Andrew Cline / Shutterstock.com

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.