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.
“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? “
Because the last CONSERVATIVE that ran was Reagan. Perhaps we give them the opportunity again.
“Republicans have been getting 70%-90% of the white vote in most of the southeastern states since Nixon’s landslide in 1972.”
You still need to revisit history. The South was SOLID DEMOCRAT until 20 years ago...and then only slowly became solid Republican. It wasn’t Democrat back then because of black/Hispanic voters.
The leftards sure do spill a lot of ink over someone who they insist is unelectable and irrelevant.
Cruz Derangement Syndrome ...
Certain political elites, certain bureaucrats, and an androgyne I have never heard of before all oppose Ted Cruz, therefore I must vote for Hildebeeste?
WTF?
TED CRUZ FOR PRESIDENT!!!
“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. “
I don’t disagree that the country has moved left (sadly), but the Democrats have moved left MUCH FASTER than the country. The strategy SHOULD BE to call them out on it, rather than join them (i.e., most of today’s Republicans), or simply give up.
...and just what do you hope to accomplish coming here and telling everyone we lost and to simply give up? I have kids, so I REFUSE to make it easy for the Democrats to wreck their lives.
It’s rare when an author’s photograph so accurately summarizes an article. :)
1972 - Nixon wins every Southern state plus Texas.
1976 - Georgia governor Jimmy Carter wins the South back against Gerald Ford, a very weak candidate, and against the political chaos of Watergate, three years of high inflation, a 400% oil price increase, severe gasoline shortages, and the collapse of Vietnam.
1980 and 1984 - Reagan wins every Southern state plus Texas in two elections, except Georgia, Carter's home state, which Reagan lost once, in 1980.
1988 - Bush wins every Southern state plus Texas.
1992 - Bush wins Texas plus more Southern states than the all-Southern boy Clinton-Gore ticket.
“Re: “You still need to revisit history. The South was SOLID DEMOCRAT until 20 years ago.”
1972 - Nixon wins every Southern state plus Texas.....”
You may not know how things operated in the South, but DEMOCRATS sure as hell ran Texas and EVERY OTHER Southern state FOR DECADES. While Republicans could usually win at the presidential level - this area was SINGLE PARTY DEMOCRAT RULE until only 20 years ago.
Whites in the South DID NOT vote 70-90 Republican, EVER, until LAST YEAR - at least not at any level below president. The idea that voting patterns will remain STAGNANT is TOTALLY DISPROVEN down here. You can count the elected white Democrats at the State House level and above on ONE HAND now. 20 years ago THEY RAN EVERYTHING.
You still HAVE NOT answered my question - WHAT DO WE DO NOW?
You seem to only say that we (collectively) screwed up and that you (and just about everyone else on this site) tried to stop the idiots running the Republican Party, but they wouldn’t listen.
So, WHAT DO WE DO NOW? If it’s simply give up, that’s not acceptable, not on this site. It’s usually considered trolling when someone tries to demoralize others on this site, although your earlier posts almost make me think you’re serious about throwing in the towel.
Bob,
This is a thread about presidential elections.
I’m talking about presidential elections.
And I lived the first 35 years of my life in North and South Carolina and Florida.
What do we do now?
We support presidential candidates who do not reward illegal immigrants, and who do not support massive LEGAL immigration.
If no such candidates step forward - and none have - then I plan to keep reminding my fellow Conservatives that a political catastrophe is very, very near.
“If no such candidates step forward - and none have - then I plan to keep reminding my fellow Conservatives that a political catastrophe is very, very near.”
I guess you can keep trying to DEMORALIZE FReepers here, essentially telling them to give up, since you already know that there will NEVER be the candidate you desire.
I’m just not sure the mods appreciate that attitude here.
The NYTs exit polling has it at 67% in 1972, and 64% in 1984.
Re: “I’m just not sure the mods appreciate that attitude here.”
Well, they have had 15 years to kick me out.
So far, not even a warning - most likely because I publish hard data and link my sources whenever I am seriously challenged.
My prediction - In November 2016, after a solid Democrat victory, you will be claiming that the Democrats cheated, or that perfectionist Conservatives like me stayed home.
My analysis of your politics - Either you are indifferent to immigration policy, or you quietly support the current level of massive LEGAL immigration.
At least twice in this thread I have posted - and agreed with - the 1984 (64%) number.
Gallup actually has 1972 at 68%.
Very easy to calculate if the 67% and 68% numbers are accurate - and they are not.
In 1972, 90%-91% of the voters were white.
In 1972, Nixon's certified vote total was 60.7%.
Gallup claims that only 13% of non-whites voted for Nixon, which would be the lowest number in modern history.
Multiple sources challenge that and claim that Nixon received about 18% of the Black vote and about 35% of the Hispanic vote.
If you plug in Gallup and NYT exit numbers, you do not get Nixon at 60.7%. You get Nixon at about 63%-64%.
Around 1980, exit poll takers started “norming” their numbers. In other words, they adjust their exit polls until they agree with the actual results.
If you want to claim that Nixon got 64%, that's possible, and I won't challenge you.
If you claim 67% or 68% like NYT and Gallup, the certified election results do not support that math.
I’ll go with the exit polling data, not your system.
Norm the data to the actual results.
If you reject “my system,” you reject all current exit data.
And, just so I understand...
Gallup says 13% of non-white voters voted for Nixon in 1972.
NYT says Blacks voted 18% for Nixon, and Hispanics voted 35% for Nixon.
And, neither Gallup or NYT published voter turn out by ethnicity, so we have no idea what base they were using, although it can be estimated.
Which of those data sets is correct?
Or, maybe both data sets are incorrect?
“Re: “I’m just not sure the mods appreciate that attitude here.” Well, they have had 15 years to kick me out.”
Maybe so, but I’ve been on DOZENS of threads on this site on immigration and have not run into you before, certainly not with the line you’re spouting about. And you sound more like a troll, trying non-stop to tell our side to HANG IT UP, IT’S OVER, more than anyone else I’ve dealt with. You can KEEP THIS UP on future thread, but I will not play with you as long, and the mods do have limitations on their patience.
“My analysis of your politics - Either you are indifferent to immigration policy, or you quietly support the current level of massive LEGAL immigration.”
So by supporting Cruz that means I support open borders, or at least unlimited immigration. I assume you feel the same way regarding Mr. Robinson as he supports Cruz to the same level, and I’ll be sure to tie him into the the thread that you start this crap on.
You aren’t very convincing, about anything, frankly.
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.