if a moderate path to the presidency (and his previous senatorship) was more open, I'm sure you'd be seeing a more moderate Ted Cruz. he's an unprincipled tactician, a luster for power. in other word, an archetype Liberal. #TedIsALiberal
1
The DNC is holding fire, and rightfully so, against all of the GOP hopefuls, Trump included. Instead, they are amassing individual "oppo research" tomes that will undoubtedly include some genuine nasty surprises. I'm guessing that given his list of enemies that Ted Cruz's notebook is one of the fattest. If that evil weasel is the nominee we will read about everything from his father's questionable statements to Cruz's own total lack of honesty and integrity. Why does anyone suppose that not ONE single senator has endorsed him? Sure the GOP has the same on Hillary but that woman has been under a microscope for 25 years and nothing has stuck. It's gonna be a great show.
No way would I ever vote for Ted Cruz. The nightmares and panic
attacks wouldn't be worth it.
attacks wouldn't be worth it.
2
The authors are welcome to vote for whomever they choose. Ted Cruz is not likely to get my vote even if hell freezes over.
3
I wonder if the authors/creators of this article are aware that for several months now, Bernie Sanders has been polling several points above Hillary, when put head to head against Republican candidates? Then why does only Hillary get a chart? I can't say for sure that the Times is biased against Bernie's campaign, but the coverage lends some credibility to that argument. Also, I assume the Upshot is aware that Bernie is polling just about as well as Obama was in December 2007, so there's no reason to believe he doesn't have a fair shot at winning the nomination.
4
If Cruz were nominated, he'd run a respectable race that would carry the South (sans Florida); some of the Mid-West states like Kansas, Nebraska and the Dakotas; and the Rockies (sans Colorado and New Mexico). He's ability to appeal to "moderates," the group that will actually determine the outcome of this election, is as poor as most, if not all, of the other viable contenders.
As a supporter of HRC, I know that Rubio is the only candidate that could possibly win a general election and that's certainly not a given IF core Democratic Party constituencies get up off their posteriors and vote.
Go, Ted, GO!
As a supporter of HRC, I know that Rubio is the only candidate that could possibly win a general election and that's certainly not a given IF core Democratic Party constituencies get up off their posteriors and vote.
Go, Ted, GO!
1
Ted Cruz is an unabashed racist, intolerant of the LGBT communities, against recognizing global warming as a threat, supportive of all sorts of anti-American ideas regarding separation of church and state. He stands with Trump's disgusting statements regarding Islam and Muslims, and expresses similar views on immigration as the most vile xenophobe. No wonder the extremists love him. Vote for him? Why not vote for the KKK.
1
Imagine people do this.
Imagine some truly horrible Clinton scandal comes to light.
Imagine President Cruz.
You don't need to have much of an imagination.
Imagine some truly horrible Clinton scandal comes to light.
Imagine President Cruz.
You don't need to have much of an imagination.
1
Let's put it this way if he were the only candidate running I still would not vote for him. He scares me more than fear itself.
6
Wouldn't it be better for the country if both parties had a candidate who would make a capable president?
10
re Trump and Cruz, here is how I see it for Republican voters.
1-If you vote for Cruz, you are looking to turn back America to somewheres between 1830 and 1930 depending on which issue.
2-If you vote for Trump, the unknown demagogue who use to be a liberal, you may get somebody who will bring us into the 21 century or if you listen to his talk now, somebody who will bring us back to the middle ages.
1-If you vote for Cruz, you are looking to turn back America to somewheres between 1830 and 1930 depending on which issue.
2-If you vote for Trump, the unknown demagogue who use to be a liberal, you may get somebody who will bring us into the 21 century or if you listen to his talk now, somebody who will bring us back to the middle ages.
4
Absolutely. No. Way. In. Hell.
10
What's the obsession with his freshman college roommate? How many of us want to be judged by that?
3
It speaks to his character, Stu.
If you reach the level of a 25 year old law student, and you can only come off as arrogant, hateful and extreme, it DOES matter.
If you reach the level of a 25 year old law student, and you can only come off as arrogant, hateful and extreme, it DOES matter.
2
People should be very careful about voting for the candidate they perceive as weaker. I remember my husband doing handsprings when Republicans nominated that "sure loser" Ronald Reagan. What's more, it's just sneaky.
10
No graph on Republicans versus Bernie, of course. I would put Bernie's plainspoken but civil style against any Republican. He never seems weasly.
7
If Bernie gets the nomination it won't matter who the Republican nominee is, but if Hillary is the nominee it would matter because she is much weaker in the general election (she's practically a republican).
I think this is part of the reason the Times features so many Trump articles and very few Bernie articles, because Hillary looks okay when compared to Trump (and Cruz), but not when compared to Bernie.
I say vote for Bernie regardless. If he doesn't win there will be a Republican, at least judging by policy, in the White House.
Of course I think there should be a national 1-day jungle primary to eliminate the undue influence of some states over others and the minor (sometimes major) tweaking of policy positions for each state the candidates visit.
I think this is part of the reason the Times features so many Trump articles and very few Bernie articles, because Hillary looks okay when compared to Trump (and Cruz), but not when compared to Bernie.
I say vote for Bernie regardless. If he doesn't win there will be a Republican, at least judging by policy, in the White House.
Of course I think there should be a national 1-day jungle primary to eliminate the undue influence of some states over others and the minor (sometimes major) tweaking of policy positions for each state the candidates visit.
9
"Can it be logical for a liberal to vote for Ted Cruz?"
No, not when they could vote for Bernie Sanders.
No, not when they could vote for Bernie Sanders.
8
You've got to be kidding. Are you really serious in assuming that Hillary has such an immense chance of leveling Bernie that a portion of her supporters shouldn't even bother voting for her?
By all means, Hillary supporters. Please take this advice, at your own peril. This race is far closer than polls indicate, as we all know the pollsters generally only poll voters who have voted in the last primaries. The polls completely discount young voters, as well as voters such as myself who did not vote in the last primaries or others, because they didn't feel any of the candidates were on par with their views.
It's absurd how the Times goes days and days without even mentioning Bernie Sanders in any seriousness, and the one time he is mentioned, it's in a piece that essentially mocks his entire campaign as if there is zero chance he can come close to Hillary.
It's getting more and more ridiculous with each day. You do realize that Bernie is still beating Hillary in New Hampshire, right?
By all means, Hillary supporters. Please take this advice, at your own peril. This race is far closer than polls indicate, as we all know the pollsters generally only poll voters who have voted in the last primaries. The polls completely discount young voters, as well as voters such as myself who did not vote in the last primaries or others, because they didn't feel any of the candidates were on par with their views.
It's absurd how the Times goes days and days without even mentioning Bernie Sanders in any seriousness, and the one time he is mentioned, it's in a piece that essentially mocks his entire campaign as if there is zero chance he can come close to Hillary.
It's getting more and more ridiculous with each day. You do realize that Bernie is still beating Hillary in New Hampshire, right?
8
Dude. Bernie doesn't have the Obama charisma. He's fringe left. The establishment will carry the day. You need a runaway train to derail hillary. I don't see a train.
4
We all found out what the Obama charisma was worth.
2
Brendan, Bernie has his own brand of charisma. He has the self-respect not to bow and scrape before unreasonable, obstructionist Republicans. He does not become confused about who is being a fair representative of the public. He does not see a temper tantrum by a House Republican as a reason to "compromise" away everything he claimed to stand for. He has a proven track record. That carries with it an underlying confidence in his own words, and that is the source of his unusual charisma.
3
Senator Cruz is used to seeing every issue as a debate or an argument to be made where there are two sides, black and white, wrong or right. And he thinks he is never wrong. His ego forces him into picking a position and defending it vociferously without a doubt and without apology and never a compromise. He has the intellectual horsepower to match his manic need to rhetorically vanquish his political opposition. And he has a work ethic that reinforces his tenacious need for approval. He is a force to be reckoned with. But his self aggrandizement is quite plain as day and in the final analysis, he will be his own worst enemy.
4
This is a case where trying to be too cute could really come back to bite you in the rear end. Although the most revealing tidbit in this article is the fact that his college roommate can't stand him. Seriously that is all you need to know about Ted Cruz!
3
And what if the cross-over strategy goes awry?
A Cruz Presidency is too awful to contemplate.
A Cruz Presidency is too awful to contemplate.
9
As much as I and many people commenting on this board would like otherwise, Ted Cruz is very likely an American citizen.
Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban-born Canadian citizen and an unproven American-born Canadian citizen. Dual citizenship is allowed by American and Canadian laws, although in the U.S. a person is striped of its American citizenship if willingly defects to another country or willingly take arms for another country against the U.S.
With all that said, Ted Cruz is an American born citizen PROVIDED it can be proven that his mother was an American citizen at the time of Ted Cruz's birth. As it stands, and as far as I know, there is no proof that his mother was born in America. However, if it can be shown that his mother was born to one American parent at the time of her birth, she is an American citizen, which would also make Ted Cruz an American citizen.
Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban-born Canadian citizen and an unproven American-born Canadian citizen. Dual citizenship is allowed by American and Canadian laws, although in the U.S. a person is striped of its American citizenship if willingly defects to another country or willingly take arms for another country against the U.S.
With all that said, Ted Cruz is an American born citizen PROVIDED it can be proven that his mother was an American citizen at the time of Ted Cruz's birth. As it stands, and as far as I know, there is no proof that his mother was born in America. However, if it can be shown that his mother was born to one American parent at the time of her birth, she is an American citizen, which would also make Ted Cruz an American citizen.
4
Mere citizenship isn't enough to become president. One has to be a "natural-born citizen" and the Supreme Court has never clarified what exactly that means. Even McCain's qualification was questioned because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Because it was a U.S. military zone (then under U.S. jurisdiction) and he was born there because his father was stationed there, there was a strong argument that he should be entitled to run for president. Even then, the Senate felt the need to formally declare him a natural-born citizen (not that the vote was constitutionally significant). Cruz doesn't have any such factors working in his favor.
Frankly, I don't understand why very few are questioning Cruz's right to run. If he doesn't win the Republican nomination, it doesn't matter. But if he does win, chaos could ensue ... and the lawsuits practically write themselves...
Frankly, I don't understand why very few are questioning Cruz's right to run. If he doesn't win the Republican nomination, it doesn't matter. But if he does win, chaos could ensue ... and the lawsuits practically write themselves...
3
That's totally sketchy. I don't really know why it should matter so, but honestly, if he can't dig up the paperwork to document any of this, then it likely does not exist.
2
Sounds like a bit of Scalia prose there.
But somehow, if a republican is 'elected' as President the 'strict constitutionalists views of Scalia would doubtlessly pivot to a different view.
But somehow, if a republican is 'elected' as President the 'strict constitutionalists views of Scalia would doubtlessly pivot to a different view.
1
Hi Toni,
How about the idea of being honest with your vote. Isn't this strategy another form of telling a lie?
How about the idea of being honest with your vote. Isn't this strategy another form of telling a lie?
2
Milnes: I would say: No, you use the tools that are given you. But that's an interesting question. I'll try to see if I can follow up.
1
Why isn't anyone upset that Ted Cruz was born in Canada? People went nuts about President Obama, who was born in the United States, possibly being born outside the United States. Why doesn't Mr. Cruz receive the same treatment as Mr. Obama when Mr. Cruz was born in Canada?
12
I don't disagree with the lack of fairness regarding Mr. Cruz and President Obama birthplace. The reality is that what makes Cruz "more" American than Obama is not the birthplace; it's the color of the skin. All birthers have shown to be racist, including Birther in Chief Trump.
14
Canada seems so much more like the U.S. than Hawaii. All part of the same continent.
While interesting, I'm wondering why the focus is on Hillary, when polls show Sanders easily beating everyone including Rubio.
This just seems like another piece geared towards getting Hillary the Presidency.
This just seems like another piece geared towards getting Hillary the Presidency.
7
Assuming the logic of voting for the least-likely-to-beat the nominee you'd prefer, why not vote for Il Duce Trump instead of Ted "Mr Canadian" Cruz?
Oh, and has the Times finally decided that Biden isn't running after all?
Oh, and has the Times finally decided that Biden isn't running after all?
2
Not all open primaries are completely open. California's "Top Two Open Primary" applies to all elections EXCEPT presidential primary elections, for which voter eligibility is left to the parties. The Democratic Party allows Democrats and Independents to vote in its presidential primary. The Republican Party allows only Republicans.
1
I applaud your strategic view but believe Cruz is just too dangerous. I won't vote for any Republican in the general, still Cruz is the worst of the bunch. Can't take the risk.
14
NEVER
7
I live in a one-party state, and I crossed over to (successfully) remove Tea Party county commissioners in a local primary. It's virtually impossible for cross-over voters to impact a statewide election, and it is morally reprehensible to organize such an effort (Rush Limbaugh being a prime example).
2
I. Could. Not. Do.It.
22
I personally don't think you ever should cast a vote for someone you don't want to see elected. This is not only good civics but also good sense: Elections can turn on strange issues. How would a liberal feel about have made a "strategic" primary vote for George W. Bush following Bush vs. Gore? Don't be clever. And, by the way, I think the Times should be mustering arguments against these kinds of schemes -- leave them to Rush Limbaugh.
9
Ted Cruz is a joke. Vote your values.
5
I'm actually, at least as of now, planning on crossing-over to vote for Rubio. I consider him the least objectionable of the Republican candidates. Given that I don't know how Clinton or Sanders will do against a Republican, I figure I'm better off using my vote to prevent a Trump, Cruz or Carson win. And I'm not wild about Clinton anyway, and have issues with Sanders as well. Would really like to vote for "none of the above" or "anyone else" but if they win what shall we do?
2
How do you feel after his tricky move in sabotaging the ACA?
7
Wouldn't Jeb be better?
1
What is the problem with Bernie (seriously)?
3
When the German's voted for Paul von Hindenburg they were wrong. When J.P. Morgan thought he had rid himself of Teddy Roosevelt by making Teddy vice president, Morgan was wrong. Cruz is dangerous.
7
Never. No one is perfect. But, I could never vote a for snake oil salesman, such as, Ted "Mr. Haney" Cruz. He makes my skin crawl.
8
That's not a very fair comparison...for Pat Buttram.
3
Republicans nominate the most conservative candidate on the ballot, and whether that candidate wins or loses in the general election, the discourse gets dragged a little to the right. Eventually Jeb Bush's reactionary conservatism scares us less, and no longer shocks us, because we're worrying about Ted Cruz. Jeb is to the right of Ronald Reagan, who ran from the right wing of the Republican Party, but the media allows him to present himself as a moderate.
Meanwhile, Democrats spend so much time worrying about Republicans and appealing to the indispensable donor class, rather than worrying about the bad policies of their own candidates and appealing to their own base, that they nominate the more moderate candidate on their ballot. And whether that candidate wins or loses in the general election, the discourse gets dragged a little to the right.
This is one of the ways reactionary conservatism wins in this country, even when the Republicans lose. The answer is not to cast a gimmicky sabotage vote for Ted Cruz. If we succeeded, the joke would still be on us.
Meanwhile, Democrats spend so much time worrying about Republicans and appealing to the indispensable donor class, rather than worrying about the bad policies of their own candidates and appealing to their own base, that they nominate the more moderate candidate on their ballot. And whether that candidate wins or loses in the general election, the discourse gets dragged a little to the right.
This is one of the ways reactionary conservatism wins in this country, even when the Republicans lose. The answer is not to cast a gimmicky sabotage vote for Ted Cruz. If we succeeded, the joke would still be on us.
10
Crazy talk.
5
I could never bring myself to vote for Cruz in a million years. The guy is awful (as all the Republicans are).
4
It is unlikely that I will ever again vote for any Republican, for any office. That "brand" name is now synonymous with bigotry, misogyny, mercilessness, extremist religion, violence, hatred, pathological lying, greed. We have to turn over the population of Congress, as well as keep the Republicans out of the Oval Office.
22
I, like many, crossed over to vote for Cruz because I thought he would be an easy match for Sadler in the general election. I'll never make that mistake again. Cruz would be the worse choice from the clown car. A cross between Milhouse and McCarthy. We'd soon find out whether sand could glow in the dark - those of us who survived.
16
C'mon, cut the diversionary tactics. The only reason "liberals" might want to vote for Cruz is because they loathe him a little less than Trump.
2
Any thing is possible but Jan 2017 is most likely to see the Clinton's back in the White House. Watch groundhog day with Bill Murray it explains everything then watch it again 4 years later.
I have considered strategic crossover voting, but realized that it meant that I could not vote for anyone else in my preferred party. That means judges, state and US representatives and Senators, and anyone else running on my party's primary ballot. And I couldn't vote in my party's runoff (there is no crossing back over). I would have to give up too much positive influence in my party just to be a spoiler for the other.
6
I have considered crossing over to vote for Trump. He would lose so spectacularly that it would simply be hilarious. I'm not sure about the ethics. Is it right to vote illegitimately in the short run to save the country in the long run? As long as you don't knowingly falsify any personal information, it's not illegal, and is it wrong?
1
Stick with the party line - the ends ALWAYS justifies the means.
Ted Cruz for President. Isn't he the guy that was born in Canada to a Castro supporter who moved to Canada? Didn't his mother accept Canadian citizenship? Just wait until the strict constructionist Scalia hears about this!
22
I almost want the Republicans to win (insert barfing sounds). Then the people who've been moaning and groaning about how Obama has ruined their lives will realize that their lives are still terrible, that the Republican president has done nothing for them (because they aren't rich and powerful), and that they swallowed a big fat pack of lies courtesy of Fox News. And then we can swing back in the other direction. This is generally how it works, no?
2
Two words for not voting for any Republican: Supreme Court
40
"the people who've been moaning and groaning about how Obama has ruined their lives will realize..."
That strikes me as unlikely. If they were going to realize any truth, they'd have done so long ago. Instead, I expect they'll be told whom to blame.
...Andrew
That strikes me as unlikely. If they were going to realize any truth, they'd have done so long ago. Instead, I expect they'll be told whom to blame.
...Andrew
I'm more a righty than a lefty, but Cruz wasn't on my radar until I watched some of his YouTube videos. What impressed me about the guy was that when he was heckled by Code Pink or challenged by a LBGT rights activist, he didn't yell at them or talk over them. He didn't throw them out or call security. He invited them to speak, listened without interrupting, and debated them like an adult. When his own supporters started booing the hecklers Cruz asked them to be quiet and respectful. For me, at least, it made a big impression.
4
You mean his answers to those debating him were cogent, powerful, and sensible? C'mon, tell the truth!
1
A few weeks ago Cruz, Huckabee and Jindal spoke at a national Religious Liberties Conference, organized by Rev. Kevin Swanson. Rev. Swanson is a Theonomist. Theonomists believe that the laws of God, both in the Old and New Testaments, including the punishments, should also be the laws of the U.S.A. Swanson has said, for instance, that practicing homosexuals should be condemned to death. Cruz may not altogether agree with that, but his father Rafael, an evangelical preacher, is also a Theonomist. He often speaks at Ted's campaign rallies and claims that God has ordained that his son should become the president of our country. Ted Cruz also believes that our country is a Christian country and that here many evangelical Christians are persecuted for their faith. It's my contention that both Cruz and Trump are psychopaths, or to use the more modern word, sociopaths. Sociopaths hardly ever admit that they are wrong. Just read, Anna Stout, "THE SOCIOPATH NEXT DOOR" (Broadway Books, 2005). "We often do not recognize or stop them until after they have damaged humanity in unfathomable ways"(p.185) But I take comfort in the words of Gandhi quoted by Dr. Stout, "In the end they always fail---think of it, always" (p.185)
29
The average fascist oligarch who wants to market an obedient hand puppet into the White House doesn't understand that our primary vote for Cruz was just perverse joke. Children don't play with the dynamite-- it is too dangerous.
6
Ted Cruz and his Tea Party ilk are the very reason that this lifelong Republican switched party affiliation in 2011 and is now a Democrat. Pennsylvania does not have open primaries, but there AIN'T NO WAY that I could see myself crossing over to vote for any of these Republicans. I feel like I'm witnessing the death throes of a political party. (Or, at least, one can hope.)
30
Cruz is stupidly mixing up his metaphors. He should be able to do better.
2
On the topic of strategic voting, many years ago I voted for Pat Buchanan in the Texas Republican primary just to show my dislike for George Bush I. Very shortly thereafter I began to plead with God to allow me to live through Election Day so that wouldn't be the last vote I ever made.
4
27
While I find voting for someone you don't support repugnant, I must admit whenever a a phone surveyor calls regarding a public opinion study my very studied response is always, "I vote and think whatever Rush tells me to vote or think. I trust Rush because he is smarter than me and only wants what is best for America." Then I hang up. I really enjoy being that person and figure I'm doing some good, but I could never bring myself to actually vote for Ted Cruz.
4
Bad idea. You do not cast your ballot for a person you loathe. Anything to derail Republican voters who favor Trump does not include this idea. Do not vote at all if no candidate appeals to you in the primary. There is always the general election to 'cross over'.
5
Ted Cruz is a very strong candidate for a simple reason: he concentrates on policy, not personality. This makes him look more mature than many of the candidates.
I will give you an example. When Code Pink showed up at a Cruz rally, what happened? Trump would have thrown them out the door. Cruz invited them up on the stage, and allowed them to present their positions. He then replied to each of their points. What other candidate would behave like this?
The voters are looking for strong, rational leadership, not a best buddy. Don't be surprised if Cruz is highly effective. Remember, most voters are not political junkies and know little and care little about the behavior that has alienated some in Congress
I will give you an example. When Code Pink showed up at a Cruz rally, what happened? Trump would have thrown them out the door. Cruz invited them up on the stage, and allowed them to present their positions. He then replied to each of their points. What other candidate would behave like this?
The voters are looking for strong, rational leadership, not a best buddy. Don't be surprised if Cruz is highly effective. Remember, most voters are not political junkies and know little and care little about the behavior that has alienated some in Congress
3
From my perspective and reading of history, the people of the US are looking for a, someone tough, independent and willing to walk the talk. Both Cruz and Trump will bury Hillary, she is seen as wishy-washy on the other hand Bernie Sanders will be a much tougher opponent.. as most recent polls have shown Sanders has a 12 point lead over Cruz compared to a mere 2 point lead for Hillary http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential...
2
I think I agree. The very uncompromising or bullying behavior some dislike is seen as strength by others. Wasn't Johnson (democrat) something of a bully? (Before my time) Have there been other democrat bullies? Which republican presidents were bullies?
Back in 2004, the late great Randi Rhodes convinced this listener to register Republican so that I could be certain that my vote would be counted. Thanks to this article, it might come in handy again soon.
I would prefer to vote for the twelfth person in the telephone book.
19
As a liberal, I like to advance another possible argument for voting for Ted Cruz or an ultra-conservative candidate. It cannot escape one's realization that Obama has been the most thoughtful and deliberate president since a long time specifically trying to be President of all, including the conservatives. An attempt in which he obviously was less than successful; the reason why is not clear; perhaps a combination of racism, economic hang-over of the Great Recession, I do not know.
I conclude therefor that the country has to hit rock bottom before the pendulum swings back to a more reasonable political attitude of the general conservative leaning voters. Who better than Ted Cruz can accelerate that path to "Rock Bottom"? Once his presidency is over we can pick up the debris and hopefully recover. History shows that America has been good at that. For example the transition of the Presidency to FDR lends credibility to this assertion.
To vote for Cruz as a liberal though is not for the faint hearted.
I conclude therefor that the country has to hit rock bottom before the pendulum swings back to a more reasonable political attitude of the general conservative leaning voters. Who better than Ted Cruz can accelerate that path to "Rock Bottom"? Once his presidency is over we can pick up the debris and hopefully recover. History shows that America has been good at that. For example the transition of the Presidency to FDR lends credibility to this assertion.
To vote for Cruz as a liberal though is not for the faint hearted.
10
Nice try and very creative...but I won't be so easily fooled into voting Republican.
14
jzu from Cincinnati--I'm guessing that perhaps you are not being serious or transparent in your motives, but voting for Cruz with the expectation that the country would hit rock bottom under his presidency and thus harm the Republican Party would be a strategy fraught with danger. The political right once in control of all branches of government will continue to do everything in it's power to disenfranchise and undermine political opposition. Given the probable opportunity to make Supreme Court appointments, a heavily right-leaning Supreme Court with six or seven seats under it's control would be in a position to rule progressive legislation unconstitutional for decades.
An ever bigger issue, never put a religious fundamentalist war hawk who might consider the apocalypse to be a good thing in charge of our nuclear arsenal.
An ever bigger issue, never put a religious fundamentalist war hawk who might consider the apocalypse to be a good thing in charge of our nuclear arsenal.
20
For a Democrat to vote for Cruz to actually win the presidency is to inject the poison straight into the heart to kill the patient, in the hopes that what comes next will be more palatable. I get your point, but it is way to risky.
3
As I tell my conservative friends, the only reason Ted Cruz is even a Senator from Texas is that the radical Republicans have a stranglehold on this state and he won his party nomination with just a small majority of a very small portion of the eligible voting population. He could have accomplished this in just about any radically Red state. Texas just happened to have the biggest concentration of uninformed, apathetic voters and special interest money available. The man has done nothing for this state, other than cause it more embarrassment on the national level.
46
I absolutely agree that Cruz has done nothing for this state as a US Senator. The only thing that matters to Ted Cruz is Ted Cruz. Texas and, more importantly, Texans mean nothing to him.
That being said, Cruz is the junior senator from Texas because he recognized that the Republican primary is the only election that matters in Texas and that low turnout makes it easier to win a primary. In the last two decades any Republican who prevails in the Republican primary has gone on to win the general election.
Ted Cruz is smart, cunning, calculating, driven and dangerous. Given his deft manipulation of the primaries in Texas, I would not be surprised to learn he figured out how to scale up the strategy used in TX to lock in the Republican nomination for president.
Given the opportunity to use a open primary to vote against him, I think it would be wise for liberals to cross over and vote against him.
That being said, Cruz is the junior senator from Texas because he recognized that the Republican primary is the only election that matters in Texas and that low turnout makes it easier to win a primary. In the last two decades any Republican who prevails in the Republican primary has gone on to win the general election.
Ted Cruz is smart, cunning, calculating, driven and dangerous. Given his deft manipulation of the primaries in Texas, I would not be surprised to learn he figured out how to scale up the strategy used in TX to lock in the Republican nomination for president.
Given the opportunity to use a open primary to vote against him, I think it would be wise for liberals to cross over and vote against him.
It’s been an effective strategy of the liberal machine over the past several years in disseminating the concept that for a republican to win the presidency he/she must be moderate (liberal) in nature.
This ideology was generally accepted by the Republican Party during the last two presidential elections in which the DNC candidate was a strong leftwing and the GOP candidate was a ‘moderate’ conservative. This approach effectively backfired twice.
It is not surprising then that leftwing supporters and networks continue the premise that candidates such as Rubio (or even Kasich) would be a better GOP candidate against Clinton in the general election as he is more likely to pick up the moderate votes.
While the theory seems sound it has not been true in last few election cycles. It could be argued that one of the many reasons Obama won so easily was the fact that he held fast to his leftwing beliefs while his candidates’ moderate position actually came across as weakness - hindering the overall electability.
This ideology was generally accepted by the Republican Party during the last two presidential elections in which the DNC candidate was a strong leftwing and the GOP candidate was a ‘moderate’ conservative. This approach effectively backfired twice.
It is not surprising then that leftwing supporters and networks continue the premise that candidates such as Rubio (or even Kasich) would be a better GOP candidate against Clinton in the general election as he is more likely to pick up the moderate votes.
While the theory seems sound it has not been true in last few election cycles. It could be argued that one of the many reasons Obama won so easily was the fact that he held fast to his leftwing beliefs while his candidates’ moderate position actually came across as weakness - hindering the overall electability.
1
That seems to be the prevailing theory with conservatives for the losses of 2008 and 2012. I doubt it's a valid one, but you're welcome to try.
Ah, the limits of polling and number crunching.
Yes I do (loathe him) and no I won't (vote for him).
Yes I do (loathe him) and no I won't (vote for him).
21
This is really a two-fer.
Not only does the committed anti-capitalist big-government liberal get to mess with playing the party crasher, but since Cruz is the best choice for the job, the liberal can turn RIGHT around and take credit when a President Cruz creates 15 million to 50 million jobs for women and minorities as well as those white voters who put Obama in the White House.
Now that Cruz has finessed his sense of humor, the liberal can also vote against the old GOP Senate politicians who hate Cruz.
Not only does the committed anti-capitalist big-government liberal get to mess with playing the party crasher, but since Cruz is the best choice for the job, the liberal can turn RIGHT around and take credit when a President Cruz creates 15 million to 50 million jobs for women and minorities as well as those white voters who put Obama in the White House.
Now that Cruz has finessed his sense of humor, the liberal can also vote against the old GOP Senate politicians who hate Cruz.
Voting for Ted Cruz is too dangerous to do no matter what the logic behind it.
25
You might want to think about the 1946 Republican Senate primary. Democrats crossed over to choose an obscure easy-to-beat guy. that's how Joe McCarthy got to the Senate.
31
I suppose that in states where there are open primaries, this might be worth considering. But in other states, wouldn't it mean giving up the opportunity to vote for someone in contested state and local Democratic primaries?
3
Cross over voting is not allowed in our primary. Even so, listening to Cruz this morning on NPR and climate was hilarious if it wasn't so scary. He clearly is scientifically illiterate and doesn't know it.
34
Oh, he is aware of it. It is a measure of what Cruz will say if he thinks it will appeal to his base. You tell Cruz what you want to buy and he will try to tell you that is what he is selling. The man has no scruples or decency, he may even be too smarmy for his idol Joe McCarthy if he was still alive.
1
A conservative is a conservative is a conservative. A liberal is maybe a liberal, not so liberal, almost liberal. The Republicans have ridden the conservative block to success by convincing liberals to follow their definition and keep questioning all their possibilities.
Bill Clinton was the last candidate and then President who stuck to his "somewhat" liberal guns and is why the Republicans hated him and did everything they could to bring him down. They then doubled-down on Obama.
And, that is what this column is doing, building up the Conservative Republican win by pushing the Liberal Democratic wing to divide itself. By the comments, it is working.
Yes, vote for Bernie Sanders and die perfectly.
Bill Clinton was the last candidate and then President who stuck to his "somewhat" liberal guns and is why the Republicans hated him and did everything they could to bring him down. They then doubled-down on Obama.
And, that is what this column is doing, building up the Conservative Republican win by pushing the Liberal Democratic wing to divide itself. By the comments, it is working.
Yes, vote for Bernie Sanders and die perfectly.
1
The stark difference between the two parties and candidates won't become clear until Hillary debates whoever the survivor is in the Republican side. Then people will have a clear choice, and the head to head poll will be more credible.
8
This is the kind of column that gives statistical analysis a bad name.
Godwin's Law time. Remember that the DNVP and the Centre Party voted for the Enabling Act due to cynical political calculations, over what they perceived would be the likely outcomes.
So, you're supposed to support someone who would be an inconceivably awful president (e.g., Cruz), just because he has a somewhat worse chance against your preferred party as compared with a candidate (e.g., Rubio) who would be merely very awful?
Godwin's Law time. Remember that the DNVP and the Centre Party voted for the Enabling Act due to cynical political calculations, over what they perceived would be the likely outcomes.
So, you're supposed to support someone who would be an inconceivably awful president (e.g., Cruz), just because he has a somewhat worse chance against your preferred party as compared with a candidate (e.g., Rubio) who would be merely very awful?
7
He doesn't have a somewhat worse chance, he has a tremendously worse chance. From his biography, it appears that everyone who's ever gotten close to Cruz despises him. I have to assume the American people will too, given the opportunity.
4
OK, tremendously worse chance. There is a non-negligible risk that he wins the election. The downside risk of helping to elect him is vast. Vast.
1
Nice try, Toni, but no sale. Ted "Condom" Cruz is curious to see if "sand" can "glow in the dark".
I don't need him.
This country doesn't need him.
This world doesn't need him.
If I ever voted for him, for any reason, then I would never get a good night's sleep again.
My ethics don't go slumming.
Neither should yours.
I don't need him.
This country doesn't need him.
This world doesn't need him.
If I ever voted for him, for any reason, then I would never get a good night's sleep again.
My ethics don't go slumming.
Neither should yours.
58
And the spontaneous comment / suggestion / threat of making the sands glow (from nuclear weapons, what else?) should be ignored...?
17
The more logical thing to do is to vote for the liberal who performs best in head to head match ups - Bernie Sanders. If you want a liberal, vote for one. Not really a tough concept.
18
Sanders is very likeable, unlike Cruz, but he's so far to the left that he cannot win a general election. Thus, he's not a good primary choice.
2
In other words, go to the so-called "Operation Chaos" plan from the Rush Limbaugh playbook?
Maybe I'm idealistic, but I think it's sad that these are the depths to which we sink to try to ensure victory for a less than ideal candidate.
Maybe I'm idealistic, but I think it's sad that these are the depths to which we sink to try to ensure victory for a less than ideal candidate.
14
Not to worry, Trump will run as a third party candidate so it will not matter as to who will get the GOP nomination:).
17
True.
3
Fingers crossed and hoping that happens. But the general election is a long slog and maybe less interesting and with fewer PR benefits than the Republican primary. And the battery for that limelight is going to burn out sooner rather than later, I think.
7
I sure hope he does!
I am longing for an alternative to the candidates on each side. At dinner last night, we were longing for a knight (or damsel) on a white horse to appear. Silly, but we are desperate!
5
Looking at the head to head graphic, the depressing thing is it's always just a few percentage points difference between the two parties.
I imagine if the republican candidate was Genghis Khan and the democrats ran Abe Lincoln, it would still be pretty close.
I imagine if the republican candidate was Genghis Khan and the democrats ran Abe Lincoln, it would still be pretty close.
48
I have the same feeling. I think that's because of the voter turnout and voter disenfranchisement problems, which fall more heavily on the Dem side.
1
You got it reversed. Lincoln was a republican.
Who today would be a Democrat, pilloried by the Republicans for being an out-of-touch liberal.
23
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism