“Ultimately, politics is about forging an emotional connection with voters. Bill Clinton did it. George W. Bush did it. Barack Obama did it. And Donald Trump is now doing it. Is it fair to someone like Cruz who is a staunch rock-ribbed conservative? No it’s not. Is it a reality? Unfortunately for Cruz it is.”
I think the article recognizes the reality; Cruz is a great guy, but between the issues in Iowa, the National Review blitz, and frankly Glenn Beck, he’s allowed his friends and staffers to mud him.
Conversely, Trump is getting flak from conservatives’ and evangelicals’ *enemies*, which fires up Trump supporters. Also, Trump’s background in media makes him adept at making that emotional connection; Cruz’s background in law makes him adept at making arguments.
I’m on the Trump side, but would gladly vote Cruz in the general — but I think that’s a low-percentage possibility at this point. Who knows? Bottom line: better either one than a Rubio or a Dim.
---
Cruz took bad advice from his staff and attacked Trump in Iowa. It backfired. I don't think it was his idea because he does not seem good at it. He hired a campaign staff that has a bad reputation - I think they were available cheaper than other professional campaign staff and that may have had something to do with them being hired by Cruz?
If Cruz remained cordial with Trump I think Trump would have looked foolish attacking Cruz and would have faded. That New York values line Cruz said was just stupid.
Even if Cruz was not winning at that point a Trump Cruz ticket would have been a good bet for Ted. I think a lot of the anger towards Ted Cruz on here is because Cruz kind of went against this narrative and turned into an ordinary politician against Trump.
It should have been Trump / Cruz. Trump has exec experience and tv smarts and Cruz has a brilliant legal mind with conservative bonafides to calm down the skeptics. It is not to be though.