrage by passing the 19TH AMENDMENT, ratified in 1920, which created a US Constitutional right for citizens to vote without regard to sex. Prior to that, any one or more of the states could have done so, as some began to do. But Congress could not pass a federal law forcing the states to grant voting rights to women, or creating a federal right to vote for women (or anyone else) since the Constitution granted them no such power.

Minor's definition of NBC as those born in the country to citizen parents was a finding that was essential for its ruling regarding Ms. Minor's right to vote, or lack thereof. Its NBC definition is therefore binding law and precedent for all future US Courts. Its definition can only be overruled by the Court itself or changed by Constitional amendment. Its ultimate finding that the US Constitution granted voting rights to no one, and therefore that Ms. Minor did NOT have a federal constitutional right to vote, was changed by the 19TH AMENDMENT. But Minor's definition of NBC was NOT repealed by this amendment, nor has Minor ever been overruled by the Supreme Court, and in fact has been repeatedly adopted by the Court in subsequent rulings.

So your assertion that Minor was overruled by the 19th Amendment, implying that its definition of NBC was somehow overruled, when it clearly was not, is false, misleading and reckless. But I guess you knew that, didn't you?

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?


Thats not my opinion thats what our governments opinion is. If it wasn't I would've had to apply for my American citizenship.


I cite Supreme Court... You cite Congressional Research Service



Didn't I say I would discuss this in another thread?

Nothing you have said refutes any of the facts I (& other DPers) have presented over & over in other threads.

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?


Not only do I cite the constitution, I cite the Naturalization Act of 1970, the 2011 Congressional Research Report, as well as the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution which overrules the Minor v. Happersett case you use as a false argument in an attempt to prove your point. Now please debunk those points.