Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Cruz Will Lose
I am just stating it now, for the record. Mind you, this is not a reflection on the character of the man, on his abilities, or on how great a president he would be if he would win the White House. No, I’m simply stating that he will not win the White House in the first place.
But first let me begin with some observations, caveats, and warnings. Back in the waning days of 2011 — and in the early days of 2012 — I expressed similar doubts about Romney. I (and others here) said that he would not be able to beat Obama in the general election, only to met with a variety of statements* that assumed we had it out for Romney. Recent tentative remarks by me about Cruz have been met with similar counter-arguments, generally to the effect of swapping out “Mormons” for “Texans.” So, to get this out of the way I will state that: This isn’t about Texas or Texans; This is not about faith; If Cruz gets the nomination, I will certainly vote for him; I neither like nor dislike him.
(And no, I don’t have a favorite candidate in the primaries. I’m in Ohio, and my primary vote will be worthless by the time I get to cast it, as it has in every other primary since I’ve been born.)
That said, I’ll get down to why I believe that the Cruz candidacy is unlikely to cross the finish line come November (and keep in mind that I’d love to be proven wrong.
First, there is Cruz’s personality and speaking style. He is a great speaker when speaking to the base on basic matters, but his tone and delivery are — especially if you are not already inclined to agree with him — abrasive and preachy. When discussing him with the less politically minded (i.e., centrists, moderates, irregular voters, blue-collar Democrats), the common remark I hear is that he sounds like a fire and brimstone preacher of the old school. I’ve also heard him likened unfavorably to televangelists of the sort that ask for money. First impressions are hard to shake, and a lot of people already have a negative view of Cruz because he sounds like the stereotypical “judgmental, repressive, Republican fat-cat lawyer” so often used as a villain trope in movies and television. He has less than a year to change this impression, but he is still playing to that type.
The fact is that, candidates are judged on their personalities as much as on issues. They must present public personality that people can both identify and like. George W. Bush seemed like an affable and sincere sort of guy, especially compared to Kerry and Gore. Bill Clinton oozed charisma, especially against the elderly Dole. In 2008, Obama came across as the cool, but deeply passionate and hip student council president against the cranky and erratic McCain; four years later, he modified his persona as the world-weary-yet-still-loving father against the stilted and uncaring tycoon of Romney. Dukakis, Mondale, and Carter speak for themselves (Carter still speaking way too much). What persona is Cruz offering to America? An angry and smart know-it-all.
My second concern is that I suspect Cruz’s tactics in the general election will be deeply flawed. We should be honest in our appraisal of the American electorate: it is moved not by intellectual debate but by moral and emotional suasion of the right sort. By “the right sort” I mean that the candidate has to cast himself as a national savior or hero, and his opponent as bumbler, fool, or monster. Intellectual and economic arguments can play a part in this, but only if they serve this hero narrative. Romney failed at both of these. Cruz has been great as putting himself forward as a Savior Of The Party — or, as a Rebel Against the Party — but this is wrongheaded when the Republican Party is itself pretty well despised. It buys you nothing as your appeal must be as the National Hero. Again, Cruz has less than a year to pivot on this.
And Cruz’s instinct would, I suspect, be to attack Hillary Clinton as a Leftist Villain. Unfortunately this has been tried repeatedly against both her and her husband, and it has never worked outside of conservative circles. You can try to make her out as all types of villains — a liar, a thief, a power-monger, a Stalinist — and it will never take with those whom we must convince, and we just look like bullies for trying. The better way to cast her is as a hack, a bumbler, or a fool, a subject of mockery and derision, and Cruz is (I suspect) incapable of doing that. It’s the lawyer’s instinct in him: he wants to win against her in an election as he would against her in a court of law. Yet, if he should campaign that way (as a prosecutor), the moderates will rally around her muttering “Sure we all know she did it, but just can’t convict her, not with the way that lawyer was going after her.” As one lawyer here on Rico told me, if you know you are innocent you should demand a bench trial; only ask for a jury trial if you’re guilty.
That’s why I don’t think Cruz can win next November. If you think I’m wrong — and I’d love to be wrong! — let me know why my concerns above are incorrect, and please note that I don’t have any personal issue with Cruz or any problem with candidates being from Texas. I understand the passion Cruz engenders in his fans, but all of our candidates are imperfect beings with vulnerabilities. I’m no party traitor in pointing out the particular ones of Cruz (and under no obligation to do the same for other candidates), and if he does survive the primaries then he’ll need to pivot hard and fast to meet Hillary.
I just don’t think he’ll pull it off.
Published in Politics
That, and continue to refer to Her as being “remarkably spry”.
I voted for Cruz over the more establishment Dewhurst back in 2012, but I have since reconsidered. I think Cruz is a better at being the outsider slinging mud at those in power. This is what he did against Dewhurst and it worked (although I think Dewhurst came out strongly negative in early radio ads and most Texans who did not even know Cruz did not like that IMHO).
I don’t have confidence that Cruz could work effectively as President. He has not shown he can work with his own party and the Democrats will be much harder to work with. I will vote for him if he is the nominee but I think I will pick someone else in the primary.
I’m not so sure. Texas is half hispanic these days and every major city is predominantly Democratic. Texas is more politically mixed than a lot of outsiders realize.
In fact, with so many people moving down to Texas or the Gulf Coast because of the beleaguered economy, I’m not sure how long Texas will hold onto its Wild West reputation. We say “Come and Take It” today, but it seems progressives have answered our challenge.
Progressives ruin where they live, then move to whatever state has meanwhile managed to prosper, then attempt to ruin that place too.
I’d be happy with Cruz as a Supreme Court judge, but that seems an unlikely possibility now. Republicans would need some outstanding leverage to get a Republican presidential candidate through the approval process. It would be easy for Democrats to claim through the media that Cruz could not be an impartial judge.
Who our primary voters will prefer is an entirely different question from who the nation will prefer. Skip is trying to convince primary voters that voting for Cruz is a mistake. That’s part of the primary process.
Thank you.
I heard much same 4 years ago whenever I dared utter criticism of Romney.
Depends on if we pick up any more senate seats. With the right mix, we could actually do it. Cruz would be a fantastic justice, just fantastic.
Fear is going to elect Hilldabeast, nothing more. Rubio is going to get the nomination, but he won’t attack her where it counts. He’ll do more than Romney did in 2012, but he won’t throw the haymakers that he could and should. He will be defined before he even understands what is happening.
Cruz would lose because the Rubio fans would not campaign for him or worse not even vote for him.
I think he has a track record of working with others, both at the FTC and as SG of Texas. He also works with some others in congress.
Cruz strikes me as a remarkably pragmatic character. Which means I have no idea what he would do as President. I believe his faith in God and in the constitution is real and sincere. But there’s a long way between that and actual policy formation and decision-taking. Indeed, my fear is that he would be too accommodating to The Party and The Opposition. At least, for my taste.
Do you think the GOP has any reasonable chance of losing its hold on Texas in the next dozen years?
I would hope that’s not the case. Might be right, would be glad to be wrong.
You will lose Seats next year, probably lose the Senate, trying to defend a good 24, including Tea Party election wins.
How do you know this? Also how do you know that the broader American public will respond to haymakers leveled against Clinton?
I don’t think this is true. The only candidate I could see the base staying home for is Trump – and that’s because he is at heart a progressive.
I agree with this.
I tend to agree with Skipsul’s assessment of Cruz.
At the same time, if our nominee were to pivot to the center and start spouting soft-headed conventional wisdom, we could actually lose centrist votes this year.
A common statement in 1980 was, “I don’t know what things will be like if Reagan wins, but I know they’ll be different.” People wanted different then, and I think they want different now.
Centrism sounds too much like “More of the same.”
Cruz is definitely different, but he doesn’t have Reagan’s personality. Rubio is the better bet.
Wise Latino?
*snerk* Good one.
Did someone say Mr. Trump had a heart & that in that heart lies politics, if end-of-politics politics? Is Ricochet especially Americans or are many people among you so excessively human?
Other than winning which is obvious, what is it that we conservatives want to accomplish if we are able to obtain the levers of power at the top. That being both houses of congress and the White House. Then what?
The federal government is so big and so encompassing and so many people benefit from big government that it will take either a complete finacial collapse, or a steadfast, and principled leader who will insist that we focus on making the real changes needed to limit the growth of the federal government, let alone actually shrinking it.
I like Cruz because I think he would be that steadfast leader and I think he is electable nationally. Remember the media loved John McCain before he became the nominee then he became an EXTREME right winger, and smeared in the press. So they will do it to whoever gets the nominee, they will do it to Rubio, Jeb, Christie anyone who will challenge Hilary. And because Hilary is so tainted and corrupt, they will have to put on a shock and awe smear campaign on any Republican nominee, to make them look so bad that voting for any Republican will be like voting for Hilter.
So in the long run we need to have a nominee that will be able to withstand that kind of attack campaign and will be principled enough not to buckle under pressure.
Mirrors reflect her image? Who knew?
If you find out, please let us know, because to date the only coherent argument I’ve heard for delivering all three to the republicans is “Hillary will be worse…”
Good post. Cruz is not the perfect candidate. Fortunately, should he win the nomination, he won’t be running against a perfect candidate either.
It’s not possible in your post to play out what Hillary would be like in response to Cruz, but we must keep in mind that a race is a dynamic thing, and Hillary’s reactions to Cruz, and Cruz’s reactions to Hillary, must be taken into account.
Additionally, while Cruz is not as sunny as Bush, he is a better speaker. I never thought Bush could beat Kerry in 2004, especially after that first horrible debate where Bush kept saying that fighting terrorism “is hard,” “it’s hard!”
Cruz may lose if he were to be nominated. But if he were to lose to Hillary Clinton because of his voice and speaking style, then our country is too far gone for a president Cruz, Rubio, or whoever to help us out now.
This isn’t an anti-Texas thing. If Cruz had Rick Perry’s face, voice and demeanor, we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion. (For that matter, if Perry had Cruz’s ability to attract Tea Party loyalty, we wouldn’t need to either.)
Cruz fans say that we non-Cruz fans are making too much out of superficialities. OK, maybe. But the fact is, it’s not like we love everything about the guy but his presentation. Not much about his strategy impresses us. Not too many victory trophies on the shelf.
Southerners should know that what northerners are reacting to isn’t southernness itself, or Christianity in its fresh, unpasteurized form. We don’t associate Cruz’s preacher airs as clues that he’s more Godly than us; we “read” his gestures and voice as probable phoniness. That’s the televangelist thing that bothers people.
My own family is very religious, attends Mass weekly rain, blizzard or shine, and would be considered devout even by most SoCon standards of Ricochet. One of my brothers married a Protestant in the Pacific Northwest, so my parents were in the presence of old time evangelism for maybe the only time in their lives. They went out of their way to start by saying, these are sincere Christians; you have to respect their finding their faith a little differently. But–and here’s where the laughter began–“You just have to hear these people carry on! ‘Aaand the beautiful bountiful blessings of Our L-O-R-D, in the name of Jee-Hee-Zus”. My father imitated the minister raising his arms. “So if they’re so sincere, why do they have to make a spectacle of themselves? What’s all that Hee Haw stuff have to do with religion?”
That’s what many religious, conservative voters see, at least the ones outside of Texas/Dixie. Don’t worry about bringing in the secular Left; worry about Reagan voters.
This is an interesting question. I really like Ted Cruz, but I don’t prefer him over Rubio enough to justify decreasing the odds of winning, if that is really the case.
My political instincts are not very good, I guess. I find Cruz to be very easy to watch and listen to. When I see him confronted by Ellen Page about gay rights, or confronting Dick Durbin and Al Franken about Citizen’s United, he seems very pleasant, given the circumstances. The only thing I find off-putting about him is when he tried to tell a joke, which is cringe inducing. I guess Rubio is more charming, but I don’t personally feel an overwhelming difference in charm.
Based on what I read here at Ricochet, Cruz’s charm deficit applies to Republicans, so I’m not too worried that he will win the nomination and then bomb in the general. If Cruz can get charming enough to win the nomination over Rubio, then he should be able to out-charm Hillary as well.
The political situation is so volatile (e.g., “When, where and how bad will the next terrorist attack be?” “Is NATO going to collapse?”, Etc.) that I wouldn’t rule out anything halfway plausible at this point.
I’m comforted by the thought that we’ll have a better President in January 2017 no matter what happens. President Hillary would undermine the country, but she at least won’t do it for free.
Ted Cruz 2016!
Although I live in Texas, I’m a Catholic from the North, and I share the impression Gary McVey describes of certain evangelical Protestant preachers. I don’t get that vibe from Cruz, but apparently a lot of other people do. I guess I’m a little tonedeaf.
I would vote third party if he was the nomination. There is no way in the world will I ever vote for Trump. He would completely destroy what little favorable outlook there is with the Republican brand as president.
Cruz is best when facing a hostile interviewer.
That’s when he gets away from the Joel Osteen shtick and sounds more sincere.
I support Cruz and believe he is sincere in both words and actions. But his affectations are off-putting to dumb low information voters that decide elections at the margins.