(If you can't trust a South American drug lord, who can you trust, huh?)
Posted on 01/28/2016 1:36:43 PM PST by justlittleoleme
To many outside observers, the wave of seasoned Republican officials and strategists sounding increasingly comfortable with Donald Trump as the GOP’s presidential nominee is a sign of surrender. Whether it’s Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad rooting for Ted Cruz to lose the Iowa caucuses or Orrin Hatch “coming around a little bit” on Trump’s candidacy or the paucity of money spent attacking Trump on the airwaves, it feels like official Washington has sided with Trump over Cruz.
In reality, many are trying to salvage the campaign of Sen. Marco Rubio (or any other more-mainstream alternative), and are betting that it’s easier to defeat Trump in a one-on-one showdown than Cruz emboldened by a strong showing in Iowa. To diminish Trump at this point, Republican strategist Alex Castellanos wrote in an email Monday, “perversely helps both Cruz and Trump, which is not what many conservatives intend.”
The thinking goes as follows: If Cruz loses Iowa, he peters out in New Hampshire and doesn’t pose a risk of finishing in a respectable second place. That allows the establishment winner out of the Granite State to build momentum as the anti-Trump alternative. A decent number of Cruz’s supporters, when asked to choose a second candidate, gravitate to Rubio. Polls show many more of Trump supporters, by contrast, would support Cruz. And even with Trump’s improving favorability numbers within the GOP, there are more Republican voters who wouldn’t vote for him under any circumstances than say the same about the senator from Texas.
These strategists are looking at Trump’s increasingly bellicose attacks against Cruz with glee. In their view, only Trump can successfully put a dent in Cruz’s sky-high favorability among Republicans, which is a precondition to blocking him from the nomination.
But there’s one big problem with the theory being embraced by many party pooh-bahs. It risks handing the election to Trump on a silver platter—helping knock out his strongest rival while watching helplessly as more-moderate alternatives blow each other up in the process. The wishful thinking behind such a strategy is that Cruz is utterly unelectable, while Trump is unpredictable enough to win a general election. In reality, Cruz looks like an electable standard-bearer, while Trump could blow the party to smithereens.
Cruz, despite being loathed by his colleagues in Washington, is a better general-election candidate than his detractors believe. His general election favorability ratings are currently respectable, and he runs competitively with Clinton in early matchups. His professional resume and academic credentials are exceptional. The political environment for Democrats is dismal, and is as ill-suited for an establishment figure like Hillary Clinton as it is for a hardline conservative.
-snip-
It’s a clear sign of how emotion is clouding strategic thinking when The New York Times reports that many Cruz critics believe it would be “preferable to rent the party to Trump for four months … than risk turning it over to Cruz for at least four years.” Some Republicans admit they’d rather lose to Hillary Clinton than win with Cruz. That’s a remarkable statement.
Yeah. Sure. He’s the establishment’s ace in the hole.
I am SOOOOO tired of Cruzer persecution complex. I love him, but he’d lose 40 states and everyone knows it. Even him.
You really think he’d do worse than McCain?
You exaggerate, but everyone is in the fratricidal Freeper primary threads.
that’s why he beats hillary by two points in recent polls, the same ones that accurately show trump beating him.
realclearpolitics.com does an average of all running reputable polls.
but i’m sure someone will respond with an intangible or an insult.
they are not supporting trump. they think he will lose (which he wont) OR they want rubio.
they’d rather have hillary than a real conservative.
not a persecution complex. it’s the truth. it’s like animal farm.
the republicans are all now standing on two legs.
One more reason to support Cruz: he’s the one the GOP-e really hates.
Probably true. I will say Cruz wouldn’t be my preferred candidate bcause he doesn’t seem to be able to work with anybody and while his positions are good, he hasn’t achieved any of them. However, I’d vote for him. But he’d be better as VP where he’d be Senate President.
At the top of the ticket? I don’t know. Maybe somebody we haven’t even thought of yet. I’d like to see Walker or Jindal come back into play. I think Walker would be better because he’s stronger, but Jindal has been pretty strong too. However, realistically speaking, that’s not going to happen.
But even if it’s Cruz, we won’t have a Woodstock generation candidate (the Dems have not one but two) because the GOP has a lot of young people and all of our candidates (except for Trump) are well under the age of 70.
For me, it’s pretty much Trump or Cruz. I like Ben Carson too, but it seems his candidacy is going nowhere.
As for the rest, they are Democrat-lite. One article argued that the Whigs were Democrat-lite in their day. Being a less-Democrat Democrat seems like a losing proposition. I prefer a choice to an echo.
And there’s the whole eligibility issue which is not a settled issue much as Cruz wants to believe that it is. If I honestly thought he was a NBC, I wouldn’t care who won between him and Trump. I would be happy either way. But being born in Canada, that’s a game changer to me.
“A decent number of Cruz’s supporters, when asked to choose a second candidate, gravitate to Rubio.”
That Cruz supporters would go to a pro-amnesty candidate speaks volumes about Cruz.
I knew not to trust him on illegals. He’s been too vacillating, like he’s trying to hide his real stance.
” Some Republicans admit they’d rather lose to Hillary Clinton than win with Cruz. “
Because Cruz would actually do something and end the gravy train.
This is EXACTLY why Cruz needs to be elected.
They’re all crooked.
Rubio is not Cruz!! He called McConnell a liar!!!
(If you can't trust a South American drug lord, who can you trust, huh?)
That seems to be a recurring theme around here. He has one percent of the Senate vote. 1/100th of the ability to get things done there. He is bucking the GOPee, which is terrified of him--enough so they embrace Trump.
That he has held his ground in the face of such entrenched opposition is a lot, and bespeaks a man of character.
How? Cruz didn't send them there, they went of their own volition.
Holding someone responsible for the actions of others is so fundamentally American. (/s)
Ted's the briar patch in the old game of, "Please don't throw me in that briar patch"
Read this - it might change your mind at least a little bit: What No One Seems to Know About Ted Cruz's Past
I guess you are smoking something.
Try logic - if supporters go to a pro-amnesty candidate then they are ok with amnesty, and therefore their first candidate was pro-amnesty as well.
My granddaughter could understand that connection.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.