An Alternate 2016: Cruz vs. Sanders?

So, 2016 was fun. Never before have two candidates been so utterly despised by the populace. But frankly, whilst thoroughly entertaining and cynically poetic, I believe we were robbed of a truly epic ideological showdown. What if, instead of Trump and Clinton, we got Cruz and Sanders?

Cruz vs. Sanders would be something I don't think America has ever truly had, a genuine ideological showdown between two intellectual heavyweights on the oppsoing ends of our political spectrum. Think of presidential debates that played like the academic dialogues of old. Cruz is an old-fasioned traditionalist, fundamentalist, Protestant Christian, conservative Constitutional originalist and free-market capitalist. He' socially conservative as they come, once even championing a ban on sex toys in Texas. He's patiotic and nationalistic, taking tough stances on immigration and trade, and once remarking that we need to "carpet-bomb" ISIS, and he seems prone to dislike globalist organizations like the UN. Bernie, on the other hand, is a progressive modernisnt, a secular humanist and athiest, an unreptentant socialist who's ideas sometimes border on a kind of anarcho-communism. He's the most socially progressive candidate to be seriously considered in decades, and he's a major proponent of leniancy in immigration and more global cooperation amongst nations. See what I mean? Just some of the VERY interesting debate topics that would be bound to come up between the two include, but are not limited too:

-Abortion
-Gay Marriage
-Climate Change
-Socialism
-Israel vs. Palestine
-Healthcare
-Education
-ISIS
Etc. Etc. Etc.

We missed out. In my opinion, this kind of serious philosophical debate and dialogue is sorely missed. BUT, I digress

This all poses some interesting questions. Namely:

1.) Who would've won? And would said person win the popular vote?

2.) Would the election still be so polarizing? I don't think it would even be close. But what do you think?

3.) Who's the veeps? I've got a list of possibles for each that you can totally add someone else too.
CRUZ:
1.) Carly Fiorinia: Running mate OTL
2.) Darrell Castle: Constitution candidate, olive-branch to the paleocons.
3.) Rand Paul: Senatorial ally, fellow Tea Bagger
4.) Ben Carson: a Latino/African-American ticket could deflect a lot of accusations of racism.
5.) Mike Pence: OTL veep
6.) Donald Trump: olive-branch to the alt-right.
7.) Butch Otter: Traditionalist Conservative
8.) Other?
BERNIE:
1.) Hillary Clinton: she is a political powerhouse in the Democratic Party
2.) Dennis Kucinich: a fellow Socialist
3.) Elizabeth Warren: a much more well know and political savy fellow socialist.
4.) Tim Kaine: OTL veep
5.) Jill Stein: very idealogically similat too Bernie.
6.) Martin O'Malley: olive-branch to the centrist left.
7.) Other?

4.) How would this effect "crossing the aisle" like things like the Berkely-Milo riots?

5.) What other possible elections could've happened in US history that would be this ideologically stimulating? Pat Robertson vs. Jesse Jackson? Ron Paul vs. Dennis Kucinich? Any others?

Discuss.
 
Oh also, how does the effect the 3rd party guys? You know, Constitution and Libertarian and such. They still as popular this go around? What happens to the News media? Is Alex Jones still super famous? So many questions!!
 
So what, in your estimation, leads to a Sanders victory? Also, who's his veep?
Cruz is very unlikable to the broader electorate, so that instantly downgrades his quality as a GE candidate. Cruz keeps many OTL Romney-Clinton voters in the Sunbelt but Sanders keeps many OTL Obama-Trump voters and so he sweeps the Midwest states Obama won in 2012. The map is probably identical to 2012 except for Florida possibly flipping.
Someone like Mark Warner might make a good running mate for Sanders in this scenario.
 
This seems too close to present-day to not be in chat.


If it's Cruz vs Sanders I think Bloomberg would enter the race. When he said he wouldn't run, he said that the prospect of denying Clinton in favor of Cruz or Trump was his big concern. Bloomberg had already chosen a running mate (Admiral Michael Mullen) and already at least one advertisement put together (see here).

But if you wanna stick to a strict Sanders v Cruz scenario:

After Rubio bowed out Haley endorsed Cruz. If Cruz doesn't go with his historic pick of Carly Fiorina, I think she'd get the nod. She's widely liked by the base and the establishment and it'd be the most diverse ticket in US history.

Sanders probably picks somebody like Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, or Amy Klobuchar. Maybe Tulsi Gabbard. He'll do well with rust belt whites and hardcore progressives but alienate centrists and suburbanites.

Cruz is smarmy but Sanders had an oppo file two feet thick. No way is the pro-palestine pro-castro Socialist winning Florida and a lot of national-security folks who lean GOP in Northern Virginia who historically voted for Clinton would vote for Cruz here. Colorado is a toss-up, but Sanders will be hurt by the fact that the Democratic Governor is opposing a single-payer referendum in the state in 2016. Sanders likely wins Maine's Second Congressional district.

Expect a lot of dirty ads of the clip of Sanders saying that white people don't know what it's like to be poor

Given how OTL Cruz was seen as winning in his debate against Bernie on health policy, I think the debates would go in Cruz's favor. The man was national debate champion in college, a Supreme Court clerk, and top attorney for the state of Texas.

If Cruz's general election campaign is anything like his RNC speech, he'll do pretty well.

Trump underperformed significantly in the traditionally Republican Milwaukee suburbs so I think Wisconsin would be a toss-up. Walker has a pretty strong machine there.

Cruz likely has a lot more money to spend than Trump historically did. All the Mercer money Trump got will still be there (remember, Cruz was the Mercers' first pick) and Kochworld will probably come out for Cruz when they didn't come out for Trump historically. Sanders will have a lot less money than Clinton did.


Michigan is likely blue. Pennsylvania and Ohio toss-ups. Virginia and Florida red. Colorado toss-up. Nevada toss-up.

Also OTL Trump was spoiled in Minnesota and New Hampshire by Johnson and McMullin. Odds are Sanders will perform better in those states and I wouldn't consider them toss-ups.
 
Last edited:
Cruz is very unlikable to the broader electorate, so that instantly downgrades his quality as a GE candidate. Cruz keeps many OTL Romney-Clinton voters in the Sunbelt but Sanders keeps many OTL Obama-Trump voters and so he sweeps the Midwest states Obama won in 2012. The map is probably identical to 2012 except for Florida possibly flipping.
Someone like Mark Warner might make a good running mate for Sanders in this scenario.

Sanders wouldn't pick Warner. He'd pick somebody comparably progressive to himself like Warren or Brown.

Even at his worst Trump was winning in Iowa and Cruz managed to win Iowa while campaigning against agricultural subsidies. At the worst its 2012 + Florida and Iowa for Cruz.
 
Sanders wouldn't pick Warner. He'd pick somebody comparably progressive to himself like Warren or Brown.

Even at his worst Trump was winning in Iowa and Cruz managed to win Iowa while campaigning against agricultural subsidies. At the worst its 2012 + Florida and Iowa for Cruz.
Warner might be a solid pick precisely because he comes from a different wing of the party than Sanders. Warner would be a good 'concession to other party wing' pick, much like Bush getting chosen by Reagan in 1980.
Perhaps Ron Wyden might be a good choice?
As for Sander's potential problems? They are going to hurt him but Cruz is the wrong kind of candidate to exploit them. Trump would have done a better job at doing that - but Trump obviously is not the GOP candidate ITTL...
 
Warner might be a solid pick precisely because he comes from a different wing of the party than Sanders. Warner would be a good 'concession to other party wing' pick, much like Bush getting chosen by Reagan in 1980.
Perhaps Ron Wyden might be a good choice?

Except Sanders campaigned against the Democratic Party and doesn't hold the moderates of the party in very high regard.

Wyden is too finance-friendly for Sanders.
 
He still needs someone roughly moderate as VP.

What he needs to do and what he's willing to do are two different matters.

Warren is liked by leadership and Brown appeals to cultural conservatives and gets along with leadership so either of them fit the bill I think. Bob Casey is another possibility. Klobuchar was Sanders's partner when he debated against Graham and Cassidy so maybe she'd get the nod.
 
Cruz is very unlikable to the broader electorate, so that instantly downgrades his quality as a GE candidate. Cruz keeps many OTL Romney-Clinton voters in the Sunbelt but Sanders keeps many OTL Obama-Trump voters and so he sweeps the Midwest states Obama won in 2012. The map is probably identical to 2012 except for Florida possibly flipping.
Someone like Mark Warner might make a good running mate for Sanders in this scenario.

While I'd agree that Cruz would be a rather unlikeable general candidate, I'd say Bernie has the exact same problem (though I must say I can't inagine either candidate is nearly as unliked as Trump & Clinton were) Niether candidate is very appealing to the center at all in my opinion, though many others who might be more radical on either side may inclined to vote when they otherwise wouldn't. Higher voter turnout?
 
What he needs to do and what he's willing to do are two different matters.

Warren is liked by leadership and Brown appeals to cultural conservatives and gets along with leadership so either of them fit the bill I think. Bob Casey is another possibility. Klobuchar was Sanders's partner when he debated against Graham and Cassidy so maybe she'd get the nod.
Of those you named I think Casey is the likeliest to the chosen. Doubles down on Rust Belt+his replacement as Senator would be a Democrat.
 
While I'd agree that Cruz would be a rather unlikeable general candidate, I'd say Bernie has the exact same problem (though I must say I can't inagine either candidate is nearly as unliked as Trump & Clinton were) Niether candidate is very appealing to the center at all in my opinion, though many others who might be more radical on either side may inclined to vote when they otherwise wouldn't. Higher voter turnout?
I suspect we see slightly lower turnout, with the electorate being more blue-collar. A third-party candidacy is likely but it would take slightly more votes from Cruz vis a vis Sanders. (defying popular wisdom)
The ticket might be Bloomberg-some Northeastern GOPer not from NY.
 
Clinton and Trump were hated by the general public, but Sanders and Cruz would be hated by the party machinery in a way Clinton and Trump were not.

If Bloomberg runs (which I think he would) I think he gets a lot of support from the Democratic machinery and chunks of Democratic leadership while also cutting hard into the GOP's white suburban element. His biggest downside electorally is his nannying soda stuff and gun grabbing which together would really hurt him with rural voters.

I don't think we should underestimate how much Cruz was hated by GOP operatives/leadership before Trump came along. The guy basically called out every GOP nominee post-Reagan with the exception of W as being squeamish moderate weaklings. If Bloomberg starts polling in the double-digits and makes the debates, I think he'd start racking up a lot of endorsements from elected Republicans.

Bloomberg likely does very very well with the highly educated as well.
 
Clinton and Trump were hated by the general public, but Sanders and Cruz would be hated by the party machinery in a way Clinton and Trump were not.

If Bloomberg runs (which I think he would) I think he gets a lot of support from the Democratic machinery and chunks of Democratic leadership while also cutting hard into the GOP's white suburban element. His biggest downside electorally is his nannying soda stuff and gun grabbing which together would really hurt him with rural voters.

I don't think we should underestimate how much Cruz was hated by GOP operatives/leadership before Trump came along. The guy basically called out every GOP nominee post-Reagan with the exception of W as being squeamish moderate weaklings. If Bloomberg starts polling in the double-digits and makes the debates, I think he'd start racking up a lot of endorsements from elected Republicans.

Bloomberg likely does very very well with the highly educated as well.
I could see this. Bloomberg might get about 12% of the vote or so (in line with Perot 96), but winning more counties thanks to the suburban concentration of his vote.
 
I think Bloomburg would ultimatly rob Sanders of the victory, he's mucb more palatable to the centrist-left than the centrist-right. Many on the centrist-right would never get over the soda legislation and the gun grabbing is a VERY good way to galvinize the right into a unified body. If Bloomberg gets 12%, im thinking 8-9% of that is from democrats
 
I think Bloomburg would ultimatly rob Sanders of the victory, he's mucb more palatable to the centrist-left than the centrist-right. Many on the centrist-right would never get over the soda legislation and the gun grabbing is a VERY good way to galvinize the right into a unified body. If Bloomberg gets 12%, im thinking 8-9% of that is from democrats
Depends on the dynamic of the race.
Problem is, the Democrats already lost a race because of a third-party candidate, in 2000.
This makes it harder to imagine the center-left bucking the main party ticket. The center-right has not had the same experience (last time was 1912...no one who voted in 1912 is still alive!).
 
Depends on the dynamic of the race.
Problem is, the Democrats already lost a race because of a third-party candidate, in 2000.
This makes it harder to imagine the center-left bucking the main party ticket. The center-right has not had the same experience (last time was 1912...no one who voted in 1912 is still alive!).

I disagree. Ross Perot is consider the text-book example of a 3rd Party candidate playing spoiler, and his base was almost entirely center-right. That was only 26 years ago. Further, you gotta remember just how passionate the right really is about gun rights. Having 2 gun grabber tickets in Sanders and Bloomberg would surely unify the right around Cruz, especially given how pro-gun Cruz is.
 
I disagree. Ross Perot is consider the text-book example of a 3rd Party candidate playing spoiler, and his base was almost entirely center-right. That was only 26 years ago. Further, you gotta remember just how passionate the right really is about gun rights. Having 2 gun grabber tickets in Sanders and Bloomberg would surely unify the right around Cruz, especially given how pro-gun Cruz is.
Perot didn't steal the election for Clinton. Perot stole votes equally from both parties and he pulled in the dissatisfied vote. That vote was by no means entirely center-right.
 
Top