Why Ted Cruz Is Such a Long Shot

The New York Times' The Upshot ^ | March 23, 2015 | Nate Cohn

[Boogieman]

Krusty’s Accountant: Let me get this straight. You took all the money you made franchising your name and bet it *against* the Harlem Globetrotters?

Krusty the Clown: [miserable] Oh, I thought the Generals were due!

[watches the game on TV]

Krusty the Clown: He’s spinning the ball on his finger! Just take it! Take it!

[the Globetrotters score]

Krusty the Clown: That game was fixed! They were using a freakin’ ladder, for God’s sake!

[Lurkinanloomin]

Right on schedule. Left and “right” outlets will have anti-Cruz hit pieces for the next two weeks at least.

[Jeff Chandler]

[Jeff Chandler]

Seems to me I remember hearing the same type of story written about a little known actor named Reagan.

Ronald Reagan was a very famous actor who successfully ran the state of California. The articles they wrote about him was he was "stupid".

[VanDeKoik]

“Why Ted Cruz Is Such a Long Shot”

Then stop writing about him. Go ahead, I dare you.

[Lurkinanloomin]

Reminds me of GOP voters getting behind designated losers like McCain, Romney and Jebster.
If they are successful once again saddling us with an unacceptable candidate, I hope people will let go of teir noses and abandon the GOP.

[DoodleDawg]

No bet. Either on when the article was written or against Cruz’s chances for the nomination.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Why We Should Ignore Ted Cruz as Much as Possible (Boy, that was quick!)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/3270912/posts

[Bratch]

The Fair and Relevant Question

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  March 23rd, 2015 at 07:24 AM 

---

With Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) beginning his run for the Presidency today, I should make public the question I've suggested to reporters in private.

Senator Cruz is for certain going to be joined by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who will announce in a few weeks.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who I think is underrated in his bid for the Presidency even though Jeb Bush is intent on locking up Florida, will also most likely declare his candidacy.

All three of these men would make excellent Presidents. I know them personally. I backed them when they were at single digits in the polls. I pray for them regularly. I like them all.

Still, I think they have to answer a question those who come from Governor’s Mansions will not. That question is this:

For six years, Republicans have said the nation made a mistake electing a one term Senator the President of the United States. Why should you, a one term Senator, be the GOP’s nominee?

Given Republican rhetoric against President Obama for six years, it is fair and relevant. I look forward to their answers.

---

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

The question being: Is what they say true in the sense of reflecting reality? Are the polls accurate? We conservatives stated the 2012 Presidential polls were fixed, etc. The current imbecile won hands down.

[sparklite2]

Ted Cruz would get my vote, long shot or not.
I’ve given up on microscopically examining
every candidate to see if they agree with me
in every detail. Now I look for the one or two
things critical to me and consign the rest
of it to STDNM (shit that does not matter).

[golf lover]

I remember in 1976 when everyone was saying Jimmy who?

[Boogieman]

Yeah, I’m sure a lot of us were screaming at the tv during that second Obama-Romney debate just like Krusty!

[Cementjungle]

Why Ted Cruz Is Such a Long Shot

Because he's not Hillary. The DNC, MSM and GOP have a lot invested in Hillary being president, so that's that.

[Sola Veritas]

Actually I think Senator Cruz has quite a good chance. He can unite the value/moral voters with the fiscal (tea-party) ones. Plus, he is for closing the borders, etc.

I think he has an excellent chance of winning the primary and then the general election.

He is probably the most intelligent and articulate candidate to come along in a long time.

I think he IS a WINNER and he fully has my support. As a moral conservative, my first choice was initially Huckabee, but I now believe Cruz is the better choice to meaningfully put forward those moral issues of concern to myself, and those other issues of concern to others. I see him as a great uniter of the difference “conservative” factions of the GOP.

He is the man. The closet thing to Ronald Reagan.

[The Toll]

Somebody better tell that to the CRUZ TRAIN!

[Verginius Rufus]

Goldwater was painted as a warmonger and trigger-happy. He got the nomination because of the enthusiasm of conservatives, but also because he didn't have to face any strong opponent for the nomination. Maybe the big names all figured it was a Democrat year and they should wait until 1968.

The media tried to build up Gov. Scranton of Pennsylvania but that didn't get very far...he was an unknown and just a "not Goldwater" vote. National Review had a joke which ran: "What do you think of Scranton?" "I don't know--I've never been there."

[dfwgator]

Goldwater was painted as a warmonger and trigger-happy

I was told if I voted for Goldwater that we'd have riots in the streets and would get into a long unwinnable war. I voted for him, and darned if they weren't right.

[sickoflibs]

RE:”A candidate without substantial party support has never won the nomination,” said John Zaller, a political-science professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and one of four authors of “The Party Decides,” an influential work on the role of parties in the nominating process.”

Any contrary examples?

[2ndDivisionVet]

Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, for starters.