Cruz Is a Safer General-Election Bet than Trump

The National Review ^ | April 12, 2016 | Jim Geraghty

[2ndDivisionVet]

The conventional wisdom is that though Ted Cruz can excite the conservative-activist base of the Republican party, he can’t beat Hillary Clinton in a general election. But the recent head-to-head polling tells a different story. Unless your name is George W. Bush, it’s tough to win 270 electoral votes without winning the popular vote. And Cruz is hanging in there against the Democratic front-runner. The RealClearPolitics average puts Clinton at 46.4 percent and Cruz at 43.9 percent; the most recent McClatchy-Marist survey has it a tie. Meanwhile, Donald Trump, the current Republican front-runner, hasn’t led Clinton in any national poll since mid February, and trails her by 10.6 points in the RCP average. Democrats will contend the Texas senator is unlikeable, and scoff that about 53 percent of adults have an unfavorable opinion of Cruz . . . a charge that would carry more weight if 54 percent of adults didn’t have an unfavorable opinion of Clinton. Cruz and his campaign have openly discussed a general-election strategy focused upon mobilizing conservative voters who haven’t turned out in recent cycles, and de-emphasizing an appeal to swing voters. Quite a few political scientists, pollsters, and analysts are skeptical that the approach can win, but what if 2016 comes down to Hillary Clinton, unloved by the Sanders-backing progressive base and distrusted by independents, against Cruz and an energized GOP base? As NR reported back in January, “Cruz heads the most data-driven campaign in the GOP race, employing cutting-edge technology to profile, target, and turn out supporters. Statistical awareness permeates the culture of the operation from the candidate to his most junior aides.” Based on the Cruz campaign’s deft maneuvering in the delegate chase, there’s some reason to believe the Texas senator’s claims that he can win by focusing on the little details and mobilizing previously ignored voters.

Trump also contends he’ll bring out new voters, winning over blue-collar independents and the old Reagan Democrats. His fans have argued that he would put a lot of traditionally Democratic states, such as New York and Michigan, back in play. But so far, there’s little evidence to back up that claim; Trump trails Clinton in his home state of New York by 16 to 29 points. In the three polls in Michigan in March, Trump trailed by double digits. (Unsurprisingly, Cruz polls badly in these states, too.) Florida is one of the few states where Trump is running better against Clinton than Cruz is. Trump has enjoyed a narrow lead over Clinton in about half the recent polls there, while Clinton nurses a small but steady lead over Cruz. (For what it’s worth, the latest CNN poll has Cruz ahead of her by one point in Florida.)

Cruz is running surprisingly well in Ohio. The most recent NBC News/Marist poll puts Cruz ahead of Clinton by two points there, while Trump trails her by six. Quinnipiac, the only recent poll of the Buckeye State to show Trump leading Clinton, has Cruz ahead of her by three and Trump up by two. RELATED: Ted Cruz Is Surging by Design Pennsylvania is one of those states that seems to tease the GOP every election cycle, only to vote for the Democratic nominee by a comfortable margin. Winning Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes would provide a big boost to any Republican nominee, forcing the Democrats to pick off votes on less-friendly terrain. The good news for Trump is that the most recent poll, by Fox News, has him tied in Pennsylvania. But the four preceding polls of the state showed him trailing Clinton by anywhere from three to 13 points. Fox News didn’t ask about a Cruz–Clinton matchup, but Quinnipiac has Cruz and Clinton tied in Pennsylvania, while Clinton is ahead of Trump by three.

Like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin is one of those potential swing states where Republicans have struggled to compete in recent presidential cycles. Even the presence of Paul Ryan on the ticket in 2012 only reduced Obama’s margin of victory from 14 points to seven. But Cruz is running surprisingly close there; the Emerson poll puts Clinton ahead of him by three points and the Marquette University survey has them tied. The two polls put Trump behind Clinton by ten points. One of the biggest contrasts between the GOP candidates comes in Iowa. NBC News and PPP have Clinton ahead of Tump by eight points and two points respectively. The same polls put Cruz ahead of Clinton by four points and three points. Perhaps one of the strongest arguments for nominating Cruz over Trump is that it would lock up states Republicans should never have had to worry about in the first place. The controversial mogul is so repugnant to some groups of traditionally Republican-leaning voters, he would put some previously deep-red states in play.

A 28-point lead for Ted Cruz over Hillary Clinton in Utah is not particularly surprising — but it is noteworthy given that Clinton actually leads Trump by two in the latest poll of this conservative stronghold, which hasn’t voted for a Democratic presidential nominee since 1964. Democrats have dreamed of turning Arizona into a swing state for years; the Merrill poll found Clinton tied with Trump there. The same poll showed Cruz leading Clinton by six points. In Mississippi, a Mason-Dixon poll put Trump ahead of Clinton, 46 percent to 43 percent. The same poll put Cruz ahead of her, 51 percent to 40 percent. If Cruz’s strategy was such a sure loser, so devoid of appeal to anyone outside the conservative base, we might expect his head-to-head polling against Hillary Clinton to be as bad as Trump’s. But in state after state, Cruz runs better than Trump against the likely Democratic nominee. Perhaps this reflects Clinton’s persistently high disapproval numbers, or maybe Trump’s smash-mouth braggadocio makes Cruz look comparably warm and fuzzy. Either way, at this point, Cruz appears to have a legitimate shot against Clinton — not a great shot, but a shot. The same cannot be said of Trump. You do the math.

[Secret Agent Man]

For the uniparty, totally correct.

[Dstorm]

So PM him and ask, maybe he doesn’t consider you a friend anymore, because you are badgering him, and doesn’t care what you want.

[kiryandil]

[JoSixChip]

Don’t listen to the haters. They cannot imagine why you would spend time on something you truly believe in.

posted on 5/12/2010, 3:03:41 PM by 2ndDivisionVet (Don’t care if he was born in a manger on July 4th! A “Natural Born” citizen requires two US parents!)

[cba123]

I don’t know that. That is what I am attempting to find out.

Seems like a very simple question to me.

I for example have been a very enthused FReeper for over 10 years. I have NEVER accepted one single dime, for anything I have posted here. I am for Trump, and I have posted a number of pro-Trump articles, but there is zero financial benefit to me, from doing so.

That is what I am trying to determine from 2ndDivisionVet.

We have had a very good relationship. Emailing back and forth, and he used to send me a number of links to articles, I really appreciate that. And I appreciate 2ndDivisionVet’s participation in this news forum.

Big time.

But all I am asking is, is he receiving financial benefit for posting here?

I have yet to receive an answer to that very simple question.

[kiryandil]

Just ignore the fact that Trump beat Cruz in Ohio by 460,000 votes. Cruz came in third with 13% of the vote.

Yeah, but Cruz beat the stuffing out of Trump in Florida!

Oh, wait...

[Slyfox]

Please check your freepmail.

[Veracious Poet]

[jimpick]

And Kasich got 46.8%. If Kasich was pulled out who knows where his votes would go. Well according to the polls linked in the article more went to Cruz than Trump.

So even though Trump received more votes in the primary he could still lose to Cruz.

[jimpick]

89 post and only one Trump supporter posted to refute the article. The rest put out a bunch of drivel that had nothing to do with the article.

Do you think maybe that is why 2nd is not responding? That is my guess. Why respond to a bunch of negativity with out substance?

[JoSixChip]

You still have not posted anything to refute what 2nd posted.

We are way beyond that, it would make no difference to anyone to refute the drivel with facts. That would mean absolutely nothing to your ilk. Besides, any group that can condone and defend what the gopE has been doing is not worth a second of my time anyway.

[Dstorm]

Can you point to the Superpacs that have the National Review on their payroll? or is this just more hearsay?

[JoSixChip]

Sorry, I didn’t mean to steal your Thunder by plagiarizing your post on another thread. But yours is much better done anyway.

[kabar]

Pure speculation. Trump has won battleground states like FL, NH, NC, NV, MO, and MI. Cruz has little crossover appeal. He and Kasich could not win their home states with 50% or more of the vote. Trump will win NY with more than 50% of the vote.

[Sun]

You pro-lifers out there (hope it’s all of you) might be interested in this from Life News, which I received in my email:

‘”Planned Parenthood Bashes Ted Cruz: “He is the Biggest Threat We Face”’

What’s that they say about judging a person by their enemies. :)

It will be great to have a president - TED CRUZ - who is truly 100% pro-life, which is why National Right-to-Life endorsed him.

[musicman]

Go Joe Go!!!

[jimpick]

This is one of the reason you Trump supporters lost me. Some Trump supporters attack and back nothing up with facts. It is real put off.

Up until recently I could have very well voted for Trump. I was on the fence as to whether he was a conservative or not but was willing to give him a shot. After being attacked because I had a different view point that changed.

Go ahead and keep attacking you are just turning people away.

[jimpick]

So now that the race is down to basically 2 candidates you think because Trump can get a higher percentage that is some how a achievement? Trump still has only gotten about a third of the vote.

You may see it as speculation but the polls noted in the article prove that it is not. Where are the poles proving otherwise?

[jarwulf]

Cruzers may be a bit optimistic but they have nothing on Trumpfans. I’m constantly amazed how they can spin any news. Its GOOD news that Trump is losing to Hillary in a landslide in almost every major poll, because the polls are inaccurate except for the primary polls which are 100% accurate when it comes to the general. Its GOOD news that Trump has historically low levels of support at this point from Republicans because all the previous recent Republican losers had higher levels of support (all the recent winners did too but we’ll ignore that for the moment.) so that must mean he’ll win. Its GOOD news that Trump gave the MSM a treasure trove of stumbling abortion soundbites they can play ad naseum to scare squishy lowinfo general election voters because I personally don’t like abortion.

[JoSixChip]

This is one of the reason you Trump supporters lost me. Some Trump supporters attack and back nothing up with facts.

You are full of carp. I spent the first six months of this campaign posting solid, well sourced information on cruz's deceptions on TPA, the corker bill, spending and his blatant lies. But you cruz supporters only responded with the most vile and nasty posts I have ever seen in my 11 years on FR. And when you started condoning and defending the gopE and cruz for disenfranchising voters, that was the final straw for me. So now I treat you the same way you treat people, with complete contempt. In other words, I consider you and all cruz supporters to be POS and not worth the time it took me to write this posts.