An Alternate 2016: Cruz vs. Sanders?

Sanders is more inspiring while Cruz is less inspiring, so I think Sanders has an advantage in all those states that Clinton should have won that she didn’t. Plus he’s more humble and not willing to rest on his laurels.

Or let me put it in American football terms: Hillary Clinton played like she was the Falcons in the Super Bowl up 28-3, only she didn’t realize she was playing the Patriots and treated her opponent like they were the Cleveland Browns. Sanders would have acted more like the Eagles in the last Super Bowl, clinging like hell to a five-point lead. And it would be that determination that would lead to him getting a narrow victory.
 
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.

I think it was. If you look at the previous election, Republicans got 9,000,000 more votes, a whopping 16% decrease. While that no doubt had some to do sith Bush just losing favor with some, it's undeniable that Ross Perot slashed a massive chunk of Bush's voter base
 
I think it was. If you look at the previous election, Republicans got 9,000,000 more votes, a whopping 16% decrease. While that no doubt had some to do sith Bush just losing favor with some, it's undeniable that Ross Perot slashed a massive chunk of Bush's voter base
That may be the case, but about half of Perot voters would have had Clinton their second choice, and voted for him had Perot not been running. This was borne out by exit polls.
 
Cruz doesn’t do as well in the Midwest but does better in the South and West. I think Sanders wins Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Minnesota. Cruz wins Florida, Virginia and Nevada. Colorado and Ohio are tossups.

As for the popular vote, it’s hard to say. Especially if you factor in Bloomberg, who’d probably get around 10-15% in this scenario (and even if he gets super unlucky will probably get over 5%). I think overall Cruz will have the popular vote edge since the US is more right of Center and Bloomberg would likely hurt Sanders more, but it’ll be a nail biter either way.
 
Nail Biting Race. Things people haven't mentioned.

1. Free Air Time/Celebrity: Sanders has it, he's a celebrity in ways more akin to Trump than Cruz
2. Ground Game: Cruz is much better at it, while he didn't get the best immediate endorsements or start, his ground game beat Trump's TV campaign in Iowa (not too unsimilar to Sander's strategy, especially deeper into an exhausting campaign, where he doesn't want to be seen as too old). Later in the primary, there were too many states at once with too many variables for Cruz's ground game to work.

In a tight election with a few swing states, Cruz has the advantage. In a more free-flowing campaign with more toss-ups, Advantage Sanders.

Expect Cruz to go for a likeable media-friendly V-P. Good Chance for Kasich here.

Also, with Bloomberg in as a center-left candidate, don't be surprised if there's a rather weak center-right candidate on lead by William Kristol and his crew (think McMullin), as Cruz isn't particularly hawkish (outside of Iran) and isn't pro ammnesty
 
Bernie wins if it's one on one. If Bloomberg jumps in, Cruz wins. With that said, Bernie can keep Bloomberg out if he picks a VP that's at least plausible to the center of the Democratic party (Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Tim Kaine himself, etc...)
 
Cruz wins a landslide. The US isn't voting for an avoowed Socialist on a national scale. I'd expect Cruz to win 330+ EVs.
 
Alot of this depends on how Sanders and Cruz win their respective primaries.

Cruz is the easiest to speculate on here. Iy's not hard to imagine moderate R's like McMullin and Kasich withdrawing early to support Trump's strongest rival for the nomination. With his contenders out, Cruz rides the never-Trump support all the way to the nomination. Fiorina still has a strong shot at the V.P. nomination. Other options include:

  • Rand Paul (to woo more isolationist and anti-estsblishment R's)
  • Mike Lee (same as above but with a more religious edge)
  • Rob Portman (help swing Ohio and balance out Cruz's social conservatism)
  • John Kasich (same as above but more religious)
  • Marco Rubio (double down on on hispanic vote)

Lets assume however that Cruz sticks with Fiorina.

Getting Sanders over the hump will be trickier. Clinton was a tough opponent. That said, she wasnt without scandels or roadblocks. For sake of imagination, lets imagine Clinton falls ill during the primary as opposed to the general, and to a more serious degree. She has to lay off on campaigning for a few weeks and sanders is able to use this to his advantage, closeing the polling gap. Sanders thus wins by a NARROW margin.

For V.P., sanders has a tough choice. He can either double down on his populist message, or do more to reach out to minorities. My guess is that Sanders opts for the former, believing that Cruz's presence seals the deal with minorities. In particular, Sanders picks Sherrod brown, boosting his populist stance and his popularity in Ohio. Some other options may be:
  • Elizabeth Warren (populist + outhreach to women)
  • John Lewis (a civil rights hero and clinton ally, Lewis would rebuild some important bridges)
  • Hillary Clinton (high risk, high reward)
  • Al Franken (charismatic midwestern liberal, helping woo over moderates)
  • Stephen benjamin (relativley unknown sc mayor. Black outreach + moderate appeal)
With regards to third parties, most of the bids we saw irl will be knee capped. McMullin has little reason to aggressivley work against Cruz, and probably sits this election out. Stein would also lose much of her support to Sanders. Johnson is in a rough place too. Cruz had strong libertarian credentials on economics and a strong "small government" brand. Cruz's would also benefit from a more unified party. My guess is that Johnson hovers at around 2 percent.

In there place however, others will rise. Most assuredly, Michael Bloomberg would run in opposition to what he would see as two radical candidates. For his V.P., he probably takes Mike Mullin, as he considered OTL. Bloombergs moderate, establishment positions endear him to moderates and technocrats, even netting him a few wealthy donors and high level endorsements. That said, Bloomberg would struggle to excite any particular group in large numbers, and he gets stuck around 5-7 percent much of the time.

Theres a strong chance trump also goes third party, running much as he did IRL, focusing on his antiestablishment credentials. For his V.p., trump picks his friend Carl Ichan. Sans Republican resources however, trump languishes in the polls.

Moving on to the general, its a close race through and through.Sanders and Cruz both make pivots in some sense, as Sanders ups his minority outreach efforts and Cruz shifts in to an almost libertarian campaign, focusing on curbing big government and reigning in corrupt elites. The debates are intense, with Cruz generally seen as the winner due to gaffes made by Sanders (think the debate between Cruz and Sanders over healthcare but repeated thrice). Brown fairs much better in V.p. debates however.

In regards to scadals, the campaign is relativley clean. Sanders' "Rape essay" is mentioned and it does wound him, though Cruz gains few voters fro. The move himself. Meanwhile Cruz's comments on policing Muslim neighborhoods are brought up, though Cruz's core supporters are unphased.

Election day is extremley close.

Pop vote:

Sanders/Brown: 45.6%
Cruz/fiorina: 43.9%
Bloomberg/Mullin: 6.5%
Trump/Ichan: 4.%

And the map:

http://www.270towin.com/maps/Q87ZY

A recount is held in Ohio, but sanders stays on top. The election goes to the house then. Having Sanders at the top of the ticket improves house results, but Republicans keep control and Cruz wins. The senate however, flips to a narrow Democrat majority, giving brown the win. Thus giving us president Ted Cruz and v.p. Sherrod Brown.
 
Nail Biting Race. Things people haven't mentioned.

1. Free Air Time/Celebrity: Sanders has it, he's a celebrity in ways more akin to Trump than Cruz
2. Ground Game: Cruz is much better at it, while he didn't get the best immediate endorsements or start, his ground game beat Trump's TV campaign in Iowa (not too unsimilar to Sander's strategy, especially deeper into an exhausting campaign, where he doesn't want to be seen as too old). Later in the primary, there were too many states at once with too many variables for Cruz's ground game to work.

In a tight election with a few swing states, Cruz has the advantage. In a more free-flowing campaign with more toss-ups, Advantage Sanders.

Expect Cruz to go for a likeable media-friendly V-P. Good Chance for Kasich here.

Also, with Bloomberg in as a center-left candidate, don't be surprised if there's a rather weak center-right candidate on lead by William Kristol and his crew (think McMullin), as Cruz isn't particularly hawkish (outside of Iran) and isn't pro ammnesty

I doubt a McMullin-like candidate gets anywhere without Trump in the race.

Cruz-Kasich emerging at a brokered convention would be interesting. It at the very least locks in Ohio and probably Florida for Cruz. Virginia likely tilts towards Cruz and Iowa was solidly red the whole of 2016.

Cruz won Maine so I think he could take Maine's second district. Wisconsin likely had a lot to do with the Walker machine and Milwaukee shrinking. Bush barely lost the state in 2000 and 2004.
 
I doubt a McMullin-like candidate gets anywhere without Trump in the race.

Cruz-Kasich emerging at a brokered convention would be interesting. It at the very least locks in Ohio and probably Florida for Cruz. Virginia likely tilts towards Cruz and Iowa was solidly red the whole of 2016.

Cruz won Maine so I think he could take Maine's second district. Wisconsin likely had a lot to do with the Walker machine and Milwaukee shrinking. Bush barely lost the state in 2000 and 2004.

More likely if there’s a right-wing splinter campaign it’ll be Trump.
 
This is going to be generational and ideological: those who feel entitled and those who feel individuals should earn their own way. If you want a nastier present bordering on civil war, here we are.
 
This is going to be generational and ideological: those who feel entitled and those who feel individuals should earn their own way. If you want a nastier present bordering on civil war, here we are.

Idk about that. Honestly, though much more of an ideological war, without someone as corrupt as Clinton and bombastic as Trump I don't see the nation getting nearly to the level of polarization we see now, and barring an independent Trump campaign I don't see some of the divisions (male v. female being the big one) happening at all, let alone to the same level. IMO events like the Berkely riots, rise of Antifa and Neo-Nazis and the mass protests directly after Trump's inauguration were direct results of Sanders losing the primaries and Trump winning the general. Could be wrong of course, but I see much less polarization.


With one very particular exception. Religion. Cruz might be the most fundamemtalist candidate sense William Jennings Bryan, and Sanders I believe would be the very first athiest nominee. And with recent social issues being a dime a dozen (dress codes, Chick-fil-a, transgender bathrooms, etc etc) that could cause serious divisions between the irreligious and evangelical communities. (It'd be interesting to see where Catholics and Muslims would fall here, as both socially very conservsative yet tend to ally with the left). I think the fact that Sanders is Jewish yet anti-zionist and that Cruz is an almost radical zionist would only make these divisions worse, but, I question whether or not religious polarization would be as bad as the seemingly random polarization of our modern USA.
 
Also, I think there's a kind of sick cynicism OTL that's lacking ATL. There was something repugnantly poetic about watching an internationally known womanizer against a woman, watching a celebrity billionaire and media darling being attacked by celebrities, billionaires, and the media, watching Beyonce and Jay-Z tell Trump he objectifys women and watching sex-positive feminsts attack his wife for being a model. Likewise, the same can be said for watching a lightning rod for corruption against one of her former backers, a former democrat (Trump) denouncing the left, even though he's arguably more liberal than she is in many instances. Watching homosexual men like Dave Rubin and Milo Yiannopoulous being shut down by the left amd not aloud to speak or debate. Etc. I dont see any of that happening in a Cruz v. Sanders scenario
 
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.

That's true, but a lot of Republicans still blame him. Perception, not speculation, is going to determine a person's willingness to vote third party.
 
Never getting caught but police takes cleverness, but I don't think the zodiac killer is cunning enough to become the first serial killer elected president of the US.
 
Why do people insist on posting about current politics here, when Chat is available for that purpose?

(Yes, a discussion involving a presidential election that took place less than two years ago, and whose central figures are all actual or potential future presidential candidates is current politics IMO.)
 
Why do people insist on posting about current politics here, when Chat is available for that purpose?

(Yes, a discussion involving a presidential election that took place less than two years ago, and whose central figures are all actual or potential future presidential candidates is current politics IMO.)
Agreed. Especially since such discussions always devolve into crude behavior. I don't want to be cynical and claim that to be the OP's intent, but the outcome is pretty well assured.
 
Top