Ted Cruz - Biggest Loser of 2016

[uti2]

Not really, people need to remember where Cruz polled back in early 2015, he polled in the bottom rung, the fact that he was able to rise to second place is a testament to his ability. The biggest losers were the establishment candidates Jeb/Rubio/Walker, this category under-performed expectations, Cruz and his Conservative wing over-performed.  By the way, Kasich and his moderate wing, also over-performed.

[uti2]

Not really, people need to remember where Cruz polled back in early 2015, he polled in the bottom rung, the fact that he was able to rise to second place is a testament to his ability. The biggest losers were the establishment candidates Jeb/Rubio/Walker, this category under-performed expectations, Cruz and his Conservative wing over-performed.  By the way, Kasich and his moderate wing, also over-performed.

At the beginning of the 2015 cycle, I viewed Kasich as the most electable Republican, moreso than Jeb or Rubio, and there was polling data to back that up, but no one seemed to see this.  

Kasich really turned out to be a bust.  He was the runner-up only because he didn't drop out.  Marco Rubio got more delegates than Kasich.

He was a runner-up because he won his home state, while Rubio lost his, there were a number of states in which Rubio came in fourth behind Kasich.

[uti2]

I wouldn't put Cruz in the same league as Taft/Goldwater/Gore/Dole etc because all those people were popular within the Senate, and considered relative titans in their party. Most of the GOP in Washington hates Cruz, because Cruz uses his Senate Seat as a stick to bash the national GOP. He did it against Dewhurst in 2012 and then closed down the government with Obamacare.

I think the campaign exposed that Cruz really is an unlikable Jerk. The whole thing with his children not wanting to kiss him, the bacon on the gun,  trying to push Huckabee off stage with Kim Davis, lying about Ben Carson, 'vote your conscience' and then endorsing Trump.

Generally politicians who are ideological like Cruz need to be extremely likable. Reagan and Obama are the most obvious (but there's a host of lesser pols like Edwards/Rubio who use their backstory to justify more 'radical' policies). Cruz is the fatal combination of a social Conservative, a Tea-Bagger and a spineless, sleaze.

I think the 2016 campaign exposed this; but their traits that always existed.

The irony is that whilst he ran an awful Campaign, it's going to perfectly possible for Marco Rubio to run for President in 2024, and win. Even though Ted's 2016 campaign was great, he's still a sh**t product to sell

Nixon won a landslide in 1972 despite not being 'likable', and he won the nomination again after losing a presidential election the first time around.

[uti2]

Presumably whoever would have won the nomination in the event that Trump hadn't run turned out to be the biggest loser.

In which case, it would particularly be most brutal for Jeb.

[uti2]

I wouldn't put Cruz in the same league as Taft/Goldwater/Gore/Dole etc because all those people were popular within the Senate, and considered relative titans in their party. Most of the GOP in Washington hates Cruz, because Cruz uses his Senate Seat as a stick to bash the national GOP. He did it against Dewhurst in 2012 and then closed down the government with Obamacare.

I think the campaign exposed that Cruz really is an unlikable Jerk. The whole thing with his children not wanting to kiss him, the bacon on the gun,  trying to push Huckabee off stage with Kim Davis, lying about Ben Carson, 'vote your conscience' and then endorsing Trump.

Generally politicians who are ideological like Cruz need to be extremely likable. Reagan and Obama are the most obvious (but there's a host of lesser pols like Edwards/Rubio who use their backstory to justify more 'radical' policies). Cruz is the fatal combination of a social Conservative, a Tea-Bagger and a spineless, sleaze.

I think the 2016 campaign exposed this; but their traits that always existed.

The irony is that whilst he ran an awful Campaign, it's going to perfectly possible for Marco Rubio to run for President in 2024, and win. Even though Ted's 2016 campaign was great, he's still a sh**t product to sell

Nixon won a landslide in 1972 despite not being 'likable', and he won the nomination again after losing a presidential election the first time around.

The point is that, while he might not have been particularly “likable”, he wasn’t particularly ideological either. By 1968, Nixon had practically mastered the art of being a political chimera.

Cruz has been in the process of rebranding for a while now:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/meet-the-new-ted-cruz-214681

We'll see how that unfolds, but it's pretty clear that Cruz isn't doing the same thing again.

[uti2]

I don't see how. Prior to New Hampshire in 2016, how many here would have said that Cruz would have won Wisconsin, and been a contender all the way until then?

In Jan 2016 the consensus was that it would primarily be a Trump v. Cruz race. You're correct though in that if you turned back the clock months before that, no one was necessarily confident in the idea that Cruz would be a final contender. After Jeb and Walker declined following Trump's entry, people were making noise about Carson, Fiorina, etc. it was up in the air for everyone. Certainly, prior to Trump's entry though, not many people thought that Cruz was going to be a major force.

[uti2]

I wouldn't put Cruz in the same league as Taft/Goldwater/Gore/Dole etc because all those people were popular within the Senate, and considered relative titans in their party. Most of the GOP in Washington hates Cruz, because Cruz uses his Senate Seat as a stick to bash the national GOP. He did it against Dewhurst in 2012 and then closed down the government with Obamacare.

I think the campaign exposed that Cruz really is an unlikable Jerk. The whole thing with his children not wanting to kiss him, the bacon on the gun,  trying to push Huckabee off stage with Kim Davis, lying about Ben Carson, 'vote your conscience' and then endorsing Trump.

Generally politicians who are ideological like Cruz need to be extremely likable. Reagan and Obama are the most obvious (but there's a host of lesser pols like Edwards/Rubio who use their backstory to justify more 'radical' policies). Cruz is the fatal combination of a social Conservative, a Tea-Bagger and a spineless, sleaze.

I think the 2016 campaign exposed this; but their traits that always existed.

The irony is that whilst he ran an awful Campaign, it's going to perfectly possible for Marco Rubio to run for President in 2024, and win. Even though Ted's 2016 campaign was great, he's still a sh**t product to sell

Nixon won a landslide in 1972 despite not being 'likable', and he won the nomination again after losing a presidential election the first time around.

As Cath says, my point was about being unlikable, and ridiculously ideological. Ofc once you're President you can get away with being less likeable, as you've got the power of the Office, achievements to point to etc.

If Nixon had the views of say Jesse Helms, and ran in 1968, I don't think he would have got the nomination.

I don't see how. Prior to New Hampshire in 2016, how many here would have said that Cruz would have won Wisconsin, and been a contender all the way until then?

For a while I had Cruz as the likely nominee. He was the only evangelical who was going to make it out of Iowa in any shape, and had a serious ground game in the South which would have allowed him to continue. The GOP primary in 2016 would have been very interesting if Trump hadn't came along and scrambled the system.  

Sue, but on a relative scale, you say Rubio say has done better relative to Cruz, but it should be mentioned that Rubio is pretty ideological himself and has also taken a big hit in approval.

https://poll.qu.edu/florida/release-detail?ReleaseID=2523