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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 03:41:50 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  How would Ted Cruz be doing now? (My guess is better)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: How would Ted Cruz be doing now? (My guess is better)  (Read 1720 times)
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: August 13, 2016, 12:06:54 PM »

Cruz would do better because college educated Republicans could fool themselves into supporting Cruz, who ran on an even more conservative and frightening platform than Trump but used a dog whistle rather than a bullhorn.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: August 13, 2016, 12:07:32 PM »

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%

It should be acknowledged that the last polls had Hillary up on Rubio in OH and tied in FL, let alone Cruz, whom she was up massively in both FL and OH.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: August 13, 2016, 12:10:38 PM »

Cruz would do better because college educated Republicans could fool themselves into supporting Cruz, who ran on an even more conservative and frightening platform than Trump but used a dog whistle rather than a bullhorn.

Yeah, but he'd lose working class voters, so it's a trade-off, this is why people who say kasich or rubio would be up 10 points is silly, those 2 would do worse with working class voters just like cruz would. Kasich might've been able to win back some of them on econ policy grounds for ~5 points ahead though. Jeb or Rubio or Cruz wouldn't really have anything to offer them.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: August 13, 2016, 12:38:36 PM »

The great CRUZ would be winning in a 49-State landslide, of course.

(Seriously though, Cruz has a higher floor than Drumpf and a lower ceiling. Since Drumpf is at his low right now, Cruz would probably be doing better.)
Logged
Wisconsin+17
Ben Kenobi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: August 13, 2016, 12:52:47 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why is it silly? Cruz did fine with conservatives. The problem with Cruz is succinctly put, cracking the Friewall. However, he's not 10 points away from cracking the friewall.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: August 13, 2016, 12:57:02 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why is it silly? Cruz did fine with conservatives. The problem with Cruz is succinctly put, cracking the Friewall. However, he's not 10 points away from cracking the friewall.

Because those working class voters aren't conservatives. They don't care about the 'ryan budget', entitlements, etc.
Logged
Wisconsin+17
Ben Kenobi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: August 13, 2016, 01:17:07 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

They should because the ones who are actually working are paying for it.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: August 13, 2016, 01:18:54 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

They should because the ones who are actually working are paying for it.

Not when many of them are part of the 47%. 
Logged
Wisconsin+17
Ben Kenobi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: August 13, 2016, 01:21:00 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm one of the working ones. Pointing out that welfare gives them more benefits than working is one way to create lifelong republicans.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: August 13, 2016, 01:27:23 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm one of the working ones. Pointing out that welfare gives them more benefits than working is one way to create lifelong republicans.

We're not even talking about welfare, just basic services, like healthcare, etc. that republicans are against.
Logged
Young Conservative
youngconservative
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: August 13, 2016, 03:32:59 PM »

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.
This>>>>
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: August 13, 2016, 03:36:44 PM »

Fair map?
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: August 13, 2016, 03:51:00 PM »
« Edited: August 13, 2016, 03:55:40 PM by hopper »

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.

Yeah but Cruz never called Mexicans rapists or drug dealers though.
Logged
MATTROSE94
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,803
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -6.43

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: August 13, 2016, 06:36:15 PM »

Cruz would probably be well ahead in all the Romney 2012 states and a couple points ahead in Iowa, Colorado, Ohio, and Wisconsin as well if he was the Republican nominee.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: August 13, 2016, 10:12:02 PM »

Cruz would probably be well ahead in all the Romney 2012 states and a couple points ahead in Iowa, Colorado, Ohio, and Wisconsin as well if he was the Republican nominee.

He would've been barely competitive/trailing in NC, considering how poorly he consistently did in FL.

BS on Ohio and Wisconsin, even Colorado would be a tossup. If the last polls for even rubio had hillary up in OH over him, then she'd be up even higher on Cruz logically.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: August 13, 2016, 10:24:41 PM »


FL was one of his worst polling states, consistently. Only Kasich clearly dominated in FL v. Hillary. Even both jeb/rubio were pure tossups in the FL polls. People need to stop assuming Trump voters would've automatically gone for a generic R, and that generic R would've easily won. That's not how it works. It's why the primary game of assuming candidate x dropping out would cause those voters to go to candidate y didn't work. People vote for various reasons,& especially with Trump it's highly assymetrical.

+ Cruz would've had problems to a lesser extent with Republican women, but would've done worse with independents.
Logged
wolfsblood07
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 656
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: August 14, 2016, 12:28:25 AM »

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.
Agree.  And I voted for Cruz in the primary.  In this era it is nigh impossible for a true constitutional conservative to be elected president.  And that fact probably explains why evangelicals and people like Rush Limbaugh did not rally behind Cruz.  They got behind Trump because for all his flaws, he might actually win.  
Logged
MATTROSE94
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,803
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -6.43

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: August 14, 2016, 06:08:42 AM »

Cruz would probably be well ahead in all the Romney 2012 states and a couple points ahead in Iowa, Colorado, Ohio, and Wisconsin as well if he was the Republican nominee.

He would've been barely competitive/trailing in NC, considering how poorly he consistently did in FL.

BS on Ohio and Wisconsin, even Colorado would be a tossup. If the last polls for even rubio had hillary up in OH over him, then she'd be up even higher on Cruz logically.
North Carolina, Arizona, and Georgia would probably be close, but I could see Cruz carrying them by about the same percentage that Mitt Romney received in 2012. I also have have Cruz carrying Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Colorado due to high turnout by evangelical voters (which make up a sizable percentage of voters in all 4 of those states). On the other hand, Hillary Clinton would be polling about the same in Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Florida and a couple points higher in New Hampshire if Cruz were the nominee.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: August 14, 2016, 09:31:50 AM »

Cruz would probably be well ahead in all the Romney 2012 states and a couple points ahead in Iowa, Colorado, Ohio, and Wisconsin as well if he was the Republican nominee.

He would've been barely competitive/trailing in NC, considering how poorly he consistently did in FL.

BS on Ohio and Wisconsin, even Colorado would be a tossup. If the last polls for even rubio had hillary up in OH over him, then she'd be up even higher on Cruz logically.
North Carolina, Arizona, and Georgia would probably be close, but I could see Cruz carrying them by about the same percentage that Mitt Romney received in 2012. I also have have Cruz carrying Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Colorado due to high turnout by evangelical voters (which make up a sizable percentage of voters in all 4 of those states). On the other hand, Hillary Clinton would be polling about the same in Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Florida and a couple points higher in New Hampshire if Cruz were the nominee.

WI is a split polarized state, anyone other than Kasich would have had very little chance there, WI dems would be able to tie a typical Republican to Walker's policies and the Kochs in a conventional race, and get huge turnout for the progressive voters, that's why not even Bush could win it. OH is a little less polarized, so Republicans there are the more 'compassionate conservative' Kasich/Portman types, which could cause problems in different ways. You can be hard-right socially, sure, but being hard-right economically is another story. IA and CO are flippable due to potentially weaker turnout from left-wing bernie-type voters, but they would still be toss-ups vs. Cruz, perhaps with a slight lean for IA for Cruz, but that's about it.
Logged
I Will Not Be Wrong
outofbox6
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,346
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: August 14, 2016, 10:14:03 AM »

Would still be losing to Clinton, but it would be close at least.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: August 14, 2016, 10:34:29 AM »

Would still be losing to Clinton, but it would be close at least.

A little bit closer in the PV sure, but keep in mind that even Jeb/Rubio would've struggled with the EV and been at a disadvantage, Kasich is the only one who would've been favored with the EV map and would've convincingly done well in both the EV and PV.
Logged
Redban
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,931


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: August 14, 2016, 11:13:07 AM »

Cruz would probably be well ahead in all the Romney 2012 states and a couple points ahead in Iowa, Colorado, Ohio, and Wisconsin as well if he was the Republican nominee.

He would've been barely competitive/trailing in NC, considering how poorly he consistently did in FL.

BS on Ohio and Wisconsin, even Colorado would be a tossup. If the last polls for even rubio had hillary up in OH over him, then she'd be up even higher on Cruz logically.
North Carolina, Arizona, and Georgia would probably be close, but I could see Cruz carrying them by about the same percentage that Mitt Romney received in 2012. I also have have Cruz carrying Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Colorado due to high turnout by evangelical voters (which make up a sizable percentage of voters in all 4 of those states).] On the other hand, Hillary Clinton would be polling about the same in Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Florida and a couple points higher in New Hampshire if Cruz were the nominee.

Incorrect. The evangelical vote has already solidified behind Trump. How can Cruz, thus, put those states in-play on the backs of evangelicals:

http://www.pewforum.org/2016/07/13/evangelicals-rally-to-trump-religious-nones-back-clinton/

Logged
MATTROSE94
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,803
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -6.43

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: August 15, 2016, 10:16:38 AM »

Cruz would probably be well ahead in all the Romney 2012 states and a couple points ahead in Iowa, Colorado, Ohio, and Wisconsin as well if he was the Republican nominee.

He would've been barely competitive/trailing in NC, considering how poorly he consistently did in FL.

BS on Ohio and Wisconsin, even Colorado would be a tossup. If the last polls for even rubio had hillary up in OH over him, then she'd be up even higher on Cruz logically.
North Carolina, Arizona, and Georgia would probably be close, but I could see Cruz carrying them by about the same percentage that Mitt Romney received in 2012. I also have have Cruz carrying Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Colorado due to high turnout by evangelical voters (which make up a sizable percentage of voters in all 4 of those states).] On the other hand, Hillary Clinton would be polling about the same in Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Florida and a couple points higher in New Hampshire if Cruz were the nominee.

Incorrect. The evangelical vote has already solidified behind Trump. How can Cruz, thus, put those states in-play on the backs of evangelicals:

http://www.pewforum.org/2016/07/13/evangelicals-rally-to-trump-religious-nones-back-clinton/


Ted Cruz has a much more consistent record in favor of socially conservative values than Donald Trump. For example, Trump was pro-choice up until a few years ago, has a mixed record on same-sex marriage, only offered lukewarm support for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and is opposed to laws banning transgender individuals from using a bathroom that does not match their gender at birth. On the other hand, Cruz has been a strong opponent of abortion and same-sex marriage since he first entered into politics, strongly supported the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and strongly supports laws banning transgender individuals from using a bathroom that does not match their gender at birth. As a result, I feel that Cruz would have gotten the support of about 80-85% of evangelical voters if he was the Republican nominee as opposed to the 78% of evangelical voters who support Trump.
Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,816
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: August 15, 2016, 10:24:44 AM »

I thought this election effectively destroyed the Evangelical myth?
Logged
Redban
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,931


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: August 15, 2016, 10:37:37 AM »

Cruz would probably be well ahead in all the Romney 2012 states and a couple points ahead in Iowa, Colorado, Ohio, and Wisconsin as well if he was the Republican nominee.

He would've been barely competitive/trailing in NC, considering how poorly he consistently did in FL.

BS on Ohio and Wisconsin, even Colorado would be a tossup. If the last polls for even rubio had hillary up in OH over him, then she'd be up even higher on Cruz logically.
North Carolina, Arizona, and Georgia would probably be close, but I could see Cruz carrying them by about the same percentage that Mitt Romney received in 2012. I also have have Cruz carrying Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Colorado due to high turnout by evangelical voters (which make up a sizable percentage of voters in all 4 of those states).] On the other hand, Hillary Clinton would be polling about the same in Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Florida and a couple points higher in New Hampshire if Cruz were the nominee.

Incorrect. The evangelical vote has already solidified behind Trump. How can Cruz, thus, put those states in-play on the backs of evangelicals:

http://www.pewforum.org/2016/07/13/evangelicals-rally-to-trump-religious-nones-back-clinton/


Ted Cruz has a much more consistent record in favor of socially conservative values than Donald Trump. For example, Trump was pro-choice up until a few years ago, has a mixed record on same-sex marriage, only offered lukewarm support for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and is opposed to laws banning transgender individuals from using a bathroom that does not match their gender at birth. On the other hand, Cruz has been a strong opponent of abortion and same-sex marriage since he first entered into politics, strongly supported the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and strongly supports laws banning transgender individuals from using a bathroom that does not match their gender at birth. As a result, I feel that Cruz would have gotten the support of about 80-85% of evangelical voters if he was the Republican nominee as opposed to the 78% of evangelical voters who support Trump.

Bush in 2004 won 79% of evangelicals, the highest in recent memory. You really think that Cruz, in a less favorable environment, will beat his total by so much? The issues you've mentioned (e.g. abortion and gay rights) were more prominent in 2004 than now too.

Even if you concede that Cruz gets a record-shattering 80-85% (which is doubtful), that increase still won't be enough to put Wisconsin and Colorado in-play.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.051 seconds with 14 queries.