C'mon, did you HAVE to do that?
I mean, we FINALLY got rid of the Paulbots this election...
Posted on 03/10/2016 2:58:55 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
There's one huge takeaway from Tuesday's primaries results: Ted Cruz overperformed in a state where conventional wisdom says he shouldn't have had a chance, namely Michigan. His overperformance - edging out John Kasich for second place, in a state where Kasich should naturally be stronger - is way more significant looking forward than his once-again second place finish in Mississippi, which is another of those southern states that Cruz's campaign based their dubious "evangelicals who don't vote because no one is conservative enough" strategy upon.
Of the "not Trumps" still standing, Senator Cruz is closer to what I'd like to see on policy. Senator Marco Rubio is closer to what I'd like to see in terms of politicking and the all-important engendering of a personal relationship with voters, which I've already supposed was more important to Ronald Reagan's success than his conservatism. It's time to face facts though, and with his grand tally of zero delegates won on March 8th, realize that Rubio is probably finished. It's an open question if Rubio can pull out a Florida miracle in less than a week, and the consequences of him not winning are of the same magnitude of the futility of his way forward if he does win. Look at it this way: we have both Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and former Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal - both more loved by "our side" than say, Chris Christie - politically intact for the future because they left the race before getting demolished at the ballot box.
The conservative/conservatarian/liberaservative/libertarian movement needs a politically intact Marco Rubio for the future. He'd likely be irreparably damaged by a Florida loss, and I don't think today's electorate is going to repeat the Nixonian equation of getting trounced for a major office (California Governor, 1962) and then coming back for a major win (Presidency, 1968) anytime soon (See: Rick Perry, 2012 and 2016 Presidential campaigns).
"But what about Kasich!?," I'm sure someone out there is crying. Well, what goes for Rubio goes for him. He could win Ohio next Tuesday, but what would that actually accomplish? He just finished third in a northern rust belt state he had staked not quite as much as his home state on, but close. There's a place for Kasich in a hopeful Republican administration that will begin on January 20, 2017, but it isn't in the Oval Office.
Which brings us back to Ted Cruz. I almost wrote, "leaves us with," but that'd be inaccurate as it's hardly a settling position. He's got Reagan conservatism down pat - and that isn't the problem. Ted Cruz just isn't likeable except to people inclined to agree with him in the first place, but I think he can fix it. He might even be able to fix it quickly enough to game-change both Florida, Ohio, and other Super Tuesday II states. Here's three ways how.
Reinvent his stump speech. I tweeted during last week's debate Thursday night that for the first time in a long while, Cruz opened his mouth and didn't make me like him less. He then followed up one of his best debate performances with his address to CPAC on Friday...which was the mostly same Ted Cruz speech we've heard every time he gives one. It's great material for firing up conservatives. Cruz doesn't need to fire up conservatives. One of the most common complaints I hear of Cruz's delivery is that he comes across like a Baptist preacher. I'm a little more charitable and say Cruz always thinks he's delivering a closing argument to a jury, rather than speaking to an electorate. He needs to inspire and attract persuadable Republican voters currently leaning towards or in other candidates' camps. As important, he needs to start inspiring and attracting voters in whole, looking forward to the general election in November. Pitching fear and reactionary solutions in response has been cornered by Donald Trump. Take a page from Marco Rubio and be visionary first, adversarial a distant second.
Make peace with the "establishment". This will be the hardest thing for Cruz to do, but he has to if he expects to win the nomination and the Presidency. It can be done without surrendering principles too. When Senator Lindsey Graham - if he isn't in tune with the "establishment" no one is - suggested last week that it might be time for the party to rally around Cruz to stop Trump, that was an invitation to Cruz not a plea to the establishment. There's one simple event that Cruz could construct that will fit this bill: apologize publicly to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. Cruz, if you remember, called McConnell a liar on the floor of the Senate back last July, scoring points with RINO-hating conservatives none of whom happen to serve in the Congress. Ideally, he'd have done this before the Kentucky caucus last Saturday (where he came in second, 4.3% behind Trump) but it could still have a positive impact. I'd do it as a joint appearance with both McConnell and junior Kentucky Senator Rand Paul if they're willing. Neither of them has a current candidate endorsement. Rand Paul was very smart to keep McConnell in his corner, supporting the majority leader for reelection in 2014, and receiving his endorsement for President. It's almost certain McConnell will back Paul for reelection to the Senate in November. Rand Paul knew he'd ultimately need the "establishment" more than they'd need him, and he's better for it. Cruz could make it clear that he's not seeking either man's endorsement at the presser, if that's what's needed to get them to show. Leave it as "I'm sorry," the media will cover it, and Cruz will gain points with the hated establishment and also show a quality to voters that doesn't come naturally to him: humility.
Wake up to a "big tent" strategy. As mentioned above, Cruz's campaign was centered on winning southern, evangelical conservatives in a near-exclusionary fashion. It failed. If there's one lasting lesson to this election cycle, it's that evangelicals don't vote as a cohesive bloc; they've been going for twice-divorced, irreverent in his delivery Trump more than Cruz. Part of this goes back to the first point on his campaign rhetoric - be less preachy and conservatives-focused - but it also speaks to seizing opportunities when they're handed to you on a silver platter. Last month, Cruz and his campaign pulled a campaign ad solely because one of the actors in it, Amy Lindsay, has been in "Skinemax" films. It was a clear pander to social/moral conservatives/statists ("Progressives for Jesus", as described in Meredith Ancret Walker's new book), and gained Cruz nothing while solidifying him as a cultural prude. Actually, it lost Cruz something, because Ms. Lindsay has now come out in support of Trump, when she had earlier said she could support Cruz. There's an opportunity now sitting here for the taking that will scream inclusivity, not be seen as pandering, and will make progressive heads explode: get Caitlyn Jenner on the campaign trail and do joint appearances. The left's heads are already detonating after her not-quite-endorsement of Cruz. Play it up. What's Jenner's hesitancy on fully backing Cruz? Evangelical Christianity - you know, that supposed voting bloc that has failed Cruz thus far. There's more to be gained with people not inclined to join the "Cruz Crew" than will be lost by those who will be fauxtraged. And guess who, more than any part of the electorate, will stand up and take notice? Millennials. Win them.
Super Tuesday II on March 15th will probably cast the die for who the Republican nominee will be, come July's convention in Cleveland. Ted Cruz, by the results so far, is the only candidate with a mathematical path to beating Trump outright. The opportunity to broaden his appeal is sitting in his hands. It remains to be seen if he grasps it.
Cruz is my choice of the current group based on the issues, but rather than stick to the issues, he made the mistake of attacking Trump. As we have seen, attacking Trump has not worked out very well for anyone. Even Bill Clinton was shut down by him.
Calling Trump supporters dumb will only hurt his campaign further.
Back to Canada.
was this written by Karl Rove???
I don't know why some of you treat Trump as he has been a politician all his life. He has not been. Totally 2 different things. He's already admitted his donations were just business like any savvy businessman would and he has been a very successful businessman. He didn't hide any of that so we know what we are getting with him.
Trump is not a career politician like so many in the establishment are. It's a totally different ball game and at this point, it is a risk, but it may be all we have. I believe it is worth the risk. The GOPe talks a good game during the elections, for so many decades, but pretty much do the opposite of what the American people want. We give them majorities and they turn and stab us in the back by giving the democrats and 0bama everything they want.
Cruz is just revealing he is more of the same coming from the GOPe. He still may be conservative but there is no doubt he compromised his principles for a seat at the establishment table. There is also no doubt the whole establishment, including GOPe, dems, media, etc., is doing everything it can to try to take Trump out as they fear a true outsider that could potentially expose all their corruption (I for one, hope and pray he does).
That's exactly why I said if we elect Trump, we can have both. A true outsider outside of all the DC corruption and we could destroy the GOP establishment, as we know it, at the same time.
CGato
“The conservative/conservatarian/liberaservative/libertarian movement needs a politically intact Marco Rubio for the future.”
Why? In case amnesty doesn’t pass in the next eight years?
He brought Neil Bush as a bigger more corrupt screw up. You’re not supposed to notice Beck anymore due to the odor of Bush.
2 questions...why do you want a Cuban
why do you want a Canadian
This year lets keep the questionable Natural born citizens on the sideline. Vote Trump or Kasich. Democrats, keep felons and communists on the sidelines also. Leaves 2.
[full disclosure - Cruz supporter]
The ONLY way for Cruz to win before the convention is going to require a significant alteration of the voting pattern from the GOPe and their supporters. This year, the GOPe is the one that has to hold their nose when they vote and they dont like it.
The problem is that they still feel that things will turn around and their guys can win. No one appears to be ready to let go and gravitate behind a single candidate. As such, it is Trump’s to win. And I still predict about 1,300 delegates for Trump going into the convention.
That’s pretty clear evidence.
Even with the Jenner comment? Really?!
I suspect he’d lose a lot of the non-Activist Left.
Yes, that .6% margin of victory will thunder down to the last syllable of recorded history!
You can't have it both ways.
You can't have Ted Cruz in second place, and then crow because he beats the guy in fourth place.
You can't say Kasich can't win and then make him out to be "naturally stronger" in a state when he's undercovered and underfunded everywhere.
2nd place means you are best of the losers. Nothing else.
Because we need a natural born Cuban on the national ticket, to go along with the natural born Cuban / Canadian?
C'mon, did you HAVE to do that?
I mean, we FINALLY got rid of the Paulbots this election...
Judging by his hires in the recent past, Cruz reads it that way too.
I’m pretty sure Trump was talking about education, not low info voters, because that’s how pollster break up the voters. So Cruz don’t want high school graduates to vote for him? What an elitist
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.