Cruz Off Into the Sunset?

The day before the GOP's Nevada Caucus, we have a brand new race (sort of). Of course, Donald Trump is sitting well-positioned to be the party's eventual nominee, and Marco Rubio is rapidly gaining momentum and endorsements to be the top challenger to Trump. That being said, where does that leave Ted Cruz? John Kasich is virtually a non-factor, outside of Michigan and Ohio, and Ben Carson does not even exist in this conversation. Does the TrustTED candidate live in the middle-ground no-man's land? Though the poll numbers have yet to catch up, Cruz is slowly slipping down the ladder and does not have much hope for climbing back up.

Let's peel both sides of this apart a little bit.

Addressing the negative of this argument, Cruz has already won a state, sits in second in the delegate race, and stands to win perhaps dozens more delegates in Texas. He has a substantial funding apparatus between cash-in-hand by the campaign and by Super PACs like 'Keep the Promise'. He's running second in total votes for thus far and even beat out Donald Trump in a national poll in mid-February (run by NBC/Wall St. Journal). This all reads like the making of a top contender for the GOP nomination. On paper, this isn't far from the truth. The Cruz campaign has accomplished some very significant things on paper.

But does this really feel like Ted Cruz is in power here? Arguably, not so much these days.

Cruz has slipped from fighting Trump for first to fighting Rubio for second, with Rubio on the quick ascent up the GOP food chain. Cruz only stands to win one more state in his broader pursuit to the nomination, has shown no signs of growth in his standing, continues to create enemies within the GOP, and has the lowest favorability ratings of the remaining top-tier GOP candidates.

Long story, short, Cruz is running out of capital and may have peaked in Iowa.

Cruz has had been embroiled in what seems to be scandal after scandal, whether it be the 'Voter Violation' notices, Carson campaign suspension rumors, or misleading videos about Marco Rubio. He has been at the center of one of the dirtier primary campaigns run in years, and that's turned so many moderate and independent voters off to him. That is the exact base that Cruz is going to have to appeal to in a general election, and is potentially the most untouchable base for him.

Going forward, as we saw in South Carolina, Cruz has capped in support and is blocked from
avenues to pull in support from other candidates' base. However, both Trump and Rubio have the capability to pull support from Cruz, whether it be the Tea Party base or Evangelicals. So, as Trump maintains his current levels and Rubio continues his 'Marcomentum', we come full-circle to Cruz's sustainability.

If Cruz continues to stay in the race, he will likely find himself running third in the delegate count behind Trump and Rubio by the end of March. This is certainly an unenviable position to find himself in after starting the race off with so much promise. So, to what end does Cruz even staying in the race serve at this point? Of the three top-tier candidates, he is the only one that lacks a meaningful path to the nomination.

Therein lies the rub.

Could the best thing for the GOP be for Cruz to suspend his campaign prior to Super Tuesday? This makes the race a true two-man race and could finally propel a candidate like Rubio over the top against Trump as the anti-Trump alternative. The Rubio camp needs to take a hard look at what it might take to lure Cruz out of the race. Obviously a long shot of epic proportions, but the GOP is otherwise stuck in a rut for the remainder of the primary season.

This rut leads to one of two conclusions: Trump winning the necessary amount of delegates or pushing the race into a brokered convention that best serves Marco Rubio. Regardless of the scenario, Ted Cruz isn't in it, and there is nothing he can do to change that fate at this point.

Of course, Cruz and his supporters value their role as the insurgency against the GOP establishment, and there is no certainty that a good portion of his supporters would even go to an establishment candidate. This then begs the bigger question. While Cruz's camp is hard-pressed to find a victorious scenario, who does his persistent presence in the primary truly benefit?

I believe there is great uncertainty in the fallout of a Cruz suspension, but both the Trump and Rubio campaigns ought to be thinking very hard about courting Ted Cruz, his potential endorsement, and his supporters.

As the dominoes continue to fall, the single greatest wildcard left in the race may actually be Ted Cruz's endurance for the remainder of the primary season. This viewpoint may be well unpopular at the moment, but the long-view shows no good prospects for Ted Cruz, and he simply is not in control of his own destiny.

The Hoberman Sphere Cycle

Do you remember that kids toy from years and years ago that was basically this big ball that could be expanded and contracted? Google told me that it was called a Hoberman Sphere. More importantly, why would I even possibly be thinking about a Hoberman Sphere? The truth is that I've been trying to think of the perfect analogy to address what the American electorate is experiencing out of all of the candidates this season thus far (and really many, many seasons before too).

Much like Hillary Clinton, most candidates aim to start out there campaigns by positioning themselves as the moderate option in their party, the most appealing candidate that can be the collective solution to uniting the party and then America. There's a hiccup in that plan though...the rest of the candidates in the field.

My time in the political campaign world taught me something pretty obvious: the most energized people will always come out and vote in the primaries. Almost without fail, the most energized people are the people that occupy the more conservative pole (for Republicans) and more liberal pole (for Democrats) of their party. The people that occupy the poles often espouse very passionate views that are outside the moderate wings of their parties.

We were taught to target the people that were thought to be within that realm. They were targeted for donations, notional support, and even yard signs. Why? They were just the more likely people to agree because it meant that someone on the ballot would be in alignment with them when not really too many other candidates on the ballot had strayed away from the moderate faction of their party.

This means that many moderates in the party were not as routinely sought after, but, then again, the moderates were often very indecisive about their candidate choice and thus non-committal to a campaign because the field would be so crowded with candidates in the middle of the spectrum. So, over time, the moderates get left behind, as other candidates look to capitalize on the same amount of momentum and support that others are having by moving toward the more 'extreme' poles of their party.

Another key reason why there is this move to the poles (and we saw this at the Iowa Caucus and into New Hampshire and other early primaries) is to tap that energy into the poles and translate that into voter turnout. A lapse in voter turnout in a candidate's favor typically spells the end of the campaign and the hopes of that candidate. So, during the primary season, that's why we often see much more extreme rhetoric than what we might be accustomed to seeing when two candidates are squaring off against each other in the general election.

Once a candidate secures their party's nomination, the process begins to rollback many of the primary election pledges and stances that propelled a candidate to the front of the pack. Now what happens is the complete inverse (the contraction of the Hoberman Sphere). Party loyalists are invested, so it becomes a war for the independents and moderates of the opposing party. We now start to hear the media coverage of the battle for independents, who now become the key demographic in the general election.

Perhaps I'm being naive or optimistic, but there is a lot of alarm sounding around the country that our politics is more divisive than ever. Arguably, it's still divisive, but the problem might not be as dire as is being portrayed. Much of what we're seeing right now is over-reaction to what is still largely typical for the primary campaign season, albeit very atypical personalities that fuel the overall concern.

Of course, the sphere semi-expands again during the general election, though the tension is not aimed within the party. Candidates go into full-court press to do two things: make greater strides to move their platform to the middle and argue that their opponents is far extreme of the broader American electorate.

So, keep calm for now, readers. We're just along for the ride inside of a continuous, age-old political loop. The only way to exercise some measure of control it is by try and control who sits in the Oval Office.

Let me know what you think! Please comment and/or share!