Cruz was hoping the “bathroom issue” would make a difference in Indiana. But despite a final push, he lost big and then suspended his campaign.
Via Politico on why Cruz’s social conservative pandering fell flat in Indiana (and, really, most everywhere else):
The only problem with Cruz’s socially conservative message? The voters he has to win over [in Indiana] don’t like it. …
Today, vast swaths of the state’s Republican electorate, from Indianapolis to West Lafayette, have retreated from the culture wars. And like the 50s-era diner itself, Cruz’s dogged socially conservative message seems anachronistic—and perhaps a little tin-eared—to these fiscally conservative, socially liberal Republicans….
Along similar lines, Dave Weigel on why Cruz’s defeat in Indiana may also be the biggest electoral victory for transgender rights:
[Cruz] pummeled Donald Trump for supporting the rights of transgender people to use their adopted gender’s bathrooms. And then he lost in a landslide, and quit the presidential race.
I wish Kasich had competed in Indiana; the pact with Cruz was a bad idea.
On the other hand, hard to argue with Cruz’s takedown of Trump. If only they both could have lost!
More. “Many Republicans were surprised Mr. Cruz was the one in the large GOP field to wind up being Mr. Trump’s most formidable opponent,” the Wall Street Journal reports, noting:
The senator’s coalition never grew beyond a core group of dedicated social conservatives, leaving Mr. Trump to pick up support from voters who might have otherwise supported one of the other 14 Republicans who have ended their presidential campaigns.
Cruz’s social conservative bloc was large enough to make him the designated runner up in a crowded, diffuse field. But as the political power and popular appeal of the religious right wanes in the GOP, Cruz as the alternative meant votes going to Trump.
Furthermore. Via a Wall Street Journal editorial, A Cruz Postmortem:
Mr. Cruz’s pandering to the right also sent a signal to moderate and somewhat conservative Republicans that he didn’t need their support. Mr. Trump split the “very conservative” vote with Mr. Cruz but crushed the Senator among more moderate voters. That doomed Mr. Cruz in the East in particular, but also in Indiana.
The Texan’s lost opportunity was to expand his appeal beyond his most conservative base of support and coalesce mainstream Republicans. He never tried to break out of his factional ghetto, as if excoriating the establishment and transgender bathroom laws could motivate a majority to defeat Mr. Trump’s plurality.
The conservatives aghast at Mr. Trump should appreciate the irony that even as Mr. Cruz hoped to produce a new conservative era, he helped wreck the best chance for conservative reform in years.
Indeed. And the WSJ rightly points out the culpability of both Cruz “and his allies at the Heritage Foundation and the Mark Levin talk-radio right.”
15 Comments for “Indiana”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Today, vast swaths of the state’s Republican electorate, from Indianapolis to West Lafayette, have retreated from the culture wars.
Not to rain on the parade, but the proof will be in the pudding, that is, the fate of the 200+ bills put forth as part of the Republican “massive resistance” effort now underway nationwide. And in the Republican 2016 platform. And in other tangible evidence that the Republican Party is beginning to get the message.
I wish Kasich had competed in Indiana; the pact with Cruz was a bad idea.
The pact was stupid because it revealed that the “Never Trump” movement wasn’t serious, not that it could have prevailed without dooming the Republican Party this election cycle.
But Kasich running in Indiana wouldn’t have made a difference. The President Presumptive aside, the aggregate “moderate” vote has consistently been about 20% all year long, and Kasich never made it out of single digits until the other “moderates” were thumbed down by the base.
If only they both could have lost!]
If wishes were horses …
This might be a good year for the so-called “libertarians” joined at the hip with the Republican Party to take a long, hard, look at how that’s been working for them, and consider actually voting for Libertarian.
posted by tom jefferson III on
Kasich and Clinton could be under the same ticket. Both seek to be pragmatic, and both are most confortable in the political center.
Kasich willingness to align with Cruz, was one of many blunders in his campaign.
I have watched his campaign with some interest, and, wow, his campaign has made so many blunders it is amazing his campaign is still afloat.
Kasich is basically hoping that GOP sentiment against Trump will make him the not-Trump candidate at the convention…..or that he gets something big for endorsing Trump.
posted by Houndentenor on
Look again at what Kasich is doing in Ohio. Not moderate at all. Maybe moderate compared to an extremist like Cruz, but that’s quite a distorted scale.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Look again at what Kasich is doing in Ohio. Not moderate at all. Maybe moderate compared to an extremist like Cruz, but that’s quite a distorted scale.
That’s the history of the party over the last couple decades, Hound. The old-style moderates were driven out of the party by conservative Christians and Tea Party types.
Read back a few years. John Kasich and Scott Walkerwere conservative heroes, held up as model Republican governors because they busted the unions, cut public education budgets, cut back on environmental protections, and so on, following the ALEC/Cato playbook.
Now they are “moderates”. Kasich and Walker have been given the “moderate” mantle solely because the party has gone off the deep end.
So far off the deep end, in fact, that Walker, Kasich, Bush et al never managed to get above 20-25%, collectively, in the polls at any time during the primary season.
When only 20% of your primary base is hard-core ALEC/Cato conservative, and the balance has gone off the deep end into Tea Party and conservative Christian fantasy worlds.
As the Republican elite looks for scapegoats, John Kasich is being increasingly targeted as the donkey — the theory is that if only Kasich had dropped out, NeverTrump, using Lucifer as the vehicle, could have stopped Trump. We see whiffs of that whining in this post:
Well, all I have to say is that if Kasich was responsible for derailing Lucifer, thank G-d. The President Presumptive is not my cup of Tea [Party], but Lucifer was the incarnation of the worst instincts of the conservative Christian movement. The President Presumptive, whatever else we may think of him, does not think he has been anoint by G-d to save our ChristianNation™ from moral destruction.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The AP is reporting that Kasich will be suspending his campaign this afternoon. Kasich strikes me as a reasonably decent guy, but what he’s selling the Republican base hasn’t been buying.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The Weigel article linked by Stephen has an interesting observation:
In a few words: Once burned, twice cautious.
posted by tom jefferson III on
Cruz was just not a very likable candidate. Social conservatives liked what he had to say, but generally didnt like him, or how he was marketed.
Maybe, if he had found a way to get people who agreed with him, to also like him…..
Yet, the hardcore, evangelical Christian conservative base is still a player in GOP politics, and the string of bathroom bills and anti-gay bills will keep coming.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As an aside, the Justice Department has begun the process of defunding North Carolina schools because HR2 violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I have a feeling that this is just the beginning of the legal pox that North Carolina has brought down upon itself.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Cruz’s social conservative bloc was large enough to make him the designated runner up in a crowded, diffuse field. But as the political power and popular appeal of the religious right wanes in the GOP, Cruz as the alternative meant votes going to Trump.
That explanation is too pat.
Cruz, Kasich and Trump all rose in the polls (see chart) after the exodus began in mid-February to mid-March, but The President Presumptive had a larger bloc and any of the others for the last nine months, and drew across all categories, including Evangelicals, as he is fond of pointing out.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Politico has an interesting article on shaping the upcoming platform. Cruz is, apparently, looking to the platform as leverage in his fight to take on the mantle of “Mr. Conservative” and position himself for 2020.
The question is whether The President Presumptive, who has made “moderate” noises on LGBT issues from time to time, will fight back, or become another “talk the talk” Republican like Paul Singer and David Koch, who make “moderate” and even “supportive” noises from time to time, but end up letting anti-equality conservative Christians have their way.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Furthermore. Via a Wall Street Journal editorial, A Cruz Postmortem …
Look, Stephen, the conservative Christian candidates never never run better than 30-35% in recent Republican national polling. That was the ceiling Huckabee ran into in 2008, and Santorum ran into in 2012. In both of those years, the conservative Christian candidate hit that ceiling and the establishment candidate (McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012) prevailed. The difference this time around is that Republican primary voters rejected the “establishment” candidates, who never managed to get above about 20-25%, collectively, in any primary.
Indeed. And the WSJ rightly points out the culpability of both Cruz “and his allies at the Heritage Foundation and the Mark Levin talk-radio right.”
What culpability? For sticking with the conservative Christian message and failing to rise above the 35% mark, like Huckabee in 2008 and Santorum in 2012? Is the WSJ suggesting that is the reason why The President Presumptive won a majority of Evangelicals in many primary states? Is the WSJ suggesting that the reason that Republican primary voters soundly rejected JEB Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasich and Chris Christie and other candidates?
Sounds dubious at best.
The question that we ought to be considering is how the “establishment” screwed this up so badly.
posted by Jorge on
“Cruz’s social conservative bloc was large enough to make him the designated runner up in a crowded, diffuse field.”
Okay. I’m having a deja vu moment.
And I’m not happy about it. I liked the far-right neocon from 2012 better. At least he tried to appeal more centrally. Of course Mitt Romney was less divisive (and more pliable) than Trump is.
The guy I supported is the only person in the Republican party who is still attacking Trump. Strangely, that’s the result I want even though I am quite satisfied with Trump as the nominee.
posted by Jorge on
You know…
Having gay marriage be the whipping boy for the gay rights movement was not a bad thing at all. Having the fault line being something so ordinary means great things even if the reactionists win (and they lost).
The longer the bathroom front is active, the more time there is to advance other forces to a stable position in places that are short of the bathroom front and which have not before been occupied.
The analogy is not the same because it is impossible to avoid bathroom discrimination and moderately difficult to ignore it.
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
Trump likes to talk in a manner that is relatable to some blue collar (“Reagan Democrats”) voters and some white men who like to think of themselves as “Independent voters” (When Jesse Ventura got elected Governor in Minnesota, this was sometimes called, the “dude vote”).
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
Dare I ask how Jorge discovered that he was gay late in life
Seriously, I expect Cruz and a few other familiar faces to insist that the Republican party platform be as medieval as possible with regards to gays, women, science and the 14th Amendment. Maybe, not as medieval as say, the Constitution party, but as medieval as a major party can be.