Reid: Cruz 2016 'Would Be End Of The Republican Party'

[DonViejo]

TOM KLUDT – OCTOBER 31, 2013, 7:30 AM EDT

If Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) claims the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) warned Wednesday, the GOP will have effectively destroyed itself.

“If I didn’t care so much about our country, I would hope he would get the Republican nomination for president, because that would mean the end of the Republican Party,” Reid told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. "He stands for everything America doesn't," Reid added.

Democrats have boasted recently that Cruz has only done them favors. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said last month that the Texas Republican's 21-hour talkathon aimed at defunding Obamacare "advanced our cause."

After the government shutdown came to an end earlier this month, Reid said Cruz "can't talk down to anyone anymore."

###

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/reid-cruz-16-would-be-end-of-the-republican-party

[Loki]

1. All I can say

is "Please proceed Mr. Cruz."

[Myrina]

2. Make it so.

n/t

[beachbum bob]

3. ted cruz cares about nothing except ted cruz

pretty much represents that part of the GOP/Teaparty who could give damn about any one else. I pray to god cruz is their nominee in 2016, the overwhelming democratic landslide across america for national, state, and local elections will be something to behold.

You can't piss everyone off except angry old white guys and expect to win.

GO TED!!!

[DFW]

4. Reid is wrong

I suspects he knows what he said isn't exactly true. Just rhetoric.

The Republicans have nominated extremists before. Some of them have gotten into office (consider the current makeup of the Senate and the House).

It would cause some dissent in the ranks to have Cruz nominated. It happened with US with McGovern in 1972, and he lost, but it also happened with Reagan in 1980 and he won. Neither party disintegrated. If the Republicans didn't disintegrate after McCarthy in 1954, then they certainly won't disintegrate after a Cruz 2016. Besides, they never had the billions in free sustenance money that they now have. It may end up that the Kochs and Adelson demand a bigger say in Republican Party matters than they do now as a price of their continued flood of free cash, but the Republicans worship money more than God. It's a price they are only too willing to pay.

So what if they do badly with Cruz-you-lose? They've been there before.

Like the Terminator, robots can be rebuilt. They'll be back.

[Rozlee]

6. I'd like to think things are a little different now.

The Republicans weren't faced with the demographic storm back then that they are now. The minority vote was something that they laughed off in those days. And today, they've alienated women like never before. Obama won the women's vote by 12 points this last election. The older pre-segregationist Southern voters that make up the brunt of their base keep dying off each year. Republicans are a party that is 90% white and is older while younger voters in the 18 to 29 year range are trending liberal by margins of 58/33. Most women 20 years ago were married and tended to vote Republican. Today, there are more single parents and people living in alternate living arrangements than there were in times past. Many don't appreciate being preached at by social conservatives about how they're "destroying" the American family.

I agree with you in part. They're going to be dangerous while they've got backers with money and powerful friends in high places. But, a lot of extremists that should have won in past elections lost because they offended women and minorities or were just too out there. Like Sharron Angle, Todd Akins, Christine O'Donnell, Ruth McClung, Richard Mourdock, Allen West, Joe Walsh, and now, Cuccinelli looks like he might be a casualty of his extremism. I firmly believe that McCain might have had a shot if he hadn't chosen Palin as his running mate. She turned off too many voters. Republicans can't win if they keep telling women that rape is a blessing and a gift from God or showing ads featuring thuggish Hispanics overrunning the country.

[DFW]

7. Having an extremist like Cruz heading their ticket would be either really good for us or really bad

He would either drag the Allen Wests and Sharron Angles down with him or make them seem moderate by comparison.

Either way, as ridiculous as he would look in our eyes, he'd look that much better in the eyes of the radical right, and they ALL vote--not only that, they'll do everything they can to make sure we DON'T.

In 1979, Reagan was laughed off as well. By 1981, none of us were laughing any more. It's a mistake we can't afford to repeat, especially with a maniac like Cruz.

[Rozlee]

8. Well, I have to admit to being one of those complacent ones

that gave the American public too much credit and thought they were too intelligent to elect a carnival barker like Reagan into the White House. For sure I thought that they'd see through an empty suit like George W. Bush. I was reeling after the Bush-Gore debates when they said Bush "didn't do too bad," and "held his own." H L Menken once said, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." Except the American people.

[vinny9698]

5. It would be a LBJ/Goldwater Election

Hillary will probably break LBJ's record of electoral votes.

[Daemonaquila]

9. Harry, SSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

Let them crash & burn. It would be the most amusing campaign (and post-campaign) season ever! If anything, it might save what's left of the actual GOP, when the last few whacko-but-not-yet-brain-dead members divorce the xtian right and the teabaggers.