Cruz or Trump: Who'd lose the presidential election by a bigger margin?

[madelka]

I say Cruz.

[Sir Mohamed]

Cruz by far. I think Trump is the strongtest GOP candidate along with Rubio.

[Badger]

trump easily.

[yankeesfan]

Cruz could win a general election.  He's a fantastic campaigner.

[Cruzcrew]

As super conservative as Cruz is, I wouldn't underestimate his ability to win the election. He's intelligent enough to do it.

[Maxwell]

Trump and Cruz aren't even close to the least electable candidates. Carly Fiorina I believe would lose a damn near complete blow out.

[H. Ross Peron]

Cruz (literally Normal)

[RFayette]

Trump and Cruz aren't even close to the least electable candidates. Carly Fiorina I believe would lose a damn near complete blow out.

Indeed.  Trump's losses with upscale suburban Republicans could be made up with disaffected blue-collar workers.  Cruz would do fine for a very conservative Republican and probably would do better than Jeb Bush/Scott Walker would have.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Cruz by far. I think TrumpKaisch is the strongtest GOP candidate along with Rubio.

Fixed it for you

[bobloblaw]

I say Cruz.

People are dangerously underestimating Cruz. Trump's big mouth bully schtick wont last long

[dudeabides]

Hillary Clinton (D) 58% 368 EV
Ted Cruz (R) 40% 170 EV
Other 2%

Hillary Clinton (D) 60% 385 EV
Donald Trump (R) 33% 148 EV
Gary Johnson (L) 4% 5 EV
Jim Webb (I) 2%
Other 1%

[HillOfANight]

Cruz pretty consistently is one of the worst matchups vs Hillary. He has none of the Hispanic appeal that Rubio has, or the white working class that Trump has, or the moderate appeal of Kasich/Bush, or the black appeal of Carson.

[Adam Griffin]

Not to nit-pick on the hypothetical maps above (but everybody knows I'm a publicity whore for my own state) but GA consistently tracks 2-3 points behind NC, so unless you're assuming Clinton can't win NC without getting 55-56% of the PV...

[Classic Conservative]

I think both can win.

[dudeabides]

Not to nit-pick on the hypothetical maps above (but everybody knows I'm a publicity whore for my own state) but GA consistently tracks 2-3 points behind NC, so unless you're assuming Clinton can't win NC without getting 55-56% of the PV...

Georgia 2012: Romney 53% Obama 45%
Georgia 2008: McCain 52% Obama 46%
Georgia 2004: Bush 58% Kerry 41%
Georgia 2000: Bush 54% Gore 43%

I bring this up because if you look at those numbers, other than in 2004, the Republican wins by under 10 points in Georgia.

But let's look at the 2012 numbers for a second here;
Romney: 2 million
Obama: 1.7 million

So for arguments sake, let's assume that turnout will be the same in 2016 (I think with Trump Vs. Clinton, moderate Republicans would stay home and a few Democrats would as well because they assume Clinton already won.) So you have a pool of 3.7 million voters in Georgia. My assumption is that Clinton will easily get the 1.7 million people who voted for Obama and probably 15% of Romney's voters; that would be 300,000. That brings it to 2 million - 2 million, a tie. But I also suspect 1-2% of Romney's voters vote for Gary Johnson or do a write-in. So going with the 2%, that is now 60,000 Romney voters who support Johnson. So Clinton narrowly wins Georgia.

[Cruzcrew]

Hillary Clinton (D) 58% 368 EV
Ted Cruz (R) 40% 170 EV
Other 2%

Hillary Clinton (D) 60% 385 EV
Donald Trump (R) 33% 148 EV
Gary Johnson (L) 4% 5 EV
Jim Webb (I) 2%
Other 1%

LOL Gary Johnson is not going to win any electoral votes even if trump is running. He'd probably split the normal R vote with trump but he's not gonna bring Hillary below 45. Also, New Hampshire republicans see, to be pretty receptive to trump for the most part. I think trump is a horrible presidential candidate but he's not gonna get under 35% of the vote with how polarized politics is these days. It'd be a complete embarrassment to get under 45% of the vote. Also, you should wait until Cruz gets more national recognition to make prediction maps considering the country could be significantly more receptive to him than Clinton than you'd expect.

[HillOfANight]

Not to nit-pick on the hypothetical maps above (but everybody knows I'm a publicity whore for my own state) but GA consistently tracks 2-3 points behind NC, so unless you're assuming Clinton can't win NC without getting 55-56% of the PV...

Georgia 2012: Romney 53% Obama 45%
Georgia 2008: McCain 52% Obama 46%
Georgia 2004: Bush 58% Kerry 41%
Georgia 2000: Bush 54% Gore 43%

I bring this up because if you look at those numbers, other than in 2004, the Republican wins by under 10 points in Georgia.

But let's look at the 2012 numbers for a second here;
Romney: 2 million
Obama: 1.7 million

So for arguments sake, let's assume that turnout will be the same in 2016 (I think with Trump Vs. Clinton, moderate Republicans would stay home and a few Democrats would as well because they assume Clinton already won.) So you have a pool of 3.7 million voters in Georgia. My assumption is that Clinton will easily get the 1.7 million people who voted for Obama and probably 15% of Romney's voters; that would be 300,000. That brings it to 2 million - 2 million, a tie. But I also suspect 1-2% of Romney's voters vote for Gary Johnson or do a write-in. So going with the 2%, that is now 60,000 Romney voters who support Johnson. So Clinton narrowly wins Georgia.

Safe to assume black voters won't turnout for her like they did for Obama. Also, Nunn ran a strong campaign, and with 29% turnout, around the same as in 2008/2012, and only got 45%. Nunn was considered a moderate, and Hillary a liberal. Hillary has no chance in Georgia, unless Trump ran third party.

[TJ in Oregon]

Probably Trump. I think Cruz could still at least win a couple Midwestern states like Nebraska and Kansas. Once Trump sees himself down in the polls and begins calling for all of his opponents to be rounded up and put into camps, things might get a little ugly.

[Devils30]

Both lose but Cruz types scare the hell out of suburban women.

[Lief 🗽]

Trump has a higher ceiling but also a lower floor, I think.

Also obviously both of these guys are more electable than half of the Republican field. Jeb Bush would be guaranteed a higher floor, for example, but he would have basically a 0% chance of actually getting to a majority of the vote. Snarly Carly would get crushed. Kasich is a total amateur and no one would vote for him.

[Asian Nazi]

Trump has a higher ceiling but also a lower floor, I think.

This.

[Lyin' Steve]

Trump would do better.

Cruz has no appeal outside his supporters.  His shtick is that he sticks to his core convictions and fights, but nobody outside the middle-to-far right agrees with his convictions and wants to see him fight for them.  Right now he's also got some appeal because he's perceived as the smartest candidate in the field and the best debater, but Hillary nullifies those advantages.

Trump is a different breed altogether and has an appeal that doesn't compete with Hillary's at all.  It's not a policy issue because Trump's policies aren't real policies, they're complaints about problems and simple solutions that strike to the core of what people think they'd do if they were elected president.  It's not an intelligence issue because Trump's appeal isn't his intelligence but his passion and strength and charisma.  Hillary and Trump would keep their core bases and compete for the same groups of voters, but they'd be playing entirely different games.

[Talleyrand]

You fools who think either Cruz or Trump would lose by 1964-levels are totally out of touch of reality.

The worst case scenario for either Cruz or Trump would be a Romney 2012 (besides North Carolina), and the former would be a 50-50 bet to win the general, while the latter couldn't totally be counted out either.

Anyway, this is a moot question, since Rubio will be the nominee.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Clinton 399
Cruz 139

Clinton 395
Trump 143

[RR1997]

Cruz would do worse, as many have already suggested

Trump is not going to do well with affluent, suburban Republicans. Many of them will reluntantly vote for Trump, vote third party, even vote for Hillary, not vote, and etc. His losses with suburban Republicans can be made up by his gains with disaffected blue-collar workers, as Rfayette has suggested.

He would do awfully with Hispanic voters tho. Hispanic voters would vote over 85% Hillary. To add on to that, Hispanic voter turnout would soar. In 2012, the Hispanic turnout rate was 48%, IIRC. I could see the turnout rate rise to around 65% if Trump is the nominee.

I could also see a third party candidate earning up to 8% of the vote.

At the end of the day. Trump would probably lose. He would do as well as McCain did in 2008.