VANITY: A contrasting opinion on the thoughts expressed in Jeff Head's Open Letter to Sen. Cruz

Self | 04/20/2016 | Dr. Sivana

[Dr. Sivana]

I'd like to thank Jeff Head for his well written piece on a vexing situation we find ourselves in.

I am a Cruz supporter, and I understand that Trump is likely to win the nomination. If he does, I will vote for him and hope that he is a better president than I expect him to be.

But the fact remains that outside of Trump's home region, the northeast, 50+ % are inclined NOT to vote for him. Cruz in some ways is the last man standing, because he anticipated this kind of struggle and prepared for it in the ways the others didn't (Scott Walker) or couldn't (a half-dozen without financial resources or will for a long fight).

Kasich remains in the race. If Cruz concedes now, without giving up ALL his leverage for the convention by releasing the delegates, Cruz voters either stay home or vote for Kasich, anti-Trump supporters come out, and Kasich might actually win a state or two, and more than a few delegates.

To the degree that the Establishment can still influence the primaries proper, they would go full bore behind Kasich. Cruz' presence actually is a massive distraction and destabilizing influence on the Establishment, which isn't one man, but an oligarchy of factions with considerable overlap but non-identical interests.

Whether we like it or not, Liz Mairs' jab at Melania was the catalyst that pushed both sides in an area from which they cannot retreat before the convention. If Trump thought it was okay to repeat that Cruz was a p**** then, Cruz folding after words would suggest it, but not in the minds of his opponents, but his supporters.

If Cruz pulls out, and he has 600 delegates, Kasich moves up to 400+ delegates, and Rubio and unbound have a few more (with few of the unbound being Trump supporters), and Trump is STILL short of 1,237, the Establishment will still pull all the stops with even LESS reason to go with either Trump or Cruz. I think they would fail, but the damage would be greater than if Cruz stayed in.

Based on my personal definition of Establishment, which allows for close connections with Goldman Sachs (Cruz has his wife's high level employment, Trump certainly has numerous financial arrangements throughout his business empire with them and various other bad players, perhaps out of necessity in his line of work), neither Trump nor Cruz qualify as Establishment. Both are willing to break things, especially rules of decorum in their own ways. Both have the will to make enemies and fight to win.

Most of the Cruz delegates at the convention, including the ones who are bound to Trump, and almost all of the other Trump delegates are needed to ace out the bad guys on rule changes, etc. This is the time for Trump supporters to make their case for boundaries on how state conventions can pick their candidates. You might be surprised how many Cruz supporters can be won over on those kinds of reforms if well-crafted.

This process seemed old back in September, when so many were complaining that Cruz and Trump WEREN'T attacking each other. Today will seem like a long time ago two weeks after the convention. If it is like that for wonks like us, what is it for casual observers? On the other hand, if we have a Romney-style throw in the towel for Mr. Inevitable, the wounds will not heal fully. Cruz or Trump, the Republican Party is being remade. Supporters of both have to be in the mix.

Few of us blame Reagan for staying in until the end even when Ford had the thing sewn up with unbound delegates from NY and PA. Did it cost Ford the election? It was close enough (under 2%) that it might have. I know of no one here blaming Reagan for playing it to the end, and helping to remake the Republican Party in the process. It certainly set up Reagan for 1980.

In my opinion, this is not the time for Cruz to drop out. Trump has not offered Cruz a rapprochement (and likely never will), and Cruz is not convinced that he can't win it all. Cruz retains much of his support, both his and anti-Trump sentiment. If that support should go to Trump or not bother showing up, then the story will write itself.

[TomGuy]

But the fact remains that outside of Trump's home region, the northeast, 50+ % are inclined NOT to vote for him.

You lose the argument with that statement, since it applies to EVERY wannabe candidate -- all 17 or so -- who ran in the Republican primaries this year.

That is the problem with trying to use 'negatives' as the basis for argument. The same can be said for the 'likeability' polls that have Trump at 69% negative. Clinton is at 64%.

Voters will be faced with 2 major contenders in November. Even then, it will be the candidate who wins in enough states to garner 270 Electoral votes. Candidates can win Electoral votes based on pluralities, not majorities.

[Slyfox]

In New York.

[Delta 21]

If these two stood up and admitted that it has been nothing but Kabuki theater since day 1 and walk arm in arm to the White House, We The People would be back in charge for at least the next 16 years.

[jwalsh07]

Trumps only hope of beating Hillary is to stifle his inner ahole which will improve his favorables and give anti-dems a chance to depress give me that turnout.

[Solson]

Why do you believe that “50% voting against Trump” is relevant with respect to Cruz? There is no direct correlation.

[dirtboy]

Few of us blame Reagan for staying in until the end even when Ford had the thing sewn up with unbound delegates from NY and PA. Did it cost Ford the election? It was close enough (under 2%) that it might have. I know of no one here blaming Reagan for playing it to the end, and helping to remake the Republican Party in the process. It certainly set up Reagan for 1980.

Reagan was not mathematically eliminated during the primaries. It was only in the leadup to the convention that he swayed enough unbound delegates. I know, my grandmother was one of them.

[Dr. Sivana]

You lose the argument with that statement, since it applies to EVERY wannabe candidate -- all 17 or so -- who ran in the Republican primaries this year.

Normally, as candidates drop out, the front runner picks up a sizable chunk of support, and with momentum,pulls in well over 50%. Cruz was in single digits in October, and picked up in the mid-40s in Wisconsin in the last primary before NY. Trump moved up some, mid-twenties in Iowa, mid-thirties in New Hampshire, mid-30s to low-40s in the southeast, upper '40s in New England, but still mired in 20s and 30s in the mountain states and much of the great plains. In all these regions, his numbers have only inched up since those other candidates dropped out (alker saw this when he droped out and urged others to follow his lead). Trump has his very committed support, but is upside is quite limited. Cruz is also limited in the northeast, as Kasich at this point for most is a protest vote, or a vote for a mere counter to Trump at the convention, and still pulls in the mid-20s.

If Trump weren't the very last choice of a sizable number (which I am not part of, he is my second choice at this point, including against ANYone introduced at the convention) he'd be over 50% by now. Since NO candidate has a majority of support, then it gets worked out at the convention.

[taxcontrol]

Well said

[Dr. Sivana]

Why do you believe that “50% voting against Trump” is relevant with respect to Cruz? There is no direct correlation.

Mainly because Cruz has been more able to pick up former Rubio, Carson, Fiorina etc. supporters than Trump has been thus far. Except for the fact that many Republicans consider Cruz to be a serious conservative and a qualified candidate, they are able to make the move. If it had been Cruz, not Walker who pulled out early, and Walker were the last man standing, then he'd be in this position. The same could be said about Jindal, Perry and others (except Carson, who suffered from lack of prep and a bad staff).

Cruz also did not go as far out of his way to insult candidates in ways that were either personal (Fiorina's face) or patently untrue (Walker's performance in Wisconsin, which is a large part of the reason why Trump failed there). Negatice campaigning, and personal campaigning can work, but it comes with its own price.

[taxcontrol]

The accommodation(s) that I would like to see is a gentleman’s agreement from Trump to nominate Cruz for SCOTUS, Walker as VP. Though to be honest, Trump has a long history of breaking business deals. I am not sure that he could be trusted even with a signed contract.

[Harpotoo]

You forgot Lyin Ryan!-)

[Dr. Sivana]

March 16, 2016 is way too early in the process?

That is not a rapprochement from Trump, but one from Hugh Hewitt. I am also doubtful that Trump/Cruz works best for knocking out HRC, though I think either of them can in different ways.

[Harpotoo]

There is only 1 candidate that is winning, the rest are all losing!

Go Trump Go!

And if cruzifer and the establishment try any funny stuff it will be Illary 2017 and the end of the GOP/REP Party. And if you folks can live with that, well then the more power to you.

[Resolute Conservative]

“he is as hated as Boehner and McConnell and Romney.” Delusion is string in this one.

Show your proof other than National Enquirer stories and twitter lies to shore up your position about him being exposed.

[McGruff]

Best thing Ted Cruz can do now is to let Trump win and hope for a Supreme Court appointment. He can’t win and the longer he stays in the more damage he’s done.

[spel_grammer_an_punct_polise]

Where is Jeff Head’s letter?

[phs3]

If Bernie wasn’t in it, not nearly as many would have come out. Bernie supporters are pissed! Come Nov, his supporters will either sit it out or vote Trump.

[mouse1]

Yep cause Ted did so well with those Southern Evangelicals, and Florida and Michigan and Illinois and Nevada and Arizona etc. Trump can only win the Northeast.

[Dr. Sivana]

Where is Jeff Head’s letter?

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3422900/posts

[Dr. Sivana]

Best thing Ted Cruz can do now is to let Trump win and hope for a Supreme Court appointment.

Cruz may not WANT a lifetime Supreme Court appointment.