Could Ted Cruz Beat Hillary Clinton?

I’m checking Politicalwire when I see this …..

Ted Cruz BEATING Hillary?

What’s up?


So I read the piece….

Smart headline…Of Course it gets looks…..

The guest of the piece?

No matter Who the Republican’s run in recent elections….

They get pretty decent numbers in a GENERAL ELECTION….

There haven’t been blow out’s for decades…..


There’s been some more buzz this week about Ted Cruz’s presidential prospects. The demagoguing senator took his first trip to Iowa just six months after being sworn in to office, and he’s pretty clearly reaching for the White House. Early reports are that it’s going well. And Rich Yeselson wrote a high-profile (and fascinating) essay arguing that, basically, Cruz is perfectly positioned for reaching the top of the Republican ticket.

The focus of this piece is on Cruz’s general election viability. When it comes to the primary, I’m not going to start handicapping the viable candidates seeking the Republican nomination yet; I’ll only say that I don’t see any reason not to include Cruz in that group, as of now. Viable candidates have conventional credentials and are in the mainstream of their party on questions of public policy. Cruz, from what we know now, qualifies. With four years in elected office by January 2017, he’ll be in a similar boat with Barack Obama (who, granted, had held lower office as well) and Mitt Romney (who at least had four full years before his campaign began). And while Cruz surely is planted at an edge of the Republican mainstream, I don’t see any reason, so far, to believe he’s close to falling off that edge. Whether or not Yeselson is correct that Cruz is a particularly strong candidate, it’s certainly very possible to see him nominated.

But what about the general election? Could he actually win?

What I hear from many liberals about Cruz’s chances are two things. One is just disbelief: Republicans wouldn’t really do something like nominate Cruz, would they? The key is that Ted Cruz isn’t Herman Cain or even Michele Bachmann; he’s a United States senator, and that counts for something (that is, conventional credentials count for something) in presidential elections. So, yes, they really could do something like that.

The other thing I hear, however, is perhaps even more wrong. Some liberals react by actively rooting for Cruz. The theory? The nuttier the nominee, the worse the chances of Republicans retaking the White House. Indeed, in conversation I’ve heard all sorts of justifications: Cruz couldn’t possibly win Florida! Therefore, he couldn’t win the White House!

Don’t listen to it…..


32 thoughts on “Could Ted Cruz Beat Hillary Clinton?”

  1. Montana is winnable for the Dems. Clinton won it in 1992. if Hillary wins in a landslide, I could see Montana being one of the states she takes.

  2. I also might add that,if we are going to engage in three plus year out speculation,I dont see ANY of the current crop of Republican would be candidates winning ANY of the Obama states from last year ,assuming Hillary is the Democratic candidate


    That Bush and Rubio would have a shot in Florida.


    I also believe that Hillary would have a shot in the Romney states of North Carolina,Georgia, Arizona ,Kentucky ,and even Montana.

    Now what does this all mean?

    Nothing really.Just the same rank speculation with NOTHING to back it up.In other words,much like this article!

    1. But the speculation
      IS Fun!
      And someone can say three years from now
      ‘ I called that!’

  3. No i understood what you said.I just disagree for the reasons Ive already enumerated at 11:01 and 11:16.

    I see no basis to make a rather esoteric argument that anything more than a few thousand of Whites nationwide would have either switched from Obama to Santorum or have refrained fom voting at all but would have turned out in significantly greater numbers for Santorum than Romney.Pure speculation.

    And I didnt “misread” the article at all and my point(and apparently DSDs and James) is that to make assumptions about blowouts and nonblowouts this far out is WILD speculation.

    As evidence lets examine recent “blowouts”

    Barry Goldwater and JFK were neck and neck in polls at the time of the latters assasination about a year before the election.Here we are over three years before the next election !

    Several Democrats were actually leading Nixon in 1970 a couple of years before the election,He later blew out George McGovern.

    Walter Mondale actually led Ronald Reagan a few months before losing in a landslide.

    Michael Dukakis was leading George Bush by THIRTY points in August before his big defeat a few months later.

    Which brings us back to this article.I reoeat this was a poor piece by some guy who wanted to fill some space.Substitute Peter King,Rand Paul of Hell, Sarah Palin, and the article would have the same basic point.

    Anything can happen!

    Gee tell me something I DIDNT KNOW!

  4. Again, unlike Scott, I think Jack totally missed the point of the article.

    I also think Jack took my sentence “my guess is that Santrum would have done about as well as Romney – possibly even better” out of context. I didn’t say “probably better”, but that is what Jack apparently thought he read, I’m pretty sure that Santorum would have appealed better to poor whites who had to be turned off by Romney’s 47% comment, by his refusal to release his tax returns, or by his support for outsourcing. Romney called undocumented workers “illegals” and called for self-deportation, and was the loudest critic of Perry’s immigration plan, so no, I think Santorum would have outperformed Romney among Latinos.

    I don’t think that Santorum would have criticized birth control in the general election, and he being Catholic might arguably have been less of an issue than Romney being Mormon. Even in the primary, Santorum made it clear that he would not do anything that would restrict birth control.

    I do think that Romney would have done better than Santorum among professionals – especially those in business.

  5. Yeh I was thinking about NC too,maybe even Arizona.Further Santorum might not have even gotten the 27% of the Hispanic vote that Romney received.

    indeed, to make much of an argument for Santorum doing better that Romney,it seems to me one would have to buy into the new Republican argument that there are a bunch of Whites out there who simply arent voting because the GOP is not offering a “real conservative.”

    I dont.

    1. Santorum was too socially conservative for his own party
      Wet got props in SC for playing the racial card
      And even THAT wasn’t enough….

      1. You know we keep at the Tea Party and rightwingnut vote in the
        GOP primaries
        In the end the process spit out a reconstituted
        Who even his own party though was a half hearted
        What does THAT say?

  6. I can’t think of any Jack. In fact he probably would have lost a couple that Romney won narrowly. North Carolina for example.

  7. So whats the point of an article about what “could” happen based on some invented line that there are all these people out there saying Cruz can “never” be elected.Who? When?Hell anybody could come up with that “analysis” and they paid him for that?

    1. Jack
      I think the main point on the piece besides the attention grabbing headline was that even if Snoppy ran for President he wouldn’t get blown out these days…..

  8. Well Zreebs I guess we’ll never know how Santorum would have fared in a general election.

    I think he might have done better with some low income voters but would have done far worse with middle class voters due to his focus on social issues.

    I know several people who aren’t hardcore Republicans but voted for Romney because of his business background. I agree that Mitt ran a poor general election campaign and due to that he lost some of those economy focused voters.

    But Santorum and his fascination with abortion and birth control would have never gotten a lot of those voters to consider him in the first place IMO.

  9. I read the piece similar to the way Scott did. The main point was that Cruz will likely do almost as well as a more mainstream Republican in the general election. I agree with thst analysis.

    It goes without saying that lots of events that will happen between now and election day 2016 will affect the likelihood of that happening. I’m not sure why you think only you and DSD recognize that.

  10. I believe that DSD was merely following up on my earlier sarcastic comment about this article.If you read it,you will see that it was a “filler” piece wherein the author blares out a headline using the word “could,” which is,of course,MEANINGLESS!

    Anything “could” happen.He offers no evidence of ANYTHING other than pointing out that have been no electoral blowouts lately.

    DSD was pointing out ,correctly,that a lot of varied intervening events”could” happen before Ted Cruz or anyone else “could” be President.

  11. these may or maybe not be easier to predict than the 2016 General election, but no one (with the possible exception of you) could care less about any of these scenarios – even if the year were 2016. For example, who cares whether Kenya will beat Jamaica in a track meet – even if the race were tomorrow?

  12. Will Mariano Rivera pitch to Dustin Pedroia in Game 3 of the 2016 World Series ?

    Will David Miliband appoint Nick Clegg as his Deputy PM after Labour outpoll the Tories in the 2015 UK General Election ?

    Will Kenya beat Jamaica in the 400-metre track relay in the 2016 Olympics ?

    Will a book yet to be written by Salman Rushdie win the 2016 Booker Prize?

    Will the 2016 Nobel Prize in Chemistry be won by biochemists from Japan?

    If you think it’s weird to be this specific so early, remember that all of these events are closer to us in time (and thus should be easier to predict intelligently) than the general presidential election of November 2016.

  13. I don’t agree with Scott that Santorum would have lost by more than ten points, My guess is that Santorum would have done about as well as Romney – possibly even better. Romney ran a better campaign in the primary than in the general. He was an awful candidate.

    1. I’m of the view that Scott’s right
      I went back a looked at things
      He just fell apart vying with Newt for the
      Social Conservative hardcore GOP vote…
      I remember the remarks about him just not catching
      Them unfortunately his kid got sick
      He just wasn’t
      THAT Guy
      He kept going back to social issues now that I remember
      Didn’t be actually turn off THE GOP woman’s vote…
      The sweaters weren’t enough…

  14. I can’t wait till the birthers have to explain away how Canadian born of an American citizen mother Ted Cruz can be elected President.

  15. Well even if the GOP nominated Santorum last year he wouldn’t have lost by 20 pts. like McGovern, Goldwater and Mondale did. If that’s the point of his piece than I agree. Those kind of blowouts are less likely now that the electorate is more polarized.

    But I doubt he could have come within 10 pts. of Obama.

  16. The Moon “could” blow up!

    There “could” be a nuclear war between India and Pakistan!

    Newt Gingrich “could” become a Democrat!

    I mean Im beginning to agree with DSD ,this WILD speculation about 2016 is getting more absurd by the day.This article has no substance other than noting that there havent been any electoral blowouts lately

    And what does that prove?


    Substitute any other Republican name being floated around and the story would have been the same.

    1. I DID point out that the headline of the piece would guarantee looks/hits for it…..

      The point about no blow outs recently in Presidential elections seems true to me….
      If Cruz Where to survive to get the nomination the author probabaly is correct to a degree…

      I wonder if DSD could do a follow up?

Comments are closed.