VANITY: To the Cruz supporters here - what states will Cruz win in the general that Romney did not?

Please be specific. You start with 206 (if that). What states, with EV totals, would Cruz win if he ran against Hillary?

Please don't cite national polls, don't talk about Trump, don't talk about Cruz attributes and policies. Please stick to the question asked.

You could well be right, we all only see a small part of the large picture, so my comments could be in a bubble.

Nonetheless I do not think so and I know the eastern PA electorate fairly well.

Obama won in 2012 here. My wife and I were flabbergasted, we could not see that. Part of it was blatant ballot stuffing in Philly, but even if you took that out Obama won. How? Well in trying to understand that it seemed in talking to folks the right found Romney not all that attractive, and the working class whites thought that they could see no reason to cross over.

In order for PA to go republican, the working class folks have to think the republicans offer them something economically that the democrats do not. Cruz is good on guns and O.K on the border, but he is perceived here as not at all interested in the working or middle class as regards jobs. Right or wrong that is the perception. I know his tax plan is good, but for most folks they have not gone into it enough to see that and anyway, the widespread perception is that congress will not put through a flat tax, as it removes a lot of the opportunities for graft that they seem to currently enjoy.

Now Hillary will likely only get enthusiastic votes from lesbians, bitter divorced middle aged women and various special interest groups promised all sorts of goodies, but she is yapping about maintaining the current retirement system, which does have appeal to the working class. They may not vote for here enthusiastically, but they will vote for her on the basis of self interest.

The only candidate who breaks that is Trump. His bring back jobs platform rings true to the old industrial northeast. He is pro-gun like Cruz. He says things that will actually appeal tot he working and middle class cross over voters that are needed to put PA back in the republican side.

In any case that is how it appears to one PA fellow.

Compelled to respond to this.
I used to be a Cruz supporter, since I saw him as the most conservative candidate that would fight to preserve the constitution and America’s best interests.
However, after his TPP/H-1B job killing spree, craven delegate wrangling & vote stealing, and ordained-by-god (while whoring around) hypocrisy, I find I do not trust or like the man.

Trump for me, is the least worst presidential candidate, in spite of his loud autocratic scowling New Yawker style and left leaning past.

Unfortunately our Idiocracy has gotten the candidates we deserve.
RE: “Good luck with the Cruz crowd here. Well, the few that are left anyway.”

I did not call you any names, as you clearly did at me, I said there was stupidity in the conversation itself. That’s not a personal name call.

You seem to think that data points are static, and you also seem to think they are guaranteed to be major predictors.

There are so many things about this election cycle that have gone against every ounce of “conventional wisdom” that any attempt to argue that conventional wisdom based on this data point proves anything about the outcome is silly on its face.

Conventional Wisdom would have concluded the election was Jeb vs Clinton a year ago... did it happen?

I’ve watched Cruz backers find baseless argument after baseless argument trying to claim conventional wisdom says....

Remember the whole: Trump only wins in open primaries??

Sorry, but until something comes to pass, it is debatable, and its your closed mindedness that has caused you and others that back Cruz to remotely understand what is going on this election cycle and why your candidate continues to get his butt handed to him, again and again.

The reality is the real question that needs to be asked is simply this, which state do you or anyone else expect Trump to lose that are sure things for any republican to win? And when you step back and analyze the situation the reality is, Trump won’t cause any red state to turn blue. The question is who is more competitive in the purple and the blue states.

OH and FL are going red this cycle no matter who the candidate is, that’s a pretty solid prediction... So what is your election going to be? Another Rovesque, attempt to slip a minor win with hopefully a greater GOTV effort in a handful of states and pray that holds for a Cruz or a Kasich, or do you run with someone who has shown repeatedly they enjoy broad support and are expanding the base?

You can keep your belief that life is static, and nothing changes, its worked so well for Cruz and his backers to make these arguments for the last 9 months or so.

“You say that as though Trump would need WI to win.. this is the stupidity of this discussion.”

You didn’t call me stupid?

And, you didn’t lie by misquoting yourself, changing “you” to “it,” to remove me from the subject?

And, you think stupid is NOT what stupid does, so that people who say stupid things are not themselves stupid?

You are wrong about supposing I see the election (primary or general) in static terms. The election has been dynamic and will continue to be, thus far mostly because of the winnowing process.

When he entered the race, Trump staked out a populist position not well established within the Republican Party. This not only challenged traditional lines of demarcation within the RP, it also gave Trump a strong advantage relative to similar candidates (e.g., social conservatives, economic conservatives, and moderates) splitting the vote within their segments of the RP. Plus, Trump has charisma pouring out of the … wherever. He connects with people on an emotional level the way few politicians do.

Having said that, there is no indication that Trump generates new support in the general election, either in terms of favorability or in terms of nationwide match-ups or match-ups in key states. The possibility he offers of increased support from cross-over Democrats, independents and non-voters, has to be weighed against the possibility of losing moderates, social conservatives and libertarian conservatives.

I believe that whoever wins the nomination will have a decent chance of winning the election. Occasionally, we see this in polls. While Cruz outperforms Trump, I think the true potential for the Republican is somewhere between Cruz’ and Kasich’s support, assuming he unites the RP. (Kasich’s numbers are inflated because nobody is attacking him. Just wait until and if he becomes relevant and catches the attacks Cruz and Trump are dealing with.)

Certainly, calling grass-roots conservatives liars and thieves, in addition to calling them stupid, doesn’t bode well for uniting the party. Neither is calling them insiders while bragging about having been on the inside with Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton when he was a Democrat, and being on the inside with Mitch McConnell now that he’s a Republican. But, Trump and his friend who publishes the National Enquirer and his henchman Roger Stone are focused on winning the nomination, and this means smearing whomever is Trump’s closest rival.

This demeanor may change with Trump’s brining Paul Manafort and other insiders on board. People who have worked for McCain, Dole, and both Bushes, and who have been highly-paid D.C. lobbyists. These guys actually know the rules very well, and know that Trump should focus on winning and stop being a cry-baby about which of rules favor the other guy instead of favoring him.

No, I did not call you stupid. I said “this is the stupidity of this discussion”

“Stupidity of this discussion” is a clause, where the adjective “stupidity” is applied to the noun “this discussion”.

I never called you stupid, though if you fail to comprehend the breakdown of a simple sentence I may become inclined to change that. The entire discussion of what states Cruz could win beyond Romney is a pointless and stupid discussion because it focuses on fundamentally the wrong things at its very core.

The GOP is dying as a national party, it’s dying because it cannot come to the functional realization that it hasn’t won the popular vote for the Presidency, with the sole exception of a sitting wartime president in 28 years and even then it couldn’t even win by 2.5% of the vote.

If the fundamental question that is being asked is what states will this guy get beyond the last guy, you have lost before you have even begun because you are focusing on small ball and hoping you can eek a win out on the big stage playing small ball, that’s a losers position out of the gate.

The question that should be asked is who is going to grow the base and create appeal for the party... That’s how you win, by playing large ball not small ball.

Sorry Charlie. You’re not my English teacher.

You asked what states would Cruz or Kasich win in addition to the Romney states. I said (#32): FL, OH, WI and IA. And gave a short argument for this, and then said the same would apply to Trump.

You said (#38) you wouldn’t bet the farm on Cruz carrying WI.

I didn’t call you stupid for not knowing that RealClear rates Wi a toss-up for Cruz, but a disaster for Trump. No. I informed you (#45) of the basis in fact of my opinion.

Nobody knows all the facts. Non-stupid people are capable of processing new information. Do you recall when Trump was talking about the risks of inoculations during, I think, the second debate? Do you remember Ben Carson calmly sharing some facts with Trump about this, and Trump modifying his position. That exchange spoke well of Trump (and also of Carson).

Carson has since distinguished between the “entertainer” Trump and the “thoughtful” Trump. I thought this was a left-handed compliment. But, the truth is, I have no idea how much of what Trump is doing is an act.

Anyway, it was after I shared the links to RealClear concerning Trump, that you came back with (#48): “You say that as though Trump would need WI to win.. this is the stupidity of this discussion.”

The stupid word. From out of nowhere. Or maybe I should say from out of you. When confronted with facts, you revert to Donald-like insulting.

So, let me close with something you will take as a compliment: I think you are a great advocate for the Donald Trump approach to politics.

I am certainly not your English teacher, because if I had been you would understand that in this sentence:

“You say that as though Trump would need WI to win.. this is the stupidity of this discussion.”

“Stupidity” is and adjective applied to the noun “this conversation”, your failure to continue to argue that this statement is the equivalent of being called stupid does indeed suggest a less than adequate understanding of the English language.

Calling a conversation stupid is not remotely the same as calling a person stupid. I am happy to allow you to find yourself someone with at least a bachelors degree English who agrees with your incorrect interpretation of a very clearly worded sentence. Until then you are simply display outrage which is based upon your own ignorance, which has been clearly pointed out to you twice now but you refuse to recognize it. What you are doing is no different than the black person who gets upset because someone uses the word niggardly and thinks it’s a racial slur because they are ignorant of the word, it’s definition or its language of origin.

So, before you go off all half cocked again, yes I did call your continued outrage over a very clearly worded sentence after it has been explained to you twice ignorant... And I am sure you will go off again because of that so let me be absolutely clear what I mean by that, because the word has several definitions.

The meaning of ignorant I am utilizing her is the following:

“lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.”

And given the issue you are incorrect about has already been explained to you twice and you continue to claim an insult where none was given, I really have no other option but to indeed use this word to describe your stance on this particular topic.

You, I am sure will feel that I have insulted you, but I have not, I have called a conversation stupid and defined your Inability to accept the proper meaning of the written word after it has been explained to you more than once showing ignorance on that particular topic.

I will await your evidence that my original sentence can be interpreted as calling you stupid, br forgive me if I go on living my life in the interim.

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.