Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 23, 2017, 06:18:18 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  2016 U.S. Presidential Election (Moderators: AndrewTX, Likely Voter, TJ in Wisco)
| | |-+  Would Ted Cruz have won? We're about to find out from Gillespie....
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: Would Ted Cruz have won? We're about to find out from Gillespie....  (Read 1251 times)
uti2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1169


View Profile
« on: October 17, 2017, 12:57:15 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
Chris Murphy 2020
MAINEiac4434
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3765
France


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -8.78

P
View Profile
« Reply #1 on: October 17, 2017, 01:06:06 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Arbitrage1980
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 462
View Profile
« Reply #2 on: October 17, 2017, 01:10:37 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
Greedo The Hunter
Benjamin Harrison he is w
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 613
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.77, S: 4.50

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: October 17, 2017, 01:14:14 pm »
Ignore

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.
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.
Logged

ROY MOORE CAN YOU PLEASE DROP OUT

Sincerely everyone
uti2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1169


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: October 17, 2017, 01:19:21 pm »
Ignore

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.

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.
Logged
Vosem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9726
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: -6.26


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: October 17, 2017, 02:13:04 pm »
Ignore

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).
Logged

I will NOT be accepting any result other than a victory for America's next President, Governor Gary Earl Johnson Angry
RFayette
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6917
United States


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: October 17, 2017, 09:17:35 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

darklordoftech
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 663
United States


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: October 18, 2017, 08:04:22 pm »
Ignore

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.
I'd be happy if he got rid of corn subsidies and brought fries back to the cafeteria.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7580


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: October 18, 2017, 08:29:00 pm »
Ignore

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.

Logged

Favorite Politicians from the last 50 years:




Economic Score: 3.61
Social: -0.1


"http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/28x23.gif

Foreign Policy: 1.6


My Timeline: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=261223.0
People's Speaker North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 37351
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: October 18, 2017, 09:05:31 pm »
Ignore

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.



« Last Edit: October 18, 2017, 09:10:16 pm by People's Speaker North Carolina Yankee »Logged

People's Speaker of the Atlasian House of Representatives

L.D. Smith, Aggie! It's Real Expenses Again
MormDem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13220
United States


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: October 19, 2017, 01:02:02 am »
Ignore

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.

Logged

Atlas PM Score:

S: 3.7
E: -7.4
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3549
United States


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: October 19, 2017, 10:08:11 pm »
Ignore

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.)
« Last Edit: October 19, 2017, 10:24:11 pm by Mister Mets »Logged
Fuzzy Bear
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5214


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: October 20, 2017, 03:26:21 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

"The family cannot be constituted like the liberal state, nor can it be governed entirely by that state's principles. Yet the family serves as the seedbed for the virtues required by a liberal state. The family is responsible for teaching lessons of independence, self-restraint, responsibility, and right conduct, which are essential to a free, democratic society. If the family fails in these tasks, then the entire experiment in democratic self-rule is jeopardized."-Barbara Dafoe Whitehead
Soonerdem
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 52
United States


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: October 20, 2017, 03:49:28 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED
ahugecat
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 870


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: October 20, 2017, 04:52:29 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
uti2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1169


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: October 21, 2017, 12:38:57 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
Skill and Chance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3491
View Profile
« Reply #16 on: October 21, 2017, 01:56:32 pm »
Ignore

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.

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%


Logged
Kingpoleon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15844
United States


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: October 21, 2017, 02:54:21 pm »
Ignore


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

"America now is stumbling through the darkness of hatred and divisiveness. Our values, our principles, and our determination to succeed as a free and democratic people will give us a torch to light the way." - Gerald Ford

"Good speech and good looks covers man's every vice. Plain speech and plain looks covers man's every virtue."

Economic: 1.38
Social: -2.36
60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED
ahugecat
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 870


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: October 21, 2017, 10:26:53 pm »
Ignore

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.

Cruz would have gotten mauled in a general election.

He'd be lucky to get more EVs than Romney.
Logged
Wolverine22
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2443
United States


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: October 21, 2017, 10:31:24 pm »
Ignore

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



"There is nothing more dangerous than a pawn that thinks it's a queen."
-President Tom Kirkman (Designated Survivor)

Kirsten Gillibrand for President in 2020!
Shadows
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3919
View Profile
« Reply #20 on: October 22, 2017, 05:28:18 am »
Ignore

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.

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.
Logged

60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED
ahugecat
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 870


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: October 22, 2017, 03:47:56 pm »
Ignore

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

- Calls Trump supporters "rural white racists"

- Lives in Michigan
Logged
ExtremeConservative
ExtremeRepublican
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5254


Political Matrix
E: 10.00, S: 8.96

P
View Profile
« Reply #22 on: October 24, 2017, 10:44:11 pm »
Ignore

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.

Cruz would have gotten mauled in a general election.

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

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:
Logged

Far-right social, fiscal, and neo-conservative.  Centrist on immigration.  Abortion is murder!

The conservative movement is being damaged massively by Donald Trump.  Other than Neil Gorsuch, we have failed to have any meaningful accomplishments that were not potentially temporary executive orders.  That, combined with the off year election results tell me that I'M READY FOR PENCE
uti2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1169


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: October 25, 2017, 02:15:51 pm »
Ignore

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.

Cruz would have gotten mauled in a general election.

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

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.

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.
Logged
Fmr. Pres. Griff
Adam Griffin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12151
Greece


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: October 26, 2017, 11:06:18 pm »
Ignore

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

« Last Edit: October 26, 2017, 11:08:54 pm by Fmr. Pres. Griffin »Logged



To some extent, Griffin was in many ways elected as a War time President because he viewed, not as the guy you want a beer with, but the guy you would go to a bar fight with.

I'm not crazy by the way.
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines