Is Ted Cruz a Charlatan?

[T.Lex]

The conservative math confuses me. A candidate that doesn't have popular support (like Cruz or Kasich) during the primary somehow has a better chance of defeating the eventual democratic candidate... nobody wants to admit it, but there are blue collar democrats that find their party no longer directed toward their goals (doesn't that sound familiar?)... some of these people will cross over and vote for a Trump candidate much like they did for Reagan.

It isn't really liberal or conservative math, but "primary math." Most of America is somewhere in the middle, politically, on most things. The formula is basically: partyBase + majMiddle = winner.

It has long been a problem for Republicans, and this cycle for Dems, too, apparently, this cycle, that the base primary voters choose people that don't do well in the general.

Trump is basically leveraging the middle with his crossover support. Hard to predict what will happen in the general with that.

 

[oldpink]

Leave facts out of it, this is INGO.

Oh! Oh! A trumpist lecturing others about facts.
The irony is so thick that I can't even wade through it.

 

[Hohn]

Those pictures do prove one thing.
Michelle Obama has to rate as one of the fugliest first ladies of all time.

You mean first MAN, right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfLcO3JFxMI

 

[Hohn]

Politics and political campaigns are uncivil; they always have been, and always will be. I'm not complaining; I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy.

The only way for a politician to not be a hypocrite is to become a Democrat-- where they have no standards at all.

 

[Hohn]

What I find curious is what the Cruz "scandal" says (or doesn't) about the establishment. Is the RNC aggressively countering this story? If yes, does that prove Cruz is establishment and that the RNC is backing him to prevent a Trump takeover?

Or is it the case that Cruz is the greater outsider (as he'd like us to believe) and that the RNC is accepting Trump as inevitable-- and are thus willing to let the media take out Cruz?

 

[AmmoManAaron]

What I find curious is what the Cruz "scandal" says (or doesn't) about the establishment. Is the RNC aggressively countering this story? If yes, does that prove Cruz is establishment and that the RNC is backing him to prevent a Trump takeover?

Or is it the case that Cruz is the greater outsider (as he'd like us to believe) and that the RNC is accepting Trump as inevitable-- and are thus willing to let the media take out Cruz?

I'm going with the latter. I haven't seen the RNC helping Cruz on this.

 

[jamil]

What I find curious is what the Cruz "scandal" says (or doesn't) about the establishment. Is the RNC aggressively countering this story? If yes, does that prove Cruz is establishment and that the RNC is backing him to prevent a Trump takeover?

Or is it the case that Cruz is the greater outsider (as he'd like us to believe) and that the RNC is accepting Trump as inevitable-- and are thus willing to let the media take out Cruz?

I wouldn't read too much into any of it. Ambiguous as it is, it certainly isn't "proof" of anything.

 

[Hohn]

I wouldn't read too much into any of it. Ambiguous as it is, it certainly isn't "proof" of anything.

??
Yeah, I meant to raise the question: does the response of the Establishment say anything about its relationship to Cruz and or Trump?

 

[jamil]

??
Yeah, I meant to raise the question: does the response of the Establishment say anything about its relationship to Cruz and or Trump?

I understood. I'm answering the question with no. The "Establishment" isn't monolithic. It has it's own factions. The most common thing I could say about the establishment regarding Trump is none of them have any coherent strategy to put one of their own in. Some think they have to hold their noses and support Cruz. Some think they should try for the brokered convention and use that to get one of their own nominated. Kasich, I imagine, would be the most likely since he's the only "establishment" guy still in the race. Some think it's a lost cause no matter what they do. They're all probably more afraid of Trump than Cruz because they think a Trump win will cause irreparable damage to the Republican brand and they'll lose the Senate and maybe the House. I've read that some have the same fears about Cruz though because he is very unpopular with moderate independents.

 

[BugI02]

I've seen a Cruz/Kasich ticket overtly mentioned in print. Kasich stays in to the end because he is thought to draw more votes from Trump than Cruz and together they have enough delegates at the end to either match Trump (possible) or exceed him (meh. Not so much). I don't see many of the notTrump plans leading to a win in November. As a Trump supporter I believe he could have done it but the GOPe 'had to destroy that village to save it'

 

[jamil]

I've seen a Cruz/Kasich ticket overtly mentioned in print. Kasich stays in to the end because he is thought to draw more votes from Trump than Cruz and together they have enough delegates at the end to either match Trump (possible) or exceed him (meh. Not so much). I don't see many of the notTrump plans leading to a win in November. As a Trump supporter I believe he could have done it but the GOPe 'had to destroy that village to save it'

Cruz/Kasich could possibly mitigate long coattails for Clinton.

 

[BugI02]

Objection, you honor. Conjecture

 

[jamil]

Objection, you honor. Conjecture

Are you kidding? The whole political subforum is conjecture.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I've seen a Cruz/Kasich ticket overtly mentioned in print. Kasich stays in to the end because he is thought to draw more votes from Trump than Cruz and together they have enough delegates at the end to either match Trump (possible) or exceed him (meh. Not so much). I don't see many of the notTrump plans leading to a win in November. As a Trump supporter I believe he could have done it but the GOPe 'had to destroy that village to save it'

Why do you believe it's not so much possible for a Cruz/Kasich ticket to beat Trump's delegate count? If your talking bound delegates, perhaps perhaps not. But there are quite a few unbound along with delegates originally bound to Rubio which varies by state how those are handled. I think there are at least 45 currently unbound, not including CO,WY, and the Virgin Islands. CO/WY aren't finished yet the caucuses in those states aren't the end, they begin the process which is finished at the state convention and the delegates can be bound or unbound. VI has soft pledged/unpledged/undecided but they are technically unbound. I have no idea about the rest of the states that haven't had their primary/caucus and how many unbound they do or don't have.

Cruz/Kasich combined are currently 130 bound votes behind Trump, which IMO combined it is within the realm of possibility to beat Trump. Again that is not including those that were originally bound to Rubio which varies by state. For instance in TX delegates are bound to a candidate for the first 3 ballots at the convention, unless the candidate they are bound to drops out. Then they are distributed to the remaining candidates proportionally, so out of the 3 Rubio had Cruz will get 2 and Trump 1.

Here is an article that talks about some of the differences.
National Review Online

 

[HoughMade]

Are you kidding? The whole political subforum is conjecture.

That is correct.

Objection overruled.

 

[T.Lex]

Yes. Gary Hart and John Edwards, if I remember correctly.

Necro-posting in this thread because I came across this article:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/was-gary-hart-set-up/570802/

The Monkey Business photo and resulting coverage was a setup by Lee A****er.

That whole thing went down as I was just becoming politically aware. Later, in college and thereafter, there were rumors that it had been manipulated but this is the first I heard of anything approaching confirmation.

 

[HoughMade]

Necro-posting in this thread because I came across this article:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/was-gary-hart-set-up/570802/

The Monkey Business photo and resulting coverage was a setup by Lee A****er.

That whole thing went down as I was just becoming politically aware. Later, in college and thereafter, there were rumors that it had been manipulated but this is the first I heard of anything approaching confirmation.

Quoted for INGO language filter overzealousness.

 

[BigRed]

Is Cruz a charlatan?

Is there a politician that is not?

 

[T.Lex]

Quoted for INGO language filter overzealousness.

You know, I have a feeling Lee got a giggle out of that.

For those of you unfamiliar with him, the last name is At-water, without the hyphen.

 

[HoughMade]

You know, I have a feeling Lee got a giggle out of that.

For those of you unfamiliar with him, the last name is At-water, without the hyphen.

Fascinating article, but more of a case study than anything else. The "what if" stuff at the end played out to the Nth degree could have been left off.

Is Cruz a charlatan?

Is there a politician that is not?

See T.Lex? This is what happens when you necro-post....especially about something that is only tangentially related to something mentioned in a thread about something else.