|
 |
Posted on 02/13/2015 12:09:07 PM PST by SoConPubbie
A prominent Republican consultant — who isn't working for any of the 2016 presidential candidates and who has been right more times than I can count — said something that shocked me when we had lunch recently. He said that Texas Sen. Ted Cruz had roughly the same odds of becoming the Republican presidential nominee as former Florida governor Jeb Bush.
Jaw-dropper, right? After all, the conventional wisdom is that Bush, the son and brother of presidents, is the frontrunner to be the Republican standard-bearer, while Cruz, a conservative's conservative, is a factor, sure, but not someone who could actually win the nomination.
How, I asked this guy, could he say such a thing? He explained it this way.
Think of the Republican primary field as a series of lanes. In this race, there are four of them: Establishment, Tea Party, Social Conservative and Libertarian. The four lanes are not of equal size: Establishment is the biggest followed by Tea Party, Social Conservative and then Libertarian. (I could be convinced that Libertarian is slightly larger than Social Conservative, but it's close.)
Obviously the fight for the top spot in the Establishment lane is very crowded, with Bush and possibly Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker leading at the moment. Ditto the Social Conservative lane with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson and Rick Santorum all pushing hard there. The Libertarian lane is all Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul's but, as I noted above, it's still not that big.
Which leaves the Tea Party lane, which is both relatively large and entirely Cruz's. While Paul looked as though he might try to fight Cruz for supremacy in that lane at one time, it's clear from his recent moves that the Kentucky senator is trying to become a player in a bunch of lanes, including Social Conservative and Establishment.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
|
|
These two guys get it right, where Walker is concerned.
He is the backup Establishment candidate if Jeb Bush fails.
So, Cruz is, without question, the dominant figure in the Tea Party lane. What that means — particularly in the early stages of the primary process in places like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina — is that he will likely be able to win, place or show repeatedly, wracking up enough strong-ish performances to keep going even as the Establishment lane and the Social Conservative lane begin to thin out. (Cruz's ability to raise money, which remains a question, is less important for him than it is for other candidates — especially those in the Establishment lane. His people are going to be for him no matter how much — or little — communicating he does with them.)
CRUZ or LOSE!
I continue to hope and to pray that the other Tea Party candidates will keep out for 2016, and that more establishment candidates will dispute Bush’s claim to establishment votes. The more divided the establishment wing is, the better.
CRUZ or lose!
But Scott Walker looks like a good alternative. What if those two had the media attacking them both simultaneously?
Then it would be clear that media hatred for either one is based entirely on their conservative beliefs, giving them standout quality.
IMO it’s good that we now have not one but two Reaganites in the mix. They both drive liberals hysterical so it’s hard to choose.
Cruz is use to being underrated; he will remain so until the last day; when he blows the doors off the establishment, he is the embodiment of Shock and Awe!
Why? Because he would kick ass, take names and generally wipe the floor with her.
He ran behind “Mighty Mitty” in deep red Texas.
Both total votes and percentage.
Has to do better than that to win in 2016, either primaries or November.
They have it wrong in this regard. The social conservative lane is BIGGER than the establishment lane. They say it is the other way around, and they are wrong on the numbers. Ted Cruz might be the first choice of Tea Partiers, and I suspect not, but I am the quintessential social, religious conservative, and he is far and away my first choice.
The WP refuses to say the obvious. Money is the major issue.
Ted Cruz will NOT get the billionaire money. That will go to Bush and Walker, Walker being far better and much less looney than Bush.
Cruz will get millions of small donors AND SOON or his candidacy will be in jeopardy. The Iowa caucuses are a year away. He gets donors by June or he’s in trouble.
Walker/Cruz 2016!
And Sarah as Secretary of State!
I have a hard time believing Christie, Paul, and especially Rubio have a better shot at the nomination currently than Cruz does.
That surprised me at first and my initial reaction was to disagree. But after reading the entire article and giving it more thought I have to agree. Walker is the candidate that the establishment will embrace to a point so that they can say, "See? We really are conservative" while at the same time doing all they can to make sure Walker gets the Veep spot at best. And if they fail and Jeb does a crash and burn then they can move him to the top as someone they can live with.
I want Scott Walker as President and Ted Cruz as Attorney General. Then when Ginsburg croaks, put him on the Supreme Court.
I could vote for Walker without having to hold my nose, as I've had to do in the past, but Cruz is still currently my first choice. I think he's the more eloquent speaker and could do a better job of promoting the conservative message than Walker could, and I think that is what will be needed next year.
I’m lukewarm on Walker until he shows me the money. Ted Cruz is the guy we need.
Can’t be in a field if you aren’t eligible. How easy we hold our enemies to a higher standard yet throw our credibility to the wind.
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.