Talk Elections

Gillespie is running an eerily similar campaign to that of Cruz. Unlike the original GOP post-mortem urban pandering strategy, Gillespie seems to have been spooked enough by Stewart to have shifted to embrace more of a Ted-Cruz type of strategy. The attempt is to keep Stewart voters in-line. Donor-friendly, but with sprinkles of red meat.

Compare:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-SC1uUiT9s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0UiqMDbpAw

Ted Cruz wouldn't need to do that much to unite the establishment, if he simply put Jeb or Romney as VP, that would have secured the necessary establishment support for his campaign.

No. Cruz wouldn't have motivated disaffected voters like Trump did, would have no appeal to the working class, and may have scared progressives who protest-voted into Hillary's column due to his opposition to gay rights.

Cruz would have CRUSHED Hillary in the debates, but his path to the presidency would have been tough due to his principled unwavering conservatism. He would have been the best President since Reagan and fundamentally transformed this country.

Interesting thought never ever noticed how there somewhat the same but I think
Ed's ad is more like https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PmwhdDv8VrM
Then ted Cruz's,the fact is these kinds of ads work always.

People need to keep in mind that Cruz was somewhat of a different candidate prior to Trump's entry. He had previously written an op-ed with Paul Ryan backing the TPP, he was more ambiguous on immigration than the other candidates and had room to maneuver depending upon which way the wind was blowing. If Breitbart & Co. wanted him to shift gears in their direction on that front, he may have listened to them.

Cruz, to his credit, was able to defang Huckabee/Santorum who wanted gay marriage outlawed nationally, Cruz had more of a 'state's rights' view on the issue. Cruz would've been positioned slightly differently w/o Trump, he would've been more of a Rand Paul-lite candidate (that was his original plan until Trump came along).

So, imagine a Trumpless race, w/o Trump's free media, Jeb and his money are the main factor, they are successful in keeping potential competitors at bay all the way to the convention, ensuring that no one gets to 1237. Cruz uses his delegate shenanigans to launch a coup at the convention and Jeb relents in exchange for the VP slot.

Cruz ran consistently ahead of Trump in national polling the entire time they were both candidates (except possibly for the final week of the campaign when he had definitely lost), so it's hard to argue that Cruz would not have defeated Hillary. He may not have carried Virginia, though (in fact, I suspect not).

I'd be happy if he got rid of corn subsidies and brought fries back to the cafeteria.

The problem is this is the best I could see Cruz doing:

()


Cruz 270
Hilary 268


He may do better than Trump in the popular vote but he definitely does not do better than him electorally.

I don't think Cruz wins ME-02. I would also bump VT over 60%. Utah should also go over 60% and AZ over 50%. He wins TX by 15 to 18, which is hard to display on the map, maybe does 4% or 5% better in CA. Which means he loses the Popular vote by about a million votes.


Trump did amazingly well with Franco-Canadians and Trump also did well in the dairy belt and former lumbering communities as a result of his protectionist+Infrastructure campaign.

Northam has little to no baggage, and he's not really hitting Gillespie where it counts.

Hillary had lots of baggage, and she character-assassinated Trump (despite there being no character to assassinate really) out of popular vote win to try and distract from it (almost worked out).

I don't believe for a second Hillary wouldn't have gone all out against Cruz on policy, running on Obama 2012 Part II.

A Gillespie win would be more like Tumor v. McGutless moved southwards from Pennsylvania.

It is a different environment in a state that Trump lost while winning the President, so it's not a perfect overlay.

Gillespie is running a conservative campaign, although his history is as establishment as humanly possible.

Northam may hold statewide office, but he's somewhat obscure, with 50% name recognition in some polls. He doesn't have the negatives Hillary did, and has the army medic background.

Virginia was more liberal than the rest of the nation in 2016.

Running for a third term for the White House is difficult. Running for Governor of Virginia when the other party holds the White House is a plum spot (McAuliffe is the only one to win when his party held the White House and he had a combination of a scandal-laden incumbent and a flawed opponent.)

Cruz would have carried Florida.  He may have carried Pennsylvania and Ohio, but I'm not sure he'd have carried Iowa, and he'd have lost Michigan and Wisconsin.  I can't think of a state Cruz would have won that Trump lost.

Ironically Cruz could have won the popular vote and lost the electoral college. I still think Hillary probably would have lost any way and Cruz would have won.

I don't think so. Cruz would have lost pretty badly in both the popular vote and electoral college.

Something like 51-46, and he'd terrible in the electoral college. He may reach Romney's 206 and win Maine's 2nd CD.

Why? Cruz is hated by many, but he doesn't have the enthusiasm Trump has. Trump also had a lot of fight.

The reason Sessions endorsed Trump over Cruz was because Sessions felt Trump could win the rust belt, and that's where the 2016 election was going to be decided (which ended up being true). Cruz had no chance to win any of those states.

If you go by 'enthusiasm', none of the republican candidates had any serious enthusiasm behind them besides Trump and then Cruz.

Who is Cruz supposedly hated by? The 'Establishment', Cruz could get those votes in line by simply picking an Establishment GOPer like Jeb or Romney as VP, which would've especially worked out in the context of a contested convention.

Quite possibly this.  Relative to Trump, Evangelical turnout would be through the roof and the suburban college+ vote would swing away less, but he wouldn't get anywhere near Trump's numbers with the secularish lower middle class in the North.  I do think he would still flip Iowa and Ohio, but beyond that his odds are slim.  VA and CO would be a 2% race similar to the last governor's race in both (Clinton would benefit a lot more from Kaine running against Cruz), and he could get a Bush 2004 like win in Florida.  A lot of that Evangelical turnout would be wasted getting ~65% in Texas and similar numbers in neighboring states.  Basically, it would look much more like a uniform swing from Obama 2012 when Dems held the EC advantage. 

()

Cruz/Bevin 259 EV 48.7%
Clinton/Kaine 279 EV 48.1%

()
278: Ted Cruz/Tim Scott - 47.6%
260: Hillary Clinton/John Hickenlooper - 49.5%

Cruz would have gotten mauled in a general election.

He'd be lucky to get more EVs than Romney.

He wouldn’t have inspired and turned out the rural white racists like Trump did, so MI, WI, and PA wouldn’t have flipped.

Nevada. And perhaps Virginia, Colorado & New Hampshire if Hillary does very badly. And if Ron Johnson can win Wisconsin, then Ted Cruz probably will as well. Michigan, I just don't see Cruz winning. Cruz is an ace debater & he is an expert in lying & cooking up facts & numbers in debates.

He is also very smart & intelligent. He has no major scandals & doesn't have the temperament problems that Trump has. Trump helped Hillary with so many issues of his. With Cruz the attention will always be on Hillary, the Clinton foundation, her emails & so on. That helps Cruz big time.

Cruz was constantly running ahead of Trump in the polls vs Hillary, so that has to be considered. In the end maybe, Ted Cruz is too divisive & radical a candidate to win, but I think he would win vs Hillary.

- Calls Trump supporters "rural white racists"

- Lives in Michigan

Hillary was the least popular person to ever run for president (other than Trump who had enough willing to hold their noses and vote).  Cruz- and almost all of the other GOP candidates- would have crushed Hillary with 350-400 EVs.

Something like this:
()

Rubio would have been something like this:
()

Favorability numbers aren't a constant. See Dukakis. Cruz's favorables sank after he started attacking Trump, Rubio's numbers were also similarly starting to fall right before he dropped out (they were on a similar trajectory as Cruz). By the end, Cruz & Jeb had similar favorables as Hillary.

Cruz would have pulled a Reverse Hillary, if anything. He would definitely have done better in the national PV and maybe even won it, but there's no way he would've picked up PA, MI & WI. Overall turnout would have been much lower; even though Cruz wouldn't have carried all of those blue-collar first-time and/or white working class Dems, he would have made them up by retaining support in suburbia. Clinton, on the other hand, would've had the same problems she had with the base and that first-time Latino voter turnout and support would've been a lot weaker due to it not being Trump on the ballot.

His margins would have been much better than Trump's in most suburban areas and that would have led to Obama '12-like margins for him in states like GA and TX. Of course, this would mean that it would have been Cruz - and not Hillary - whose voters were more poorly distributed for the EC.

Clinton 47.7% 279
Cruz 48.8% 259

()

This seems right, although I do think a Cruz breakthrough in Colorado or (less likely) Virginia is possible due to supercharged Evangelical turnout at almost a 90/10 margin for Cruz.

^Why do you think WI would have been unwinnable for him?

IMO Cruz would have won IA, OH, WI, ME-02 (yeah) and probably FL as well (though the latter could have flipped and given Clinton the win). PA would have been very close, but I think Clinton barely wins it. So my guess is Cruz barely wins in the EC.

He would have lost CO, NV, MI and VA, though.  

He polled quite well in Colorado and could have won it with more college-educated whites and Hispanics than Trump got.

Gillespie has the benefit of learning how to win from President Trump's thrashing of Crooked Hillary. Cruz would not have made the correct moves without this hindsight.

Cruz win scenario
()
Ted Cruz/John Kasich-Republican: 269 EV 48.02%
Hillary Clinton/Tim Kaine-Democratic: 269 EV 47.38%

Clinton win scenario
()
Hillary Clinton/Tim Kaine-Democratic: 314 EV 49.23
Ted Cruz/John Kasich-Republican: 224 EV 46.07%

Colorado was where he polled better and it was the tipping-point state in 2012. Cruz does better with college-educated whites and Hispanics in this scenario to take Colorado but worse with WWC voters and doesn't have Trump's Midwest surge.

He was competitive in WI but more so in CO. Don't think that just because he loses a state he isn't competitive there. Cruz makes up Trump's margin in CO to get it by less than 1% while WI goes for Clinton narrowly, maybe 2% margin.

Gillespie calls NoVA 'enemy territory' - if it couldn't be more clear that he's running a Cruz-style campaign with 'New York Values'-like labeling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sC0GFSEnqs