I agree that makes no sense either. Here is a data-based rating of the candidates you might find interesting.
Now of course, like any other summary or model, it's not perfect, but I believe it's a good faith effort by a very smart statistician to provide some real data about how conservative candidates are.
It's interesting that so many people to the right of Ronald Reagan are called "RINOs" so frequently. Also, Mike Pence, maybe for VP?
So, who is a "Liberal"? Was Nixon a Liberal? He's rated as more liberal than Romney. We did with with him. What about G HW Bush? He too was more liberal than Romney. We did lose with Romney, but we won with Nixon and HW. W is a little to the right of Romney, and we won with him too. Reagan and Bush show up very close on this chart. Maybe there is a practical limit to how far right a candidate can be and we can still win.
Goldwater was trounced. Cruz reminds me of Goldwater, whip sharp, honest, right on the issues.
Like most people here on FR the idea of another candidate like Willard is so discouraging I say: why bother. I like the idea of having a real conservative, but I suspect the results will likely be a real electoral-college blow out.
It might be good for the party, if the nation survives Hillary after Obama. Or, maybe not. The GOPe does not seem to have figured out that there strategy of running moderate GOP candidates who don't say anything bad about the opposition is a total failure: they are at it again with Jeb.
So, I guess if the Tea Party is trounced with Ted maybe many will come back and want to try again with another far-right hero.
Still early on, lots to see before anyone casts the first vote.