The piece generated tons of comments, most of them ranging from hostile to contemptuous. Quite a few were with Tomasky's point of view -- that Cruz obviously couldn't win. A lot of them were on the order of: Cruz could never pivot back to the center! He's a loon! On the former, well, read the item. On the latter: it can't be true that Cruz is both a calculating, McCarthyite demagogue and wound never modify his rhetoric during the general election campaign. Not saying he necessarily would -- he might make the mistaken judgement that extremism sells better than moderation in November. But I strongly suspect that's not what would happen if he won.
And then there were comments...I didn't go all the way through, but it may well have been hundreds of these, plus tweets and emails -- calling me a fool because I'm overlooking Cruz's supposed lack of eligibility. Sorry; don't know who is feeding this to liberal Salon readers, but Cruz was born (in Canada) a US citizen, with (one) US citizen parent, which is all it takes (WaPo's Aaron Blake had a fine explainer on this a while back). I do wonder how much of the intense reaction on this is sincere (liberals mistakenly believing Cruz is ineligible), and how much is simply cynical payback for Obama birthers. At any rate, it surprised me.
Other elsewhere items:
FWIW, you're absolutely right on the effect. The question really reduces down to two (for liberal, of course), though:
ReplyDelete1) do you think there's a world of difference in policy between Cruz and, oh, Ryan?
2) do you think the election would be close enough for the outlier effect to matter?
I'm guessing that a lot of the comments you saw related to both. If all Republicans are seen as equally terrible, then #1 only matters at the margins. As for #2, in 2013, I really can't predict the state of the economy in 2016 at all well. If one was playing it safe, they'd think it could be close, as a way of avoiding Type 1 errors. So, the logic would go: #2 is assumed to be true, therefore, #1 differences matter. I think you have a reasonable position on it, but I don't think their position is all that unreasonable.
However, what if you think that, in 2013, 2016 is a long ways off, the general election in particular. Then, doesn't it follow that you'd PREFER a Ted Cruz dominate the airwaves for the next two years? The idea is to bring down the "good" name of the GOP; guilt by association.
Now, I'm REALLY not convinced by this second logic. I'm more concerned that it leads to teapartiers winning primaries in safe seats and the disaster that was the 2010 elections: not because the GOP won (terrible enough on its own from my perspective), but because of the PARTICULAR GOPers who won then (and since).
So, on both counts, I'm with you.
On the eligibility issue: I think it's both sincere and payback. That is, liberals are genuinely flabbergasted that large chunks of the GOP could argue that Obama-- born to an American in the United States-- was ineligible, and then argue that a guy born in Canada was eligible because it suited them.
ReplyDeleteI know the argument that hypocrisy is overrated, but this strikes me as somewhat beyond regular hypocrisy. This is just cynically saying "OUR guy is okay, but THEIR guy (who by no stretch is worse-qualified than our guy) is not." And liberals are so sincerely angry about that, they're willing to make the opposite argument as payback.
I hope to keep it passive-aggressive. "I heard he was born in Canada, right? Don't you have to be born here to be President?" [Hem.] [Haw.] "So what was the problem with the last guy then? I don't get it, could you explain?"
DeleteGiv'em enough rope.
What about the Day of Reckoning line of thinking, i.e. the most realistic way for the far right to lose its death grip over the GOP is for the party to experience electoral disaster with a perceived far-right ideologue at the helm.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying I buy this argument, but it's at least sort of plausible. A lot of conditionals would have to go the right way in order for Cruz to fulfill it. But it does seem that he would have a better chance of doing so than just about any other viable candidate.
If a Republican loss was guaranteed, I'd want the most unhinged Republican possible to have lost. Cruz would fit that, IMHO. However, despite the claims of some Breitbart devotees, it isn't guaranteed. Thus even if it's just marginal, I'd rather a less-unhinged Republican be the nominee. Cruz < Ryan < Christie.
DeleteI'd still prefer HRC or whomever we nominate wins, but Christie with a Democratic Congress would be interesting. I think he'd play some ball, and I'd probably be less displeased with the results than one might expect.
I do not believe that the Republican party will moderate itself until the oligarchs paying for it die from old age.
DeleteWhere I don't agree with you is your minimization of the importance of the candidate for victory in presidential elections. Even if it is true that it "only" affects two to three percent of the vote, I think that is more likely to be decisive in 2016 than you seem to. A shift of two to three percent would have changed the results in 1948 (not in the popular vote but in the Electoral College--it would have been sufficient to give Dewey Illinois, Ohio, and California and therefore the election), 1960, 1968, 1976, 2000, and 2004--and quite possibly in 1992 and 1996 if they had been two-candidate races. Of course, if there is an economic collapse, any Republican could win in 2016, but short of that, I would say that Cruz has a very difficult path in the general election--more so than some other potential GOP candidates.
ReplyDeleteYes, "most elections" in US history aren't all that close. But I don't think it's any coincidence that we haven't had any FDR- or Ike- or Nixon-1972 or Reagan-1984 type landslides lately. Even GHW Bush in 1988 would have faced a close race had demographics been then what they are today.
I think we, as liberals, are all pining for a 1964 style election again. A true blowout of a 'true' conservative. It's been a while. 2008 was close, but Obama needed a few more states to get above 400 EV to make it a landslide election for me. Even Clinton's wins, whilst large, seemed to have mitigating circumstances, with Perot on the ballot and not cracking 50% of the popular vote. I think Hillary could have a chance at that, given the right circumstances. In which case, I'm all for Cruz to be nominated, but I understand JB's advice, and could very well be eating my own words come 2016.
ReplyDeleteYes, it's odd. A lot of liberals seem quite convinced without offering any explicit reassurance that Democrats will be popular in 2016 even in the face of 2 more years of deadlock, and that nothing disruptive will occur internationally to affect global political and economic stability. Hardly anyone brings up the downside risks in the euro zone, China, and the Middle East. All three have volatile situations right now
ReplyDeleteI agree that there are downside risks, but as for deadlock, polls right now show people blaming it much more on the Republicans than on the Democrats. In 1948 and 1996, blaming Republicans who controlled Congress worked quite well for the Democrats, and blaming the Republicans who controlled the House worked fairly well for them in 2012 as well.
DeleteI guess it's Cruz the Left fears, judging from all this clamor.
ReplyDeleteNot that he can win a nomination, mind you. He just isn't that seasoned a politician, and hasn't been tested, and fundraising is always an issue for the unknowns. I could see Cruz as AG in an R White House, and that might platform him for higher office later.
It is starting to look like Hillary is the only D who has a strong chance to take that 2016 election. I doubt Cruz will be running against her, but ironically, he may be one of those who can beat her. She'll likely put down the typical McCain/Romney types, as her husband did to Bush and Dole.
Ideology aside, Cruz doesn't seem very likeable as a person to me. (Whether I can be trusted to be ideologically impartial in that judgment is very much up for debate, but I am doing my best!)
ReplyDeleteI'm with the "root for the GOP candidate who'll be best for the country if s/he wins" thing Bernstein lays out, sure, but I'm also a bit more skeptical of Cruz's ability to win in the general. Will he be able to not seem like a toadish, rhetorically dishonest asshole? Will he avoid foot-in-mouth missteps? (Maybe those things don't matter much in electoral outcomes - but, if nothing else, they seem to matter to the press!)
Well yes, it's important for the "press" and Beltway incumbents that newcomer politicians don't rock the comfortable boat, and Cruz isn't paying attention to those "rules". But that sets him up to run as an outsider, and come 2016 the electorate may be ready for that sort of candidate. Obama will be a negative drag come 2016, almost certainly. Hillary will almost certainly be running as an outsider from the Obamabots, however unspoken that strategy would be executed. Cruz would be doing the same, obviously.
ReplyDeleteI was actually calling him an unpleasant, off-putting person, not a boat-rocking rebel, but your perspective is enlightening nonetheless. I'll betcha 5 anonymous dollars that Ted Cruz does not win the presidency in 2016, based solely on my faith in my fellow Americans' taste in presidents. It may be awful, but not that awful :)
DeleteWell, no doubt he's offputting to you lefties. But anybody not in lockstep with leftism tends to put you types off.
DeleteBest if you focus on the fact that he's been elected Senator, so there are a lot of people not in lockstep with you, apparently, hard as that may be for you to believe. And believe it or not, most Senate voters wouldn't vote for somebody who drowned a young girl and participated in a cover up of the crime. They might even find that guy to be a lowlife, in a manner unlike how they think of Cruz.
They'd be mainstream voters, in other words.