Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The “anyone but Cruz” hysteria grows to a crescendo
Hot Air ^ | December 2, 2015 | Jazz Shaw

Posted on 12/02/2015 10:57:41 AM PST by Isara

The latest Q-Polls (which Ed already covered for you) solidified a recent trend which more than a few people had been predicting. The Donald may still be on top, but Ted Cruz is circling like a shark and is rapidly moving withing striking distance. And don’t think that people haven’t noticed… they have, and more than a few are beyond unhappy over these recent developments. As long as it was just Trump and Ben Carson at the top of the heap with everyone else in single digits, both the media and the GOP establishment seemed content to simply ignore the Texas senator as one more member of a choir nobody was really listening to. But now Cruz is in double digits, joining a very small, elite club, and is nearing a statistical tie with Trump in Iowa. Sweaty palms inside the Beltway and around Manhattan have ensued.

Ed cited Chris Cillizza, who described Cruz as the “sleeping giant” in the race.

Dig deeper into the findings and things look even better for the senator from Texas. Although Cruz is at 16 percent among all Republicans, he runs significantly stronger among three subgroups: "very" conservative voters, tea party supporters and white born-again/evangelical voters. Those subgroups are also the three most important and powerful when it comes to deciding the GOP nominee in 2016.

When it comes to the mainstream media, however, Cillizza’s may be the only kind (or at least objective) voice out there in terms of evaluating Ted Cruz. As a counterpoint, take a look at Frank Bruni’s 25 paragraph long hysterical diatribe against Cruz in the New York Times. To read the man’s panic-stricken ranting you’d think Godzilla had just shown up in Arlington and was headed for the Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Bridge.

More and more Republican insiders talk about a battle between Cruz and Marco Rubio for the nomination, or about a three-way, if you will, among Cruz, Rubio and Trump.

And in the voices of these insiders I hear horror, because Trump and Cruz are nasty pieces of work.

Cruz will work overtime in the months ahead to persuade you otherwise. The religious right already adores him, but to go the distance, he needs more support from other, less conservative Republicans, and he knows it. Expect orchestrated glimpses of a high-minded Cruz, less skunk than statesman, his sneer ceding territory to a smile…

Anyone but Cruz: That's the leitmotif of his life, stretching back to college at Princeton. His freshman roommate, Craig Mazin, told Patricia Murphy of The Daily Beast: "I would rather have anybody else be the president of the United States. Anyone. I would rather pick somebody from the phone book."

It's not easy to come across on-the-record quotes like that, and Mazin's words suggest a disdain that transcends ideology. They bear heeding.

That was, as I alluded to above, only a sample from a long, long essay. All of it is of the same distinct flavor. This sudden movement to Crucify Cruz (Cruzify?) is really just the next phase of the GOP establishment and their liberal critics doing just what they’ve been attempting to do regarding Donald Trump. The real irony in all of this is the same thing I mentioned back in the spring, long before Trump was officially on the scene. At that time, Cruz was supposed to be “the crazy man” in the race. Everyone hated him… and by “everyone” I mean the people who didn’t want to see a conservative firebrand who would rock the establishment boat running off with the nomination. Cruz has made so many enemies inside the Republican Party power structure that I doubt even he can keep track of them all.

He also built a reputation for being the sole person to blame for the government shutdown, though I’ve never been entirely clear as to how one freshman senator ever accumulated that sort of earthshaking power. He’s definitely had a take no prisoners attitude from day one, though, and that makes people nervous. The rather humorous point of all this is that Cruz may have been one of the biggest benefactors of Trump’s rise. As I suggested above, Cruz was supposed to be the crazy horse in the field. But once Trump arrived everyone forgot about him and Trump’s bodacious antics actually made Ted Cruz look more mainstream.

It’s not just the political Left like Frank who are on board with this theme. Here’s a tweet from this morning by Bill Kristol.

is the GOP establishment mobilizing to fight the last war? Panicked about @realDonaldTrump, but probably should worry more about @tedcruz.

— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) December 2, 2015

I’m not sure if the panic button has actually been pushed yet, but it’s getting close to that point. If this race were to come down to a choice between Trump and Cruz I think you’d see some GOP power brokers jumping off the Washington Monument.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: cruz; hysteria; tcruz; tedcruz
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-46 last
To: JSDude1
It is still early in the campaign (no votes have even been cast yet!) so whether he overtakes Trump or not (I’ll bet he eventually does), at least a consistent conservative is running against a nationalist conservative.,/i>

According, to many Trump supporters, the primary season is already over. They're already picking out his cabinet and not a single vote has been cast.

41 posted on 12/02/2015 2:02:47 PM PST by erod (Chicago Conservative | Cruz or Lose!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: conservativejoy

First, you keep dodging my question with regard to Senate authority.

Next, defend Iran, how? Details like that are the very crux of any agreement, and how they are implemented can give tremendous latitude. Your insistence that something is fact does not make it so.

Furthermore, pontificating about deals when you’re neither a Trump, nor a government negotiator, to assign “conceit” is laughable.

Please answer question of why the Senate needed to cede its treaty powers to Obama to reverse it later.


42 posted on 12/02/2015 2:49:24 PM PST by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

Obama was going to do the Iran deal without Congress. He has always called this an agreement, which the President has authority to do.

Defend Iran means militarily and by any other means; Shooting down Israeli bomber, taking out their missiles,

Comparing the Iran deal to real estate negotiations is idiotic.


43 posted on 12/02/2015 2:54:17 PM PST by conservativejoy (Pray Hard, Work Hard, Trust God,,,, We can elect Ted Cruz!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: conservativejoy

Now, you’re just equivocating. I’ve already outlined my questions about the “approved” narrative, so either you can’t answer, or won’t.

Either way, I’m not going to continue to argue with someone who doesn’t know enough to recognize they’ve lost.


44 posted on 12/02/2015 3:05:12 PM PST by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

You’re asking me why Congress doesn’t do something. I could ask you the same thing, but I won’t since it is a dumb question. The reality they were dealing with was what President Obama intended to do with or without their approval.

I’m supporting a candidate with enough wisdom to tear up the Iran deal. You stick with your real estate negotiator.


45 posted on 12/02/2015 3:11:12 PM PST by conservativejoy (Pray Hard, Work Hard, Trust God,,,, We can elect Ted Cruz!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: VanDeKoik
First, I know Trump can win Iowa, but the reality is the odds are against any one person winning that state.

Second, the polls in Iowa are historically inaccurate. Why is that? It is because no one really knows who is going to show up. As you know, you have to give up a whole evening. What if one of the kids is sick? What if you have to work late and the wife has no babysitter? I could go on, but you get the point.

Four years ago, Santorum was in fourth place in the polls, yet he won the Iowa caucus. Surprised everybody everywhere. He wasn't able to take advantage of it because he did not have enough money plus NH is much less conservative than Iowa.

I have read that Trump has hired true professionals in Iowa and has a decent ground game going. No matter who you are, it is tough making sure those who will vote for you show up. Reagan lost Iowa in 1980, but won NH - NH was much more conservative back then....before the invasion of those fleeing Massachusetts.

Four years ago, those who voted in the Iowa caucus, 40% were evangelicals and these people are the ones who put Santorum over the top in 2012 and put Huckabee (a former Baptist pastor) over the top in 2008. Interestingly, in a recent Iowa poll, 40% self identified as evangelicals and most of those were not supporting Trump. So, I think it is reasonable to conclude that about 40% of evangelicals will make up the Iowa caucus on Feb. 1, 2016.

One thing Trump has going for him is the timing of the caucus. Four years ago, it was held just after New Year's - a week or so I think, so perhaps the more committed showed up and the more committed tend to be more conservative.

Feb. 1 will allow Trump more time to energize his supporters and to run ads. He has only one small ad buy, but I think that is a mistake. He needs to put more money in ads to better frame himself. Incredibly, a significant number of people believe these ads they see on tv, so perhaps Trump is waiting for the right time to spend ad money.

Regardless, NH is a much better state for Trump - much less conservative. The question is, if Trump loses Iowa, how will that affect the NH primary. He has been number 1 in the polls for 5 months and most believe he will win without understanding the underlying difficulties in Iowa. Could that burst the bubble and demoralize his soft supporters in NH, so they don't vote. My guess fwiw is no.

Also, national review had an article about a month ago analyzing the Iowa electorate (republican only). Surprisingly, it concluded that Iowa is very representative of the republican electorate. So, we shall see. There are always surprises.

So, if Trump takes 10% of the evangelical vote, that is only 4% of the biggest chunk of the voters. In this crowded field, Trump is not going to take 50% of the rest. That is preposterous. I urge you to review and study the results of the last two Iowa caucuses.

Trump will have to win more than 10% of the evangelical vote to win the state. I think he will win more than 10% of the evangelical vote. I wouldn't be surprised if he won 20 to 25% of the evangelical vote.

To me, there are two possibilities: 1) Rubio and Cruz splitting the evangelical and conservative vote allowing Trump to win or 2)Cruz attracting most of the conservative vote and Trump finishing #2. I don't think Trump finishing second will hurt him, but third could be deadly because of the negative media coverage that will follow.

We shall see.

46 posted on 12/02/2015 9:09:17 PM PST by Dave W
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-46 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson