What happens to the GOP if Cruz turns out to be Goldwater 2.0?

[Sir Mohamed]

What happens to the GOP if Cruz turns out to be Goldwater 2.0? He gets (though still unlikely) the 2016 nomination over The Trump and Rubio and loses the general election to Hillary by a disastrous margin. He also takes down many congressional Republicans. Dems pick up OH, IL, PA, WI, FL, NH and AZ (after McCain lost his primary) in the Senate. GOP also loses the House narrowly: 223-212.

Will the establishment and the moderates take back the party in a “we told you so” campaign from the Tea Party and other right-wingers?

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D-NY)/HUD Secretary Julian Castro (D-TX): 385 EV. (53.8%)
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX)/Former Representative Michelle Bachmann (R-MN): 153 EV. (45.7%)

[Virginiá]

I think it will trigger a sincere effort to keep extremists away from the top of the primaries, even if it means destroying them early on. Cruz is a creepy, hard-right religious nutjob and I think a massive loss at his hands wouldn't cause the GOP to moderate it's overall platform but rather just try and return to more Romney-esque candidates. I do think it'll help put out this "we weren't conservative enough" theory of losing, though. Republicans' good chances of winning back both Congressional chambers in 2018 won't exactly make them humble, either.

I think the real moderation will come from a loss in 2020, which could very well happen if Democrats win 2016. Democrats had to waltz to the center after a string of defeats (and 1 barely-won election - 1976), and the GOP is no different. They are simply on the wrong side of issues Millennials care about and by 2020, those voters will make up almost half the electorate. Republicans won't have a choice in the matter, if they want to win.

Though, they will have to work on getting the primary voters to accept this reality. If they keep voting for people like Cruz, well, then that's that.

[Sumner 1868]

This isn't Goldwater 2.0. It's not even Dole 2.0, so they'll be fine.

[Simfan34]

I think Hillary would at least win IN in a "Goldwater 2.0" scenario. Probably MT as well, so 399-139.

[DS0816]

What happens to the GOP if Cruz turns out to be Goldwater 2.0? He gets (though still unlikely) the 2016 nomination over The Trump and Rubio and loses the general election to Hillary by a disastrous margin. He also takes down many congressional Republicans. Dems pick up OH, IL, PA, WI, FL, NH and AZ (after McCain lost his primary) in the Senate. GOP also loses the House narrowly: 223-212.

Will the establishment and the moderates take back the party in a “we told you so” campaign from the Tea Party and other right-wingers?

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D-NY)/HUD Secretary Julian Castro (D-TX): 385 EV. (53.8%)
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX)/Former Representative Michelle Bachmann (R-MN): 153 EV. (45.7%)

That electoral-vote score, from your Scenario Map, is not on par with a 1964 Barry Goldwater.

That's actually a respectable result.

[Clark Kent]

That's exactly the same popular vote percentages as 1988 IIRC, actually.

[Kingpoleon]

Here's a more Goldwater-esque result:

406: Fmr. SoS. Hillary Clinton(D-NY)/Sen. Joseph Manchin(D-WV) - 54.6%
132: Sen. Rafael Cruz(R-TX)/Rep. Louie Gohmert(R-SC) - 44.2%

Heck, Utah and Colorado won't be that far apart in PV.
Other: 1.2%

[DS0816]

Here's a more Goldwater-esque result:

406: Fmr. SoS. Hillary Clinton(D-NY)/Sen. Joseph Manchin(D-WV) - 54.6%
132: Sen. Rafael Cruz(R-TX)/Rep. Louie Gohmert(R-SC) - 44.2%

Heck, Utah and Colorado won't be that far apart in PV.
Other: 1.2%

No.

Colorado is now a critical bellwether state—with percentage margins close to the U.S. Popular Vote.

The map should show between 40 to 44 states carried. And that would include states which do not ordinarily carry for the party.

The one thing with a 1964 Barry Goldwater is this: He lost 25 of the 26 states which carried for his party’s losing presidential nominee from the previous election cycle, Richard Nixon.

Be daring: Give the likes of Idaho, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming to the Democrat.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Dems arent gonna win like this, but NC or FL will round out electoral college after OH & Va.  But, election is slipping away from GOP, as Trump emergence generated a weaker nominee, but election is in NOV

[sg0508]

I know GOP has major demographics problems, but I actually think he could win and it has little to do with him.  The Democrats are taking a HUGE risk in essentially giving Hillary the nomination, which her favorability ratings keep falling and where many Democrats are already admitting they've had enough of her.  Bernie could also provide a rift within the party, which won't help.

If turnout is low, Cruz has a shot in some of those key states, which makes or breaks the GOP (i.e. FL, OH, etc).

[RFayette]

I know GOP has major demographics problems, but I actually think he could win and it has little to do with him.  The Democrats are taking a HUGE risk in essentially giving Hillary the nomination, which her favorability ratings keep falling and where many Democrats are already admitting they've had enough of her.  Bernie could also provide a rift within the party, which won't help.

If turnout is low, Cruz has a shot in some of those key states, which makes or breaks the GOP (i.e. FL, OH, etc).

What else can they do?  Uncommitted delegates and a Biden movement at the convention?  Bernie is just not attractive for those worried about Hillary's electability.

Agreed.  THat being said, the "Clinton is more electable than Sanders," an assertion I agree with, is a harder sell to Democratic primary voters than it once may have been, in light of recent polling data.

[MATTROSE94]

I really don't see Ted Cruz losing by all that big of a margin. In a Clinton vs. Cruz race, the only Romney state that Clinton has a reasonable chance at picking up is North Carolina, while Cruz on the other hand, has a great chance at picking up Iowa, Colorado, and Ohio. Cruz will also perform very well in the South and get over 60% of the vote in most states in that region (he may even crack 70% in Oklahoma and West Virginia).

[hopper]

This isn't Goldwater 2.0. It's not even Dole 2.0, so they'll be fine.

Why are you comparing Goldwater to Dole? That's a strange comparison. Kasich is more like Dole in an idealogical sense than Goldwater was.

[hopper]

Here's a more Goldwater-esque result:

406: Fmr. SoS. Hillary Clinton(D-NY)/Sen. Joseph Manchin(D-WV) - 54.6%
132: Sen. Rafael Cruz(R-TX)/Rep. Louie Gohmert(R-SC) - 44.2%

Heck, Utah and Colorado won't be that far apart in PV.
Other: 1.2%

R-TX

[hopper]

That's exactly the same popular vote percentages as 1988 IIRC, actually.

Yeah but in reverse!

[hopper]

I know GOP has major demographics problems, but I actually think he could win and it has little to do with him.  The Democrats are taking a HUGE risk in essentially giving Hillary the nomination, which her favorability ratings keep falling and where many Democrats are already admitting they've had enough of her.  Bernie could also provide a rift within the party, which won't help.

If turnout is low, Cruz has a shot in some of those key states, which makes or breaks the GOP (i.e. FL, OH, etc).

Really? Moderate Voters would loathe Cruz if he were to get to the General Election.

[hopper]

This isn't Goldwater 2.0. It's not even Dole 2.0, so they'll be fine.

This.  And no way Republicans are losing the House with Cruz's rural/exurban turnout machine, the Democrats need Trump for that.  It would narrow substantially, but 225ish seats would be on lockdown.  An Ike-level win for Clinton over Cruz while Ryan keeps his perch is the 2nd best scenario for the GOP establishment after a Rubio win.  It gives them all the cover they need to coronate Ryan in 2020 and there's no risk of SCOTUS going Lochner and sending white populists running to the Dems.  There's a small risk of the latter with Rubio, but the establishment seems quite confident they can talk him into putting another Roberts on the court.

The guy that upheld ObamaCare twice?

[hopper]

I really don't see Ted Cruz losing by all that big of a margin. In a Clinton vs. Cruz race, the only Romney state that Clinton has a reasonable chance at picking up is North Carolina, while Cruz on the other hand, has a great chance at picking up Iowa, Colorado, and Ohio. Cruz will also perform very well in the South and get over 60% of the vote in most states in that region (he may even crack 70% in Oklahoma and West Virginia).

Oh yeah Hispanics in Colorado would love Cruz. Are you kidding? Iowa-He would not carry the state. Ohio-I don't see the GOP losing too much ground there in comparison to 2012.

[andrew_c]

There's no way the Dems win South Carolina but lose Colorado.

[SingingAnalyst]

What happened to the GOP after Goldwater 1.0? They won 5 of the next 6 elections, 3 of them in landslides, and lost the 6th in a squeaker.

True, Nixon and Ford didn't speak of lobbing nuclear bombs into the men's room of the Kremlin. But in the 1960s the Dems (along with the Supreme Court to some extent) took positions and handed down decisions that many Americans were not ready for (outlawing school prayer, Loving v. Virginia, expanding the welfare state etc.) and Americans reacted in '68 and subsequent years. It helped that Nixon was no Goldwater, but that was only part of the story. If Cruz loses big in 2016, subsequent Republicans will make peace with the same-sex marriage decision and make a real libertarianesque push for young voters.

[RRusso1982]

I don't think Cruz would be the equivalent of Goldwater.  The country is much more polarized now.  I would say a Republican in a national election has a floor of about 45 or 46 percent, about McCain's vote share in 2008.  I think it would be slightly worse in the electoral college than 2008.  I actually think Cruz would win North Carolina, because there is a big evangelical base there, and Georgia, but possible lose Missouri and Arizona. 

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Cruz = Coolidge 2.0 more than Reagan 2.0

[sg0508]

Then they'll scream, "wasn't conservative enough", move on, try again in four years and repeat the same endless nonsense when their next candidate flames out. 

[hopper]

Then they'll scream, "wasn't conservative enough", move on, try again in four years and repeat the same endless nonsense when their next candidate flames out. 

Romney didn't killed in the Electoral College because he wasn't conservative enough(even though he was too conservative for my tastes) he was killed because of his rhetoric at Immigrants Groups like Mexicans and Asians. Even Establishment Republicans were like how did we manage to lose Asians by 44 points?

[hopper]

Cruz = Coolidge 2.0 more than Reagan 2.0

I don't think Coolidge was not an obstructionist when President like Cruz is in the US Senate.