How would Ted Cruz have fared in the general election?

[The Arizonan]

I think Ted Cruz might have been a better choice than Donald Trump, but not by much. At least he doesn't constantly attack people on Twitter and say crazy stuff all the time.

[Matty]

He'd be doing better in georgia, texas, kansas, etc and worse in iowa, Florida, ohio.

[Yank2133]

He does worse then Trump.

Cruz is way to conservative and he is even more unlikeable then Trump and doesn't have an ounce of DT's charisma.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Better than Trump. He would probably be leading right now (coming off the horrendous news cycle for Clinton) but would ultimately lose by more than what Mitt lost by.

[7,052,770]

Much worse than Trump, obviously.

Whether or not this forum wants to admit it, Trump has connected with millions of people like no other Republican ever has. Cruz fans are almost entirely voting Trump, but a lot of non-religious Trump voters would be sitting a Hillary vs. Cruz election out.

[evergreenarbor]

Safe Clinton: 239 EVs
Likely Clinton: 34 EVs
Lean Clinton: 41 EVs
Tossups: 39 EVs
Lean Cruz: 11 EVs
Likely Cruz: 17 EVs
Safe Cruz: 163 EVs

Total: 308-39-191

Clinton v. Cruz wouldn't significantly change either party's coalition, and it would be one of the most polarized elections in recent history, with most Obama states and nearly every Romney state being safe.

[Wisconsin+17]

Better. He'd be ahead.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

I love Ted Cruz and am so proud to have cast my primary vote for him, and I'd like to think he would have the lead, but that may be wishful thinking.  Still, so sad to see him lose. 

[Xing]

Based on the past few months, I don't think Cruz would have won. My own personal feelings about him aside, it does seem like he is very intelligent in certain ways. However, he really doesn't seem to have the best political instincts. I think this really came through in the week leading up to the Indiana primary, when he just kept digging himself into a deeper hole. He also hasn't handled his endorsement of Trump in a very politically wise way. Based on this, I think that he'd make quite a few missteps on the campaign trail, and would probably be seen as too conservative to win a general election. While his campaign would still be much more carefully run than Trump's, he wouldn't have the benefit of being held to a much lower standard than everyone else, so he'd actually face consequences (likely poor polling numbers) for his missteps.

[Wisconsin+17]

I think he'd be making mincemeat out of Hillary who has not ran her campaign well.

[nicholas.slaydon]

He would be doing much worse than Trump. Ted Cruz is just like running Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum in the general. Americans are not looking for a theocrat for president.

[Southern Delegate matthew27]

As bad as I don't like Cruz it would be his for the winning...He'd be up over clinton by 10 percent right now.

[uti2]

As bad as I don't like Cruz it would be his for the winning...He'd be up over clinton by 10 percent right now.

That's because you're a delusional berniebro. The original polls with Hillary had her crushing any GOP candidate back in early 2015 and before. She was damaged by Bernie's nader-style attacks, the GOP would've needed that type of mild handicap to even be competitive with clinton, yet still in such a gore-bush race, unlike in 2000, the demographics of the electoral map shifted to the dems favor, so hillary would still be favored to win in terms of the EV map as state polling showed vs. anyone except kasich if you looked at swing state polls in oh, va, etc.

By Bernie staying in longer than he was supposed to, instead of dropping out in feb/mar, it was done in the context of Trump and contested convention talk on the R side, if bernie had dropped out earlier like he was supposed to, it would've given hillary more time to consolidate the traditional dem base, and go after the typical republican 'koch puppet'. The dynamics of the race would've completely changed. Bernie additionally weakened Hillary by staying in so long, so he gave Trump an even bigger handicap, then he would've to another GOP candidate in a trumpless race. Still, the fact that the Republicans needed an external handicap on Hillary to even make their own candidates remotely competitive in the first place, shows that hillary was not that bad of a candidate on her own. Early polls had her running ahead of biden vs. all the republican competition easily like I said.

[GeorgiaModerate]

He would be doing much worse than Trump. Ted Cruz is just like running Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum in the general. Americans are not looking for a theocrat for president.

Switch AZ and MO and I think this would be it.  Cruz would certainly do better with Hispanics than Trump, and that would be the difference in AZ.  MO just has too many conservative voters.

[NHI]

Much worse than Trump, obviously.

Whether or not this forum wants to admit it, Trump has connected with millions of people like no other Republican ever has. Cruz fans are almost entirely voting Trump, but a lot of non-religious Trump voters would be sitting a Hillary vs. Cruz election out.

[Plankton5165]

Current possible map:

[Plankton5165]

Better than Trump. He would probably be leading right now (coming off the horrendous news cycle for Clinton) but would ultimately lose by more than what Mitt lost by.

Right now, Trump is losing by just two points, Mitt Romney lost by four.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Better than Trump. He would probably be leading right now (coming off the horrendous news cycle for Clinton) but would ultimately lose by more than what Mitt lost by.

Right now, Trump is losing by just two points, Mitt Romney lost by four.

Ignoring that the trend line is steadily away from him now, and that he's going to be crushed in the debates

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

In addition to Hispanics, he'd also be doing better with college-educated whites. Not sure why everyone's so sure he'd be losing. 

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Better than Trump. He would probably be leading right now (coming off the horrendous news cycle for Clinton) but would ultimately lose by more than what Mitt lost by.

Right now, Trump is losing by just two points, Mitt Romney lost by four.

Ignoring that the trend line is steadily away from him now, and that he's going to be crushed in the debates

Which was the point of my post.

[Fight for Trump]

He would be doing much worse than Trump. Ted Cruz is just like running Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum in the general. Americans are not looking for a theocrat for president.

I don't think you have any idea what Cruz, Santorum or Huckabee actually stand for.

When Trump was floundering post-convention, I thought Cruz would do better, but now I think Trump will do better than Cruz could have. Cruz is great, but you really have to love America to get what he's trying to say. Trump has broader appeal.

[uti2]

Better than Trump. He would probably be leading right now (coming off the horrendous news cycle for Clinton) but would ultimately lose by more than what Mitt lost by.

Right now, Trump is losing by just two points, Mitt Romney lost by four.

In addition to Hispanics, he'd also be doing better with college-educated whites. Not sure why everyone's so sure he'd be losing. 

Because it is foolish to assume that all trump voters would've necessarily gone for another republican candidate and to put those numbers in another candidate's column. If after all 'trump is not a conservative', why would those 'non-conservative' trump voters back a 'conservative'? Also Trump changed the dynamics of the race in his own way. E.G. DNC leaks only happened due to the Russians.

[StatesPoll]

 

 
Hillary: 260
Cruz: 230
Toss up: 48

Ohio: Cruz might beat Hillary (with Kasich's endorsement)
Iowa: Cruz might beat Hillary (Evangelicals)

[uti2]

  

This is the problem. You try to extrapolate Trump's performance as a baseline to other republican candidates, but the problem is that not all trump voters would back that 'other republican', i.e. like for OH. Also, for Cruz, he was a tossup in NC in the polls.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Better than Trump. He would probably be leading right now (coming off the horrendous news cycle for Clinton) but would ultimately lose by more than what Mitt lost by.

Right now, Trump is losing by just two points, Mitt Romney lost by four.

Ignoring that the trend line is steadily away from him now, and that he's going to be crushed in the debates

Which was the point of my post.

Which is why mine was a reply to Plankton's, not yours