A realistic Clinton/Cruz election

[ElectionsGuy]

Realistic?

I like Ted Cruz and all, but I think he's just too conservative to win, and too conservative for the country to elect. Anyway he losses in a blowout. Sad day for him.

Clinton: 369
Cruz: 169


Popular Vote:

52.6% Clinton
44.9% Cruz

[barfbag]

Realistic?

I like Ted Cruz and all, but I think he's just too conservative to win, and too conservative for the country to elect. Anyway he losses in a blowout. Sad day for him.

Clinton: 369
Cruz: 169


Popular Vote:

52.6% Clinton
44.9% Cruz

I wouldn't say he's "too conservative," but it's how he packages his conservatism. George W. Bush was just about as conservative as he is and he knew how to package himself and talk about his conservatism in ways people could relate.

[PolitiJunkie]

Realistic?

I like Ted Cruz and all, but I think he's just too conservative to win, and too conservative for the country to elect. Anyway he losses in a blowout. Sad day for him.

Clinton: 369
Cruz: 169


Popular Vote:

52.6% Clinton
44.9% Cruz

I wouldn't say he's "too conservative," but it's how he packages his conservatism. George W. Bush was just about as conservative as he is and he knew how to package himself and talk about his conservatism in ways people could relate.

Agreed. Ted Cruz is too "scary" for the American electorate.

[pbrower2a]

In all fairness, Clinton vs. Cruz would be a slaughter unless President Obama has created big problems through  scandal, an economic meltdown, and a military/diplomatic debacle -- in which case I would expect a bare Clinton win something like this:

Ted Cruz is that bad -- so bad that he would lose an electoral race that the Republicans could expect to win with someone not easily cast as a right-wing version of George McGovern. If he is the nominee he will be cast successfully as an extremist. He will have no advantage among Hispanics.

One such problem:

Economy sort-of-OK, no scandals, world scene OK:

[Stranger in a strange land]

Realistic?

I like Ted Cruz and all, but I think he's just too conservative to win, and too conservative for the country to elect. Anyway he losses in a blowout. Sad day for him.

Clinton: 369
Cruz: 169


Popular Vote:

52.6% Clinton
44.9% Cruz

I wouldn't say he's "too conservative," but it's how he packages his conservatism. George W. Bush was just about as conservative as he is and he knew how to package himself and talk about his conservatism in ways people could relate.

Agreed. Ted Cruz is too "scary" for the American electorate.

More to the point, Cruz has another problem: Dubya went to Harvard Business School and talked like a Ranch Hand. Cruz went to Harvard Law School and talks like he went to Harvard Law School. He isn't particularly charismatic or likable, no matter how badly Republicans want him to be. He preaches only to the choir and has no appeal outside the Republican base.

[MATTROSE94]

Probably something like this:

Former Secretary of Sate Hillary Clinton (D-NY)/Governor Jay Nixon (D-MO): 387 Electoral Votes
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX)/Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR): 151 Electoral Votes

[pbrower2a]

Whoops! I thought I was writing about Paul Ryan. 

[barfbag]

There's just no precedent for a nominee for President who has never won a statewide campaign, has never been a Cabinet officer, has never been a high-ranking general or admiral,  faring well in a Presidential race or even helping as a VP nominee. There have been Third Party nominees who did well 'for third party candidates', but not even Perot won an electoral vote.

Before you say "Dick Cheney", his House seat was at-large even if it was for sure-thing Wyoming. 

Ted Cruz won Texas.

[TarHeelDem]

There is nothing realistic about a Clinton/Cruz election.

[pbrower2a]

There is nothing realistic about a Clinton/Cruz election.

Any "realism" will be something close to the LBJ landslide over Goldwater or the Reagan landslide over Carter. The latter could be relevant if the Republicans hold onto the House after the 2014 election and are seen largely culpable for political failure.

[NewYorkExpress]

If Obama is doing well...

2012 map + NC and AZ

If we are on our current track...

2004 map + NH and Florida

If Obama's approval is in the toilet...

It's 1944, but add Alaska for Cruz and Hawaii and DC for Clinton

[opebo]

[ElectionsGuy]

There is nothing realistic about a Clinton/Cruz election.

Any "realism" will be something close to the LBJ landslide over Goldwater or the Reagan landslide over Carter. The latter could be relevant if the Republicans hold onto the House after the 2014 election and are seen largely culpable for political failure.

So Cruz, effectively could not get over 100 electoral votes? There are well over 100 EV for safe republican states, so.... just how realistic are you?

Second, why in the world, are republicans to blame for our failure as a country when we have a democrat Senate and a democrat White House. Republicans in the house have absolutely no power, they've tried to repeal ObamaCare over 40 times, they're practically useless. The only reason they're there is to stop the democrat agenda. Obama already says hes not going to work with them, so why are they to blame for not "working together"?.

[heatmaster]

Some of those maps are unrealistic and after eight years of Obama, please!!! Lets look at the facts and they are stubborn. Obama's reelection numbers were down compared to his first election numbers and you expect Hillary to outperform Obama? Wishful thinking if you ask me. If she's up against Christie and he ain't no Mitt, the best she can hope for is the see her vote to come in smaller than Barack did in '12; then New Jersey along with Pennsylvania are iffy and if they go for - New Jersey definitely and the keystone state a maybe. That is a loss of 34 EV right there! - now it's 298; so if Christie does the smart thing, which I reckon he will and puts Rubio or Martinez on the ticket - Hillary loses Florida with 29 EV; we are down to a tie; if Christie takes NH, then it's a 273-265 split, he takes Ohio and maybe Wisconsin, he's at 301 right there.
So as the poet say's the fat lady has yet to sing.

[barfbag]

I don't know opebo. Georgia and Arizona will be toss up states in this scenario at best. Depending on how and why West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana have changed, Clinton could possibly pick those up against Cruz. It's not just because Hillary Clinton is a very strong candidate, but also because of the gaffes and remarks Cruz makes. In fact I only gave him Texas because it's his home state. What I'll give him are SC, AL, MS, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, UT, WY, ID, AK, and TX because it's his home state. South Carolina is as far as I'll go for someone like him. To me he's even more susceptible than Newt Gingrich. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather your map be right.

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

Some of those maps are unrealistic and after eight years of Obama, please!!! Lets look at the facts and they are stubborn. Obama's reelection numbers were down compared to his first election numbers and you expect Hillary to outperform Obama? Wishful thinking if you ask me. If she's up against Christie and he ain't no Mitt, the best she can hope for is the see her vote to come in smaller than Barack did in '12; then New Jersey along with Pennsylvania are iffy and if they go for - New Jersey definitely and the keystone state a maybe. That is a loss of 34 EV right there! - now it's 298; so if Christie does the smart thing, which I reckon he will and puts Rubio or Martinez on the ticket - Hillary loses Florida with 29 EV; we are down to a tie; if Christie takes NH, then it's a 273-265 split, he takes Ohio and maybe Wisconsin, he's at 301 right there.
So as the poet say's the fat lady has yet to sing.

Of course, regarding Christie. But we're talking about Ted Cruz, who may well lose in a blowout if he wins the nod in 2016.

[pbrower2a]

There is nothing realistic about a Clinton/Cruz election.

Any "realism" will be something close to the LBJ landslide over Goldwater or the Reagan landslide over Carter. The latter could be relevant if the Republicans hold onto the House after the 2014 election and are seen largely culpable for political failure.

So Cruz, effectively could not get over 100 electoral votes? There are well over 100 EV for safe republican states, so.... just how realistic are you?

Second, why in the world, are republicans to blame for our failure as a country when we have a democrat Senate and a democrat White House. Republicans in the house have absolutely no power, they've tried to repeal ObamaCare over 40 times, they're practically useless. The only reason they're there is to stop the democrat agenda. Obama already says hes not going to work with them, so why are they to blame for not "working together"?.

The Democrats have not won a Presidential election with more than 400 electoral votes since LBJ did so in 1964. Goldwater won his home state Arizona, which counted for little then (five electoral votes), and 47 other electoral votes. The loss by Carter in 1980 was even nastier -- 49 electoral votes. Carter was the President who achieved the least since FDR, and his loss reflected a failure of the Democratic Party as a whole. A failure by the Republican Party as a whole could bring Cruz down -- badly. In the absence of a strong third-party challenger devouring votes that might otherwise for a Republican nominee, the strongest Democratic win of the Presidency was Obama in 2008.

We need some imagination to have a Republican winning only 50 electoral votes.  Carter lost by about 10% in a country not so polarized in partisanship as it is today. How could that be relevant? Not all of the political fault for Democratic failures in office went to the President that year. Republicans got a net change of 12 Senate seats in their favor that year, ten from defeats of incumbent Democrats. Republicans did not win the House, but Reagan ended up with a working majority on many issues because of conservative Democrats largely in Southern states.

As it is we have a fair idea of what a 53-46 split of the popular vote for President looks like with the challenger winning.

Which should be extremely familiar to us!

But that is with a huge number of people refusing to vote for one of the candidates because he is... you know. Obama maxed out in a bunch of states, and any gains for Hillary in New England, the Midwest, or the Far West indicate a complete collapse of the Republican nominee. Hillary Clinton will not be as polarizing.

A 55-45 split involving Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz (and I can't see Ted Cruz winning at any level) suggests that Hillary Clinton is making huge gains in states that Barack Obama got clobbered in in 2008, and decisive gains in some states that Obama lost in 2008:  

Indiana was a freak situation in 2008, and this sort of split indicates that she does not pick up Kentucky or Tennessee (which Bill would not have picked up except for Ross Perot taking votes largely from Bob Dole). But that is 404-134, which is fairly close to what the elder Bush did to Mike Dukakis. But Dukakis was running on his alleged skill as an administrator; Cruz will be offering in-your-face ideology.

OK, Cruz still wins at least 88 electoral votes if he wins Texas; I can't imagine any of the states in blue going for Hillary Clinton unless she also wins Texas. States in blue account for 50 electoral votes, which is in between what Carter got in 1976 and Goldwater got in 1964. Carter and Goldwater both won their own states in their epic losses.    









    

[pbrower2a]

Some of those maps are unrealistic and after eight years of Obama, please!!! Lets look at the facts and they are stubborn. Obama's reelection numbers were down compared to his first election numbers and you expect Hillary to outperform Obama? Wishful thinking if you ask me. If she's up against Christie and he ain't no Mitt, the best she can hope for is the see her vote to come in smaller than Barack did in '12; then New Jersey along with Pennsylvania are iffy and if they go for - New Jersey definitely and the keystone state a maybe. That is a loss of 34 EV right there! - now it's 298; so if Christie does the smart thing, which I reckon he will and puts Rubio or Martinez on the ticket - Hillary loses Florida with 29 EV; we are down to a tie; if Christie takes NH, then it's a 273-265 split, he takes Ohio and maybe Wisconsin, he's at 301 right there.

So as the poet say's the fat lady has yet to sing.

If people still want what President Obama wants and they don't get it, and Republicans are seen at fault, then the extremist ideologue Ted Cruz will be seen as part of the problem. Maybe Chris Christie has a chance if a few things go right, but Ted Cruz needs some combination of political, economic, diplomatic, or military calamities to win the Presidency. America can't afford those.

[Mister Mets]

There is nothing realistic about a Clinton/Cruz election.

Any "realism" will be something close to the LBJ landslide over Goldwater or the Reagan landslide over Carter. The latter could be relevant if the Republicans hold onto the House after the 2014 election and are seen largely culpable for political failure.

LBJ's landslide over Goldwater came under very favorable (politically) circumstances. He got a lot of bills passed just before, and the country wasn't ready for three Presidents in two years. When Reagan was elected, the opposition had double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment (which economists had previously believed was an impossible combination) and the Iranian hostage crisis.

With more than three years before the election, we really don't know what the political environment is going to be like.

And that's one problem I have with all the predictions for a Clinton landslide. It's generally presented as the expected outcome. So if someone presents one map for a realistic election, this wouldn't include the things that could add a few points to the incumbent party's margins.

If the default map has Georgia and Arizona going for Hillary Clinton, there has to be another map that reflects outcomes that would only occur a quarter of the time when she's doing even better.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Indeed, the country is just too polarized to have any 1964/1980/1984 landslide. The best (Electoral College-wise) scenario for either side is probably Bush 1988-esque victory.

[pbrower2a]

Indeed, the country is just too polarized to have any 1964/1980/1984 landslide. The best (Electoral College-wise) scenario for either side is probably Bush 1988-esque victory.

Goldwater and Carter at least won their own states, and expecting Cruz to lose his own state is asking for too much.  The only way for Cruz to win Texas and get only 55 or so electoral votes is for Cruz to win only Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, and probably the third Congressional District of Nebraska as well. Texas is that big. 

[barfbag]

Indeed, the country is just too polarized to have any 1964/1980/1984 landslide. The best (Electoral College-wise) scenario for either side is probably Bush 1988-esque victory.

Goldwater and Carter at least won their own states, and expecting Cruz to lose his own state is asking for too much.  The only way for Cruz to win Texas and get only 55 or so electoral votes is for Cruz to win only Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, and probably the third Congressional District of Nebraska as well. Texas is that big. 

I agree Cruz will win Texas.

[ElectionsGuy]

Indeed, the country is just too polarized to have any 1964/1980/1984 landslide. The best (Electoral College-wise) scenario for either side is probably Bush 1988-esque victory.

Goldwater and Carter at least won their own states, and expecting Cruz to lose his own state is asking for too much.  The only way for Cruz to win Texas and get only 55 or so electoral votes is for Cruz to win only Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, and probably the third Congressional District of Nebraska as well. Texas is that big. 

If that happens, Cruz wins Texas by an inch, similar to Goldwater's win in Arizona. Then he carries WY, UT, ID, OK, KS, NE, AL, and probably MS. As well as maybe the 5 Romney/Clinton states that have been getting some discussion as of late (AR, KY, LA, TN, WV if they stay the way they voted in 2012).  The Dakotas could be questionable too.

That gives us something like this:

417-83-38

If Cruz were to win the "anti-Obama but pro-Clinton" states, that put us with a win similar to 1988 electoral vote wise, but it would be a much bigger popular vote win, as the states are more polarized now.

[barfbag]

Indeed, the country is just too polarized to have any 1964/1980/1984 landslide. The best (Electoral College-wise) scenario for either side is probably Bush 1988-esque victory.

Goldwater and Carter at least won their own states, and expecting Cruz to lose his own state is asking for too much.  The only way for Cruz to win Texas and get only 55 or so electoral votes is for Cruz to win only Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, and probably the third Congressional District of Nebraska as well. Texas is that big. 

If that happens, Cruz wins Texas by an inch, similar to Goldwater's win in Arizona. Then he carries WY, UT, ID, OK, KS, NE, AL, and probably MS. As well as maybe the 5 Romney/Clinton states that have been getting some discussion as of late (AR, KY, LA, TN, WV if they stay the way they voted in 2012).  The Dakotas could be questionable too.

That gives us something like this:

417-83-38

If Cruz were to win the "anti-Obama but pro-Clinton" states, that put us with a win similar to 1988 electoral vote wise, but it would be a much bigger popular vote win, as the states are more polarized now.

He would still get 44% most likely.

[Suburbia]

This is how a Cruz/Clinton map would look like. Hillary Clinton would win, IMO, but conservative turnout would increase by a wide margin.