Southern Elk
Well-known member
Hopefully other candidates will take notice that his stance on public land does not resonate with voters.
Cruz is Out
- Thread starter Southern Elk
- Start date
utah400elk
Well-known member
I would never have voted for him because of that single issue.
Southern Elk
Well-known member
Same here. I usually vote for the most conservative candidate, but that one issue cost him my vote.
pointingdogsrule
Well-known member
Just my opinion. I would venture to guess that very few people in Indiana or elsewhere in the east even know where he stands on the public lands. I would say that there were other issues that decided whether they voted for Cruz or didn't. I realize that the public lands are a big issue on this forum, however, maybe NOT so much for other people. The "exit poll" tonight as other nights... the #1 issue.... the ECONOMY & JOBS.
As a disclaimer: I was a Carly voter in the Iowa primaries.
good luck to all
the dog
dcopas78
Well-known member
I find him to be extremely repugnant, even if I didn't know his stance on public lands. My mother literally knows only what my dad and I have told her about public lands, but she will turn the TV off whenever he is on. It ain't because of the public lands issue. It's because her BS meter instantly pegs to max. Some politicians are good at feeding us the bull and at least making it look like they care. He does it in such a cocky, arrogant way that it isn't hard to figure out for anyone that has a brain.
The crazy thing about Cruz and I'm sure I'm missing something, is a lot of the western states with all the public land he has won(those that had primaries) and still may even win some even after dropping out, he definitely get a lot of votes still. I know he talked about public land a lot in ID and he won that. You'd think the people would of been like "wtf, give the land to the state???" and question it but maybe I'm missing something.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,684
When you live in a conservative minded county that is predominantly public land and your local economy is struggling, it is easy for a politician to capitalize on "%@$% Obama and the Feds are the reason you guys can't make a decent living. We'll take control of this land and then you guys can make a good living like everyone else out there in Prosperityville."
People take public lands for granted and think that they will never lose access. They don't stop to think through what the consequences of state control will be.
LopeHunter
Well-known member
I doubt 1 in 1000 Indiana voters could identify his stance on public lands from 3 choices on a notecard.
Economy was the number issue per exit polls. http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/03/politics/indiana-exit-polls/
Public lands is simply not an issue east of Kansas since there are so few public lands worth hunting for big game yet plenty of public lands to hike. As you filter voters there are are small percent that hunt out West on a regular basis. USA sells about 15 million hunting licenses a year. I buy 7 of those so say are 12 million hunters.
This report says 14 million but 12 million big game hunt. https://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/fhw11-nat.pdf
I estimate 50% of the big game hunters are in the more populous states which are mostly East of Kansas. Let's be generous and say 10 million big game hunters have hunted out West. Some only hunt in their state. They usually have figured out a way to access land to hunt whether that be public or private.
Some of us hunt not only in our state but in others. The land issue is very important to us since public land access is a key way to save $2500 or more per hunt.
Say all 10 million care about public land and all 10 million vote which is not realistic but perhaps 90% care and 60% of that subset vote (have to be a citizen, have to be of age, have to be registered, have to vote in the election). Now you have less than 6 million votes cast by big game hunters and some of those have more pressing issues that could result in them not voting for the candidate that has the most pro-public lands view.
As the exit polls show, is very likely other issues are likely to be a higher factor as a voter heads into the voting booth and if a voter is a single issue voter (i.e. 2nd amendment, abortion, liberal, conservative, prayer in school, etc) is unlikely public lands is that issue.
If hunters want a voice, will need to be with $$ contributed to campaigns and not relying on ballots.
I hear so many people complain when a hunting license goes up $10 for residents than I am thinking there are not many donors writing checks that hunt public land. I do think the 1%ers that hunt on auction tags and go to SCI galas do donate $$ and more times than not that hunter is not on the same side of the public lands issue as Joe Sixpack.
The public lands battle is real and not going to be won here on a hunting forum. Clinton is most likely the next President and she is unlikely to fight the good fight for anyone but Wall Street and Big Pharma. Demographics are such the GOP has to run a perfect campaign to win another presidency while the Dems need to only keep their candidate our of jail.
Economy was the number issue per exit polls. http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/03/politics/indiana-exit-polls/
Public lands is simply not an issue east of Kansas since there are so few public lands worth hunting for big game yet plenty of public lands to hike. As you filter voters there are are small percent that hunt out West on a regular basis. USA sells about 15 million hunting licenses a year. I buy 7 of those so say are 12 million hunters.
This report says 14 million but 12 million big game hunt. https://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/fhw11-nat.pdf
I estimate 50% of the big game hunters are in the more populous states which are mostly East of Kansas. Let's be generous and say 10 million big game hunters have hunted out West. Some only hunt in their state. They usually have figured out a way to access land to hunt whether that be public or private.
Some of us hunt not only in our state but in others. The land issue is very important to us since public land access is a key way to save $2500 or more per hunt.
Say all 10 million care about public land and all 10 million vote which is not realistic but perhaps 90% care and 60% of that subset vote (have to be a citizen, have to be of age, have to be registered, have to vote in the election). Now you have less than 6 million votes cast by big game hunters and some of those have more pressing issues that could result in them not voting for the candidate that has the most pro-public lands view.
As the exit polls show, is very likely other issues are likely to be a higher factor as a voter heads into the voting booth and if a voter is a single issue voter (i.e. 2nd amendment, abortion, liberal, conservative, prayer in school, etc) is unlikely public lands is that issue.
If hunters want a voice, will need to be with $$ contributed to campaigns and not relying on ballots.
I hear so many people complain when a hunting license goes up $10 for residents than I am thinking there are not many donors writing checks that hunt public land. I do think the 1%ers that hunt on auction tags and go to SCI galas do donate $$ and more times than not that hunter is not on the same side of the public lands issue as Joe Sixpack.
The public lands battle is real and not going to be won here on a hunting forum. Clinton is most likely the next President and she is unlikely to fight the good fight for anyone but Wall Street and Big Pharma. Demographics are such the GOP has to run a perfect campaign to win another presidency while the Dems need to only keep their candidate our of jail.
Last edited:
Schaaf
Well-known member
Well I'm glad that $15 Million of the Wilks' went to a failed campaign and not more land in Montana.
Signature worthy.
Haha lol
Flatland Crusoe
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2014
- Messages
- 572
I'm really glad Cruz is out. Public land was part of it but I'm not sure I've seen anyone peg the creep meter further than fat dracula in a long time. I'm not sure why anyone in the republican party thinks becoming more socially conservative in 2016 is what the party needs to win the presidency.
The creepier thing than Cruz is his campaign manager, Jeff Roe. They guy ran such a dirty campaign in Missouri in 2015 that the opposing candidate committed suicide after a series of vicious ads.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/ruthless-jeff-roe-veteran-of-rough-missouri-politics-in-spotlight/article_c92f8e03-06e8-5415-a055-b98dac27a8ca.html
The scary thing with Cruz is he is gonna take another run at the presidency over the next 2 decades and bowing out last night was a calculated strategy for moving forward with an intact base.
The creepier thing than Cruz is his campaign manager, Jeff Roe. They guy ran such a dirty campaign in Missouri in 2015 that the opposing candidate committed suicide after a series of vicious ads.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/ruthless-jeff-roe-veteran-of-rough-missouri-politics-in-spotlight/article_c92f8e03-06e8-5415-a055-b98dac27a8ca.html
The scary thing with Cruz is he is gonna take another run at the presidency over the next 2 decades and bowing out last night was a calculated strategy for moving forward with an intact base.
Bugle 'Em In
Well-known member
Agreed, that is an "LOL" thought. Unfortunately, $15mil to these gents is nothing more than a rounding error and they have A LOT more "$15mil-bills" laying around waiting for the next opportunity to throw it at and get what they want. They know that their persistence will pay off some day. If not for them to enjoy, they're setting up one helluva playground for their family & friends.
I sure hope I'm wrong and surely wish they'd just be happy with the blessings they already have...
Laelkhunter
Well-known member
Do you mean Trump?? Trump will possibly mention some names. Cruz would be a good choice to replace Scalia (that might be the reason Ted dropped out- A promise from Donald?)By lunchtime tomorrow we should have an idea who Ted is going to pick to for some
Major cabinet positions, attorney general, and who he'd consider to replace Scalia..
Nameless Range
Well-known member
It's good that Cruz is out. The GOP Primary voters have spoken, and they don't like conservatism. It's not at all clear who is more liberal - Hillary or The Donald.
Barring something enormous, yesterday was the day Hillary Clinton was elected president.
Since I will vote for neither, I'm curious who people would think would make a good write-in candidate? If only to send a signal. I think Martin Heinrich would be a good write-in.
Barring something enormous, yesterday was the day Hillary Clinton was elected president.
Since I will vote for neither, I'm curious who people would think would make a good write-in candidate? If only to send a signal. I think Martin Heinrich would be a good write-in.
No, I meant Ted. It was a joke. In reference to him picking Carly as his vice President, the day after he got sweeped in five or six primaries by a huge margins last week.
Southern Elk
Well-known member
While I do agree that Hillary will eventually win, I think we are going to see the race tighten up. You are already seeing the republicans start to get behind Trump. I think he will also draw some Sanders supporters. There's a ton of anti establishment momentum right now. I could never vote for Hillary because of her stance on the second amendment. I'm undecided on Trump.
I'm not so certain that Hillary has it locked up. Very little enthusiasm for her. Many 'nevertrump' conservatives would prefer to see her publicly executed on primetime television, and those on the left want Bernie.
She represents the status quo and everything that is wrong with our country. I don't think there are enough people that the status quo is working great for, for her to win.
Clinton was a continuation of Bush, Bush Junior was a continuation of Clinton, Obama was a continuation of Bushjr, and Clinton would be a continuation of Obama. People are sick of it.
She represents the status quo and everything that is wrong with our country. I don't think there are enough people that the status quo is working great for, for her to win.
Clinton was a continuation of Bush, Bush Junior was a continuation of Clinton, Obama was a continuation of Bushjr, and Clinton would be a continuation of Obama. People are sick of it.
