How would Ted Cruz have fared in the general election?

[uti2]

 
Hillary: 260
Cruz: 230
Toss up: 48

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

If you also made OH and WI pink, with those numbers, and that's what a clinton v rubio or jeb map would look like. Hillary being favored to win the EV, but at a competitive margin a la 2000/2004.

 With Clinton v. Cruz,  OH and WI would be light red, FL would be pink and NC would be tossup, and she would already be at >290.

Kasich would be at the opposite end, having ~290 vs. Hillary.

[Kingpoleon]

341: Hillary Clinton/John Hickenlooper
150: Ted Cruz/Piyush "Bobby" Jindal
47: Tossup

492

[tonyreyes89]

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.

Ted Cruz has no charisma and is too conservative, he'd max at with John McCain's map

[Arbitrage1980]

Cruz would have won. He would have totally unified the GOP, and he would have crushed Hillary in the debates. The guy is freaking brilliant and articulate. Compared to Hillary, Cruz's outsider status as a rebel would have won him major points.

[Maxwell]

Cruz is a slimy, nasty guy, and makes Hillary Clinton look downright unpolished and natural. Her likability would soar if Cruz was the Republican nominee. I think there would still be record defections if Cruz was the nominee, just slightly different people (like John Boehner and Peter King endorsing Clinton, for example).

[Young Conservative]

He would win. His campaign organization would be unmatched and GOP enthusiasm among conservatives unrivaled by a less than happy Democratic base.

[uti2]

Cruz would have won. He would have totally unified the GOP, and he would have crushed Hillary in the debates. The guy is freaking brilliant and articulate. Compared to Hillary, Cruz's outsider status as a rebel would have won him major points.

Trump killed any of the potential 'outsider' classifications that any of the GOP candidates might've had this year, even against Cruz, who was made to look like an insider, which is quite an impressive feat considering Ted Cruz's status in the party. Hillary is actually a pretty decent debater , on par with Obama/Cruz/Christie, she went toe to toe with Obama just fine.

If you're talking about an election without Trump at all, it would've changed multiple factors, no russian hackers, no bernie's prolonging his primary campaign additionally damaging hillary, giving her time to unify her base, etc. it would be under totally different circumstances.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Clinton/Kaine- 287 EVs, (50.8%)
Cruz/Fiorina- 251 EVs, (48.2%)

Cruz would have improved on Romney's total from 2012, picking up IA, CO, & ME. He would most likely perform better than Trump in AK, UT, VA, the South, MN, CO. He would be doing much better with Hispanic voters and college-educated voters. While doing worse in OH, NV, MI, and PA. He would get crushed in the NE and have absolutely no chance of winning NH. OR and other socially moderate states would be out of play due to Cruz's rigid social conservative views. Cruz is an inelastic candidate with radical views and could not appeal to enough moderate swing voters. This would most likely cause him to lose to Clinton.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Cruz would have won. He would have totally unified the GOP, and he would have crushed Hillary in the debates. The guy is freaking brilliant and articulate. Compared to Hillary, Cruz's outsider status as a rebel would have won him major points.

Trump killed any of the potential 'outsider' classifications that any of the GOP candidates might've had this year, even against Cruz, who was made to look like an insider, which is quite an impressive feat considering Ted Cruz's status in the party. Hillary is actually a pretty decent debater , on par with Obama/Cruz/Christie, she went toe to toe with Obama just fine.

If you're talking about an election without Trump at all, it would've changed multiple factors, no russian hackers, no bernie's prolonging his primary campaign additionally damaging hillary, giving her time to unify her base, etc. it would be under totally different circumstances.

Bernie would've won the nomination (the superdelegates stole it from the voters for Hildabeast) for the Dems. Cruz would be destroying both. Hillary would be getting burned rhetorically so bad FDR and Wilson would be feeling it from the grave

[uti2]

Cruz would have won. He would have totally unified the GOP, and he would have crushed Hillary in the debates. The guy is freaking brilliant and articulate. Compared to Hillary, Cruz's outsider status as a rebel would have won him major points.

Trump killed any of the potential 'outsider' classifications that any of the GOP candidates might've had this year, even against Cruz, who was made to look like an insider, which is quite an impressive feat considering Ted Cruz's status in the party. Hillary is actually a pretty decent debater , on par with Obama/Cruz/Christie, she went toe to toe with Obama just fine.

If you're talking about an election without Trump at all, it would've changed multiple factors, no russian hackers, no bernie's prolonging his primary campaign additionally damaging hillary, giving her time to unify her base, etc. it would be under totally different circumstances.

Bernie would've won the nomination (the superdelegates stole it from the voters for Hildabeast) for the Dems. Cruz would be destroying both. Hillary would be getting burned rhetorically so bad FDR and Wilson would be feeling it from the grave

Bernie was polling double digits ahead of cruz, FWIW, when people bring up hypothetical polls for the republican candidates v. Hillary.