Posted on 02/10/2016 3:26:48 PM PST by Kaslin
Ted Cruz -- my guy -- confounded the public pollsters with his victory in Iowa, snapping up 35% of the vote in a (much too) crowded field. The comb-over candidate Donald Trump ran away with New Hampshire, as nearly everyone predicted. John Kasich, with almost 16%, came in second with Cruz, at nearly 12%, in third place. BushRubioChristieCarsonFiorinaPaul formed the caboose, and one might be forgiven for observing that while Rand Paul isn't even running anymore, most of the caboose, with the exception of Rubio, should follow suit and take their little trains to the siding.
An intelligent and canny friend, knowing of my support of Ted Cruz, patiently explained to me why Cruz could not win. The Democrats, he said, start off the presidential race these days with some nearly 240 electoral votes (of 270 needed to win) locked up. He mentioned Oregon (7), Washington (11), California (55), Minnesota (10), Wisconsin (10), Illinois (21), Michigan (17), Pennsylvania (21), New Jersey (15) , New York (31), Connecticut (7), Vermont (3), Rhode Island (4), Massachusetts (12), Maine (4), Deleware (3), Nevada (6), and Hawaii (4) as states that would almost certainly go to Hillary Clinton were she the candidate. Then there's Ohio (20) and Colorado (9), which, he said, Ted Cruz could not win. Bingo. Hillary (or whoever) gets to set about ordering new drapes for the Oval Office.
This is a sobering assessment. As was his next contention:
America is no longer a conservative country as it may have been in the 1980s and 1990s. It has gone substantially to the left, partly for demographic, partly for institutional reasons. We used to be able to rely upon "the people" to save us from the left wing elites; that's what Ronald Reagan did. But not any longer.
Is this true? It has the attraction of initial plausibility. But I am not so sure. People say that generals often make the mistake of fighting a new war with assumptions based on their experience in the last war, which assumptions may be groundless or unhelpful given the novelties of the new situation. Reality has a way of unsettling our certainties. What seems inevitable today may strike us tomorrow as obviously implausible given the fact that what was predicted to happen unaccountably did not. That's the problem with the phrase "the foreseeable future." So little of that undiscovered country really is foreseeable. How much of the future, really, do we foresee? A week? A day? A minute?
"In a minute," as T. S. Eliot said in "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock," "there is time / For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse." So much of life is a juggling with probabilities, a conjuring with uncertainties, that we often forget upon what stupendous acts of faith even the prudent conduct of life depends.
Had I been asked, on September 10, 2001, whether New York's Twin Towers would continue standing for "the foreseeable future," I should have answered "Yes." And so, in one sense, they did. Only my foresight was not penetrating enough, not far-seeing enough, to accommodate that most pedestrian of eventualities: an event. An event is as common as dirt. It is also as novel as tomorrow's dawn.
"There is nothing," the French writer Charles Peguy noted in the early years of the twentieth century, "so unforeseen as an event." My friend laid out a thoughtful explanation of why it would be hard for a Republican -- and basically impossible, so he thinks, for Ted Cruz -- to win the presidential election in 2016. I am not so certain. We are living in one of those "plastic" pre-revolutionary moments Karl Marx spoke about. A lot of balls have been tossed into the air, some by the feckless efforts of Barack Obama to "fundamentally transform the United States of America," some by world events which, it seems to surprise some observers, do not stand by idly waiting for our permission to happen.
To return to our friend Gregory of Tours, "A great many things keep happening, some of them good, some of them bad." I think that a vibrant, young Constitutionalist like Ted Cruz will have a much broader appeal at this time of moral uncertainty and international panic than many commentators, looking for the foreseeable future, suspect.
I am of the opinion Cruz would crush Hillary.....55-45 with 300+ EVs....
Curious..which 2012 Obama states would he flip to R?
Roger Kimball can be unfocused and rambling when he doesn’t have somebody dead to beat up on.
Any state Obie won by less than 5% flips. She is an absolutely horrible candidate....a phony and pathological liar. The bernies will feel cheated by the DNC and Clinton machine...many will stay home. And of course there’s the FBI....at a debate, cruz will have her curled up in the fetal position sucking her thumb.
I don't know what measuring stick this guy is using. Cruz took 27.3% of the vote and won exactly 27.6% of the delegates while Trump took 24.3% of the vote and won 24.1% of the delegates and Marco Rubio 23.1% and 24.1% of the delegates.
I guess this was the stuff Mark Twain warned us about. Lies, damned lies and statistics.
Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Virginia, Wisconsin,
It is the job of the conservative leader to teach and persuade. You do not give up and give in the the left’s indoctrination of the nation. YOU TELL THE PEOPLE WHY IT IS WRONG.
Reagan was the can’t win conservative, too. Then enough conservative were willing to support him in the primary to give him a chance to make his case to the American people. He did and he won big. Now so-called conservatives surrender during the primary. They have become primary-Boehners. They surrender without a fight.
America is nowhere near as conservative as the average FReeper. Opies election and re-election put to bed the myth that this is a center right country. It isn’t.
Teddy appeals to a relatively small portion of the overall electorate. Against Bernie he would be toast. Against hitlery he might do OK, but more likely he would lose by about the same margin as willard did in 2012.
Too bad Hillary won't be the candidate.
Cruz needs 64 EVs that Romney lost. To get to 300, he needs 94 EVs that Romney lost.
Please enlighten us as to which Obama states are going for Cruz in November.
Cruz would need to flip, like any Republican, Florida, Ohio, and Virginia in order to have a way forward. Even with those three flipped, the GOP would need 2 more EVs.
Nevada would work.
But honestly, this year we need the GOP, regardless of candidate, to focus on a laser beam on the rust belt. Philadelphia puts Pennsylvania out of reach, as does Chicago for Illinois, but Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio are good chances. Add those three and we still need Florida, but we don’t need to go any further.
We must, must, must get the rust belt.
That’s why it’s confounding.
Cruz got a lower percentage of the Nov 2012 vote in his home state of Texas than Mediocre Mitt did. That’s an uncomfortable bit of info that gets me called a moron when I mention it.
That’s why I have a hard time identifying which 2012 Obama states he’ll flip to R.
Yeah, I think Roger Kimball got somewhat confused with the 35%
This country is an entirely DIFFERENT animal since Reagan!!! For GODS sake Reagan WAS the governor of CA!!!! Our education system hadn’t been taken over by Marxists but it has NOW!!! ANYONE that thinks this country can turn on a dime is living in LA LA land!!!!
There are only three states that Obama won by less than 5% - Florida, Ohio, and Virginia.
That's 60 EVs (and of course Cruz can't win any of them), but, for the sake of argument, say he does - he still loses.
She is an absolutely horrible candidate....a phony and pathological liar
All true, but she will not be the candidate.
Herein lies the problem. If Rubio and Bush do not drop out, its going to split the vote and I believe Trump MAY win. If they do drop out, their voters will back Cruz and then the real battle begins. Especially if Jeb and Rubio gain a lot of delegates before they drop out because both of them would give their delegates to Cruz. (Cruz supporter here) :)
“That’s why I have a hard time identifying which 2012 Obama states he’ll flip to R”
-—Trying to convince Cruz peeps he’s not the messiah is difficult, but I commend your effort :-) The reality is, as proven by last night’s primary results, while Cruz might have done ok he did not convince many outside of the small % of the electorate that he is capable of winning on a large scale i.e. cross over appeal, blue collar, Reagan Dem’s, ect.
Cruz has already gone so far religious-right he could not easily get back to the center in order to attract moderate Rep’s, right leaning Dem’s, etc. Ending in a worse defeat than Romney 2012
He doesn’t. But we’re talking religious views with adherents of the True Faith. Logic doesn’t enter into it.
Trump comes in second in Iowa and is called a loser. Cruz comes in lower and he’s a winner?
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.