Posted on 03/27/2015 7:19:49 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
This might surprise you, but it appears that key GOP activists and influential party members do not see Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) as having much of a shot at becoming the party’s 2016 nominee. Now, anyone looking at the early state polls at this stage of the race might say the same thing. Cruz is not polling competitively in Iowa as of today, and he’s certainly not over-performing in New Hampshire. But these “insiders” who responded to a Politico Caucus survey don’t think Cruz can win either primary state. What’s more, they do not believe he can prevail against Hillary Clinton if he were to miraculously win the nomination.
The quotes provide to Politico via unnamed but reportedly influential figures within the party are illuminating, and they reflect a conventional wisdom about Cruz that appears accurate: He is a deeply polarizing figure, even among Republicans.
“The shutdown made him infamous to most and loved by a vocal few,” said a New Hampshire Republican.
“His supporters see his fight as a badge of honor,” said an Iowa Republican. “Undecided caucus-goers will likely see his shutdown strategy as a major blunder.”
…
“His fighter mentality will play well with conservative activists and those who listen to talk radio,” said an Iowa Republican, “but it’s not like he has scored any real accomplishment on rolling back the Affordable Care Act.”“Ted Cruz has a legislative record that has no positive accomplishments,” said another. “He will be in a field with many people that can point to positive accomplishments, either as governors or senators.”
“He is the reason Democrats can call Republicans ‘the Party of No,’” said a third Republican.
Sometimes, the conventional wisdom isn’t wrong, and Cruz’s approach to legislating since he took a seat in the Senate 26 months ago has been confrontational, self-aggrandizing, and alienating to adversaries and allies alike. Just because Cruz is a polarizing figure who fails to appeal to Republicans outside the most deeply conservative elements of the GOP coalition, however, does not mean that this talented orator and capable operator cannot outperform expectations.
In the commentary community, the race for the GOP nomination in 2016 has increasingly come to be characterized by lanes; a moderate lane, a tea party lane, an evangelical lane, a libertarian lane, et cetera. Rarely do these lanes merge. At least, not until the early state primaries are out of the way. For The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake, Cruz is better positioned than anyone in the field of Republican candidates to dominate multiple lanes.
So, Cruz is, without question, the dominant figure in the Tea Party lane. What that means — particularly in the early stages of the primary process in places like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina — is that he will likely be able to win, place or show repeatedly, wracking up enough strong-ish performances to keep going even as the Establishment lane and the Social Conservative lane begin to thin out. (Cruz’s ability to raise money, which remains a question, is less important for him than it is for other candidates — especially those in the Establishment lane. His people are going to be for him no matter how much — or little — communicating he does with them.)
And, according to The New York Times, Cruz’s strategy is to stay in his tea party lane, so to speak, while building inroads with the social conservative community. He reckons that this is the cycle that the Republican Party’s moderate wing, crowded as it is with capable 2016 prospects, will fail to unite behind one candidate in time to muscle the more conservative Republican out of the race.
Mr. Cruz’s early entry into the race, according to people briefed on his strategy, is a deliberate effort to recapture the attention of his party’s right wing as he seeks to build a coalition of Tea Party conservatives and evangelical Christians to try to cut through a crowded field of Republican contenders.
Does Cruz have the ability to prove all those voices who doubt his staying power wrong? That remains to be seen. The junior Texas senator has his own crowded field of conservative and evangelical candidates to best before he can make the case to the GOP electorate to take a chance on a firebrand in 2016. If the commentary class is right and the GOP insiders are wrong, however, Cruz could be in this race well into the spring of next year, if not longer.
Well, let's see, People elected Clinton twice, Carter once, Roosevelt 3 times, Wilson....anyway, people voted for them, right or wrong, because they got things done. They didn't use the presidency to learn management skills.....we had Kennedy to do that and he was a disaster.
Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, Harding ...
I think folks who make much of legislative vs. executive "experience" are grossly misguided.
I'm far more interested in principles and patriotism.
0bama isn't bad because he was "inexperienced"; he's bad because HE'S BAD.
Take those "rice bowls" away for good with TERM LIMITS and ANONYMOUS CAMPAIGN DONATIONS (you can't sell influence if you don't know who is buying).
I'm not so sure about that. They may have thought Romney had a better chance to win in 2012 than Gingrich or Santorum or Cain or Bachmann would have had, but I don't remember anybody saying that Romney was a sure thing. It's true that some of Romney's own circle were overconfident after that first debate, but nobody was that certain that he would win this early in the campaign cycle.
Similarly, somebody might have said that McCain would make a better candidate than Huckabee or Paul or Duncan Hunter. That's already a bit of stretch, though. Plenty of these Establishment Republicans (and conservatives as well, though nobody wants to talk about that now) preferred Romney to McCain in 2008. McCain was less of an Establishment favorite than you might think. He just managed to win more primaries.
Nobody, nobody, nobody, nobody, nobody said that Bob Dole was a sure thing in 1996. Look who he was running against though: Forbes, Buchanan, Dornan, Gramm, Keyes, Specter, Alexander, Lugar, etc. Are you really sure that any of them would have been that much better than Dole? Sometimes -- most of the time -- the ideal candidate just isn't out there.
At this point no one on FR should be critical of either Walker or Cruz as they are our best candidates. You are the one being critical and I never said anything about Walker - in fact I like Walker as well. So go ahead and keep ripping Cruz and see how long you last at FR.
I’m ok with both, may the best man win.
I agree with you.
The GopE is hoping and praying that Cruz can’t win.
FU GOPe.
You might be right
I wonder how many of those naysayers doubting Reagan could win were the first to be kissing his a$$ acting like his best friend. Though is Cruz wins I dont expect the GOPe to be friendly to him and will be as distant as the democrats.
Does MedVed even still have a radio show anymore? I figured he started the Gene Siskel thing and started reviewing movies 24/7 as I akways here his short movie reviews in between commercials on radio.
No matter what, they will fight against him. Even more so if they think he can win, so I really don’t give a rip what they think.
The only opinion that matters is what do the voters think.
ROTFLOL
Does MedVed even still have a radio show anymore?
I listen to him on my way home from work here in Louisville. Kinda makes me feel like I’m back in Seattle.
Look at any Walker post and you will see comments from a half dozen or more Cruz lovers who posted here. It is amazing how those who like Cruz think it is fine to blast Walker posts on FR yet their candidate is off limits.
Your logic is the same logic that has enabled Obama to crap on all of us and win another term. When we owe 18 trillion plus you are saying you won’t vote if Crus loses the nomination. You had best have foreign currency with access to it plus liquid assets like gold and silver. Anyone who thinks we can afford to let a Dem/socialist run this country for 4 more years has problems.
Why don’t we ask them?
You make assumptions and accusations but you didn’t address anything in my post. I’m assuming you’d choose the stomach? Like voting for a dem with an R next to his name really helps. Wake the hell up and snap into reality! Stop being part of the Sheeple herd and stand up to your masters.
What about the movie reviews I always hear. Pretty sure that is Medved as he is the only one I know on conservative radio that does movie reviews.
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.