Ted Cruz - Biggest Loser of 2016

[Medal506]

Cruz certainly has a much bigger chance in 2024 than atlas users want to think. He just defeated a man who had nearly twice as much campaign money than he did. He finished second place in the 2016 primaries with almost the same amount of votes as Romney received in the 2012 republican primaries. He received more votes than both Kasich and Rubio combined. He was the most competitive runner up since Reagan and Ford in 1976. He will be in the national spot light in 2020 - 2024 because he will be an incumbent politican at the time. I think many people on the left and on rino republican right are trying desperately to suppress Ted Cruz and constantly try to reiterate the idea that Ted Cruz has no chance of winning any national election in the future because he did not come in first in 2016 because they really are afraid of Ted Cruz and the possibility of having to face him in a general election.

[Medal506]

One problem Cruz will have in 2024 is that he will have to run AND run for his Senate seat at the same time.  Cruz may tire of the Senate; he's not popular with his peers and his eyes are set on bigger things.

Beto almost beat Cruz, and while Beto had a lot of money, some of this is due to the fact that lots of folks don't like Ted Cruz as a person.  That includes a chunk of folks who vote for him because they agree with him for the most part.

Cruz will probably only run for President and he is likely to win the nomination because he did historically well in 2016. We have to remember McCain got crushed in 2000 and 8 years later won the nomination. Cruz didn't even do that bad. He was the most competitive runner up since Reagan in 1976 and he got more votes than Kasich and Rubio combined. At the beginning he had virtually no support but he was able to build from the ground up to what he eventually got at the end which was around 8 million votes and almost as many votes as Romney got in 2012. This time in 2024 Cruz is going in with all the name recognition and as the runner up in 2016 and he'll probably start out as the top three in polling in Iowa and South Carolina and he'll likely end up winning at least one of those two states. In terms of Cruz almost losing to O'Rourke, O'Rourke was flooded with Hollywood money and had twice as much money as Cruz. Studies have shown that 91 percent of the time the candidate with the most money ends up winning and let's not forget which side the media was on. Point is Cruz is highly underestimated on this website.

[Medal506]

Cruz is dishonest, unlikeable, and his policies aren't popular with the broader electorate.

Is that the reason why Cruz was polling better than Trump was in the general election?

[Medal506]

One problem Cruz will have in 2024 is that he will have to run AND run for his Senate seat at the same time.  Cruz may tire of the Senate; he's not popular with his peers and his eyes are set on bigger things.

Beto almost beat Cruz, and while Beto had a lot of money, some of this is due to the fact that lots of folks don't like Ted Cruz as a person.  That includes a chunk of folks who vote for him because they agree with him for the most part.

Cruz will probably only run for President and he is likely to win the nomination because he did historically well in 2016. We have to remember McCain got crushed in 2000 and 8 years later won the nomination. Cruz didn't even do that bad. He was the most competitive runner up since Reagan in 1976 and he got more votes than Kasich and Rubio combined. At the beginning he had virtually no support but he was able to build from the ground up to what he eventually got at the end which was around 8 million votes and almost as many votes as Romney got in 2012. This time in 2024 Cruz is going in with all the name recognition and as the runner up in 2016 and he'll probably start out as the top three in polling in Iowa and South Carolina and he'll likely end up winning one of those two states. In terms of Cruz almost losing to O'Rourke, O'Rouker was flooding with Hollywood money and had twice as much money as Cruz. Studies have shown that 91 percent of the time the candidate with the most money ends up winning and let's not forget which side the media was on. Point is Cruz is highly underestimated on this website.

His star seems to be dimming.  He's not a leader in the Senate; he's an outsider whom McConnell can't stand, yet the way the 2016 campaign unfolded, with Cruz actually being the ESTABLISHMENT candidate at the very end vs. Trump diminished his "outsider" star.  The 2016 campaign didn't go well for Cruz; he would have been better off had he folded early.  Going on to the bitter end reinforced the image of Cruz underperforming and falling short.  Cruz was a brash newcomer and a coming star going into 2016; now, he's almost a backbencher, overshadowed by Trump and McConnell who both hate him and are hated by him.

Cruz was not the establishment candidate. In fact the establishment was behind the scenes planning on snubbing both Trump and Cruz at the convention by giving the nomination to a Paul Ryan or a Mitt Romney. The fact that McConnell is against Cruz actually helped him in the primaries because the fact is conservatives and republicans can't stand McConnell or the establishment. Hence why Rubio and Kasich won only 1 state in the primaries. The truth is the biggest loser was probably Rubio because he was supposed to sweep the map and many considered him to be the GOP's barack obama. Instead he won one state that wasn't even his own. There also a good chance Rubio will lose his re election in 2022.

[Medal506]

Cruz is dishonest, unlikeable, and his policies aren't popular with the broader electorate.

Is that the reason why Cruz was polling better than Trump was in the general election?

So you think Bernie Sanders would have destroyed Trump in a landslide, right?

No because Clinton also lead Trump by double digits in the polls in April of 2016. If Clinton couldn't beat Trump then Sanders certainly couldn't have beaten Trump. My point was Trump was doing terrible in the polls yet he still won. So if Cruz was doing better then chances are he would have also done better in the popular vote.

[Medal506]

Cruz is dishonest, unlikeable, and his policies aren't popular with the broader electorate.

Is that the reason why Cruz was polling better than Trump was in the general election?

So you think Bernie Sanders would have destroyed Trump in a landslide, right?

No because Clinton also lead Trump by double digits in the polls in April of 2016. If Clinton couldn't beat Trump then Sanders certainly couldn't have beaten Trump. My point was Trump was doing terrible in the polls yet he still won. So if Cruz was doing better then chances are he would have also done better in the popular vote.

I agree that Cruz definitely would've won the popular vote against Clinton.  My only fear is he would have had trouble in the Rust belt and may not have gotten to 270 EV's - 2016 Trump definitely had a coalition well-suited for the electoral college, and I'm not as certain if Cruz would've had the same luck. 

This probably would have been the map. Pennsylvania can be debated but I think Cruz would have nailed Clinton on her anti coal position which in turn would have costed her Pennsylvania.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)/CEO Carly Fiorina (R-CA) - 296 EV, 49.0% PV
Frm Sec. Hillary Clinton (D-NY)/Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) - 242 EV, 47.0% PV

[Medal506]

The Republican "establishment" largely preferred Trump to Cruz, which is why he won.

This exactly!