How would Ted Cruz be doing now? (My guess is better)

[Young Conservative]

My prediction: Cruz does better in states not voting for Clinton. He does better because he's intelligent, always opposed to Trump, never gaffes (he's too smart), has a smart wife, would've have an intelligent attack dog VP who's beloved by Conservatives, and wouldn't have made terrible comments against heroic families and people in general. Iowa was already trending R, if it was anyone but Trump it would be leaning R. (and Cruz is a good fit for the educated and family centered midwest, along with Rubio).

[Vosem]

Tied or slightly leading. Clinton's various travails with the emails and the FBI and Seddique Mateen would still be in the news; Cruz has his own weaknesses but he would be taking care not to draw actual attention to them. Bush would be doing similarly.

Rubio/Kasich would be leading by slightly less than an equivalent margin (7-8 points) in the opposite direction.

[IceSpear]

Kinda hard to do worse. Hillary would probably be up a few points.

[ProudModerate2]

Better, but not leading.
Definitely more competitive then this orange-haired clown.

[Xing]

Cruz is still widely disliked, and seen as too conservative by many. Yeah, he'd be doing better than Trump, but I don't think he'd be favored. For that map, I'd move NC to Lean R, MN and NV (and maybe WI) to Lean D.

[evergreenarbor]

My election prediction would probably look something like this:

Safe Clinton: 227 EVs
Lean/Likely Clinton: 52 EVs
Tossups: 62 EVs
Lean/Likely Cruz: 34 EVs
Safe Cruz: 163 EVs

Cruz would be doing better than Trump, but he's ultimately too conservative to win a general election.

[hopper]

Cruz might be doing better in Colorado and certainly Utah right now than Trump is. Colorado is a bad fit for Trump demographically because of Latino's and College Educated White Women.

[Hammy]

One thing is certain--there'd be absolutely no doubt about the safe R states being safe.

[Redban]

Georgia, Arizona, Utah, and North Carolina are safer with Cruz than with Trump. Cruz is, as you say, also a smart individual who gives great speeches and interviews (ie no gaffes).

However, Cruz does not put PA in-play because he doesnt have Trump's especial support among blue-collars. For this same reason, Ohio becomes even harder for Cruz than it is for Trump.

Thus, Cruz's pathway to 270 is quite narrow, as he would probably need Virginia or Wisconsin to stand a chance; and I dont like his odds in those states.

As bad as Trump is doing right now, I'll take my chances with him over Cruz nonetheless.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Here's my current confidence map for Clinton vs. Trump:



Clinton 273-179, with 86 tossup EVs.

Obviously, without the "mormon problem", Idaho and Utah would be Safe R.

While I initially thought Cruz would be a weaker nominee than Trump because Cruz was a solid far-rightist while Trump was totally unpredictable and seemed capable of morphing himself into anything, I see now that's wrong because Trump has no control at all over himself. He isn't some master strategist capable of knowing exactly what his electorate wants, he just made the right guess in the primary and is falsely assuming the same sort of people make up a plurality of GE voters. It's not like Cruz would make any serious appeals to moderates or liberals, but he wouldn't be an uncontrollable freak and is a disciplined campaigner who knows what he's doing and can respond to attacks without looking like a whining freak.

For that reason, I believe Indiana, Alaska, South Carolina, and Montana would be Safe R, NE-2 and Arizona would be Lean R, and given that Hillary is only doing so well there now because Trump is so bad for the state, CO would be a Toss-Up, probably with a tilt to Cruz. Iowa conservatives/evangelicals love Cruz and would turn out in record numbers and support, probably better than Bush '04, making that state Lean R. However, the downside would be that his far-rightedness and pro-trade views would collectively take away any chance of winning NH, MN, MI, or ME-2.

All of that gives us this:

264-197 Clinton, with 77 Tossup EVs

What is notable here is that unlike Trump atm, Cruz would have a path to victory that doesn't involve winning a "Lean Clinton" state.

-----------

I'll also do the full prediction.

Here's what I have for Trump:




332-206 Clinton

And for Cruz:

288-250 Clinton

[Senator-elect Spark]

Slightly better than Trump

Clinton 316
Cruz 222

I have Cruz getting IA because he won it in the primaries and Colorado since he has the Libertarian appeal and ME-02 since it is close to Canada and he also won there in the primaries.

[Fuzzy Bear]

He'd be on the short end of a 279-259 EV loss.

I'm giving Cruz all the Romney states, plus FL, IA, and OH.  His negative personality, coupled with his hard-right conservative stances, make it hard for him to crack PA, MN, MI, or NV.  Cruz wouldn't win VA unless more revelations about Hillary Clinton's conduct regarding the Clinton Foundation emerged. 

[Mister Mets]

I think he'd be doing a little better.

One factor is that we've never seen him in true General Election mode. He's essentially been running for the Republican nomination since 2010. So it's not clear how effective his strategy would be, nor how it would be received.

In a world with Cruz as the nominee essentially tied with Hillary (my guess for the likeliest outcome), there might be some pushback from people saying that Trump would've been doing better.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

A little better, but we're looking at it through the context of how awful Trump is/has been and kind of ignoring that Cruz is also terribly unpopular and wouldn't exactly find it easy to attract swing voters.

[Cruzcrew]

It would be a tied race right now and what Cruz lacks in appeal to moderate swing state voters he can make up for I what would've been the best republican get out the vote operation we have seen. While he's probably gonna be seen as too conservative, he can make up for that by making Hillary look too out of touch and too much of the same thing without looking crazy or unhinged. With Cruz, I think it would be a very close election that probably uses something akin to a 2004 bush strategy.

[Maxwell]

I'd say more like 4 or 5 points down.

[Kingpoleon]

269: Former SoS Hillary Clinton/Representative Joaquin Castro - ~48.0%*
188: Senator Ted Cruz/Businesswoman Cara "Carly" Fiorina - ~41.5%*
81: Tossup

*RCP average

[Lief 🗽]

Cruz would be just about as toxic to college-educated whites as Trump, and with considerably less appeal to working class whites. Maybe he'd be doing slightly better with Hispanics or blacks, but I doubt it. So I'm not really sure where the improvement would come from here.

[WVdemocrat]

Cruz/Fiorina: 274
Clinton/Kaine: 264

The states with 30% shade are the swing states. This scenario shows Cruz winning.

[uti2]

Tied or slightly leading. Clinton's various travails with the emails and the FBI and Seddique Mateen would still be in the news; Cruz has his own weaknesses but he would be taking care not to draw actual attention to them. Bush would be doing similarly.

Rubio/Kasich would be leading by slightly less than an equivalent margin (7-8 points) in the opposite direction.

No, he'd be doing maybe a little bit better PV-wise, but almost as bad EV-wise, he'd still be down in NC, let alone FL. And no, first of all, you shouldn't group in Rubio/Kasich together, and second of all, you shouldn't assume that they'd do as well in the same groups as Trump. They'd do worse with the working class Trump supporting types, Kasich might have a chance to win back some of them + hold the base with his econ policies, but rubio's not a good fit, and would be in the same position as jeb, popular vote tossup, but EV disadvantage vs. hillary. Only Kasich would be favored EV-wise vs. Hillary.

[uti2]

He'd be on the short end of a 279-259 EV loss.

I'm giving Cruz all the Romney states, plus FL, IA, and OH.  His negative personality, coupled with his hard-right conservative stances, make it hard for him to crack PA, MN, MI, or NV.  Cruz wouldn't win VA unless more revelations about Hillary Clinton's conduct regarding the Clinton Foundation emerged. 

FL was consistently one of Cruz's worst states, he was always as down by as much as Trump or worse. People need to stop putting that in his column, even jeb/rubio were only pure tossups in FL. Kasich was the only won consistently winning by a decent margin in FL.

[Angel of Death]

Cruz has a higher floor but a lower ceiling than Trump, so he would be doing better but have less chance of winning.

[Redban]

Cruz would be just about as toxic to college-educated whites as Trump, and with considerably less appeal to working class whites. Maybe he'd be doing slightly better with Hispanics or blacks, but I doubt it. So I'm not really sure where the improvement would come from here.

Cruz is actually to the right of Donald Trump on illegal immigration (and that's saying a lot), so I doubt Cruz outperforms Trump with Hispanics. Regarding blacks, they will always vote 90% for the Democrat.

Blue-collars didn't support Cruz as much as they supported Trump, and evangelicals (Cruz's biggest strength) are already supporting Trump at massively high levels. Therefore, the only group for Cruz to improve over Trump is, as you say, college educated whites; and I've seen no evidence that he would do better with this group.

[uti2]

Cruz would be just about as toxic to college-educated whites as Trump, and with considerably less appeal to working class whites. Maybe he'd be doing slightly better with Hispanics or blacks, but I doubt it. So I'm not really sure where the improvement would come from here.

Cruz is actually to the right of Donald Trump on illegal immigration (and that's saying a lot), so I doubt Cruz outperforms Trump with Hispanics. Regarding blacks, they will always vote 90% for the Democrat.

Blue-collars didn't support Cruz as much as they supported Trump, and evangelicals (Cruz's biggest strength) are already supporting Trump at massively high levels. Therefore, the only group for Cruz to improve over Trump is, as you say, college educated whites; and I've seen no evidence that he would do better with this group.

Cruz had problems with Hispanics even before this cycle began, and it didn't really have to do with immigration. Back before Trump, in early 2015 when Cruz was still peddling 'non-citizen legal status', he was still one of the worst polling republicans vs. hillary due to his economically far-right positions.

[Kingpoleon]

I think the final map would look like this:

291: Fmr. Senator Hillary Clinton/Rep. Joaquin Castro - 48.0%
247: Senator Ted Cruz/Businesswoman Carly Fiorina - 47.2%
Others - 4.8%