Posted on 07/21/2013 2:01:38 PM PDT by nickcarraway
He may be a right-wing nut, but the Texas senator can beat a Democrat in a general election. Here's why
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.
The smart money play for liberals remains to root, in the Republican primary, for whichever candidate would make the best – or perhaps the least-worst – president.
The bottom line is that candidates just don’t matter all that much in presidential elections. Yes, a reputation for ideological extremism hurts, but it appears to hurt maybe 2 or 3 percentage points. Yes, George McGovern and Barry Goldwater had reputations for ideological extremism and were buried, but in both cases it was by a popular president during good times. Ronald Reagan wasn’t slowed much (although, still, some) by his conservative image. Don’t get me wrong: There’s no evidence for the opposite theory, that avoiding the squishy center (in either direction) will magically produce an avalanche of new voters who otherwise would have stayed home. Going moderate is better. It just isn’t all that much better.
Now, on top of that, it’s an open question whether Cruz would really wind up with a reputation as more of a fringe figure than any other plausible nominee. For one thing, the Republican nomination process may bring out inflamed rhetoric, but it’s also likely to create converging policy views among the candidates. Indeed, it’s not impossible to imagine a scenario in which Cruz wins the nomination as the hero of conservatives, which then leaves him far more free to pivot to the center in the general election race than a less trusted candidate might have. Granted, the other possibility is very real as well – Cruz spends the nomination fight solidifying his conservative reputation, and then finds it sticks with him no matter what he does later. And it’s worth noting that Mitt Romney’s reputation as relatively moderate managed to survive everything he did in in the entire 2012 election cycle.
The bottom line, however, is that Ted Cruz is unlikely to drop more than a couple points to the Democratic nominee. And that’s not likely to swing the election. Could it? Sure; even a small bump would have sunk the Republicans in 2000, for example. But most elections aren’t narrow enough for a couple of points to make a difference.
The only exception to this would be for someone who doesn’t even have conventional credentials. Nominate Cain or Bachmann, and it’s not difficult to believe that the penalty would be very large. There’s no way of knowing, however, because no one like that ever gets nominated. So, sure, root for them, but it ain’t gonna happen.
So what it all comes down to is if you really believe that Cruz is more dangerous as president than Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie or the rest of the likely field, then you most definitely don’t want him in place just in case 2016 turns out to be a good year for Republicans.
If Cruz got the nomination the Dems would suddenly discover Minor v. Happersett.
If Cruz got the nomination the Dems would suddenly discover Minor v. Happersett.
I think that if we ever get a decent President again, it’ll be either by accident or a military coup, because we’ve become Ancient Rome.
Based on the GOP Presidential candidates lately, I highly doubt any of them would have the balls to persistently attack her about any of the scandals she's been a part of over the years. Look at how Rick Lazio was demonized for simply walking over to Clinton's podium, and asking her to sign his New York Freedom From Soft Money Pledge. He was labeled a bully and a chauvinist by the press. What Republican has a set of balls to go after her?
Frankly, I don't know that a Reagan-esque candidate could win the Presidency today. There are a lot more people being supported by the Federal Government than there were in the early '80s.
From the Department of State website:
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock
"A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship."
Ted Cruz was born on 12 Dec 1970, and attended school in the United States, so this requirement is satisfied, provided that the parents were married at the time.
But now let's play the hypothetical that he was born out-of-wedlock. What does the law say about that?
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother: "A person born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 309(c) of the INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth and if the mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth. The mother must be genetically related to the person in order to transmit U.S. citizenship."
So in this case, Cruz acquires US citizenship at birth under Section 301(c) of the INA.
Oops. Meant to say Section 301(d)
I agree completely. I have no hope that America can be resuscitated at the ballot box.
That a boy, make a harsh prediction then give us two strong reasons to doubt your ability and self confidence in making predictions.........
Just because we seem caught in a bad movie, by no means is any indication of voter sentiment 3 years out.
Lets work on 2014 for now! Things are looking very positive toward 2014 and control of the House and Senate will change everything including nobama.
But Cruz is ineligible to run for the presidency. He was born in Calgary. That’s being born in a foreign country. Now I KNOW there are Freepers who are going to try to twist that to somehow Cruz was born in the United States.
By 2016 Voter ID will have grown to many States and although barring an asteroid hitting, Congressional Majority will slip away from dems on both sides giving a much clearer field of view and making it much harder to pull off a cheat-repeat of 2008 and 2012.
One thing that I predict will hurt dems in 2016 is that nobama will take all the dem money for himself or will push for strong Africanized government followup, which will lead to an internal revolt and panic in dem world.
Eligibility Schmeligibility. /spit
IIUC, Natural Born Citizen is not dependent on the location: would an ambassador and his wife, on assignment in a foreign country, and assuming both being citizens fail to have a citizen as a child? Why or why not?
Until this country turns back to God, he will continue to punish us with Hussein’s and she-devil’s in the WH. This country is under judgment and its going to get a lot worse.
McQueeg was born in Panama. Next.
The circus will turn up a slew of candidates just to divide the vote so the RINO du jour slips through the cracks. All we’ll hear then is the insane excuse, “well if they wanted my vote, they shouldn’t have run a Romney!”
We need to unite and fast behind the best candidate who can possibly win the PRIMARY! We are doomed if this madness continues.
Tigger could beat that witch
Ever hear of that?
Canada also has duel citizenship.
A DIL was born in Italy - her mother Italian, her father retired Amer. Army. She holds duel citizenship - automatically - but didn't even know it until she applied for a visa to come here last year and was denied - told she didn't NEED a visa as she was already a citizen.
So how about we tone down the ‘forget about Cruz’ right out of the gate. Let's not eat our own - FOR ONCE. and once we get a candidate - let's not rip them to shreds, like we did Romney. Let's set aside our omniscient intelligence and get the enemies out of power.
Jobs. When asked about the primary concern of citizens, 75% say the economy! In poll after poll this is what they say! Whoever has the best plan for that will win! It isn’t social issues. It’s jobs and the restoration of the American Dream for American citizens! This issue transcends all groups.
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.