Posted on 03/02/2016 9:00:23 AM PST by Sybeck1
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:
(Excerpt) Read more at editions.lib.umn.edu ...
That speech really grated me last night by Ted and every day I am going off him and now thinking of not voting for him.
Instead of going after Clinton he took a note out of the establishment and went after trump, even asking others to get out so he can beat Trump.
Ted has already lost some family members and are going to Trump and I am leaning towards Trump because of him being cozy with the establishment.
I don’t recall the GOP being divided among 5 competitors for the nomination before. Ted vs Trump alone, Cruz will defeat Trump and Hillary.
“Last night more voters voted against Trump than for him and in the states with the largest voting pools, were open primaries permitting liberals and Democrats voting for our Primary “choice” of candidate.”
#1 more voted AGAINST Cruz. What is your point?
#2 if it is ok for Cruz parrots to go on about open primaries to try to taint Trump’s wins, then why isn’t it ok to point out what this article has?
I'm right with you (when my primary comes, that is).
I'm rather dazed at the illogical, bumper-sticker-esque slogans that keep being pushed by the pro-Trump camp:
"Make America great again!" (this differs substantially from any generic, "you-rah-rah" slogan... HOW, exactly?)
"He's not a politician!" (He's running in a political race, and he says and does whatever he thinks will benefit him and his campaign; yes, he's a politician.)
"He'll build the fence!" (Let's pretend that he's elected POTUS; by what "divine right of kings" power do people think that Trump can make a fence materialize? What's to stop him from being hand-tied by a gaggle of harrumphing, posturing GOP-e congresscritters?)
"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.) "He's inevitable, baby!" (That misses the entire point. It's like the quote from "Jurassic Park": "People are so captivated by whether they CAN do something that they never ask if they SHOULD.")
Yes, it's possible that Trump will be the nominee; I simply ask people to consider whether he SHOULD be. I personally don't think so, given what I've seem of him. Nothing of what he's said or done (or failed to say or do) suggests that he can be trusted at all.
LOL. Need a new keyboard now.
Not very impressive. That was against two very powerful men named Bill Bradley and Lyndon LaRouche. Gore was the annointed one and Bradley had already withdrawn the week before.
Meh. A win’s a win.
“ahem...you may be need to put down the kool-aid before you post...”
I think you are confused. I was being sarcastic because Grandpa Dave asked if I was being paid by Kristol. Who I’m assuming is some establishment hack.
...till then I'll support and defend Ted Cruz.
The fact there are five in the field might also have something to do with it. Cruz still won by 17%.
Well, Trump staked out the “wall,” and that holds a lot of sway here in Texas.
But, eh, when it comes down to brass tacks, confronted with choosing between a fellow Texan (with a 97% conservative rating) and a New Yawk billionaire outsider who gave donations to Pelosi/Reid... well, sometimes it’s a simple as that. My allegiance to my state and the culture of my state is actually more important to me. Texas first. America? The dingbat nation that has embraced faggot-marriage? Screw it.
He can be trusted with what I want from him:
The destruction of the Media.
Yesterday, the New York Times destroyed forever the "confidential source" legal argument of the press.
Yesterday, a National Review writer published an article that was a complete and trivially provable lie to sway veterans' vote during the primaries.
“I’m rather dazed at the illogical, bumper-sticker-esque slogans that keep being pushed by the pro-Trump camp:”
But the ones pushed by the Cruz supporters are, let me guess, totally logical?
“Cruz will restore the constitution”
“Cruz is the bravest person in Washington”
“TrustTed”
“Cruz is an outsider”
This is the same kind of disingenuous BS that Anti-Trump people write about Trump. Cruz won Texas. He needed to do that and he pulled it off. Congratulations to him. His campaign lives to fight another day.
NY is loaded with liberals. Cruz had 5 other competitors. You must have better reasons than that to support your man.
Trump has a chance to do very good in the NY City metro and will win upstate and Western NY. It would not surprise me in the least if Trump wins NY in a general election.
No... I never said that. But--to put it in a nutshell--nominatic Cruz for GOP candidate isn't insane, IMHO... whereas nominating a bloviating, liberal self-promoter like Trump *is* insane, and the detached-from-reality pro-Trump slogans do nothing but confirm that insanity.
It's a matter of where the candidates have stood, and where they stand, in the past. No, Cruz isn't a flawless candidate, nor are the slogans surrounding him much better than the Trump versions... but Trump is a bizarre aberration which is only where he is because, as the quote went, "people are voting with their middle fingers" (and not their brains, apparently).
I don't think Mr. Trump will get enough delegates to win before the convention in July.
I also don't believe the convention delegates will elect Trump after the first ballot as those delegates are committed to their state's vote separation and not all are "winner take all," plus there are Super Delegates, who probably will not go for Trump. Those in KS aren't leaning in that direction!
This race is ten 10k's not a thirty yard dash. No sense in wearing ourselves out - yet.
Have a great day!
Kind of a meaningless analysis without looking at how many people were running on the ballot.
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.