Cruz Records Weakest Home State GOP Primary Victory in Party History

Each of the 60 previous Republican presidential candidates who carried their home state did so with a larger percentage of the vote than Cruz; Cruz is one of only six who failed to reach the 50 percent mark

The Ted Cruz campaign delivered on its promise to win the Texas primary on Tuesday and then exceeded ‘expectations’ by also coming in first place in the neighboring state of Oklahoma and the Alaska caucuses.

With four victories now under his belt, Cruz will attempt to use his comparatively successful electoral track record against the remaining non-Trump candidates (Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Ben Carson) in an attempt to expedite their withdrawal from the race.

To be sure, the Texas U.S. Senator’s victory in his home state – and the most delegate rich state on the primary calendar thus far – was crucial for the Cruz campaign, and avoided an embarrassment that might have pressured him to withdraw after Super Tuesday.

While Cruz escaped that unenviable situation, his victory in Texas is decidedly shy of impressive.

In fact, by one measure, it is the least impressive home state primary victory in party history.

A Smart Politics analysis finds that Ted Cruz’s 43.8 percent showing in Texas marks the lowest support ever recorded by a Republican presidential candidate in a home state victory out of the more than five-dozen campaigns to win their home state since 1912.

Over the last 104 years since the debut of presidential primaries, Republican White House hopefuls have successfully carried their home state in a presidential primary 61 times.

Prior to Cruz’s plurality win in Texas on Tuesday, only five of these candidates failed to win a majority of the primary vote en route to their home state victory:

Are you a mind-reader?

No.

Can you see the future?

No.

Are you, perhaps, The Shadow, and you can know the darkness within the hearts of men?

Once more, no. Are you, perhaps, trying a sarcasm-laden version of "who are you to judge"? Just in case you missed my original comment to that effect:

"He's a good Christian!" (Read Matthew 7:16-20. And if I hear another--forgive me--idiotic repetition of the old "Who are you to judge?" quip, I may scream. Logic shreds that infantile slogan to shreds, in this case... since someone could use the same "defense" of anyone, including Jim Jones. Calling oneself a Christian isn't sufficient--sorry--just as calling yourself a 747 doesn't give you the power to make trans-Atlantic flights on your own power. Words mean things.)

FRiend, stringing together a list of red herrings (such as you've done here) doesn't further any rational point; the comments in that string suggest that "only those with mystical ability to read hearts, or read the future, can possibly form a judgment about another person's character or trustworthiness".

...to which I say:

BUNKUM. Nonsense. Sheer insanity.

Matthew 7.

To suggest that one cannot evaluate anyone's "fruit", or that one cannot (as Our Lord says we can) extrapolate the type of tree (without going further, and wrongly assuming something about that person's culpability or eternal destination) from which such fruit comes, is as illogical as it is unbiblical.

I... see. Well, let's explore that:

Nope. You are absolutely incorrect about what I was going for.

I stand corrected.

Mostly I am annoyed that you think you can read the minds of Trump

Not a bit of it. There's a technique known as "listening to" (or, in this case, "reading") what people say, and evaluating them based on sound reasoning. If the reasons, for example, that are given for voting for Trump are "He'll make America great again", "he'll build a wall", "he's conservative", "he's a solid Christian" (though most Christians will eventually admit that the latter has no basis in Trump's comments or actions, and they regress back to one of the other reasons... usually with a qualifier of "we're not electing a pastor-in-chief! If you wait for a perfect candidate, you'll never get one!", blah, blah, blah.), and nothing of substance, then it's reasonable to conclude that the choice is mainly irrational and emotion-driven.

supporters and more annoyed that you automatically assume we are stupid.

There's a distinction that needs to be made, here. There's a difference between a stupid ACTION (or choice) and a stupid PERSON. I don't presume to make judgments on the latter; but I feel quite free to make judgments on the former (as any sane, thinking person is not only free, but obliged, to do). It's quite possible for otherwise smart (or even brilliant) people to make stupid choices; I (though not brilliant, so the example weakens, somewhat) have done so, more times than I can count... and it's not unreasonable for someone else to point it out if the situation warrants it. (In this case, we're on a debate forum, where criticism and debate of ideas is the very point of the forum's existence.)

And look. Your earlier post proves me right!

I hope I've shown that that isn't the case. No disrespect to your skill with snark intended.

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.