Posted on 04/04/2015 8:51:24 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Texas Senator Ted Cruz announced his 2016 presidential campaign last month, making him the only current official Republican candidate — for now. All of that is expected to change next week as Marco Rubio and Rand Paul make their own announcements, and likely push Cruz into the presidential background.
But it’s not just me who believes that Ted Cruz has no shot of being the party nominee, much less the eventual President in 2016. Here are four pretty persuasive groups who also say that President Cruz is never going to happen.
1. His fellow Texas politicians
It’s pretty hard to fight for the party nomination when you don’t have the support of your own party members. It’s even worse when you don’t have the support of your local party leaders. Texas Republican Congressman Rep. Pete Sessions told Politico that he doesn’t think Cruz can rally the Texans behind him, saying, “We need someone who can win the state of Florida, can win the state of Pennsylvania … and can win the state of Ohio. We can have favorite sons. … There is nothing wrong with that, but Republicans want to win before we want an ideological [candidate].” Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn, another fellow Texan, also said he won’t be behind Cruz, at least, not right now. “You know, we’ve got a lot of Texans who are running for president, so I’m going to watch from the sidelines,” he told Politico.
2. News outlet political pundits
It’s not just his fellow lawmakers shooting him down, either. The political pages of numerous media outlets think he’s a no-go, too. The L.A. Times called him a “Sarah Palin with a high IQ,” which is supposed to be flattering but still shows he doesn’t have a prayer, saying, “Because most Americans are not keen on going back to the 18th century, chances are reasonably good that Cruz will be no more successful in national politics than Palin has been.” U.S. News and World Report’s politics column refers to him as “The Imaginary President,” all rhetoric and no results. “While he likes to imagine himself the heir to Reagan (the good parts, anyway) Cruz’s rhetorical style seems to have served him far better than any legislative ideas he might have come up with. (Abolish the IRS? The department that collects the money that pays for roads, schools, cops and wars?) And considering he’s a member of arguably the least productive Congress in modern times, it’s not like there’s an actual record for him to run on.”
3. Policy folks who are supposed to know this sort of thing
What are Cruz’s chances, according to the Hinckley Institute of Politics? Pretty near zip. “I give him almost zero chance of winning the nomination,” said Kirk Jowers, with the Hinckley Institute of Politics, told a Utah news station, adding that Cruz is a “dangerous candidate” for the Republican Party. He said that “safe money” is on Jeb Bush, but a Marco Rubio candidacy has the best shot if Hillary Clinton ends up with the Democratic party nomination.
4. The IRS
So how do people who work in the government feel about Cruz’s chances? One agency most likely to be impacted by a President Cruz would be the Internal Revenue Service, since Cruz claims that his administration would get rid of the whole thing. Current IRS Commissioner John Koskinen says that is never going to happen – and is completely unrealistic to boot. ”Politics are politics,” he told Bloomberg News. “It is interesting to me. When you say you’re going to abolish the IRS and everybody will fill out a small card, somebody has to collect the money.” He then addressed Cruz, saying, “You could call them something other than the IRS if that made you feel better.”
So, sorry, Senator Cruz, it looks like 2016 isn’t going to be your year. Maybe you should focus on 2020 instead. Feel free to make an early announcement whenever you feel most comfortable.
*****
Robin Marty is a freelance writer and editor who focuses on women's rights, reproductive rights and politics. She spent the previous three years working with a national progressive online news network and currently consults for a reproductive health news organization.
I was a teenager in 1980. I grew up in Connecticut and I remember the adults around me were unhappy about Jimmy Carter, and they were talking about how they were thinking about voting for this guy named Ronald Reagan. Well, of course decades later we’ve all come to realize what a transformational presidency that Reagan’s was and I’m thinking next year will be another one too. Almost the same circumstances too. Stagnant economy and the Iranians doing a number on our elected officials in DC.
yep, you nailed it....
You missed the most important word in my statement - ELIGIBLE voters.
The Census counts ALL persons present in Texas, including illegals, legal non-citizens, and minor children.
Hispanics make up 38.4% of Texas residents. But only 44% of Texas Hispanics are eligible to vote.
Non-Hispanic whites make up 44% of Texas residents (not 55% as you wrote above). However, almost 80% of Texas whites are eligible to vote.
In all Texas elections, eligible white voters turn out at a much higher rate than eligible Hispanic voters.
In the 2014 election, all ethnic groups in Texas turned out at a lower rate compared to 2012. But Hispanic turn out was the lowest of all. Compared to 2012, almost 50% fewer Hispanics turned out.
You also made another math error. You claim all state wide Texas GOP candidates won by at least 20% in 2014. Cruz won by 15.8%.
Re: “If 65% of white vote Republican, then the entire Midwest opens up for Republicans and Dems won’t know what hit them.”
The last presidential candidate to get 65% of the white vote was Founding Father James Monroe, in 1820.
Re: “You can give up, I will not.”
Glad to hear that.
What's your plan to stop massive LEGAL immigration?
Oh, I forgot, you support Ted Cruz, who wants to INCREASE massive LEGAL immigration.
Re: “The premise underlying your entire argument on this is wrong.”
Your one sentence analysis is incorrect.
HEY GENIUS - how about you quit TROLLING this site.
For starters, exactly WHAT OFFICE was Cruz running for in 2014? It certainly wasn’t US Senate - he won that 2 years earlier.
Perhaps it’s best that you stop TROLLING THIS SITE unless you have something CONSTRUCTIVE to say.
“The last presidential candidate to get 65% of the white vote was Founding Father James Monroe, in 1820”
So who’s your candidate? Harold Stassen perhaps?
Your premise is that this “legal immigration” issue has proportional relevance. It doesn’t. See post # 60 to illustrate why.
.
>> “Hispanics make up 38.4% of Texas residents. But only 44% of Texas Hispanics are eligible to vote.” <<
And that fact is what the Democrat party has staked its very existence upon changing.
.
Your comment makes no sense.
I was responding to your political fantasy about a GOP presidential candidate getting 65% of the white vote.
What does Harold Stassen have to do with that?
Yup - I goofed.
Since this is a thread about Ted Cruz's election chances, I assumed you were talking about Cruz getting a 20% margin.
I'll read more carefully next time.
I've been trolling Free Republic since the Bush election in 2000.
Immigration is my specialty, since 2005 anyway, when I helped Free Republic destroy the Bush-McCain Amnesty.
If Jim doesn’t like my threads, he can inform me of that. You, however, are not the site owner any more than I am.
“I was responding to your political fantasy about a GOP presidential candidate getting 65% of the white vote.”
Republican candidates got 75% to 89% of the WHITE VOTE from Alabama to New Mexico in 2014 - that’s why they won by the margins they did. I’ll concede that it was an off-year election, but asking for 65% nationally is not unreasonable, given the how far left the Dems now are.
But they will have to run a candidate that will FIGHT FOR THE WHITE VOTE - they will not get it by running Harold Stassen or whoever you’re pushing.
“Re: “For starters, exactly WHAT OFFICE was Cruz running for in 2014?” Yup - I goofed.”
You’re a better man than most here, admitting a mistake...
“Since this is a thread about Ted Cruz’s election chances, I assumed you were talking about Cruz getting a 20% margin.”
I know people that voted against Cruz (or didn’t vote) here in Texas in 2012 because they didn’t like his style against other Republicans. They had no problem with his political positions though. Add them to the vote, and he likely would have reached a 20% number.
But I’m STILL WAITING - you tell me you’re against Amnesty, yet you seem to say that the country is a lost cause for Republicans...so who should the Republicans run. I use Harold Stassen because I haven’t heard any other names. Maybe Harold Baker? I just don’t know your strategy...maybe buying land and barricading in Idaho?
Since 2005 my strategy has been to convince Republicans to only support candidates who:
(1) Demand dramatic reductions in LEGAL immigration.
(2) Demand vigorous enforcement of current laws against illegal immigration.
I have totally failed.
100% irreversible failure.
Every year, more Republicans die than Democrats.
Every year, more Democrats turn 18 than Republicans.
Every year, 750,000 new citizens are sworn in, and 80% of them will vote for Democrats.
As best I can tell, a majority of the Republican Party is aggressively supporting its own political suicide.
I have no idea how to stop that, except to keep pushing the mathematical reality in their faces - and hoping for a political miracle.
So you suggest we pack it up and move to Idaho for a last stand?
Sorry, but I not give up that easily.
Republicans have been getting 70%-90% of the white vote in most of the southeastern states since Nixon's landslide in 1972.
I haven't seen 2014 data on New Mexico, but Romney got just 56% of the white vote there in 2012.
Maybe Susana Martinez, the Mexican-American Republican governor, got 75% of the white vote in New Mexico in 2014?
Are you aware that 61% of Hispanics voted AGAINST Martinez in 2010?
Most important - the impressive surplus of white votes in the S.E. is offset by much more liberal white voting in other states.
White voters in Washington state, Oregon, Iowa, and most of the N.E. states gave Obama a majority vote.
In Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Michigan, the white vote was very close to 50-50.
Bottom Line - if a majority of white voters in the Pacific northwest, the Midwest, and the N.E. really want a Conservative president, why don't they vote like the white voters in Texas and the Old South?
I respect your stamina.
I've been fighting this War since Kennedy-Nixon in 1960.
Except for a couple years in Reagan's first term, except for a couple months during the Newt Gingrich revolution in 1995, this country has relentlessly moved to the LEFT for the last 55 years.
If you have a serious national strategy to stop that, I look forward to hearing about it.
“In Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Michigan, the white vote was very close to 50-50.”
Ever wonder why? They are the target...get them to 65% and even Illinois would be play.
What makes you SO CONVINCED that their vote is static. They voted for Reagan in the past, they can do it again.
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.