Ted Cruz - Biggest Loser of 2016

[Medal506]

Cruz certainly has a much bigger chance in 2024 than atlas users want to think. He just defeated a man who had nearly twice as much campaign money than he did. He finished second place in the 2016 primaries with almost the same amount of votes as Romney received in the 2012 republican primaries. He received more votes than both Kasich and Rubio combined. He was the most competitive runner up since Reagan and Ford in 1976. He will be in the national spot light in 2020 - 2024 because he will be an incumbent politican at the time. I think many people on the left and on rino republican right are trying desperately to suppress Ted Cruz and constantly try to reiterate the idea that Ted Cruz has no chance of winning any national election in the future because he did not come in first in 2016 because they really are afraid of Ted Cruz and the possibility of having to face him in a general election.

[lfromnj]

Cruz certainly has a much bigger chance in 2024 than atlas users want to think. He just defeated a man who had nearly twice as much campaign money than he did. He finished second place in the 2016 primaries with almost the same amount of votes as Romney received in the 2012 republican primaries. He received more votes than both Kasich and Rubio combined. He was the most competitive runner up since Reagan and Ford in 1976. He will be in the national spot light in 2020 - 2024 because he will be an incumbent politican at the time. I think many people on the left and on rino republican right are trying desperately to suppress Ted Cruz and constantly try to reiterate the idea that Ted Cruz has no chance of winning any national election in the future because he did not come in first in 2016 because they really are afraid of Ted Cruz and the possibility of having to face him in a general election.

He may have had twice the campaign cash but Abbot's chest cancelled that out with the texas gop's much better infrastructure.

[Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez]

One problem Cruz will have in 2024 is that he will have to run AND run for his Senate seat at the same time.  Cruz may tire of the Senate; he's not popular with his peers and his eyes are set on bigger things.

Beto almost beat Cruz, and while Beto had a lot of money, some of this is due to the fact that lots of folks don't like Ted Cruz as a person.  That includes a chunk of folks who vote for him because they agree with him for the most part.

[Medal506]

One problem Cruz will have in 2024 is that he will have to run AND run for his Senate seat at the same time.  Cruz may tire of the Senate; he's not popular with his peers and his eyes are set on bigger things.

Beto almost beat Cruz, and while Beto had a lot of money, some of this is due to the fact that lots of folks don't like Ted Cruz as a person.  That includes a chunk of folks who vote for him because they agree with him for the most part.

Cruz will probably only run for President and he is likely to win the nomination because he did historically well in 2016. We have to remember McCain got crushed in 2000 and 8 years later won the nomination. Cruz didn't even do that bad. He was the most competitive runner up since Reagan in 1976 and he got more votes than Kasich and Rubio combined. At the beginning he had virtually no support but he was able to build from the ground up to what he eventually got at the end which was around 8 million votes and almost as many votes as Romney got in 2012. This time in 2024 Cruz is going in with all the name recognition and as the runner up in 2016 and he'll probably start out as the top three in polling in Iowa and South Carolina and he'll likely end up winning at least one of those two states. In terms of Cruz almost losing to O'Rourke, O'Rourke was flooded with Hollywood money and had twice as much money as Cruz. Studies have shown that 91 percent of the time the candidate with the most money ends up winning and let's not forget which side the media was on. Point is Cruz is highly underestimated on this website.

[Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez]

One problem Cruz will have in 2024 is that he will have to run AND run for his Senate seat at the same time.  Cruz may tire of the Senate; he's not popular with his peers and his eyes are set on bigger things.

Beto almost beat Cruz, and while Beto had a lot of money, some of this is due to the fact that lots of folks don't like Ted Cruz as a person.  That includes a chunk of folks who vote for him because they agree with him for the most part.

Cruz will probably only run for President and he is likely to win the nomination because he did historically well in 2016. We have to remember McCain got crushed in 2000 and 8 years later won the nomination. Cruz didn't even do that bad. He was the most competitive runner up since Reagan in 1976 and he got more votes than Kasich and Rubio combined. At the beginning he had virtually no support but he was able to build from the ground up to what he eventually got at the end which was around 8 million votes and almost as many votes as Romney got in 2012. This time in 2024 Cruz is going in with all the name recognition and as the runner up in 2016 and he'll probably start out as the top three in polling in Iowa and South Carolina and he'll likely end up winning one of those two states. In terms of Cruz almost losing to O'Rourke, O'Rouker was flooding with Hollywood money and had twice as much money as Cruz. Studies have shown that 91 percent of the time the candidate with the most money ends up winning and let's not forget which side the media was on. Point is Cruz is highly underestimated on this website.

His star seems to be dimming.  He's not a leader in the Senate; he's an outsider whom McConnell can't stand, yet the way the 2016 campaign unfolded, with Cruz actually being the ESTABLISHMENT candidate at the very end vs. Trump diminished his "outsider" star.  The 2016 campaign didn't go well for Cruz; he would have been better off had he folded early.  Going on to the bitter end reinforced the image of Cruz underperforming and falling short.  Cruz was a brash newcomer and a coming star going into 2016; now, he's almost a backbencher, overshadowed by Trump and McConnell who both hate him and are hated by him.

[Medal506]

Cruz is dishonest, unlikeable, and his policies aren't popular with the broader electorate.

Is that the reason why Cruz was polling better than Trump was in the general election?

[Medal506]

One problem Cruz will have in 2024 is that he will have to run AND run for his Senate seat at the same time.  Cruz may tire of the Senate; he's not popular with his peers and his eyes are set on bigger things.

Beto almost beat Cruz, and while Beto had a lot of money, some of this is due to the fact that lots of folks don't like Ted Cruz as a person.  That includes a chunk of folks who vote for him because they agree with him for the most part.

Cruz will probably only run for President and he is likely to win the nomination because he did historically well in 2016. We have to remember McCain got crushed in 2000 and 8 years later won the nomination. Cruz didn't even do that bad. He was the most competitive runner up since Reagan in 1976 and he got more votes than Kasich and Rubio combined. At the beginning he had virtually no support but he was able to build from the ground up to what he eventually got at the end which was around 8 million votes and almost as many votes as Romney got in 2012. This time in 2024 Cruz is going in with all the name recognition and as the runner up in 2016 and he'll probably start out as the top three in polling in Iowa and South Carolina and he'll likely end up winning one of those two states. In terms of Cruz almost losing to O'Rourke, O'Rouker was flooding with Hollywood money and had twice as much money as Cruz. Studies have shown that 91 percent of the time the candidate with the most money ends up winning and let's not forget which side the media was on. Point is Cruz is highly underestimated on this website.

His star seems to be dimming.  He's not a leader in the Senate; he's an outsider whom McConnell can't stand, yet the way the 2016 campaign unfolded, with Cruz actually being the ESTABLISHMENT candidate at the very end vs. Trump diminished his "outsider" star.  The 2016 campaign didn't go well for Cruz; he would have been better off had he folded early.  Going on to the bitter end reinforced the image of Cruz underperforming and falling short.  Cruz was a brash newcomer and a coming star going into 2016; now, he's almost a backbencher, overshadowed by Trump and McConnell who both hate him and are hated by him.

Cruz was not the establishment candidate. In fact the establishment was behind the scenes planning on snubbing both Trump and Cruz at the convention by giving the nomination to a Paul Ryan or a Mitt Romney. The fact that McConnell is against Cruz actually helped him in the primaries because the fact is conservatives and republicans can't stand McConnell or the establishment. Hence why Rubio and Kasich won only 1 state in the primaries. The truth is the biggest loser was probably Rubio because he was supposed to sweep the map and many considered him to be the GOP's barack obama. Instead he won one state that wasn't even his own. There also a good chance Rubio will lose his re election in 2022.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

Cruz is dishonest, unlikeable, and his policies aren't popular with the broader electorate.

Is that the reason why Cruz was polling better than Trump was in the general election?

So you think Bernie Sanders would have destroyed Trump in a landslide, right?

[Medal506]

Cruz is dishonest, unlikeable, and his policies aren't popular with the broader electorate.

Is that the reason why Cruz was polling better than Trump was in the general election?

So you think Bernie Sanders would have destroyed Trump in a landslide, right?

No because Clinton also lead Trump by double digits in the polls in April of 2016. If Clinton couldn't beat Trump then Sanders certainly couldn't have beaten Trump. My point was Trump was doing terrible in the polls yet he still won. So if Cruz was doing better then chances are he would have also done better in the popular vote.

[RFayette]

Cruz is dishonest, unlikeable, and his policies aren't popular with the broader electorate.

Is that the reason why Cruz was polling better than Trump was in the general election?

So you think Bernie Sanders would have destroyed Trump in a landslide, right?

No because Clinton also lead Trump by double digits in the polls in April of 2016. If Clinton couldn't beat Trump then Sanders certainly couldn't have beaten Trump. My point was Trump was doing terrible in the polls yet he still won. So if Cruz was doing better then chances are he would have also done better in the popular vote.

I agree that Cruz definitely would've won the popular vote against Clinton.  My only fear is he would have had trouble in the Rust belt and may not have gotten to 270 EV's - 2016 Trump definitely had a coalition well-suited for the electoral college, and I'm not as certain if Cruz would've had the same luck. 

[Medal506]

Cruz is dishonest, unlikeable, and his policies aren't popular with the broader electorate.

Is that the reason why Cruz was polling better than Trump was in the general election?

So you think Bernie Sanders would have destroyed Trump in a landslide, right?

No because Clinton also lead Trump by double digits in the polls in April of 2016. If Clinton couldn't beat Trump then Sanders certainly couldn't have beaten Trump. My point was Trump was doing terrible in the polls yet he still won. So if Cruz was doing better then chances are he would have also done better in the popular vote.

I agree that Cruz definitely would've won the popular vote against Clinton.  My only fear is he would have had trouble in the Rust belt and may not have gotten to 270 EV's - 2016 Trump definitely had a coalition well-suited for the electoral college, and I'm not as certain if Cruz would've had the same luck. 

This probably would have been the map. Pennsylvania can be debated but I think Cruz would have nailed Clinton on her anti coal position which in turn would have costed her Pennsylvania.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)/CEO Carly Fiorina (R-CA) - 296 EV, 49.0% PV
Frm Sec. Hillary Clinton (D-NY)/Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) - 242 EV, 47.0% PV

[Wazza [INACTIVE]]

Nah. Cruz may have lost the primary but his party still won the presidency and he was able to hold onto his senate seat in 2018. It wouldn't be Rubio or Sanders either because they just went back to the senate, won reelection in 2016/2018 and now Sanders is trying again for 2020 whilst Rubio is still young (for a politician). The biggest loser would be Hillary, because losing to Trump destroyed her credibility and was the bitter end to her political career.

[Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez]

One problem Cruz will have in 2024 is that he will have to run AND run for his Senate seat at the same time.  Cruz may tire of the Senate; he's not popular with his peers and his eyes are set on bigger things.

Beto almost beat Cruz, and while Beto had a lot of money, some of this is due to the fact that lots of folks don't like Ted Cruz as a person.  That includes a chunk of folks who vote for him because they agree with him for the most part.

Cruz will probably only run for President and he is likely to win the nomination because he did historically well in 2016. We have to remember McCain got crushed in 2000 and 8 years later won the nomination. Cruz didn't even do that bad. He was the most competitive runner up since Reagan in 1976 and he got more votes than Kasich and Rubio combined. At the beginning he had virtually no support but he was able to build from the ground up to what he eventually got at the end which was around 8 million votes and almost as many votes as Romney got in 2012. This time in 2024 Cruz is going in with all the name recognition and as the runner up in 2016 and he'll probably start out as the top three in polling in Iowa and South Carolina and he'll likely end up winning one of those two states. In terms of Cruz almost losing to O'Rourke, O'Rouker was flooding with Hollywood money and had twice as much money as Cruz. Studies have shown that 91 percent of the time the candidate with the most money ends up winning and let's not forget which side the media was on. Point is Cruz is highly underestimated on this website.

His star seems to be dimming.  He's not a leader in the Senate; he's an outsider whom McConnell can't stand, yet the way the 2016 campaign unfolded, with Cruz actually being the ESTABLISHMENT candidate at the very end vs. Trump diminished his "outsider" star.  The 2016 campaign didn't go well for Cruz; he would have been better off had he folded early.  Going on to the bitter end reinforced the image of Cruz underperforming and falling short.  Cruz was a brash newcomer and a coming star going into 2016; now, he's almost a backbencher, overshadowed by Trump and McConnell who both hate him and are hated by him.

Cruz was not the establishment candidate. In fact the establishment was behind the scenes planning on snubbing both Trump and Cruz at the convention by giving the nomination to a Paul Ryan or a Mitt Romney. The fact that McConnell is against Cruz actually helped him in the primaries because the fact is conservatives and republicans can't stand McConnell or the establishment. Hence why Rubio and Kasich won only 1 state in the primaries. The truth is the biggest loser was probably Rubio because he was supposed to sweep the map and many considered him to be the GOP's barack obama. Instead he won one state that wasn't even his own. There also a good chance Rubio will lose his re election in 2022.

Cruz became the "Establishment Candidate" when the GOP Establishment ran out of viable candidates to mount an opposition to Trump.  He was the candidate who had the best chance of blocking Trump at the convention, when it became clear that the only way to stop Trump was to tie up the convention to force a second ballot.  I believe that the GOP Establishment, along with most "Movement Conservatives" very much wanted to do this, but they lost their nerve.  Trump was not going to go gently into that good night; if he was going to be blocked at the convention, Trump would ensure that it was done in full view of the voters on TV and in the media.  By this time, the hour was late, the odds not great, and the bulk of the GOP were resigned to making the best of a Clinton victory. 

Cruz did realize that while the "Establishment" turned to him after Jeb! and Rubio fizzled and Kasich seemed to be a non-starter that was unacceptable to Movement Conservatives, he was not really their choice and he knew that, on a second ballot, they may have used the rules to nominate Jeb! or Rubio or some other Establishment candidate.  Cruz isn't an idiot and he knew what time it was, politically.  He wasn't going to fight Trump to the bitter end because he knew that Trump was in it to win it (unlike so many others who thought the campaign was a publicity stunt.  Cruz wasn't a Trump Denier.  I suppose few are today.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

The Republican "establishment" largely preferred Trump to Cruz, which is why he won.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Bold prediction: Cruz is remembered by future amateur political "historians" as a moderate Republican based solely on his opposition to Trump in the 2016 primary, without any further study of his actual positions or beliefs.

[President Johnson]

Bold prediction: Cruz is remembered by future amateur political "historians" as a moderate Republican based solely on his opposition to Trump in the 2016 primary, without any further study of his actual positions or beliefs.

Maybe if the standard bearers of the post-Trump Republican Party become figures like Richard Spencer, Ann Coulter or Alex Jones.

[Medal506]

The Republican "establishment" largely preferred Trump to Cruz, which is why he won.

This exactly!

[Adam Griffin]

Cruz is dishonest, unlikeable, and his policies aren't popular with the broader electorate.

Is that the reason why Cruz was polling better than Trump was in the general election?

So you think Bernie Sanders would have destroyed Trump in a landslide, right?

No because Clinton also lead Trump by double digits in the polls in April of 2016. If Clinton couldn't beat Trump then Sanders certainly couldn't have beaten Trump. My point was Trump was doing terrible in the polls yet he still won. So if Cruz was doing better then chances are he would have also done better in the popular vote.

I agree that Cruz definitely would've won the popular vote against Clinton.  My only fear is he would have had trouble in the Rust belt and may not have gotten to 270 EV's - 2016 Trump definitely had a coalition well-suited for the electoral college, and I'm not as certain if Cruz would've had the same luck.  

Curious as to why you'd think this was possible? The following sentence basically explains why I'm skeptical: a disproportionate amount of voters who helped prop up Trump's PV totals were (at least at the time) people who would have never had the same fondness for Cruz, who were scattered throughout the Midwest, who had a propensity until then to vote for Democrats and who wouldn't have even necessarily agreed with his movement conservative message.

I have a hard time seeing Cruz doing better in a statistically significant sense in any urban areas, and while maybe he'd have been a bit stronger in the suburbs, I'm beginning to think that 2016 wasn't just about Trump - that the suburbs were/are shifting away from the GOP no matter what; it wasn't just about Trump's persona or p[inks]y-grabbing. As much as some say Trump was a terrible fit for the 'burbs, Clinton was also a pretty good fit as well.

At any rate, I have a hard time seeing Cruz being able to make up 2+ points in the PV margin given all of this.

[AN63093]

I don't think Cruz was the biggest loser.  To the extent he was exposed, it was to something that people already suspected about him anyway.  It's not like he transformed from JFK into Nixon.  He was widely seen as a polarizing figure that would have trouble uniting the party in '16, and he was gonna be seen that way in '24 too, no matter how the election in '16 exactly unfolded.

Rubio is in the running, but I tend to think that he would've been exposed as a lightweight eventually anyway.  If Christie hadn't done it, someone else would have.  And even if that never happened, he didn't have wide enough support to win the nomination, and by 2024 he would've been yesterday's news.  See Booker for an example of what effect that has.  It was just never in the cards for Rubio.

The winner is Jeb Bush.  From going to the establishment favorite, well positioned to win the nomination, with a gigantic war chest... to utter humiliation.  And unlike Cruz, if Bush had won the nomination, there's a chance he never would've been exposed at all.  Clinton wasn't a great candidate and Bush would've had a legitimate shot.  Heck, he could've been president right now.  The absolute dismantling of Bush by Trump is unlike anything I've ever seen in over 25 years of following politics... it was truly a remarkable sight to see.

I think Bush wins over Clinton even, because even though they both have no future, she still has the respect of some people in the Dem establishment (even if begrudgingly), whereas Bush is now a national laughingstock with both D and R alike.