This morning, Ted Cruz has made it official: he is running for president. This announcement should hardly surprise anyone; the ambitious Cruz has been in campaign mode ever since he upset David Dewhurst for the Texas Republican nomination for senate. The question on everyone's lips, however, is this: does he have a shot? 
The short answer is easy: of course he has a shot. Barack Obama was the definition of a longshot when he launched his campaign in 2007 and he surprised everyone by defeating the Clinton machine. Why should we think that another first term senator cannot pull off another upset against the Clinton machine? 

The longer answer is slightly different. He may have a shot, but the odds are not exactly in his favor at the moment. Despite only being in the senate for a little over two years, Cruz has accumulated some baggage that will be tough to overcome, especially if he wins the Republican nomination. He would be a decisive underdog against Clinton, but would definitely have a fighter's chance. The odds would be more favorable for him against someone like Liz Warren or Bernie Sanders. The bottom line is this: it is too early to set precise odds, but anyone betting on Cruz would probably have a massive payday if he pulled off a victory. 

Strengths 
Let's first examine Ted Cruz's strengths. Having observed him in Larry Sabato's Introduction to American Politics class last year, two strengths immediately come to mind. First, he is not afraid of anybody. He will boldly address a room full of (mostly) liberal college kids and open himself up to any question on anyone's mind. He is confident and sure of his abilities. The second strength is closely related: he is probably the best debater of anyone running for president in 2016, Republican or Democrat. A world class debater at Princeton, Ted Cruz will hold his own, at the very least, with any other candidate (if not outright destroy them). In short, Cruz is a pitbull when it comes to debates- he fears nobody and is a skilled fighter. 

There are some other aspects of Senator Cruz that definitely constitute strengths.  For one thing, he is extremely popular with grassroots and Tea Party activists. His campaign theme is already downright demagogic (just watch his Michael Bay-esque ad that also echoes of Tim Pawlenty's infamous ad) and he can carry that populist excitement to victory in states like Iowa and South Carolina. In places where the Tea Party is still strong (ie: the South, Midwest, and Interior West), Cruz will probably do very well in the primaries. Another strength of Cruz is his quintessentially American life story. Although some questions are being raised about his eligibility (questions that I believe are non-issues), his rags-to-riches story is as American as it gets. Combine that with his Hispanic heritage, and it is easy to see why he has some support. 

Weaknesses 
Now let us to turn to his weaknesses. No, Jerry Brown, Cruz's climate change views are not his biggest weakness. If anything, they will help him in the primary season, as Cruz's targeted voters largely harbor doubts about "climate change." The biggest knock against Ted Cruz is that hardly anybody likes him, especially in the Senate. Yes, he has a loyal band of activists who would swim through a volcano to vote for him, but that is not enough to win a presidential campaign (just ask Ron Paul). If Ted Cruz is the nominee, the GOP can forget about trying to win over any Democrats; he is about as popular with Democrats as Elizabeth Warren is with Republicans. As for independents, it is tough to say which way enough of them will swing, but my gut tells me that they will be scared off by some of Cruz's past actions- especially the disastrous government shutdown. It doesn't help Cruz's cause that he is not particularly well-liked among even the GOP.  His colleagues in the Senate apparently are often irked by his tactics and stunts (don't forget McCain's "wacko bird" comment), which is never good for a member of such a distinguished body. The more red meat that Cruz throws to the base, the more he will distance himself from the moderate wing of the party (a faction of the party that actually does matter, in spite of what activists may say). A brutal primary season will only make him more disliked, I am afraid. 

Next, Cruz has a relative short resume. He has no executive experience, whatsoever, which is something that Republicans hammered Obama on in 2008. In fact, his resume is very similar to the president's- an Ivy League education, a law degree, a legal career and a stint as a first-term junior senator. Republicans were right to criticize Obama for being inexperienced, but it would be very hypocritical to not criticize Cruz for the same thing. Unfortunately, this is also a knock against Marco Rubio and Rand Paul. 

As far as policies are concerned, Cruz really is not that far out of the GOP mainstream. He is conservative in every way imaginable, so there is really nothing for him to be criticized as far as pure policy is concerned. It is his tactics that are often head-scratching; choosing confrontation over compromise. To date, I can't think of a legislative fight that he has actually won. 

Finally, I just don't know how Cruz can overcome the fact that he is associated with a pseudo- filibuster where he read "Green Eggs and Ham" on the Senate floor and was the catalyst behind the embarrassingly stupid government shutdown in September and October 2013. That shutdown not only failed to accomplish anything meaningful, it also severely damaged Cruz's reputation (and the approval ratings of the party, as a whole). Being perceived as petty and/or arrogant is not a way to win a national election. 

Conclusion
I think Senator Cruz will run a far stronger campaign than many think. He is a seasoned debater and has experience exceeding electoral expectations. I think he may well win a few primaries and pose a serious threat to Jeb and other candidates. However, I think his campaign will be hampered by the same problems that plagued the anti-Mitt candidates of 2012: he will be one of many challengers to Jeb. The opposition to Bush's campaign is increasingly diluted as the number of candidates increases, making it easier for Bush to win a plurality of votes in contests he might lose against just one challenger. 

In the general election, Cruz would be a decided underdog, especially against Hillary Clinton. Rightly or wrongly, Clinton is perceived as being closer to the middle than the arch-conservative Ted Cruz. In simple game theoretic politics, Clinton would be able to grab a larger share of the vote by being closer to the middle. If, however, Clinton does not run, Cruz's chances increase dramatically. He would be an underdog against Jim Webb and probably Joe Biden, but his chances would probably be about 50:50 against leftist ideologues Bernie Sanders and Liz Warren (who are about as far from the middle as Cruz is believed to be). Honestly, if the contest ended up being between Cruz and Warren, I would not be surprised to see a centrist campaign spearheaded by someone like Joe Manchin or Susan Collins. 

I am skeptical of Ted Cruz's chances to inhabit the White House, but he has proven that he is not one who should be underestimated. 

The 2016 election season is officially underway, especially for Republicans who have not yet established a default candidate. Fortunately for the Democrats, they already have a de facto nominee in Hillary Clinton, an individual who is far more respected and far better connected to the Democrat donor class than any other Democrats even considering a bid (Joe Biden, Andrew Cuomo, Liz Warren, and Martin O'Malley).  Republicans, however, have a long primary season ahead of them, something that may or may not harm the ultimate nominee.  One thing is clear: if the members of the conservative base want someone other than Jeb Bush to be the party's standard bearer, they need to coalesce around one figure sooner rather than later. The best choice for this alternative champion is Governor Scott Walker. 

Scott Walker has been catching fire lately.  Between surging in the polls and finishing respectably at CPAC (a victory that should ignite more activist support for his campaign), he appears to be emerging as a serious alternative to the Bush Dynasty. As 2012 showed us, poll surges do not really mean much on their own, but I think it could be different this time if Walker is able to sustain these levels through the Iowa and New Hampshire contests. This hypothesis is more or less consistent with Bartels' (1987) analysis of the 1984 Democratic primaries.  Basically, that paper showed that the electorate will not begin to strongly support an alternative candidate to the establishment choice until the candidate shows that he or she can win meaningful contests and not waste the votes of his/her supporters. If Walker can sustain and expand his current levels of support, he should be able to win some contests next year and perhaps win the nomination. 

Before thinking ahead to the contests, perhaps it would be instructive to think about why conservatives should even support Walker in the first place. In my view, he has a record (both electoral and in governing) that should excite conservatives. Walker won three elections in four years in a deep blue state with strong union traditions.  Walker's first election may not have been all that impressive- 2010 was a banner year for the Republican Party- but the other two (especially his recall election victory) were impressive. So, he clearly has a record of winning tough elections; that is always a plus. More importantly, however, Walker is not afraid of anyone or anything. If you recall, Walker early in his term challenged an archenemy of conservatives everywhere: public sector labor unions. After an intense standoff, which saw Democratic senators flee the state and union members trash the Capitol complex, Walker was still standing and won (a victory validated by his subsequent victory in the recall campaign).  In that debacle, Walker proved that he has the resolve necessary to be a strong president. 

Another factor working in Walker's favor is his distance from Washington Republicans. Right now, being a member of Congress is hardly something about worth bragging, as public confidence in Congress is about as low as can be and the House GOP caucus is fractured. Between all the publicity stunts, calls for Boehner to be removed as Speaker, and partisan games, it seems that being associated with the Washington crowd is a rather toxic association, at the moment. Walker, on the other hand, has been a successful governor and has chosen to focus his attention not on perpetual wedge issues (like gay marriage), but on the economy, public debt, and government efficiency. This insulation could prove to be a major advantage for him throughout the electoral cycle. 

I am not trying to be a commercial for Scott Walker, but I am trying to point out the logic of why conservatives should rally around him. First, conservatives need to settle on one champion if they want a prayer of defeating the establishment choice. Look at it this way, the last time the Republican establishment did not pick the nominee was 1964 with Barry Goldwater. Nixon, Ford, Reagan (1980, 1984), Bush, Dole, Bush II, McCain, and Romney were all backed by the political class of the Republican Party before the convention. In most cases, these candidates were able to outlast a pack of conservative alternatives (Dole being, perhaps, the exception as he faced no strong opponents) who tore each other down and split the conservative vote too many ways. For example, Romney won by outlasting Santorum, Gingrich, Paul, Cain, Perry, Bachmann, and Pawlenty, despite cruising along at 25% in the polls for most of the cycle. Similarly, McCain outlasted Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, Tancredo, and others despite not being the most dynamic candidate imaginable. The same thing, I think, will happen this time if conservatives do not coalesce around Walker early. Already, we are seeing something similar appear, as the 2016 field now includes: Bush, Christie, Walker, Carson (although for how much longer, I do not know, that prison rape gaffe was pretty bad), Rand Paul, Cruz, Rubio, Carly Fiorina, and probably some combination of Santorum, Lindsey Graham, Pete King, and Mike Huckabee. Since Jeb already has the support of the donor class, he merely needs to not do anything stupid and he probably wins the nomination over this large field. If however, the contest was merely between Christie, Bush, and Walker, conservatives could actually win.  Instead of dividing the conservative vote, Walker could actually unite the base and pull off the upset, but only if the other conservatives drop early and rally behind him. Intriguingly, we could see the opposite of the normal trend this time: instead of conservatives dividing the base vote, moderates and party favorites could divide the donor/political class vote. 

Additionally, I think Walker would be far more acceptable to all factions of the Republican Party than any other conservative alternative. Unlike Rand Paul, his foreign policy views will not alienate readers of the Weekly Standard, but do not appear to be as over-the-top militant as someone like Santorum or Graham.  Unlike Ted Cruz, Scott Walker has not foolishly instigated a government shutdown and pitted Republicans against each other, yet he still has heroic conservative credentials. And unlike Santorum or, to tell the truth, most of the other Republicans in the field, Walker is not going to plant his flag as a cultural warrior fighting against the rising tide of support for gay marriage, but he quietly sides with the consensus positions on social issues among Republicans.  In other words, he holds positions acceptable to social conservatives without being belligerent about it (cough, Santorum, cough). Finally, his economic views and record should resonate with most of the party.  In short, I think he is as acceptable an alternative nominee to the entire Republican Party as you will find. 

In closing, I would just like to reiterate the importance of limiting the number of conservative candidates in 2016. It is a matter of common sense, a unified opposition to Jeb Bush will be far stronger than six or seven candidates floating along at 5% in the polls, splitting primary victories in the South and Midwest, while Jeb sweeps New England, the West Coast, the Upper Midwest, and Florida en route to the nomination. If conservatives really do not want the political and donor class to determine the 2016 nominee, they should unite behind one banner and win enough delegates to pull off the upset. As I see it, Scott Walker is their best hope. 

Hey everyone! I decided to create this website devoted primarily to my academic career, but I am also going to use this website for blogging, as well. Like everything else on this site, politics will be the primary focus of this blog, but far from the exclusive focus. Basically, anything I find interesting (be it sports, odd news, politics, etc...) is fair game. As before, the frequency with which I post is variable and will depend on how much time I can put into writing something of some quality. My old blog posts will still be available at https://thealexaccount.wordpress.com/. Hope to see you all around as this blog gets rolling!

-Alex