I hear you, but what has happen is a switch in fortune. Back in the 80's and 90's the electoral favored the Republicans. But the Democrats were able to win in 92 by nominating two southerners to break up what what some pundits said was a presidential lock. Throw in the fact Bush the first broke his no new taxes pledge and then ran a campaign that seemed like he didn't care if he won or lost, that is until the last two weeks, you had a Democratic victory against what look like long odds. In the 2000's that map changed to be relitive even and now it favors the Democrats. Look at this way, I do not think any Republican will win CA, OR, WA or HI in the west. 78 EV. How about the northeast? Leave Christie out of it and put Paul or Cruz or just mr. Republican no name. Maryland, New York, up. Outside of NH what do you think the odds are of a Republican without the name of Christie taking any northeastern states? Not much, add those to the mix along with D.C. that brings the total of what I call safe/likely states up to 166 EV. Now throw in IL, MI, WI, MN, and IA, all blue states, that 228 EV of the 270 to win. I left PA out, although I consider PA would probably go Democratic. Right now CO and NM are pretty solid blue states that is 242 EV.
Give the south and the plain states to the GOP along with Indiana, leave out NC, VA, OH, FL, and NV as swing states along with PA and NH, the GOP total is 191. Personally I think PA would go Democratic against a Cruz or Paul with the possible exception of Christie, Daniels and maybe Pence. VA has been trending into a pretty reliable blue state. So FL, OH, and NC are must wins for any GOP nominee and that would bring him up to 253, just 17 shy. So PA may hold the key.
Lots of interesting scenarios that can be played out, but Cruz and Paul I do not think could carry most of the must win states. Just an opinion and it is too far out to really know. Just some contemplation s on my part.