What is an assertion?

What should we think of Ted Cruz's assertion that recent history supports his argument that conservative GOP nominees win the White House while moderates lose?

• In a recent profile in the New Yorker, Cruz said: “It is amazing that the wisdom of the chattering class to the Republicans is always, always, always ‘Surrender your principles and agree with the Democrats.' That’s been true for my entire lifetime. The chattering classes have consistently said, ‘You crazy Republicans have to give up on what you believe and become more like Democrats.’ And, I would note, every time Republicans do that we lose.” Cruz then offered a short history of recent Presidential politics. Richard Nixon ran as a conservative, twice a winner; Gerald Ford, moderate, loser; Ronald Reagan, also twice a winner. President George Herbert Walker Bush ran as a strong conservative, ran to continue the third term of Ronald Reagan, continue the Ronald Reagan revolution. Then he raised taxes and in ’92 ran as an establishment moderate—same candidate, two very different campaigns. First one won, second one lost. In 1996, you got Bob Dole; 2000 and 2004, you have George W. Bush; 2008, John McCain; 2012, Mitt Romney. And what does the entire D.C. Republican consulting class say? ‘In 2016, we need another establishment moderate!’ Hasn’t worked in four decades. ‘But next time will be the time!’ ” Source: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/06/30/140630fa_fact_toobin?currentPage=all

• Answer:

  It's true, but well, let's look at presidential elections since Ted Cruz was born in 1970, shall we? 1972: Nixon (R) versus McGovern (D) 60.7 - 37.5 Nixon was a popular president at the end of his first term. Strong anticommunist credentials, the man also proposed the formation of the Environmental Protection Agency and signed an executive order to bring it into existence. By the standards of his day, Nixon was in the right wing of the Republican Party, but by the standards of today - and by the standards of Ted Cruz - he'd be run out of town on a rail as a RINO. Still, it has to be noted that while Nixon probably would have won the 1972 election under normal circumstances, the Democratic Party managed to run what was probably the most inept presidential campaign in US history with the McGovern run in 1972. Among other things, McGovern failed to vet his running mate, Thomas Eagleton. Eagleton, as it so happened, had been treated for bipolar disorder in the 1960's - making him pretty much a nonstarter as a candidate. McGovern stated that he backed Eagleton "1000 percent" - only to have Eagleton withdraw from the ticket six days later. Five people turned down the offer to be his running mate. My point here is that while the Republicans won decisively in 1972, their campaign manager could have been a toddler and still beaten the Democrats. 1976: Carter (D) versus Ford (R) 50.1 - 48.0 As one might recall, Nixon resigned the presidency rather than being impeached and convicted for his gross abuses of power. One might also recall that Ford pardoned Nixon, which at the time was seen by many as letting his crony skate. One might also remember that, in 1972, Ronald Reagan committed what he himself probably would have called a cardinal sin four years later: he challenged the incumbent president in the primaries. It made Ford look weak. And despite all of that, Ford still managed to keep the election fairly close, losing by a margin of 2.1%. If that seems wide, remember, a margin of 4.5% yielded the following picture in 1948: If Reagan hadn't mounted the primary challenge, Ford more than likely would have taken the election. Which is to say that 1976 looked surprisingly like 2012: the hard right of the Republican party did not support the center right and the Dems took the game. 1980: Reagan (R) versus Carter (D) 50.8 - 41.0 Under Carter, the economy was crap and the US Embassy staffers in Iran had been taken hostage. The Republicans probably could have nominated an avocado and taken the White House. 1984: Reagan (R) versus Mondale (D) 58.8 - 40.6 When people perceive that the economy has improved under the tenure of the incumbent, the incumbent gets re-elected. Also, Mondale promised to hike taxes, claiming Reagan would do the same, with the eminently quotable line "He won't tell you, I just did." That one was an albatross around his neck, but it didn't really make that much difference anyway. 1988: H.W. Bush (R) versus Dukakis (D) 53.4 - 45.7 There have been few candidates in the television era of presidential elections as thoroughly devoid of charisma as Michael Dukakis was. Many people, Dukakis included, believe he lost the election when, in a presidential debate, he was asked the following: Governor, if [your wife] were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer? And he responded with: No, I don't, Bernard, and I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life. I don't see any evidence that it's a deterrent and I think there are better and more effective ways to deal with violent crime. We've done so in my own state and it's one of the reasons why we have had the biggest drop in crime of any industrial state in America, why we have the lowest murder rate of any industrial state in America. And he kept going in that clinical vein for an abominably long time - confirming pretty much everyone's suspicions that the man did not understand these weird things called "emotions" that the hu-mons have. He dropped 7% in the polls after that debate. And after that, there was the classic tank photo: He was also completely upstaged by his running mate, Lloyd Bentsen, who laid an epic smackdown on Dan Quayle in the VP debates,[1] but in doing so completely distracted from the actual campaign. By comparison, the economy was doing well and the Bush campaign didn't make any gigantic gaffes. Not really surprising that Bush took it. 1992: Clinton (D) versus Bush (R) 43.0 - 37.5 As it turns out, when the economy falters, so too does the incumbent. It's something we've seen in American electoral history since the Log Cabin Campaign of 1840. The economy was in recession by the time the election rolled around, and the Democrats never, not for one second, let anyone forget this. Also, it should be noted that this is the election where the northeast and California really stopped being competitive in Presidential elections. Hmm. 1996: Clinton (D) versus Dole (R) 49.2 - 40.7 Was the economy doing well? Yes. Did the incumbent remind everyone of this? Yes. Did the incumbent win? Yes. 2000: Bush (R) versus Gore (D) 47.9 - 48.4 Bush won the election; however, let's not forget that, not only did Bush fail to win a majority of the votes, he failed to a win a plurality as well. That kind of squeaker is not the way you want to win an election, and it's no mandate for governing. 2004: Bush (R) versus Kerry (D) 50.7 - 48.3 Fun fact: Bush's winning percentage is the narrowest win an incumbent has ever had. Also, the 2004 candidates in the Democratic primary were a thoroughly uninspiring lot, with the eventual candidate, Kerry, occasionally being compared to Dukakis in terms of charisma. Yeah. 2008: Obama (D) versus McCain (R) 52.9 - 45.7 The economy crapped the bed in 2008 and the Republicans had held the White House for the previous eight years. They were going to take the blame for the bad economy, and had McCain further identified himself with Bush, the margin of loss would have been even greater. 2012: Obama (D) versus Romney (R) 51.1 - 47.2 In 2012, the Republicans had the same issue that the Dems had in 2004: while they could rally their base to the idea that the incumbent president stank, they couldn't rally anyone around a given candidate for more than five minutes, and their eventual guy, Romney, had the unfortunate habit of acting very much like a plutocrat, that 47% remark really sealing the deal on that. So getting to the bottom line on this: there are more factors in play in a presidential election than "how far to the right is the Republican candidate?" There are a variety of factors, most notably the economy, that play, quite honestly, a much larger role. Ted Cruz' argument comes out to a confusion of correlation and causation, and in the case of Richard Nixon, something of a misconception as to how far right Nixon actually was by 2014 standards. I'll leave you with a quotation from The Simpsons. Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm. Lisa: That’s specious reasoning, Dad. Homer: Thank you, dear. Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away. Homer: Oh, how does it work? Lisa: It doesn’t work. Homer: Uh-huh. Lisa: It’s just a stupid rock. Homer: Uh-huh. Lisa: But I don’t see any tigers around, do you? [Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money] Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock. [Lisa refuses at first, then takes the exchange] [1] Dan Quayle was questioned regarding his youth as a candidate. He unwisely responded by comparing his age to John F. Kennedy's, to which Bentsen replied with: Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy.