One of the things I dislike about Cruz’s campaign is that he started this pretty nasty divisive conversation pitting Americans against each other. I don’t want us to nominate a “President of The South”. In order to actually, you know, win the election and be able to do anything, the candidate has to be broadly appealing enough to win. I’d prefer someone who is more demonstrably able to at least bring everyone to the table and hear everyone out.
That doesn’t mean that everyone at the table gets something, but dismissing “New York values” makes it seem like if he’s elected, Ted Cruz isn’t going to give a damn about anyone in any city in America. This hurts his electability on the national level so badly I don’t even know why he’s in contention for the nomination anymore, to be honest. I think he really shot himself in the foot with these comments and has picked a fight that voters aren’t going to forget about in November.
Cruz supporter here, who agrees wholeheartedly with the substance of the “New York Values” remark and with Ted’s follow up that Trump actually coined the term.
But it was an unforced error by Cruz, trying to gain in the short term but weakening in the long term, and appealing to regional division rather than unified principles of limited government under the Constitution. Ted should have come back at Donald for his individual emotional reactions to challenge and his history of supporting liberal causes and politicians, not for where he is from.
Having said that, Trump, Clinton, Sanders, and now perhaps Bloomberg all have very strong NYC ties. Cruz alone among the top tier is not connected there. Tactically I’m not sure whether/how Cruz as the nominee could exploit that; perhaps by strongly identifying with Flyover country while refraining from any hint of further criticism of NYC. But just because that would work with me, doesn’t mean it would deliver 270 Electoral votes.