Ted Cruz asks some pointed questions

Y'all know who Ted Cruz is. And it's true, he admits at the end that there are more important things than asking these questions (such as making sure that we check the spread of the coronavirus), but these are questions that need to be asked, and answered, sooner rather than later.

Cruz on impeachment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEQ1mahW3uQ&t=7s

The right to self-defense

Alyssa Milano asks:

Can someone cite which passage of the Bible God states it is a god-given right to own a gun? This guy is unbelievable and is clearly owned by the gun lobby. #NoRA https://t.co/PxVV1RoV2Z

— Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) September 1, 2019

Ted Cruz answers:

An excellent Q, worth considering carefully w/o the snark of Twitter. It is of course not the right to a modern-day firearm that is God-give but rather the right to Life & the right to Liberty. Essential to that right to life is the right to DEFEND your life & your family. 1/x https://t.co/8pjstMGrGB

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) September 1, 2019

3/x The Declaration of Independence acknowledges our rights thusly: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) September 2, 2019

5/x Stephen Willeford exercised that fundamental right when he risked his own life to stop the Sutherland Springs murderer, saving countless others as a result.

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) September 2, 2019

7/x “...in most govts it has been the study of rulers to confine this right w/in the narrowest limits possible. Wherever...the right...to keep & bear arms is, under any...pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) September 2, 2019

9/x I’m a Texan. What happened in Midland-Odessa—and El Paso, Santa Fe & Sutherland Springs—was sick, deranged & horrifying. We need to do MUCH more to stop violent criminals & those w/ dangerous mental illness BEFORE they murder & I’m leading the fight in the Senate to do so.

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) September 2, 2019

10/x Playing politics w/ these deranged crimes—and trying to use them as an excuse to violate the constl rights of law-abiding citizens—won’t make anybody safer. Forcible gun confiscation (as some 2020 Dems urge) won’t prevent mass-murders. But it would weaken our self-defense.

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) September 2, 2019

Cruz grills Google

I think it's great Ted Cruz is taking the fight to Google:

What is section 230?

The key issue here is section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). The issue is over the distinction between a content provider vs. a content publisher. Put simply, a content publisher can edit or alter content, whereas a content provider is supposed to be neutral on content and not be involved in altering content in any way.

Google claims to be a content provider

Currently Google is legally regarded as a content provider under section 230, not a content publisher. As a content provider, Google enjoys certain legal immunities. For example, Google can't be liable for racism if their content is in fact racist because Google is a provider that doesn't have a hand in the content.

Google is really a content publisher

That's been shown by these documents and recordings from Project Veritas. If Google is a publisher, then Google will no longer enjoy legal immunities under section 230. Instead, Google could be liable for their content. Google could be open to law suits from multiple parties. These law suits could cripple Google.

Of course, this is exactly what Google wishes to avoid. Hence Google claims to be a neutral content provider, not a content publisher.

In fact, I suspect that's precisely why Google sent a mid-level executive (Maggie Stanphill) rather than a senior executive to be grilled by Cruz (where's Jen Gennai?!). What's more, Google sent a "user experience" director. That's a position that requires little (if any) technical knowledge about computer science and the like. If Google had sent someone with more knowledge or connections than this woman, then there could be more serious repercussions for Google.

However, in light of the documents and recordings from Project Veritas, Google deserves to have their section 230 immunities revoked.

What is Project Veritas?

Basically it's a muckracker organization that was founded by conservative James O'Keefe (B.A., philosophy, Rutgers University). Its purpose is to investigate and expose corruption in high places. You might know them for their work exposing Planned Parenthood selling aborted baby parts as well as their ACORN sting. And now Project Veritas' work against tech giants like Google.

Of course, no surprise, liberals and progressives hate Project Veritas as well as James O'Keefe. Ironically, liberals and progressives have long advertised themselves as the consummate muckrackers and whistleblowers. Too bad liberals don't appreciate it when conservatives do the same against corrupt liberal organizations and institutions.

In addition, what's O'Keefe doing that's in principle different from (say) the progressive filmmaker Michael Moore? As far as I can tell, the main differences are twofold. First, O'Keefe's work is factually-based in a way Moore's work is not. Moore heavily edited his films in order to spin them in favor of his liberal or progressive views whereas O'Keefe attempts to show the unvarnished truth. He attempts to show videos and audio recordings straight from the horse's mouth as it were. Second, Moore sometimes tries to hide behind satire, but Project Veritas' work isn't satirical but real.

More broadly, there are plenty of liberals or progressives who have used similar tactics against conservatives (e.g. pretending to be someone they're not, doxxing their opponents). However I don't see liberals or progressives decrying what their fellow liberals or progressives have done or are doing.

It seems to me liberals and progressives disagree with Project Veritas primarily due to political ideology and not Project Veritas' muckracking and whistleblowing work and exposes. By contrast, it seems to me many if not most conservatives disagree (even vehemently) with the political ideology of hacktavists like Julian Assange and Ed Snowden, but thees same conservatives still appreciate at least some of the good work that WikiLeaks has done.

Some conservatives disagree with Project Veritas' ethics. These conservatives believe Project Veritas uses unethical means to investigate and expose organizations like Planned Parenthood. That gets us into another debate. Personally, I don't necessarily see a problem with using unethical tactics (depending on the tactics) to expose crimes that can't be exposed otherwise.

All that said, I'm not suggesting I always agree with Project Veritas.

Cruz's showmanship

I'm sure Cruz knew he was dealing with an ignorant mid-level executive rather than a more knowledgeable senior executive. I'm sure Cruz knew this woman wouldn't be liable for much. Nevertheless Cruz grilled her. Cruz turned the hearing into something of a show.

Some might take issue with Cruz for doing this, but I don't have a problem with it. I don't think Cruz's goal was to make this woman answer for all of Google's crimes here and now or anything along those lines. (Not that he would've objected if that turned out to be the case!) Rather I think Cruz's goal was to inform the public about Google and other tech giants' strong political biases against conservatives (among other things) and thereby turn the tide against these tech giants. In short, it's political theater, but I don't think all political theater is unethical. Sometimes it helps to drum up public support for a worthy cause.

Cruz cries uncle

Turns out Ted Cruz is a Cylon sleeper agent. You know, the kind that's indistinguishable from humans. That seems to be on our side. Heck, it doesn't even know it's a Cylon until the delay programming switches on. 

In the end, Cruz puts political viability ahead of principle. I never thought he was quite the diehard ideological purist that some of his supporters imagined him to be.

In the end he decided to board Trump's ship before it left port, even though, by waiting until the last minute, he's stuck in third class rather than first class. But I guess he thinks that's better than to be left behind. Presumably this means he thinks Trump now has a good shot at winning. 

In fairness to Cruz, he may have been taken aback by the ferocious reaction of erstwhile supporters when he snubbed Trump at the convention. When you campaign as a conviction politician, and your ostensible supporters turn on you because you really behave like a conviction politician, it's not surprising if what we end up with is politicians who are no better than their supporters. Compromising voters breed compromising politicians. Although we can blame Cruz, blame should be shared with the erstwhile supporters who cut him off at the knees after he snubbed Trump at the convention. 

By refusing to fall in line, Cruz stood on equal footing with Trump. But now that he caved, he's just another one of Trump's many interchangeable underlings. 

By endorsing Trump, it puts himself in the worst of both worlds. I don't think Trump is the forgiving kind. Don't expect Caesar's clemency. Trumpkins will never forgive him. He will lose the respect of those who supported him up until now, on top of those who (wrongly) lost respect when he snubbed Trump at the convention, on top of those who can't stand Cruz in the first place. 

It's like people who apologize for telling the truth. Both sides despise them. They will still be despised by the side that was offended when they initially told the truth. And they will now be despised the other side when they back down after telling the truth.  Turns out that Cruz was a "servile puppy dog" after all. 

Cruz courageous for not endorsing Trump

http://www.christianpost.com/news/ted-cruz-was-courageous-for-not-endorsing-trump-166828/

Making vows and breaking vows

I notice some confusion on whether Cruz was wrong in backing out of his vow to support Trump. I'll make a few observations, not about Cruz's motivations (which I'm not privy to), but the general principle. 

In biblical ethics, vows (oaths, pledges, promises) aren't absolute. Consider Num 30:3-5, where a father can annul a minor's pledge.

There's also the distinction between lawful and unlawful vows. In the nature of the case, there can be no moral obligation to keep an immoral vow. Unethical duties are self-contradictory. 

As a rule, we shouldn't make promises we have no intention of keeping. But humans are shortsighted. We sometimes make a promise under one set of circumstances. We wouldn't make the same promise if the circumstances were different. So what happens when the situation changes between the time of the promise (vow, oath, pledge) and the time to make good on the promise?

Parents sometimes make promises to kids which they intend to keep at the time, but then unforeseen circumstances intervene to render the promise impractical. That's the nature of being a creature: you don't know or control the future. 

There's no moral obligation to keep a rash vow. It was a mistake to make a rash vow in the first place. To keep it compounds the initial mistake. Jephthah is the classic example. It was foolish for GOP candidates to issue the nominee a blank check.

Cruz snubs Trump

Cruz snubbed Trump at the convention. Good for him!

He didn't say don't vote for Trump. Instead, he said "vote for candidates up and down the ticket who you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution."

For that he was heckled and booed by the Trumpkins. Their reaction is self-incriminating. They can only boo his statement on pain of admitting that Trump isn't trustworthy to defend our freedom and be faithful to the Constitution. Why else would they assume that Cruz must be alluding to candidates other than Trump?

Is Cruz a Dominionist?

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/april-web-only/stop-calling-ted-cruz-dominionist.html

Persons and policies

So the National Enquirer accuses Cruz of having affairs. Thus far, this story doesn't seem to have any legs. I think there are several reasons for that:

i) The National Enquirer lacks credibility. That doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong, but there's no presumption that it's right. Every week, as you wait in line at the checkout stand, you're subjected to hyperbolic headlines. The print equivalent of clickbait. 

ii) I've read that two of the named women in the story have denied the allegations. 

iii) Another problem is how the allegations cut against the grain of Cruz's dorky image. These aren't accusations of harassment, but affairs. Sexual harassment involves unwanted  overtures, but affairs are consensual. Cruz's dweebish demeanor makes him an implausible ladykiller. I'm not saying it can't be true, yet he seems miscast for the role that the National Inquirer has assigned to him. 

iv) But suppose, for the sake of argument, that the charges are true. Let's further assume that Hillary will be the Democrat nominee:

Given a choice, I'd vote for a vicious candidate with virtuous policies over a vicious candidate with vicious policies.

What is more, I'd vote for a vicious candidate with virtuous policies over a virtuous candidate with vicious policies.

When I vote for a candidate, that's not an endorsement of the person. That just means I think they have better policies. The pertinent question is not, in the first instance, is he (or she) a good or bad person, but will he do good things for Americans or bad things to Americans. It's less about his personal morality than the morality of his presidential initiatives. 

Cruz on domestic jihadism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWLeXdHKOOM

Clinton Can Still Easily Be Beaten

But a lot depends on what happens the rest of this primary season and what happens at the open convention the Republican party is likely to have. Something I wrote in another thread:

Clinton's negatives are high. Trump's are higher. It's not that Clinton is hard to defeat. It wouldn't be hard. Rubio, Kasich, and Cruz, for example, have frequently beaten her in the polls. Some Republicans are still ahead of her in RealClearPolitics' poll average, even though the Republican primary season has been so unusually negative, and that negativity has received so much more media attention than the negativity in the Democratic primaries. If multiple Republican candidates can beat Clinton so often in the polls, even in such a negative primary season in which Trump is making the Republicans look so bad, it would probably be even easier to beat Clinton once the primaries are over and Trump is receiving less attention.

I'd still only give Cruz a 45% chance of winning against Clinton, but that's far better than Trump's chances. I'd expect Rubio or Kasich to win easily. So would other Republicans, if they were to be the nominee.

Culpably Ignorant Voters

One way to tell just how ignorant most voters are, even voters who are so interested in politics that they participate in the primaries, is to look at how wrongly they judge electability. Trump's electability is horrible, far worse than that of his Republican rivals. He often trails Clinton by a double-digit percentage in the polls, and his unfavorability rating is the worst Gallup has found in nearly a quarter of a century of tracking those numbers. Yet, voters repeatedly say that they think Trump is the most electable of the Republican candidates. Most likely, that's largely because of a simplistic assumption that whoever is leading in the primaries must have the best electability in the general election. What does it tell us about voters when they can go through several months of a highly controversial and highly important primary season without doing even the most basic research on electability? Dan McLaughlin writes:

Respondents in the Bloomberg poll picked Trump over Cruz by a whopping 66-26 margin on the question of “Has the best chance of beating Hillary Clinton?” Even as poll after poll after poll confirms what any moderately sentient observer of American politics knows – that Trump would be a catastrophe in November – ordinary voters seem regularly to be under the impression that other voters like Trump a lot, so he must be a strong general election candidate. Trump is running on electability, while not having it, and not having principles, either. It seems at times as if the voters need to see Trump destroyed by Hillary before they will believe it. It is the job of Cruz, and of everyone who opposes Hillary’s election to the Presidency, to spread the word that this is nonsense, before it’s too late for us to turn back from the brink. A vote for Donald Trump in the primary is a vote for Hillary Clinton.

Helms and Cruz

I notice some Cruz opponents are trying to tar him on civil rights by equating his position with the position of Jesse Helms, who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This is classic guilt by association. A few observations:

i) There were segregationist dinosaurs like George Wallace, Strom Thurmond, Fritz Hollings, and Robert Byrd who reinvented themselves. I doubt their change of heart was sincere. I think they were ambitious politicians who adapted to a new situation. It's a pity voters didn't clean house by sweeping them out of office and making a fresh start. 

ii) In all likelihood, I think Jesse Helms was of the same ilk. Given when and where he came of age, it would be surprising if he didn't support Jim Crow. So I figure he opposed the Civil Rights Act because he was a conventional racist. And I assume he softened his views later on due to political expediency. 

iii) But by the same token, Cruz's social conditioning, is completely different from Helms. He's a man of a different time and place. He didn't have the same formative experiences Helms did. There's no comparison. 

iv) Regarding the Civil Rights Act, there are critics like Milton Friedman who give it mixed reviews. They oppose laws that mandate discrimination as well as laws that forbid discrimination. They think Americans are entitled to equal protection under the law. But they think the private sector should be free to discriminate. For that reason, they oppose Title II of the Civil Rights Acts, which forbad discrimination in public accommodations, although they supported provisions of the same act that nullified racially discriminatory laws by state and local government. 

Keep in mind that the "public accommodations" provision has become the template for LGBT rights. So there is a principled reason to be critical of Title II. 

I'm not suggesting Jesse Helm had that high-minded objection. My point, though, is that there's nothing inherently racist about refusing to give a blanket endorsement to the Civil Rights Act. 

Cruz on counterterrorism

In the wake of the jihadist attack in Brussels, Ted Cruz said:

For years, the west has tried to deny this enemy exists out of a combination of political correctness and fear. We can no longer afford either.
Our European allies are now seeing what comes of a toxic mix of migrants who have been infiltrated by terrorists and isolated, radical Muslim neighborhoods.
We will do what we can to help them fight this scourge, and redouble our efforts to make sure it does not happen here.
We need to immediately halt the flow of refugees from countries with a significant al Qaida or ISIS presence.
We need to empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized.
We need to secure the southern border to prevent terrorist infiltration.
And we need to execute a coherent campaign to utterly destroy ISIS.
The days of the United States voluntarily surrendering to the enemy to show how progressive and enlightened we can be are at an end. Our country is at stake. 

http://www.businessinsider.com/ted-cruz-muslims-brussels-attacks-police-patrol-2016-3

I agree with most of this. That said:

i) What does he mean about "empowering" law enforcement. Is that just a synonym for giving them permission to do stuff they already have the legal authority to do, which might offend against political correctness, or does he mean expanding police power? If the latter, I disagree. 

ii) What does it mean to "secure" Muslim neighborhoods? Sounds like checkpoints, but that can't be what he means, so does it mean anything at all, or does it just sound impressive?

iii) However, my underlying problem is with the notion that we should take for granted the existence of jihadist hotbeds in our country, and respond by heightened policing of Muslim neighborhoods. That's a recipe for a surveillance state. Moreover, it means we knowingly harbor communities that nurture terrorism, then try to counteract that. But that's treating symptoms. If Muslims are a major source of domestic terrorism, why should they be allowed to live here in the first place? 

Likewise, saying we need to "utterly destroy ISIS" sounds great, but as someone who lived through the Viet Nam war, Iraq war, and Afghanistan war, I'm less than sanguine about those triumphalistic pronouncements. 

Problem is, the entire Mideast is booby-trapped. If you defuse one bomb, you set off another bomb (figuratively speaking).

In terms of bombing, does ISIS present compact targets? How well can we pick out ISIS fighters from the general population? Or is it basically carpet bombing?

And then, according to military analysts like Fred Kagan and David French, you need boots on the ground to go block by block, door-to-door, and floor by floor in a mopping up operation. That will get a lot of American G.I.'s killed or maimed. Is it worth it? 

Then there's the power vacuum. Do we leave Assad in place? Prop him up? Try to topple him and replace him with a puppet gov't or "coalition" gov't? If so, we will need to prop that up, too. 

To what extent will we need an occupation force? What about the Russians? 

What's the endgame?

I've observed a few things about Trump supporters and Cruz supporters that I'd like to comment on. It's based on what I've run across. I don't claim it's a scientific sample. So it may not be representative. For instance, Jerry Walls as spent a lot of time berating Rubio. So I'll return the favor.

i) One contention is that it's time to unite behind a single candidate–that candidate being Ted Cruz. Critics like Walls are very impatient with Rubio supporters. Time is running out to block Trump. Cruz is our last best hope!

But a reason I prefer Rubio, a reason I've been hanging back with respect to Cruz, is that I find that advice nearsighted. What's the endgame?

There's a twofold goal: beat Trump, then beat Hillary (or Bernie). There's no particular advantage to beating Trump in the primaries if you lose to Hillary in November. You need a good general election candidate. So you have to think ahead. What's the second act? 

I'm not saying for a fact that Cruz can't beat Hillary. I'm not saying for a fact that Rubio would beat Hillary. You can only go with the best information you have at any given time.

If he can get nominated, I think Rubio has a much better shot of beating Hillary than Cruz. I'm not keen on uniting behind a candidate who can edge out Trump in the primaries only to lose in November. I want a conservative candidate who has a good chance to cross the finish line. Leading in the backstretch is not enough. 

ii) Jerry totally supports Cruz and totally opposes Rubio. I've encountered this same mentality among other Trump supporters and Cruz supporters. The mindset is that you can't support one candidate unless you totally oppose his rival. In addition, some Trump and Cruz supporters so identify with their candidate that he's above criticism. 

That's unhealthy. Now, there are candidates who richly deserve unmitigated opposition. I totally oppose Trump, Hillary, and Bernie. If Christie were still in the race, I'd say the same thing about him. But it's irrational when Walls can't find anything good to say about Rubio. The problem is not with opposing a candidate, but acting as though the only way to support one candidate is to utterly oppose a rival candidate. 

Which brings me to a related point: while there are candidates who deserve our wholehearted opposition, there's rarely if ever a candidate who deserves our wholehearted support. Our political support for candidates should always be qualified. In particular, Christians should not be blind loyalists. 

Although I support Rubio, I don't totally support him. To the contrary, I've made a note of positions he's taken that I oppose. Conversely, the fact that I prefer him to Cruz doesn't mean I totally oppose Cruz. In fact, I think Cruz has a lot going for him. Mind you, I doubt he's equally sincere on all his current positions. 

iii) Another problem with this polarized mindset is that it's a recipe for disillusionment. What has catapulted Trump to the frontrunner status, and what attracts many voters to Cruz, is bitter disillusionment with the GOP "establishment". 

But when you totally support one candidate, it takes very little for him to let you down. And when that happens, the cycle of bitter disillusionment repeats itself. That can be a vicious circle. It's prudent to lower our expectations. Work for improvement, not utopia. As William Rusher said, "Politicians will always disappoint you." 

iv) Apropos (iii), I've seen both Trump supporters and Cruz supporters use a common narrative. Here's one version:

After Obamacare became law, House Republicans ran on a repeal and replace platform. "Give us control of the House, and we'll revoke Obamacare!" But they broke their promise. Then Senate Republicans ran on a repeal and replace platform. But they broke their promise. The GOP establishment betrayed us!

Here's my problem with that complaint: it's inherently impossible for the House to singlehandedly repeal Obamacare. One house of Congress simply lacks the unilateral authority to pull that off. So that was never in the cards. Now I fault House Republicans for making a campaign promise they knew they couldn't keep. And I was aware of that at the time.

But if you voted for Republicans because you thought the House could repeal Obamacare, you have only yourself to blame. Voters have a duty to know how the system works. There's no excuse to be that ignorant. That's not betrayal–that's being a patsy. 

The situation is similar with respect to the Senate. Now it's true that in principle, both houses of Congress, acting in conjunction, can repeal a law. But that's not automatic. If you have a hostile president, then the only way to do that is if both houses pass a bill by veto-proof (or even filibuster-proof) majorities. And although the House of Representatives may currently have that margin, the Senate does not. 

I'm not sympathetic to voters who are complain about how they were "betrayed" when they are politically illiterate about the rudiments of our legislative system. This isn't arcane knowledge. You don't need a law degree to figure that out. Even if they don't teach that in public school, anyone with Internet connections can find out. Is that really asking too much? 

Ironically, the same mentality makes them suckers for Trump. They are being duped all over again because they refuse to think. They don't bestir themselves to do the most elementary research. 

BTW, it's always a good idea to sweep Democrats out of power. 

v) Let's take another example: I've seen people express admiration for Cruz because he called Mitch McConnell is a liar on the Senate floor. Sorry, but I think that's a really dumb thing for Cruz to do. 

McConnell is majority leader. How do you get anything done as a lawmaker if you antagonize the leadership? They determine who gets to sit on what committees and subcommittees. They determine if a bill gets voted out of committee. They determine if a bill gets a floor vote. 

I'm not saying there's anything necessarily wrong with challenging the leadership. That can be a good thing. But unless you have someone viable to take their place, it is foolish to alienate the leadership. 

The legislative process requires teamwork. If you have open contempt for your colleagues, what does that accomplish? Why are you there in the first place? Why join an organization that requires collaborative effort to get anything done if you can't stand your associates? 

We need to distinguish two different issues. To say it's true to call McConnell a liar doesn't mean it's smart to call him a liar. For instance, imagine a subordinate who publicly said his commanding officer was a moron. And suppose his commanding officer really is a moron. But it's counterproductive for a subordinate to say that. He will be relieved of duty and court marshaled for insubordination.

Likewise, suppose a football player says the coach is an idiot or the quarterback is an idiot. Even if that's true, why join the football team in the first place if you have such open contempt for the coach and the quarterback? You will either be booted off the team or spend the rest of the season on the bench. What purpose does that serve? 

The political process requires cooperation. If you're better at making enemies than allies, that's self-defeating. If you find it demeaning to schmooze people you don't respect, then choose a different line of work. Sometimes Cruz acts like the stereotypical autistic savant: high IQ but antisocial. 

Once again, what is the endgame? Is it just to have a moment of emotional release? Moral satisfaction, or is it to make a difference? Change the status quo? 

To a great extent, etiquette exists for folks who dislike each other. The amenities submerge the enmities to make social life possible. 

Imagine a family reunion or Thanksgiving meal where everyone finally decides to say what they really think of each other. They've been saving that up for years. All the cumulative grudges. Well, that may make them feel better for the next hour or so, but they will never be on speaking terms for the rest of their lives. 

vi) Which brings me to another point: in my observation, Trump supporters and some Cruz supporters are unable or unwilling to put themselves in the shoes of voters who aren't naturally drawn to candidates like Trump or Cruz. Indeed, they seem to think it would be demeaning or compromising to do that. Just today I ran across a perfect illustration:

Some Cruz fans wrote in, “the fact that these people don’t like him makes me like him more!” 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/432687/choice-gop-needs-if-not-choice-gop-likes

Okay, but while that might make Cruz fans like him even more, how does that endear him to voters who aren't already members of his fan club? 

Problem is: that's a prescription for defeat at the polls. You need to be able to think like other people. Assume their viewpoint. The electorate is very disparate. A winning coalition consists of different voting blocks. If you wish to win, you need a candidate who has fairly broad appeal. That's not a question of right or wrong, but how to achieve your objective. Maybe it shouldn't have to be that way, but that's the way it is. Once again, what is the endgame? 

vii) A danger I see among some voters is that if you insist on too much, you end up with nothing at all. You don't get more. You don't get less. You don't get anything. 

viii) Florida is do-or-die for Rubio. I think it's droll for Cruz to suggest that Rubio should drop out and unite behind him because Rubio can't win Florida. Classic self-fulfilling prophecy. 

Now I'm not suggesting this is about fairness. Cruz has a perfect right to run in Florida. It's a competitive process. But the question is the endgame. If the Rubio is knocked out, and Trump nets the delegates, what's the endgame? 

Depending on how Tuesday turns out, it may be hard to shake an air of futility. I'm already becoming fatalistic about November. It's shaping up to be one of those tragic dramas where the stage is strewn with bodies at the end of the play. You know how it's going to end before it begins. The only man left standing is the villain. Or in this case, Hillary. 

Spoilers

Because Trump is unacceptable to most Republican voters, even though he's the frontrunner, this has enhanced the role of spoilers (i.e. Rubio, Cruz, Kasich). A spoiler can't win, but he can block a rival from winning.

Whether it's good or bad to be a spoiler depends on the specifics. The current GOP primaries raise some interesting questions about voter priorities and candidate priorities. Which is more important: opposing Trump or supporting a particular anti-Trump candidate? Preventing Trump from getting the nomination, or helping a particular anti-Trump candidate to get the nomination?

Is it more important to support a particular anti-Trump candidate at the risk of making it more likely that Trump will win the nomination–or opposing Trump at the risk of sacrificing your preferred candidate? 

In addition, a campaign can be like a game of chess. You don't know ahead of time what's a winning move or losing move. You can't say in the abstract what's a winning move or losing move. That's because it depends on what the other player does. There is no winning move in the absolute sense, only in a relative sense. 

As the campaign evolves, a winning strategy may become a losing strategy. Candidates must adapt to the state of play. And it depends on priorities. Each candidate wants to win. But in the event he can't win, who's the backup? 

Take the Florida race. Cruz has a twofold agenda: defeat Trump and defeat Rubio. Those are his two main rivals. And he has an order in which he wants do to it: drive Rubio out of the race to make it a two-man races between Trump and Cruz.  

That, however, makes Cruz a spoiler is a dicey sense: it's more important for him to prevent Rubio from winning than to prevent Trump from winning. Cruz has no realistic chance to win Florida, but he may be able to prevent Rubio from winning. That, however, means it's more important to his strategy to sacrifice Rubio to Trump. To make Rubio lose at the cost of Trump winning. Cruz's strategy requires him to become a temporary Trump-enabler, in the hopes of stopping him further down the line. 

That's a very risky strategy. If Trump wins Florida, it accelerates his momentum. In addition, Florida is a big delegate cash cow. If Trump wins Florida, that makes it much easier for Trump to rack up the remaining delegates to win the nomination outright. If Trump wins Ohio in addition to Florida, then his nomination is probably inevitable.

Although it would be advantageous to Cruz to knock Rubio out of the race, it would also be advantageous to Cruz to deny Trump victories in Florida and Ohio. 

That would give Cruz two possible paths to the nomination: winning the nomination outright, or winning at a brokered convention. If Trump loses Florida and Ohio, that's a backstop that probably keeps him from winning the nomination outright. 

Cruz's preference is to win the nomination outright, and that makes sense. It would, however, be prudent for him to have a fallback. 

Suppose Trump can't net the winning number, and Cruz comes in second. If at the end of the primary season, Trump is still failing to get a majority of Republican voters, and Cruz comes in second, Cruz would be the obvious alternative to Trump at a brokered convention.

For Cruz to compete in Florida is quite a gamble, because it runs the risk of a twofold loss: it may make it harder for him to win the nomination, and it makes it harder for another anti-Trump candidate to win the nomination. It clears a path for Trump to win the nomination. On that scenario, not only does Cruz lose, but the party is likely to lose in in November. And even if Trump wins the general election, that's just as bad in a different way. Trump winning or Trump losing to Hillary are both worse-case scenarios. 

Trump Is Losing Ground

Trump had a bad weekend. He was defeated by double-digit percentages in Kansas, Maine, and Puerto Rico. He lost the voting that occurred in Louisiana on Saturday, he only got more votes there overall by winning the early voting, and he apparently ended up getting the same number of delegates from the state as Cruz did. Cruz got more delegates than Trump over the weekend, and Trump ended up with less than a third of the delegates overall.

The New York Times gives us a glimpse into the incompetence of Trump and his campaign:

In conversations with some of his allies, who insisted on anonymity to relay those private talks, Trump campaign aides have expressed concern about the money being spent against him on television. The Trump campaign has no pollster, so it is governed by public polling and what the candidate himself observes while watching cable news….

“Trump has total disdain for the professional political class,” said Scott Reed, a veteran Republican strategist. “He thinks they’re all about making money. Pollsters are hacks. Organization doesn’t matter. Their idea of a political organization is taking phone calls from some elected officials who wanted to endorse and making it work in the schedule. And that’ll catch up with you eventually.”

He's very beatable. Keep fighting.

Larry Sabato recently tweeted:

In Tampa I've seen dozens of pro-Rubio and anti-Trump TV ads over 2 days. None for anyone else.

I'm glad that anti-Trump groups are running ads in Florida, Illinois, etc. And they're addressing some important issues (e.g., Trump University, Trump on military issues). But two of Trump's biggest weaknesses, his mistreatment of women and his unelectability, aren't getting nearly as much attention as they should. Run some clips of Trump's derogatory comments about women on Howard Stern's show. Quote Trump's boasting about committing adultery with so many women. On the issue of electability, provide people with Trump's losing numbers in head-to-head match-ups with Clinton. After showing the numbers and explaining how unelectable he is, end the ad with the words "Donald Trump: Loser" in big letters across the screen. These kinds of ads ought to be running in as many states as possible. It's good to go after him on Trump University and other issues that have been getting a lot of attention, but his mistreatment of women and his unelectability are two others that don't seem to be getting the attention they deserve.

Some Seldom-Discussed Options For Defeating Trump

A lot of people are suggesting that Rubio and Kasich drop out, given Cruz's good performance in the voting Saturday. (Make sure you don't just look at the end results in Louisiana. Also look at Cruz's percentage of the early voting in contrast to his percentage of the votes cast yesterday.) Cruz does look more promising as an alternative to Trump now, and Rubio looks weaker. However, yesterday's results need to be combined with polling data about what would happen in the upcoming states if Rubio and/or Kasich were to drop out. If Cruz would lose in Florida and Ohio under a scenario in which Rubio and/or Kasich would drop out, whereas Rubio and/or Kasich would win those states if they stayed in, then I think they ought to stay in for now. (And my understanding is that Rubio was expected to win in Puerto Rico today. If so, he ought to at least wait until after that voting before dropping out.) Here's what I'd suggest doing:

Why Ted Cruz's face makes you feel uneasy

For the record, I'd support Ted Cruz if he becomes the nominee. That said, this video has been making the rounds:

Edit: It looks like the YouTube user who originally posted the video has closed their YouTube account. Here is the same video posted on Facebook.