Clinton vs Cruz

[EliteLX]

Cruz is not losing Arizona, Missouri, or Georgia.

Cruz replicates 2012 map, just barely sneaking by with increased GOP turnout for North Carolina. If he runs a hell of a campaign and shreds Hillary Clinton in the debates (can easily see this happening) Florida may go his way as well, but that might be a bit of a fight.

I'm not a Ted guy, but let's settle down on the wishy-washy maps: GOP isn't losing AZ, MO, or GA under Cruz by the slightest.

[Ljube]

Easy victory for Clinton.

However, this won't happen. Republicans are not stupid. They don't nominate unelectable fringe candidates.

[/]

[Mister Mets]

It would not fit historical precedent for Hillary Clinton to beat Obama's 2012 numbers, although I suppose there's the argument that Cruz is weaker than anyone put up for nomination in an open presidential election in 80+ years.

I'd imagine he'd do okay. Many of his actions bug the hell out of establishment Republicans, but don't bother swing voters. For example, I doubt many Ohio swing voters mind that he called Mitch McConnell a liar.

[bobloblaw]

I think the Rs here are discounting the idea of Cruz becoming toxic like Akin, Mourdock at the national level. When Clinton points out his strategy to get his away is to whine and shut down the government, he will have little response that resonates. GOP can still lose ground with educated whites, hence why NC would flip.

Cruz wouldnt say anything as stupid as Akin and Mourdock. Lawrence Tribe at Harvard said Cruz was his best and brightest student.

[bobloblaw]

Same as 2012, slightly bigger Democratic margin of victory in the popular vote.

Nope...wont happen. There is no example of a party going for its third straight electoral victory where they get MORE popular votes. Even FDR in 1940 got fewer votes than in 1936.

Remember before the 2012 election, how people were saying it'd been a century since the last time a president had been re-elected with fewer EVs than their first election?

Yeah, claiming that a 3rd+ consecutive win with more votes is some kind of mathematical impossibility is baloney.  Hoover already accomplished this in 1928 (in percentage of the PV, but not in margin).  Teddy in 1904 did better than either of McKinley's wins in both PV percentage and margin.  Taft (4th GOP term) also did better than either of McKinley's wins in margin.  Finally, Grant's 1876 reelection was for a 4th GOP term and the strongest of 6 consecutive GOP wins.

Sorry not in 1929 when you look at the two party vote only. The GOP in 1928 got a smaller % of the two party vote in 1928 than in 1924.

[bobloblaw]

Id love to know who in GA voted for Romney will vote for Clinton? Based on the map it would be hundreds of thousands

[Coolface Sock #42069]

So Clinton would probably be favored, but can anyone come up with a scenario where Cruz wins, without a strong third-party presence or Clinton imploding or being indicted?

[bobloblaw]

So Clinton would probably be favored, but can anyone come up with a scenario where Cruz wins, without a strong third-party presence or Clinton imploding or being indicted?

With 4.5% unemployment does any GOP candidate win? In the end, the PV difference between the worst and best GOP candidate is probably 2% at most.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Cruz is criminally underrated as a GE candidate. He's the most articulate person currently running, probably the smartest, and arguably the best debater. As for his views, he's not the radical that some have made him out to be. He's a generic movement conservative. I'm not suggesting that he's the right candidate to beat Clinton, but the idea that he would get 1964'd by her is a joke.

[bobloblaw]

Cruz is criminally underrated as a GE candidate. He's the most articulate person currently running, probably the smartest, and arguably the best debater. As for his views, he's not the radical that some have made him out to be. He's a generic movement conservative. I'm not suggesting that he's the right candidate to beat Clinton, but the idea that he would get 1964'd by her is a joke.

Most people who talk about 1964 dont realize what brought about 1964. They are just drooling liberals who dont bother to do any real analysis.

[/]

The chances of Cruz winning are this big:

[Devils30]

Cruz loses AZ, MO, IN if he becomes toxic like Akin. He has already made many inflammatory statements, will get absolutely destroyed in eastern PA, NoVA, I-4. Cruz is much much worse of a candidate than Romney.

[dudeabides]

Clinton 387
Cruz 151

[Dumbo]

So Clinton would probably be favored, but can anyone come up with a scenario where Cruz wins, without a strong third-party presence or Clinton imploding or being indicted?

Clinton's running mate is involved in a big  scandal, think of Edwards would have been
Obama's running mate in 2008 and his affair would have been published in the time around
the convention.
 

[yankeesfan]

Cruz is criminally underrated as a GE candidate. He's the most articulate person currently running, probably the smartest, and arguably the best debater. As for his views, he's not the radical that some have made him out to be. He's a generic movement conservative. I'm not suggesting that he's the right candidate to beat Clinton, but the idea that he would get 1964'd by her is a joke.

This for the most part is accurate. Dude is without a doubt the most underrated candidate of all time. He knows how to rally the base and will be a sane candidate in the general 2016. He was built for this sht.

His crony capitalism message that he's been practicing for the past 2 years is one of the most potent arguments against Hillary.

[Devils30]

No one will be attracted to Cruz' message other than southern evangelicals. Good luck getting above 45% in Loudoun County, VA.

[bobloblaw]

Clinton 387
Cruz 151

No way Cruz loses GA. Tell me who voted Romney who votes Clinton in 2016? Youre talking over 125k votes have to switch and that ignores the fact both McCain and Romney supressed the conservative vote in GA versus Bush in 2004.

[MATTROSE94]

I say it's the same map as in 2012; Popular vote will go 51.7 to 47.0% in Hillary's favor.

I agree. If anything, Hillary Clinton would narrowly pickup North Carolina while Ted Cruz would pickup Colorado, Iowa and maybe Ohio if he plays his cards right.

[Sir Mohamed]

DEM: Hillary Clinton/Tim Kaine: 338 EV. (52.1%)
REP: Ted Cruz/Carly Fiorina: 200 EV. (46.9%)

[DrScholl]

Clinton would win with Obama 2008 numbers and slightly bigger if Cruz went really extreme.

Clinton 54%
Cruz 46%

[bobloblaw]

Clinton would win with Obama 2008 numbers and slightly bigger if Cruz went really extreme.

Clinton 54%
Cruz 46%

and when Cruz destroys Hillary in the debates?

[TarHeelDem]

The chances of Cruz winning are this big:

[Coolface Sock #42069]

1964 is not really a relevant example. President Kennedy had just been assassinated, and the American people didn't want a third president in such a short amount of time. Knowing this, the GOP nominated an extremely conservative candidate with the intention of moving the party to the right instead of trying to win an essentially unwinnable election.

Clinton probably wins, but I should stress that we don't know just how many conservatives Cruz could turn out that don't normally vote. Evangelical Christians are not a growing group but vote about 85% Republican, and he thinks he can turn out enough to win.

And no way will Clinton carry Georgia unless Cruz loses votes to a strong third-party candidate. Get real.