General Election-Clinton vs. Cruz

[Nathan Towne]

I think that most people would agree that the Cruz campaign is an underdog in a General Election campaign against a Hillary Clinton campaign. What chance, if any, do you give Cruz to win such an election? Can he win that election?

I would love to hear your thoughts.

[RFayette]

Probably 15-25% chance.  The real appeal of Cruz to the GOP establishment is that he is unlikely to blow it and lose safe states like Missouri, Utah, etc. that Trump might, even if he probably won't win the whole thing.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Cruz is a 70% favorite against Hated Hillary

[EliteLX]

He has a <10% chance, although it would be feasible. He would have to run a flawless campaign and have extremely impressive tactics to continue to throw dirt on Hillary and pray for continued scandal out of her corner. He'd need to loosen up as well as have an extremely impressive vice presidential nominee.

As far as actual route to win? Ted Cruz winning VA in 2016 is a <1% chance, thus eliminating one of the only two winning routes the Republicans have this year. It's PA or bust, and it would be everything but easy.

TL;DR: Erh.. noo(ish).

[Xing]

He'd have a small chance, but still a chance. He would have to hope that Trump supporters line up behind him, Obama's popularity falls through the floor, and Clinton takes victory for granted. If the Republican Party is fractured, Obama's decently popular, and Clinton runs a strong campaign, he's probably toast.

[Nathan Towne]

Mitt Romney took the Caucasian vote by a margin of 60-40 in 2012, the same margin as Bush Sr. took in 1988 against Michael Dukakis and yet he was defeated quite soundly. It is absolutely imperative that the Republican Party makes significant inroads amongst the Hispanic and especially the African American population. I don't see how Cruz is going to do very well amongst the African American population in particular. If 88-92% of the African American vote goes to Clinton and turnout is at anywhere near the levels of 2008 or 2012, I don't see how Cruz can win the election. This is a very serious problem.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nonsense.

Republicans need to up the turnout of whites who are not college educated. If they voted like the college educated, all it would take is 66 percent support for the GOP to win.

That would win IA, FL, VA, OH, and NH.

Republicans get 358 electoral college votes if they can get 65 percent of white folks out with 77 percent turnout.

The real democrat firewall is:

WA, CA, NM, HI, IL, VT, NY, MA, NJ, CT, RI, DE, MD, and NJ.

That is 180 electoral votes that arent' going to swing.

[Wisconsin+17]

Say the Republicans split Black people, Hispanic people and Asian people.

Say they win college educated whites 53 percent to 47 percent.

The only demographic the democrats win is white people without a degree. They have 57 percent turnout and split 52 DEM 48 REP.

That wins the election for the democrats. The Republicans would lose even though they take FL, VA, NM and NV.

Democrats win with OH, PA, IA and CO.

[Wisconsin+17]

In fact if the Republicans get zero votes from minorities with no change to turnout, they can win every election with just 64 percent of white college educated people and 66 percent of those without a degree. That's with 78 percent turnout.

[Virginiá]

In fact if the Republicans get zero votes from minorities with no change to turnout, they can win every election with just 64 percent of white college educated people and 66 percent of those without a degree. That's with 78 percent turnout.

Do you understand how big of a jump that would be? Romney got 59% in 2012. As I understand it, the only candidate ever to get what you're saying is Reagan in 1984, and after that the Republican share of the white vote immediately began returning to normal levels. Massive changes to voting patterns like that only happen in landslides and are always election-specific and not new baselines. The lone exception for this would be major events like the Great Depression, which are extremely rare and unpredictable.

The reality is, white Millennials aren't as Republican/conservative as their elders. By all measure, they look to remain roughly 44% - 46% Democratic on average with a higher ceiling of possibly 50%-ish. Because Millennials are set to make up almost 1/3rd of the electorate this year, and almost half in 2020, that makes it pretty much impossible for Republicans to get close to 65% - 66% of the white vote.

[Xing]

The real democrat firewall is:

WA, CA, NM, HI, IL, VT, NY, MA, NJ, CT, RI, DE, MD, and NJ.

OR belongs on that list as well, and ME (minus the 2nd district) probably does too. White voters in the Northeast and Pacific NW doesn't vote the same way as white voters in the Midwest or South.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hillary is up only 2.5 points in the RCP average.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Hillary is up only 2.5 points in the RCP average.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html

You're really dead-set on being melodramatic and wrong for two cycles in a row, aren't you?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hillary is up only 2.5 points in the RCP average.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html

You're really dead-set on being melodramatic and wrong for two cycles in a row, aren't you?

I didn't even make a prediction. Here's a prediction of mine from 2006.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=50266.msg1069400

[pbrower2a]

I remember a news story by Tom Brokaw, a television journalist not given to hyperbole, say of some then-obscure Illinois State Senator with a strange surname, "Watch this man!"

It was Barack H. Obama.

In a year he will be President Emeritus, and in view of the roles that Nixon, Ford, Carter, George H. W. Bush, and Clinton have taken the only way in which he does not have a big role on the world stage so long as he has some vigor will be if he is a Justice of the Supreme Court. 

[Nathan Towne]

I have to agree with the poster "Virginia." To attain somewhere between 64-66% of the Caucasian vote would be a monolithic achievement in that only once since 1976 has the Republican Party received that type of margin in the Presidential election. Reagan took approximately 66% of the Caucasian vote (self identified as Caucasian or "white") vs. Mondale's 34% of the Caucasian vote in the 1984 election, but in both Reagan's landslide victory over Jimmy Carter in 1980 and H.W.'s decisive victory over Dukakis in 1988 the Republican candidate took the Caucasian vote by 20% points, the same margin that Romney took it by in 2012. Obviously in 1980 and 1988 the results were massive electoral victories, while in 2012 Romney went down 332-206 in the Electoral College. Taking 64-66% of the Caucasian vote seems virtually unattainable to me, which means that unless that the Caucasian turnout is significantly higher that it has been in recent elections and/or the African American turnout is much lower, then the Republican Party must make inroads with the African American voter. It must be after 100% of the vote.

Another problem is that African American voter turnout has risen in every Presidential election now since 1996 and in 2012 actually surpassed the white voter turnout rate for the first time EVER. In other words, in 2012, 66.2% of eligible African American voters turned out (up from 65.2% in 2008) as compared to a turnout of 64.1% amongst Caucasian voters. We can debate whether or not this will continue, but it is certainly not a good sign for the party if it continues to get clobbered amongst African American voters. This means that we are seeing not only a demographic trend, but also a trend in voter turnout rates.

This is very troubling.

[Virginiá]

I have to agree with the poster "Virginia." To attain somewhere between 64-66% of the Caucasian vote would be a monolithic achievement in that only once since 1976 has the Republican Party received that type of margin in the Presidential election. Reagan took approximately 66% of the Caucasian vote (self identified as Caucasian or "white") vs. Mondale's 34% of the Caucasian vote in the 1984 election, but in both Reagan's landslide victory over Jimmy Carter in 1980 and H.W.'s decisive victory over Dukakis in 1988 the Republican candidate took the Caucasian vote by 20% points, the same margin that Romney took it by in 2012. Obviously in 1980 and 1988 the results were massive electoral victories, while in 2012 Romney went down 332-206 in the Electoral College. Taking 64-66% of the Caucasian vote seems virtually unattainable to me, which means that unless that the Caucasian turnout is significantly higher that it has been in recent elections and/or the African American turnout is much lower, then the Republican Party must make inroads with the African American voter. It must be after 100% of the vote.

Good post Nathan. I wanted to add a few things:

1. I think it's pretty obvious at this point that Republicans will not be expanding their coalition this cycle, and would be very lucky if they could keep it the same as in 2012. Over a year's worth of wall-to-wall coverage of Trump, the Republican frontrunner, spewing nonsense and hate is going to shift opinions on the GOP, as it already has according to recent polls. Further, if he's denied the nomination, his most ardent supporters will likely stay home or vote against the party at least this year, if not into the future as well. So any strategy involving expanding the white vote needs to recognize that there is no going up without going down first. With that in mind...

2. Trying to base electoral success on expanding one's share of the dominant-but-shrinking portion of the electorate is a cynical and doomed strategy. Every 4 years, non-white voters gain roughly 2% of the electorate while whites lose about 2%. Whites now compromise 69% - 70% of the electorate, and in 2020, 67% - 68%, and so on. This pattern has been stable for decades now and will likely speed up into the future. Trying to win elections by upping your vote share with this group is pointless because while you may need 65% - 66% this year, it'll keep getting higher every 4 years. By 2024 - 2028 they will end up needing 70% - 72% of the white vote or more. Given how much more liberal the Millennial generation is, that's simply impossible without significant changes to the GOP.

3. Voters are not as elastic as one may think. If the GOP refuses to engage an exploding non-white population now, they risk losing out for decades. Hispanic Millennials will make up almost a majority of Hispanic voters this year and political affiliations tend to be set early in adulthood, with the person being less receptive to changes as the years go on. Studies have shown this, so for the GOP to just alienate them now and try to win them over a decade from now would be a failure waiting to happen.

Honestly, for a lack of a better phrase, white votes are simply getting less valuable. On top of that, it's not good for the country when the parties align themselves along racial lines. Both parties need to diversify as best they can. Democrats have, Republicans have not.

[henster]

I think Hillary could drop as low as 37% with whites, at that point minority turnout will really matter. Everybody is talking about her performance with minorities but nobody mentions how poorly she has been doing with whites. If she can't turn out blacks across the Midwest then she could very well lose, because I think she'll do worse with blue collar whites than Obama.

[Nathan Towne]

I have to agree with the poster "Virginia." To attain somewhere between 64-66% of the Caucasian vote would be a monolithic achievement in that only once since 1976 has the Republican Party received that type of margin in the Presidential election. Reagan took approximately 66% of the Caucasian vote (self identified as Caucasian or "white") vs. Mondale's 34% of the Caucasian vote in the 1984 election, but in both Reagan's landslide victory over Jimmy Carter in 1980 and H.W.'s decisive victory over Dukakis in 1988 the Republican candidate took the Caucasian vote by 20% points, the same margin that Romney took it by in 2012. Obviously in 1980 and 1988 the results were massive electoral victories, while in 2012 Romney went down 332-206 in the Electoral College. Taking 64-66% of the Caucasian vote seems virtually unattainable to me, which means that unless that the Caucasian turnout is significantly higher that it has been in recent elections and/or the African American turnout is much lower, then the Republican Party must make inroads with the African American voter. It must be after 100% of the vote.

Good post Nathan. I wanted to add a few things:

1. I think it's pretty obvious at this point that Republicans will not be expanding their coalition this cycle, and would be very lucky if they could keep it the same as in 2012. Over a year's worth of wall-to-wall coverage of Trump, the Republican frontrunner, spewing nonsense and hate is going to shift opinions on the GOP, as it already has according to recent polls. Further, if he's denied the nomination, his most ardent supporters will likely stay home or vote against the party at least this year, if not into the future as well. So any strategy involving expanding the white vote needs to recognize that there is no going up without going down first. With that in mind...

2. Trying to base electoral success on expanding one's share of the dominant-but-shrinking portion of the electorate is a cynical and doomed strategy. Every 4 years, non-white voters gain roughly 2% of the electorate while whites lose about 2%. Whites now compromise 69% - 70% of the electorate, and in 2020, 67% - 68%, and so on. This pattern has been stable for decades now and will likely speed up into the future. Trying to win elections by upping your vote share with this group is pointless because while you may need 65% - 66% this year, it'll keep getting higher every 4 years. By 2024 - 2028 they will end up needing 70% - 72% of the white vote or more. Given how much more liberal the Millennial generation is, that's simply impossible without significant changes to the GOP.

3. Voters are not as elastic as one may think. If the GOP refuses to engage an exploding non-white population now, they risk losing out for decades. Hispanic Millennials will make up almost a majority of Hispanic voters this year and political affiliations tend to be set early in adulthood, with the person being less receptive to changes as the years go on. Studies have shown this, so for the GOP to just alienate them now and try to win them over a decade from now would be a failure waiting to happen.

Honestly, for a lack of a better phrase, white votes are simply getting less valuable. On top of that, it's not good for the country when the parties align themselves along racial lines. Both parties need to diversify as best they can. Democrats have, Republicans have not.

Virginia,

Generally, I would say that I agree with you as far as this election cycle is concerned which I have to admit is very frustrating and a bit discouraging. It is absolutely essential that the party move to shift a significant share of the African American electorate which is made all the more difficult with a clownish candidate like Donald Trump doing seemingly everything that he can to induce antipathy from our minority communities towards the party. I can only see his campaign as doing yet more damage in this area. The party needs to go after 100% of the vote, as a Charlie Baker did in his Gubernatorial campaign here in Massachusetts or even John Kasich did in his re-election campaign as Governor of Ohio. If the party fails to do so, then it is in serious trouble moving forward.

As to your point about millennials, while I think that it is a valid one, I do hold out some hope in that these are people who will ultimately enter the workforce and try to start their own businesses and attain success in the coming years and will soon find the modern social democratic party to be quite hostile to free enterprise, individual responsibility, entrepreneurial activity, low tax regime e.t.c. e.t.c. Of all of my business clients for example, I would guess that only 5-10% voted for Obama's reelection in 2012 and something like 90-95% voted for Romney. That is how stark it can be. That is a fairly general sentiment that the political left does not appreciate how important markets are, how hard it really is to attain success in the private sector and how much people put on the line. There is a general feeling, especially in the upper middle class, that they are under attack, both economically and in terms of individual freedom and freedom to choose. Unfortunately, some of this is mitigated by the fact that we are experiencing slowing social mobility and many millennials will probably spend at least the next ten years as employees in low to mid level positions. In those positions people are more likely to vote left-wing.

Finally, it has to be mentioned, that the George W. administration has made it harder still to formulate a winning coalition. The shadow of his administration continues to hurt the party.

[Nathan Towne]

Cruz is a 70% favorite against Hated Hillary

I would be interested to hear how you have come to that conclusion.

[Virginiá]

As to your point about millennials, while I think that it is a valid one, I do hold out some hope in that these are people who will ultimately enter the workforce and try to start their own businesses and attain success in the coming years and will soon find the modern social democratic party to be quite hostile to free enterprise, individual responsibility, entrepreneurial activity, low tax regime e.t.c. e.t.c.

Some Millennials will switch parties or grow more conservative in some areas as they age, while possibly liberal in others. Likewise, some Republican Millennials might also switch.

What I think you're hoping for is a sea change among the broader Millennial electorate - Something significant enough to actually change election results, which unfortunately at this point I think is not possible without a major realigning event. Party loyalty runs deep after young adulthood. It's not impossible, but it will take either a terrible Democratic president, like our own GWB, or a major recession that Republicans can effectively blame Democrats for, or a very drawn-out, bloody war under say, Hillary. Ironically both of these things happened under GWB, which I suppose you could say is the reason he is viewed so negatively.

If you want an example, then consider how badly GWB's presidency was - He presidency enabled the rise of the Democratic Millennial coalition, but despite how bad he was, he never managed to turn major amounts of older Republicans into Democrats. In fact, after Obama, more older voters turned Republican for various reasons.

That's how deep party loyalties can run after young adulthood. It takes a lot to change it.

Finally, it has to be mentioned, that the George W. administration has made it harder still to formulate a winning coalition. The shadow of his administration continues to hurt the party.

The social conservatism bit has really hurt the GOP. They picked a fight they were destined to lose, and it has essentially cost them the Millennial generation. If they hope to reach out more effectively, they absolutely have to stop with the social issues. Like, completely. On top of that, they need to stop demonizing government and give the tax breaks a rest for a little while.

I think part of the problem, aside from other obvious issues, is Republicans refuse to adapt. They've been running the same agenda for years and years now and more and more voters aren't buying into it. Being pro-business doesn't mean you have to be anti-social safety net or anti-infrastructure investment, for instance. Yet, Congressional Republicans seem to think that right now.

[Maxwell]

Cruz is a 70% favorite against Hated Hillary

I would be interested to hear how you have come to that conclusion.

He made it up because he wants to believe it. Simple.

Cruz has no shot.

[ElectionsGuy]

He's at a disadvantage, but its not out of question. Problem is that Ted Cruz now has a rich history of being uber-conservative. He's just going to get hammered nonstop by the media and the Democrats. I'm trying to see a path for Cruz, and its a narrow one that requires Virginia, Iowa, Colorado, and Pennsylvania to be in play, while also for sure winning Florida and Ohio. Definitely see that as more unlikely than likely at the moment.

[Nathan Towne]

As to your point about millennials, while I think that it is a valid one, I do hold out some hope in that these are people who will ultimately enter the workforce and try to start their own businesses and attain success in the coming years and will soon find the modern social democratic party to be quite hostile to free enterprise, individual responsibility, entrepreneurial activity, low tax regime e.t.c. e.t.c.

Some Millennials will switch parties or grow more conservative in some areas as they age, while possibly liberal in others. Likewise, some Republican Millennials might also switch.

What I think you're hoping for is a sea change among the broader Millennial electorate - Something significant enough to actually change election results, which unfortunately at this point I think is not possible without a major realigning event. Party loyalty runs deep after young adulthood. It's not impossible, but it will take either a terrible Democratic president, like our own GWB, or a major recession that Republicans can effectively blame Democrats for, or a very drawn-out, bloody war under say, Hillary. Ironically both of these things happened under GWB, which I suppose you could say is the reason he is viewed so negatively.

If you want an example, then consider how badly GWB's presidency was - He presidency enabled the rise of the Democratic Millennial coalition, but despite how bad he was, he never managed to turn major amounts of older Republicans into Democrats. In fact, after Obama, more older voters turned Republican for various reasons.

That's how deep party loyalties can run after young adulthood. It takes a lot to change it.

Finally, it has to be mentioned, that the George W. administration has made it harder still to formulate a winning coalition. The shadow of his administration continues to hurt the party.

The social conservatism bit has really hurt the GOP. They picked a fight they were destined to lose, and it has essentially cost them the Millennial generation. If they hope to reach out more effectively, they absolutely have to stop with the social issues. Like, completely. On top of that, they need to stop demonizing government and give the tax breaks a rest for a little while.

I think part of the problem, aside from other obvious issues, is Republicans refuse to adapt. They've been running the same agenda for years and years now and more and more voters aren't buying into it. Being pro-business doesn't mean you have to be anti-social safety net or anti-infrastructure investment, for instance. Yet, Congressional Republicans seem to think that right now.

I just disagree on the last part of what you wrote. The modern social Democratic party is just not on the side of free enterprise, individual responsibility and entrepreneurial activity. They claim that they are, but they simply aren't.

[Classic Conservative]

He can win especially if the world security gets even worse and he's able to rally people around him if organizations like ISIS expand. A lot can happen between now and November. I can't say who will win until the day of the election probably.