This is the right election to be unlikable

[Formerly Once-Ler]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/04/07/this-is-the-right-election-to-be-unlikable/

To his credit, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) admits he is not a warm and fuzzy guy. In the town hall before Wisconsin’s primary, he acknowledged, “What I will say is I’m a pretty driven guy. That has pros and cons. I have always been a very driven guy.” In the October GOP debate, he offered, “If you want someone to grab a beer with, I may not be that guy. But if you want someone to drive you home, I will get the job done and I will get you home.”

Now it is true that the most likable candidate usually wins a high-stakes race. George W. Bush beat then-Sen. John Kerry handily on the “want to have a beer with” question. Ronald Reagan was the quintessential likable candidate; as an actor he knew how to engage the audience. But in not every election does the nation or a party pick the most congenial candidate.

Richard Nixon was not likable, but in 1968 he was offering what the country felt it needed. William Schneider wrote in 2000, “Nixon was no more likable in 1968 [than in 1960]. But he won that year because the country was in crisis. So what if he wasn’t such a nice guy? Voters wanted someone who knew what he was doing.”

So perhaps Cruz, as President Obama put it in 2008, needs only be “likable enough.” Frankly, if he wins the nomination, his expected opponent, Hillary Clinton, is herself one of the least likable politicians to run for president. Moreover, while Clinton has become no more likable as the campaign goes on, Cruz, however, has been improving over time. That, in part, is because he is consciously trying to be a unifier in the GOP. He no longer picks fights with popular Republicans and has even given up casting GOP Senate leaders as part of the “Washington cartel.” In addition, like many politicians, his wife and family help soften his image and show him in a different light.

It is also true that in assessing likability in a politician, one has to ask: As compared to whom? Cruz seems, if not exactly likable, at least infinitely more sane, stable, serious and calm than Donald Trump. If not for Trump as a comparison, we might not even notice that Cruz is respectful of women, eschews vulgarity and is capable of apologizing. These may strike one as unexceptional qualities, but compared with, Trump that makes him Albert Schweitzer.

Cruz also is modulating his speaking style. His fans love his dramatic orations, but many others do not, finding his tone artificial or even pretentious. When he leaves out the dramatic pauses and stops raising his voice at the end of every sentence — when he just talks normally as if conversing with someone one-on-one — he is exponentially more effective and, yes, more likable.

Cruz, then, is likable enough. Beyond that, however, Cruz might even think about using his perceived fault as an asset. The next president is going to have to make plenty of hard decisions, telling the public what it may not want to hear. (For example, we have to send more troops to fight the Islamic State.) In particular, a Republican when he attempts to assert American strength is always going to be labeled a warmonger. (Ronald Reagan was accused of wanting to start WWIII against the Soviets.) Any budget discipline will be characterized as evidence of hatred for the poor or some other deserving group. To pursue entitlement reform, a president will have to endure “throwing granny over the cliff” ads.

In order to make the tough calls, a president, therefore, especially a Republican, at some level has to not care what the press, the pundits and even the public thinks. (To his credit, Bush 43 persisted in the surge, knowing how unpopular it was because he realized defeat would be catastrophic.) You have to be indifferent, if not disdainful of, elite media opinion. You have to be willing to be disliked, even hated, to accomplish important and difficult things.

And who has a better claim to possession of this kind of emotional armor than Cruz? He’s become practiced at being reviled. (I know this sounds peculiar, but stick with this. Whether he should have provoked such a response and whether he was doing so for selfish ends is a different question.) Surely he has demonstrated a very un-political tendency — contentment with being criticized, even hated. Unlike so many other pols, he seems fully capable of not being liked. In fact, he seems to rather enjoy it. (Candidly, one of the problems that Sen. Marco Rubio faced was that he seemed too nice, and too afraid of alienating his supporters, which led to the perception that he cut and ran on immigration reform or ducked on the red line in Syria.)

I don’t suggest that Cruz brag about being unliked, especially as he is doing a good job warming up to voters. He should, however, stress that he is not going to do things (or not do things) to be popular or to avoid nasty barbs from the New York Times editorial page. He won’t be addicted to his favorable poll ratings. He is prepared to risk public disapproval if need be, or even his chance at reelection, if he must. In stark contrast to Clinton, who is allergic to swimming against the tide or getting too far out ahead of public (liberal) opinion, Cruz is not cowed by the threat of opposition from his own party or from liberals. Her ambition makes her cautious; his makes him brave.

In a presidency that will entail no good options, only less bad ones, Cruz’s temperament arguably is an asset. There is perhaps a benefit in not being a people pleaser. And if you want someone like that, it’s hard to think of anyone better than Cruz.

Last year I could barely find a nice thing to say about Senator Cruz.  If someone had told me I would be voting for Cruz in the GOP primaries I would have told them they were nuts.  It took Trump to make Cruz desirable for this RINO.

[Chosen Daughter]

Wasn't my first pick either but I have seen why my first pick isn't in the race any longer.  Cruz has grown on me even though there were times I wondered.  I do think that he is the most presidential.  There are things about him that I admire.  His love for his wife is huge to me.  His faith and his commitment to the Constitution of the United States.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Wasn't my first pick either but I have seen why my first pick isn't in the race any longer.  Cruz has grown on me even though there were times I wondered.  I do think that he is the most presidential.  There are things about him that I admire.  His love for his wife is huge to me.  His faith and his commitment to the Constitution of the United States.

Just knowing that Senator Cruz stands on one side of an issue makes him clearly better than Trump.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

It's never a good election to be unlikable  but as long as he's more likable than Hillary or Donald we're ok.

[Mesaclone]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/04/07/this-is-the-right-election-to-be-unlikable/

Last year I could barely find a nice thing to say about Senator Cruz.  If someone had told me I would be voting for Cruz in the GOP primaries I would have told them they were nuts.  It took Trump to make Cruz desirable for this RINO.

Cruz is not disliked because he's "driven" or straight laced. He's disliked by virtually everyone who's worked with him because he is self-righteous,  self important and unable to compromise (yes, I know compromise is a dirty word to some Cruz-ites). Just look to his fellow GOP Senators for commentary on what its like to work with Cruz. He lacks the one quality every president must have, the ability to move people to a consensus...which requires the ability to both persuade and to compromise. If by some miracle he wins the nomination, I will surely hold my nose and vote for him over Hillary, but I disagree that he is the best of a set of poor options...he is quite frankly the least suited for the White House of any of the GOP candidates. Reagan was the Great Persuader, Cruz would be the Obstinate Refuser. He has zero talent for persuasion, and in fact has the kind of personal charisma that leads those who agree with him to vote against him out of spite.

As president, a man can't simply say "this is what I want and I will get 100% of what I'm asking AND you will all vote for it". Sure, it would feel "righteous" to do that, but a leader can achieve nothing if has no one that follows him. Because he lacks the ability to effectively persuade and yes, to compromise (the traits that made Reagan great), Ted Cruz has no ability to get 51 Senatorial votes nor 218 House votes on most issues of consequence to GOP voters...his inflexibility may feel noble and its easy to sit on a high horse and say "my way or nothing"...but in the end, that leads to ... nothing. And we can't reverse 8 years of disastrous legislation with...nothing.

Again, I will vote for the man if he's the nominee (because every rational Con/Repub should understand that any of our candidates are vastly superior to the nightmare of a Hillary Clinton presidency), but it will be in a losing cause.

More importantly, in electoral college terms, Cruz brings no new states into play. We'll get a replay of the last two elections if he is our candidate. In an optimistic scenario, with high GOP turnout he may flip a close state or two (Virginia, Wisconsin, Iowa) but nowhere near enough to actually win. Unless a candidate can bring Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Florida back into the GOP fold, we are likely to lose...and lose badly. In most of THOSE states, Cruz simply has no chance.

[sinkspur]

Cruz is not disliked because he's "driven" or straight laced. He's disliked by virtually everyone who's worked with him because he is self-righteous,  self important and unable to compromise (yes, I know compromise is a dirty word to some Cruz-ites). Just look to his fellow GOP Senators for commentary on what its like to work with Cruz. He lacks the one quality every president must have, the ability to move people to a consensus...which requires the ability to both persuade and to compromise. If by some miracle he wins the nomination, I will surely hold my nose and vote for him over Hillary, but I disagree that he is the best of a set of poor options...he is quite frankly the least suited for the White House of any of the GOP candidates. Reagan was the Great Persuader, Cruz would be the Obstinate Refuser. He has zero talent for persuasion, and in fact has the kind of personal charisma that leads those who agree with him to vote against him out of spite.

As president, a man can't simply say "this is what I want and I will get 100% of what I'm asking AND you will all vote for it". Sure, it would feel "righteous" to do that, but a leader can achieve nothing if has no one that follows him. Because he lacks the ability to effectively persuade and yes, to compromise (the traits that made Reagan great), Ted Cruz has no ability to get 51 Senatorial votes nor 218 House votes on most issues of consequence to GOP voters...his inflexibility may feel noble and its easy to sit on a high horse and say "my way or nothing"...but in the end, that leads to ... nothing. And we can't reverse 8 years of disastrous legislation with...nothing.

Again, I will vote for the man if he's the nominee (because every rational Con/Repub should understand that any of our candidates are vastly superior to the nightmare of a Hillary Clinton presidency), but it will be in a losing cause.

More importantly, in electoral college terms, Cruz brings no new states into play. We'll get a replay of the last two elections if he is our candidate. In an optimistic scenario, with high GOP turnout he may flip a close state or two (Virginia, Wisconsin, Iowa) but nowhere near enough to actually win. Unless a candidate can bring Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Florida back into the GOP fold, we are likely to lose...and lose badly. In most of THOSE states, Cruz simply has no chance.

And, reading between the lines of your post, you believe that Trump will do nothing BUT compromise because the man has no core principles.  Since he believes in nothing, he will settle for anything.

As to bringing states into the fold, the latest polls in Mississippi and Utah indicate that Hillary is within three points of Trump in those solidly Republican states.  So, one has to factor in the states that Trump would LOSE in addition to ones he has a tiny outside chance of bringing in. 

And then there's the 75% of women, 81% of Hispanics and 94% of blacks who despise Trump, the vast majority of whom would never vote for him.  Then, there's the #NeverTrump group, estimated to be 25% of the GOP electorate.

You are engaged in wishful thinking which has no connection to reality.

[MACVSOG68]

William Schneider wrote in 2000, “Nixon was no more likable in 1968 [than in 1960]. But he won that year because the country was in crisis. So what if he wasn’t such a nice guy? Voters wanted someone who knew what he was doing.”

And yet, voters on both sides of the aisle seem to have rejected candidates who knew what they were doing.  Who's left?  A socialist with no regard for the private sector; a former SecState who can't even name an accomplishment, and whom the FBI is chasing around; a real estate mogul whose campaign is little more than a handful of platitudes; a self described conservative first-term senator whose campaign is based on not working with anyone, oh, and a governor who does know what he's doing, but who on a good day is still considered little more than an ankle biter.   

[Mesaclone]

And, reading between the lines of your post, you believe that Trump will do nothing BUT compromise because the man has no core principles.  Since he believes in nothing, he will settle for anything.

As to bringing states into the fold, the latest polls in Mississippi and Utah indicate that Hillary is within three points of Trump in those solidly Republican states.  So, one has to factor in the states that Trump would LOSE in addition to ones he has a tiny outside chance of bringing in. 

And then there's the 75% of women, 81% of Hispanics and 94% of blacks who despise Trump, the vast majority of whom would never vote for him.  Then, there's the #NeverTrump group, estimated to be 25% of the GOP electorate.

You are engaged in wishful thinking which has no connection to reality.

Still waiting for you to show some historical data on the accuracy of state polling 7 months prior to an election...guessing I shouldn't hold my breath on that one, right?

Trump will easily hold together all of the current GOP states...as will any of the current GOP candidates in the race. The question is, who can win Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Colorado, Wisconsin and New Jersey. Current polls mean virtually nothing...horse race polls (Dem vs Repub) are useless this far out (see Reagan way behind Carter in 1980). What is relevant is enthusiasm, strength with independents (as shown in actual primary vote totals), and positioning on specific issues the public views as most important (Immigration, Economy, Defense, etcetera).

On the flip side, issues like religious liberty and abortion may be important to strong Conservatives...but they rate far lower on the scale for Reagan Democrats and right leaning Independents (precisely the people we MUST win over to win). Cruz is so far right, he has no hope of swaying those who are not already in his camp...and as he is entirely unable to compromise, he has no maneuver room to pull from outside his current comfort zone. The GOP nominee must be conservative, as Reagan was, but his appeal must be much broader than a narrow strip of Evangelical voters.

Trump will compromise. If you think that's a bad thing, you fundamentally misunderstand democracy. The point here is, Trump will compromise in a way that ensures he gets 90% of what he and conservatives want...you know, as Reagan did. You can feel free to support the Cruz approach of holding out for 100% of everything Cons want on a particular issue...and achieve nothing but a sense of self satisfaction because you "didn't compromise". That's a horse you can ride into political oblivion...you may enjoy the ride but the end result is nothing.

So continue thinking that any and all compromise is equivalent to surrendering all of your values...if that makes you feel better. In the real world, its more complex than that and a President must be able to persuade AND compromise...the key is how much and how effectively he does both. You can't have a leader who do neither of those things, and that is why Cruz cannot be effective.

 

[truth_seeker]

I believe either democrat will destroy the Reverend-Senator from Alberta.

Personally, I find him to be a phony self-righteous overly ambitious stereotype of a politician.

His father says he has been "anointed," which will never go away. He believe abortions should be against the law, for women that are raped. That will never go away.

He has no accomplishments, for his time in the Senate. His opponents and the media will make sure voters know this.

The media and the left will make an extreme charicature of him, and he will lose.

[Frank Cannon]

Wasn't my first pick either but I have seen why my first pick isn't in the race any longer. 

A fellow Gilmore supporter. I feel your pain.....

[Chosen Daughter]

Cruz is not disliked because he's "driven" or straight laced. He's disliked by virtually everyone who's worked with him because he is self-righteous,  self important and unable to compromise (yes, I know compromise is a dirty word to some Cruz-ites). Just look to his fellow GOP Senators for commentary on what its like to work with Cruz. He lacks the one quality every president must have, the ability to move people to a consensus...which requires the ability to both persuade and to compromise. If by some miracle he wins the nomination, I will surely hold my nose and vote for him over Hillary, but I disagree that he is the best of a set of poor options...he is quite frankly the least suited for the White House of any of the GOP candidates. Reagan was the Great Persuader, Cruz would be the Obstinate Refuser. He has zero talent for persuasion, and in fact has the kind of personal charisma that leads those who agree with him to vote against him out of spite.

As president, a man can't simply say "this is what I want and I will get 100% of what I'm asking AND you will all vote for it". Sure, it would feel "righteous" to do that, but a leader can achieve nothing if has no one that follows him. Because he lacks the ability to effectively persuade and yes, to compromise (the traits that made Reagan great), Ted Cruz has no ability to get 51 Senatorial votes nor 218 House votes on most issues of consequence to GOP voters...his inflexibility may feel noble and its easy to sit on a high horse and say "my way or nothing"...but in the end, that leads to ... nothing. And we can't reverse 8 years of disastrous legislation with...nothing.

Again, I will vote for the man if he's the nominee (because every rational Con/Repub should understand that any of our candidates are vastly superior to the nightmare of a Hillary Clinton presidency), but it will be in a losing cause.

More importantly, in electoral college terms, Cruz brings no new states into play. We'll get a replay of the last two elections if he is our candidate. In an optimistic scenario, with high GOP turnout he may flip a close state or two (Virginia, Wisconsin, Iowa) but nowhere near enough to actually win. Unless a candidate can bring Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Florida back into the GOP fold, we are likely to lose...and lose badly. In most of THOSE states, Cruz simply has no chance.

The only reason that Trump has been able to hold a lead is his promise on deporting all illegal immigrants.  He has not made it exactly clear what his plans are.  I believe it is called touch back immigration.  He plans to deport them and expedite them all back in front of people who have been waiting to enter the country legaly.  I posted in another thread a video of Trump saying pathway to citizenship.  Also how can you tell someone who has been here twenty years to get out.  Trumps wall and his stance on stopping illegal immigration is phony.  I could see how establishment would like Trump over Cruz because our party has become the party of big business.  They have not done anything on illegal immigration because big business doesn't want them too.  They are like Trump who says Hispanics are good people and they do jobs that Americans don't want to do.  Trump said it.  Simply not true.  Just 10-15 years ago politicians were arguing that no American wants to do seasonal farm work.  Well now it is all of Construction.  Illegals owning businesses construction, landscaping.  Taking what is left of manufacturing.  Owning cleaning businesses.  Many Americans are being put out of work by illegal immigrants collecting all of the entitlemens and using the special tax id to put Americans out of work.