Cruz Could Win

Cruz could win the election.   Not just Wisconsin.   All of it.

I have been looking more closely at Cruz than before because Crus is more plausible as a nominee than before.   This election is not about left vs. right.  It is about status quo vs. breaking through gridlock.

Ted Cruz just won Wisconsin, meaning Trump is likely to be short of the delegates he needs, and Cruz has just proven that he can win GOP primaries in the Rust Belt.  Cruz isn't a niche candidate.  He is a national candidate.

The Stop-Trump movement had had the problem of needing to coalesce around someone and there was something un-appealing about Cruz, a hold-your-nose support.  

Anti-Trump ads filled the air and endorsements from traditional Republican leaders (Romney, Graham, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker) assured voters that Cruz was the new party leader.    Republicans dislike Trump and Hillary enough to embrace Cruz.

There is a widespread notion of a right-left dimension to politics.  Cruz on the very far right, then Rubio maybe a little to the left, then Kasich, then Jeb, then toward the right side of the middle with Republicans in blue states, people like Susan Collins of Maine, who the voting record scorecard people put in the "mushy middle."   The continuum keeps moving left into Democratic senators representing red states (Pryor of Arkansas, e.g.) to Hillary Clinton and on to Bernie Sanders.

Victory in Wisconsin

This right-left spectrum is a simple mental map, one that is validated by liberal and conservative scorecards, and one in common use.  Everyone has heard, "Bernie Sanders is too far left to get elected."  The map is especially useful when describing an opponent as "too" something to appeal to the audience, e.g. "Ted Cruz is too extreme."

The mental map is so oversimple to be best described as wrong.  Note that Trump cannot be placed easily on the spectrum.  He is "left" along with Sanders in describing the corrupting power of wealthy corporate interests; he is "right" if solidarity of native born Americans against out-groups is put on the scale with solidarity being considered "right" and multiculturalism is "left."   Free trade and low tariffs used to be a "left" position of consumers versus protected corporations, but now both left and right candidates call for "fair trade" protections.  

Cruz can win because the big theme that has surfaced in 2016 is change vs. status quo, not left and right.

Republicans succeeded in discrediting government.  Republicans defined the financial meltdown of 2007-09  as a failure not of Wall Street malfeasance but of government (Fannie Mae, plus inadequate regulation) and their use of filibuster and obstruction made the story of the Obama presidency one of logjam, gridlock, and frustration.   Republicans obstructed him and questioned his legitimacy and generally pushed him around--thus proving the point that Obama can get pushed around, a "feckless weakling" in the face of Putin and China and ISIS.  The continuing trouble in the Middle East plus frustrations with the rollout and operation of the Affordable Care Act reenforced the meme voiced by Reagan: government is the problem.

Voters have been taught to scorn government, but they simultaneously want it to work well.  This created the great opening for Trump, who may have created the opening for Cruz to slip past him.

Not moderate vs. extremist.  The matchup between Hillary and Cruz will not necessarily be the one Democrats want: a matchup between a somewhat hawkish somewhat-social progressive overall moderate in the left-right scale vs. a candidate they define as an extremist.  Democrats will try to position it that way:  "Ted Cruz is an extremist!"

Hillary's Donors:  She is a successful liberal practitioner in the current political system

Same-old vs. reset.  Hillary Clinton represents the status quo.  Ted Cruz is the establishment-blessed anti-establishment candidate, which sounds improbable but it is now the position Cruz holds.  Hold-your-nose support for Cruz, that Lindsey Graham death by gunfire or poison choice is now an advantage for Cruz.   The dislike of Cruz marks him as an outsider and a change agent, but an acceptable one under the circumstances: perfect for Cruz.   It is Cruz or something worse: vote Cruz.

The big theme for voters is frustration with ineffective government and as of now Cruz is being credited with the potential to shake government up rather than being blamed for being a primary culprit of gridlock.   (It takes a thief to catch a thief.)   The Sanders-Trump-Cruz combined vote show that a great many voters want change.  They are angry enough to pick improbable candidates to register that feeling.

Hoping to put the nomination away on home court

Hillary will likely limp over the finish line with her Democratic nomination, a product of her familiarity and orthodoxy as a progressive, plus the party establishment.   Cruz now looks like a plausible Republican uniter: he isn't Trump; he isn't Hillary; he is anti-establishment but acceptable.

Hillary is utterly implausible as a change agent, and she is not adjusting her message enough to be the outsider candidate.  She isn't outside.  She doesn't want revolution; she wants improvement.   She doesn't oppose the status quo because she is a very successful practitioner within it.  Cruz's righteous anger at the mess in Washington makes him the strong outsider who can cut through the gridlock.   That used to be Trump's appeal, but he is being pulled down by constant media focus on "mistakes", the very formula which used to be Trump's great strength.

Cruz's weakness was that he was considered unlikeable--smug and self-righteous--and it is turning into an asset for him.