Fiorina and Cruz: The non-GOP GOP ticket

[_MeDotOrg]

Interesting play by Cruz. It gives him less negotiating room at the convention because he cannot dangle the VP carrot. It also is another slap at the GOP establishment. Cruz's bona fides as a loyal Republican are not really helped by this selection. A man with virtually no friends in the Senate reaches, not for rapprochement with the establishment, but for another outsider.

I can see it having something of a pull for Trump delegates who admire his business experience. Perhaps the thinking is that Fiorina could help make swallowing the Cruz pill less bitter for Donald's delegates. Obviously she's a smart choice to rally Republican women who are turned off by Trump. How she would play in the general election is less clear. I'm sure the thinking is that Fiorina on the ticket makes it a lot easier for women to vote Republican. It would be interesting to see if it plays out.

[_subgenius]

Nothing will come of it.
She's already been campaigning for Cruz for months
Cruz bought another 15 minutes, that's all.
Desperate acts lack the substance of longevity

[_EAllusion]

It appears to be a play to temper Trump's strength in California during the primary. The goal is to get to the convention with the numbers and argument that prevents Trump from winning right away. Then the intense consternation the party has about nominating Trump can allow them to move on from him. With Cruz being the clear second place finisher and cleaning up in the state delegate selection processes, he's got as good of a chance as anyone.

[_SteelHead]

Ticket to crazy ville. The gop has become the party of insanity.

[_ajax18]

I'm sure the thinking is that Fiorina on the ticket makes it a lot easier for women to vote Republican.

There's a big difference between the working women that Fiorina attracts and welfare queens that Hillary attracts. Welfare queens still won't vote for Fiorina and working women that look at their paycheck stubs and tally things like FICA, Medicaid, Medicare taxes, etc. every two weeks will probably vote for whoever the Republicans nominate anyway.

[_EAllusion]

There's a big difference between the working women that Fiorina attracts and welfare queens that Hillary attracts. Welfare queens still won't vote for Fiorina and working women that look at their paycheck stubs and tally things like FICA, Medicaid, Medicare taxes, etc. every two weeks will probably vote for whoever the Republicans nominate anyway.

This is 100% incorrect.

1) Clinton dominates women generally to the point that she's highly likely to win working women as a demographic. The idea that working women generally don't support her is belied by any data that is actually in hand.

2) Republicans tend to do well among whites who are on welfare. Poor (and poorly educated) whites are one of their strongest voting blocs. The idea that "welfare queens" - in this case just meaning people who receive some form of public assistance - are universally lined up behind Clinton is false.

3) A huge % of people who receive welfare benefits of some form also work and the contrast presented here is a false dichotomy.

[_MeDotOrg]

There's a big difference between the working women that Fiorina attracts and welfare queens that Hillary attracts. Welfare queens still won't vote for Fiorina and working women that look at their paycheck stubs and tally things like FICA, Medicaid, Medicare taxes, etc. every two weeks will probably vote for whoever the Republicans nominate anyway.

When Fiorina was with Hewlett-Packard, she laid off over 25,000 employees. She also shipped a lot of jobs overseas. She used to use the expression 'right shoring' for this: A lovely Orwellian bastardization of off-shoring and right-sizing. all the time lobbying for H1-b visas, saying 'there is no job that is an American Right anymore'.

Doesn't seem like your kind of politician, Ajax.

[_Gunnar]

Given her record and her forced resignation from HP, it is mystery to me why anyone who genuinely cares about what is best for rank and file Americans and the economy in general would think that Carly Fiorina should be regarded as a viable choice for high public office.

Following her forced resignation from HP, several commentators ranked Fiorina as one of the worst American (or tech) CEOs of all time.[117][118][119] In 2008, InfoWorld grouped her with a list of products and ideas that flopped, declaring that her tenure as CEO of HP was the sixth worst tech flop of all time, and characterizing her as the "anti-Steve Jobs" for reversing the goodwill of "geeks" and alienating existing customers.[120][121] During Fiorina's tenure as CEO, HP leased or purchased five planes, including two Gulfstream IVs, to replace four aging aircraft, only one of which had the range to fly overseas.[122][123] One Gulfstream IV, acquired at a cost of US$30 million and available for Fiorina's "exclusive" use,[124] became a rallying point among HP employees who complained of Fiorina's expensive self-promotion and top-down managerial style during a time of company layoffs.[8][87][123] Jeffrey Sonnenfeld of Yale School of Management said in August 2015 that problems with Fiorina's leadership style were what caused HP to lose half its value during her tenure.[47]

It appears to me that people like her are largely responsible for the exportation of some of the best and most desirable American jobs overseas, especially in the high tech sectors of the economy. It seems to me that she and others who think like she does are what is helping to drive the extreme stratification of American society that is resulting in a tiny but extremely wealthy elite gaining control of an ever increasing proportion of the nation's wealth, to the detriment of a dwindling middle class and a growing but increasingly impoverished lower class. Why is she not more widely perceived as an enemy to working and middle class Americans?

[_The CCC]

Because the elites have conned many Americans into believing that they are just temporarily inconvenienced multi-millionaires themselves.

[_ajax18]

Doesn't seem like your kind of politician, Ajax.

If I demanded a politician who agreed with me on everything, I'd have to run for president myself. The line is pretty clear between people who work for a living and people who live off the government or enable others to do so.