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
Nota Bene: If I do not respond to comments for a good long while, it is because it is the last day of the month and work obligations will be keeping me away from Rico for most of the day. I will attend to things when / as time permits.
Also, apologies for the title. It is a bit inflammatory, but I couldn’t resist the rhyme.
I agree. Which is a shame, as he is my favorite candidate.
This is great analysis. I think you really capture a difficult and necessary problem with those elusive Clintons. Well done.
Wish I could see a hole in your argument, Skipsul.
Liberals, and center left republicans do not like him, but Hillary isn’t Bill. In addition to her lack of charm, charisma, credibility or substance, we’ve had the scandals and the world and US economy are disintegrating. While Democrats don’t know what’s going on and don’t care and the far left will support any Democrat, not every non conservative is clueless. A lot has changed since Romney mistakenly followed the advice of “do not attack”. Attack is good, but the attack must be based on verifiable flaws, corruption and policy nonsense. It must resonate. Hillary is a giant bulls eye. Even some of the Democrat media realize this. All of our candidates could win, maybe even Trump.
This post is patently unfair; I will have to actually think before replying. Longest post I’ve read without any evident first -read weak spots.
Hope I can find a few on the second read.
If not … Rubio?…Christie?
I agree, skipsul.
Thomas Sowell says, in his book Race and Culture, “a man cannot be reasoned out of a position he did not reason himself into.”
Cruz’ most effective tool is reason, logic, his lawyer’s skill set. Unfortunately, the vast majority of voters don’t vote on first principles and reason. Hillary will out fox him in arguments, and no one will care that he is adhering to the rules of logic. He will look like a bully and sound like one…then come the inevitable attack ads with out of context sound bites.
I respect Cruz a great deal, thought it’s difficult for me to listen to his tone in speeches, and I agree with much of what he says.
So, skipsul, I’m with you and I think you lay out a strong argument.
It really does not matter who the GOP nominates. HRC has this thing in a landslide.
OTOH, if he can maneuver through the primary process and capture the nomination, that shows sufficient skills to perhaps adapt in the general.
I like Cruz a lot but I understand what you are saying, Skip.
We need a ‘national conversation’ on What Makes a Good President. I googled that phrase and found this brief article put out by Scholastic, and it’s pretty fair, and written for kids. But even so, a lot of clueless adults would refuse to learn even this much.
A couple of counter arguments: I’ve been able to find no instance of Cruz acting like post polling Cruz before he took polls when he was considering running in late 2009 (at that point for Lt. Governor). In those polls, he claims he discovered that the most popular message was as an attack dog focused on savaging both parties. At that point, a moderate technocrat became a disagreeing with his donor base on precisely zero issues demagogue. It seems eminently possible to me that his rhetorical transformation can be repeated. His voice, his face, and his demeanor are unavoidable obstacles, and there’s bucket loads of material for the billion dollar negative campaign ads that will make it challenging. Nonetheless, his uniquely total message control, the reason that people talk about him speaking almost exclusively in applause lines and stump speech lines even in private conversation, makes it easier for him to pivot than it would be for any other candidate.
Secondly, he’s bonded closely with his donor base, so may be able to pivot hard away from them and achieve unity in ways that other candidates would struggle with. As of the last funding disclosures, he had more cash on hand than any candidate (including Clinton) except Bush. I don’t know if his rise to most-likely-to-win-Iowa has sucked some of that cash, but if it was organic he’s likely in a very good place. Part of the problem with the Romney dismissers was that they ignored the importance of a competent campaign. The Cruz campaign has none of the key flaws of Santorum’s, Gingrich’s, or 2008 Romney’s.
The latter point is true of the leading fundraiser, too; Bush has been floundering, but if he goes all in for New Hampshire, he could still win there. A Cruz-Bush fight could easily be a relatively painless win for Cruz, and a great push-off for the pivot to the general. A Cruz-Trump primary would highlight Cruz’s appealing moderate statements and his interest in the details of policy, providing an even better push off.
No one knows what the outcome will be at this stage. Some things are more likely than others; it would be surprising if President Pataki were to appear on our screens any time soon, for instance, but each of the frontrunners in either party has a chance of transforming their campaign and winning (or, in Sanders’ case, of Clinton destroying her campaign, so his winning).
I will add this post to the file with all the articles that said he didn’t have a prayer against David Dewhurst when Cruz was polling 2% favorability.
You make good points about him, but saying he can’t win a general election before the first caucus isn’t any more meaningful than saying Trump is inevitable, or calling Jeb! a front runner because of his fundraising.
I am inclined to agree that this is still the democrat’s to lose.
Agree completely. Even though I have a positive opinion of the man himself, a winning candidate he is not. Our celebrity and entertainment culture demands a telegenic person, not a televangelist. He makes great sense and debate points, but IMO, working on the cadence and tone of his speech (no whining or wheedling) would improve things, as well as strict instructions NOT to speak to the camera.
I wish I could agree with this, but it sounds like so much I heard in 2012 too. The electorate is mad as heck, but at Republicans as much as anyone. The Dems have been laying a solid groundwork through their race and class protests, and the media will shield Hillary from any frontal assault – this in particular is why I advocate for a mocking approach, as she is really thin skinned and cannot handle mockery at all (foot in mouth disease is long established with her).
Different field – Texas is home turf for Cruz and he knew exactly how to play on a home court advantage. I’m really not so sure how he’ll play out nationally.
Agreed with Skip and I second Ball.
I hope this is true, but it’s still a hard pivot. He’s a dedicated fighter and not apt to roll over like Romney or McCain, but that is also a weakness in the sense that he may fight too hard on the wrong front. Time will tell.
Skip. When Cruz ran for Senate Texas was Dewhurst turf. Dewhurst was Lt. Gov, had Perry’s endorsement, and could self fund. Every criticism you are writing here was written about him in Texas.
Okay, but Cruz is (IMHO) among the most likely at this point to get the nomination (with Rubio a close second), just as Romney was really the odds on favorite in 2012 (despite brief flirtations with Gingrich and others). Jeb is likely cooked, Trump has hit a ceiling (though will still be formidable I think), and the base will settle, as it usually does, on someone known, despite anger at the establishment. So I do think my criticism is apropos at this time. If Rico has the reach that the eds have hinted at, then constructive criticism at this time is a good thing.
I agree on Cruz. However, there are plenty of indications, both in the numbers and in their performances to date, that Clinton would have her hands full with Rubio. If we’re going to ding Cruz on the “likeability,” scale, we can’t give Clinton a pass.
Skipsul, I’m inclined to agree with you. I voted for Cruz against Dewhurst (a horrible candidate that went scorched earth and burned himself), but then Cruz started running for president.
The base loves a fighter, but at some point the fighter must get something done. What has Cruz done? Compare his results, his demeanor, and his standing in the Senate with Mike Lee; I’ll take Lee.
There’s much to like about Cruz. He has all the right instincts (except his pandering on H1B’s). But perception is reality to the non-base and low-information voters, and the first impression most people get isn’t very favorable.
It was still his home state though. Dewhurst may have been the golden boy, but Cruz was still fighting in places he knew intimately. The rest of the US is not Texas, it’s a far different game.
Clinton has something Cruz doesn’t: a vagina. These days that seems to trump (no pun intended) reason and logic.
Oh, the Dems do not like Hillary at all, but there is a lot of “better the old devil you know” among the moderates when it comes to Hillary. The message against Hillary needs to be mocking, and it needs to say “it’s OK, you can dislike her for the old reptile she is. It’s OK to vote against her.”
Once again demonstrating the amazing wisdom of Thomas Sowell.
Hillary! is not working off of her likeability / personality (a true limit she exhibits),
she is working off of her femininity (whatever of that remains) /
her being a senator/secretary of state /
inevitability (a punctured tire from 2008).
So the Republican nominee need not be very likeable, but must not be real unlikeable. If we nominate a real son of a bitch, that will work against us.
Having said that, Cruz is disliked by McConnell and others whose full-throated endorsement would benefit him, especially in getting stuff out of the Congress.
Can I vote for him? Yes, without hesitation. Is he preferable to any Democrat? Any recently deceased conservatives are preferable to any Democrat. Might a less didactic presence help him? Yes, without any hesitation.
While James has correctly assessed the nature of Cruz, I doubt he will make any sort of complete pivot to the center, and am fairly certain that no one will buy it if he did.
I agree with Skip’s assessment on his electoral chances.
I agree constructive criticism is a good thing. What is constructive about personal shots at his speaking style and personality?
How are you supporting your claim of constructive criticism with this?
Then follow that up with:
So what we have is a post unintentionally plagiarized from Texas news outlet op eds during his Senate campaign that criticizes him personally while pleading for no personal criticism of the author being wrapped up as constructive criticism.