Post-Iowa musings
(1) Late last night I heard some pundit on TV saying that Trump voters must have changed their minds after speaking to pollsters, and that Trump needed to find out why.
I disagree.
For one thing, state primary polls in Iowa have a history of inaccuracy. For another, the drop in Trump votes may have had nothing to do with any of his supporters changing their minds; it could just as easily been undecideds, or relatively undecideds, breaking for other candidates.
(2) Rubio won big, although he came in third place. As several commenters here have indicated, he is now the “establishment” candidate. Jeb did not come through for them, and (IMHO) this reflects a real disconnect and lack of judgment for the bigwigs who backed him, because it was always obvious that Jeb would not be a good candidate (for example, I wrote a post on it nearly two years ago).
Today commenter “Steve D” wrote: “Trump is the insider of all insiders from the other side; he’s been bribing politicians all his life. And if Rubio is a insider the establishment is scrapping the bottle of the barrel these days.”
Yes, they are, because they are desperate. Trump may be an insider in terms of buying political influence for himself, but in terms of what his goals would be as president he is a loose cannon to the establishment. They have recently begun to embrace him, however, because they remember that he’s always played ball before, and he keeps talking about the deals he’ll make with the opposition, and so that soothes them. Compared to Cruz—who is a member of the Senate but not really of it—Trump is a team player.
That brings us to Rubio. I’m not sure whether Steve D. meant to put Rubio down when he wrote “bottom of the barrel,” but I don’t think so. I think what he meant (and what I would mean if I said it, anyway), is that Rubio can only be seen as an establishment guy by default, and on immigration (and in comparison to the ultra-non-insider Cruz). Otherwise Rubio was and still is a Tea Party conservative.
As more people drop out of the race, will more endorsements come Rubio’s way? I think so, but only by default. And by the way—although I’m not going to take this up at the moment, because it’s worth a huge post or several posts in and of itself—a lot of commenters have thrown the word “amnesty” around on the previous thread, in relation to Rubio. The word is being used too loosely, and in its loosest definition all the candidates (including Trump) are in favor of it. I’d like to try to define and use it more precisely.
But not today.
(3) The Iowa caucus system is kind of crazy, particularly the way the Democrats do it. Hillary won 6 coin tosses. Hmmm. Sanders can’t ask for a coin toss recount, though. Actually, the odds against winning 6 coin tosses in a row fair and square are not that high.
(4) Big loser: Quinnipiac. They were off—by the biggest margin of all the pollsters in Iowa recently, although the others were also way off—in a poll published just before the caucuses. Quinnipiac had Trump leading Cruz 31 to 24, with Rubio at 17. They found only 3% of voters undecided, but 48% of voters said they might change their minds. I think that high number was the key to the election surprises, and often is with primaries/caucuses.
Quinnipiac also said that if turnout was high it would favor Trump. Well, turnout was mega-high, and it favored Cruz and particularly Rubio.
I never understood the common wisdom that high turnout would favor Trump, which seemed to be based on nothing whatsoever. High turnout could mean a lot of eager Trump voters, or it could be that Rubio and Cruz voters were alarmed by Trump and eager to get out and stop him.
What’s more, the Quinnipiac poll had an unusually large sample for a state poll: 890 likely GOP primary voters. That’s about twice as high as in most state polls. And yet it was way off.
(5) And then there’s—New Hampshire.
Compare to a recent New Hampshire poll by UMass Lowell/7News with 461 likely GOP primary voters, and a margin of error of plus or minus 5 (that’s high; it means up to a 10% error between any two candidates). Trump gets 38%, Cruz 12%, and Rubio 8% (Kasich and Bush are 8% and 9% respectively, with Christie at 6%). But there’s a week till the NH primary, and in question 9 of the poll—whether respondents might change their minds—the answers are quite high: 28% for Trump, 35% for Cruz, 57% for Rubio, 35% for Kasich, 59% for Bush, 66% for Christie. That’s a very fluid situation in New Hampshire.
You may remember that in 2008, an 8% Obama victory was predicted in NH and yet Hillary won it by 3%. That’s an 11% swing. The amount by which Trump is ahead in New Hampshire polls would require an even greater swing, but with those huge “could change mind” numbers, anything is possible.
I keep hearing that New Hampshire is natural Trump country. I see no reason why that should be. It’s the case, however, that it’s not natural Cruz country, unlike Iowa. He’s too openly evangelical and too strictly conservative. But Rubio is a different story, and I don’t see why he wouldn’t appeal to New Hampshirites. He’s got quite a gap to close, however, and Kasich (yes, Kasich), for example, has been concentrating on that state for a long, long time.
I saw a report on CNN that said a lot of Iowa caucus voters switched parties in an effort to stop or help Trump. I didn’t see the full report. I dug out the turnout numbers by party for the last three presidential election cycles.
Election –2008– –2012– –2016–
Republican 114,811 122,255, 186,174
Democratic 227,000 025,000, 139,980
All the races were competitive, except for the 2012 Democratic race in which Obama was virtually unopposed. On the Democratic side we see that turn-out dropped by 87K from 2008 to 2016 while Republican turnout increased by 67K. Was there a Democratic push to stop Trump by switching parties and voting for Cruz or Rubio? The turnout numbers suggest that may be the case.
I could see lots of Kasich and Christy voters going to Marco.
He is so, so articulate in answering questions and should do more of it.
He’s optimistic and is very pleasant in person.
Youth movement. Fresh face.
If he goes to the border and “confesses” on immigration and announces he has repented, he moves up.
PatD:
I couldn’t find anything about it when I searched just now, except for the usual anecdotal reports and people saying they think people might switch—but always in order to vote for Trump, not against him.
I’d be very curious to see a report saying the opposite, if you could find one.
Nor are those turnout figures indicative of anything except turnout for each party. For example, in 2008 turnout of Democrats would naturally be sky-high. There was no incumbent, no real frontrunner at the time, very hotly contested, and a young charismatic Obama motivating them to get out and vote. Then in 2012 turnout dropped enormously because there was an incumbent. This year the Democratic race dampens enthusiasm because both candidates are so flawed, so you’d expect a lower turnout (quite a few of my Democrat friends have said they don’t want to vote for either Hillary or Sanders, for example).
The high Republican figures could just as easily represent Republicans motivated by the intensity of the race, and of course Trump’s presence, to turn out in greater numbers. Cruz also had a lot of people on the ground encouraging turnout for him.
It all makes perfect sense without positing Democrats crossing over to vote against Trump, which is counter-intuitive anyway since (by all previous reports, which I also never believed) a lot of Democrats were going to like Trump.
Neo
Go see Marco and Ted in NH. I don’t know how far away from your house, but worth a drive of 200 miles. Lots of fun and educational.
Trump shows are no different from TV.
Um, for a guy who had an almost invisible ground game and spent no money there, Trump finished a good second.
What you might want to ask is why Rubio, Carson, and Rand did as well as they did at the last minute.
Could it have something to do with dirty tricks like the mailer and these?
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/02/breaking-carson-accuses-cruz-camp-of-foul-play-at-iowa-caucuses/
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/02/disgusting-cruz-camp-smearing-donald-trump-at-iowa-caucus-sites/
So if most or all of those 87,000 switched sides from the Democatic party and registered Republican in order to hinder (or maybe to help, in some cases) Trump, why did only 67,000 more Republicans participate this year as opposed to 2008, when GOP enthusiasm was at near record lows? And given that Trump consistently has fared the worst in head-to-head matchups with the Democratic contenders, why would Democratic voters want to wound him in the caucus or primaries?
I would imagine that Iowa could provide numbers on how many voters have changed their registration in the past six or so months, and in which direction overall. I doubt the numbers would be anywhere near the difference in voter turnout between the two parties last night.
Seems to me, especially given how close the Sanders-Clinton race was shaping up to be, that Democrats are facing a real enthusiasm gap this time around.
Kasich is still in it here in NH. He is usually in that pack with Christie and Rubio and Cruz, but he has a few outlier polls showing him ahead of all of them.
Cruz is speaking downtown at the biker bar tonight, about a mile walk, but I won’t go see him, Cornhead. I am suspicious of charisma of both the positive and negative types influencing me and those around me. I imagine your powers of resistance are greater than mine.
Charisma has served us very poorly in my lifetime. I admit it is an inevitable player in elections where people show up dressed as ears of corn, but I don’t have to encourage it.
Trump didn’t really need to spend money in Iowa. And he didn’t need much of a ground game. He had the media granting him free publicity every step of the way, and giving him the kind of exposure that billions in 30-second ads couldn’t match.
He then got an endorsement from Palin which resonated strongly with those who are looking to buck the establishment, no matter the political cost (and who evidently are willing to ignore what a total ass she has made of herself over the past 4-5 years).
Not to mention a nod from the Iowa governor, who’s nothing more than a puppet for the ethanol lobby. Not what could be more “establishment” than supporting the candidate who will promise to continue robbing Peter to pay Paul in one state, to rob Paul to pay Roger in another, and so on, with only the bigwigs actually coming out ahead?
Edit: “NOW what could be more establishment…”
Ass’t.
Go!
Tell him you know me. Ted poured me coffee. Maybe have a beer with Ted.
Here’s my problem with Rubio:
https://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2016/02/02/marco-rubios-november-electability-problem/?singlepage=true
…and that GOP voter who falls in line at the last (after declaiming “I’m done this time. No, I mean it this time. Honest.” …but falls in line on Tuesday, sigh), is too often me.
But this article …impressed me. A bit of insight goes a long way in destroying myths …like electability …y’know.
I am not sure what to think of Iowa. Looking at recent history (Santorum & Huckabee), my gut tells me it’s a nothing. The delegates were almost evenly split among the top 3 candidates. So a bit of a wash, really.
If Trump’s 2nd place were somebody else’s second place, there would be more talk about the small amount of spending done and still a great result. I read numerous articles that said Trump did not have the ground game nor an ‘education campaign’ about how the caucuses work, so he would fare poorly. Where are those same people today? Haven’t heard anything about that.
A little nervous about Rubio’s big gain. I would vote for him in a general election, but I would see him more like a repeat of GW Bush. Not much excitement.
Did not like the stories about the Cruz campaign saying Carson had dropped out. Makes me think of him and his people as nasty and calculating. Not an image I want for Cruz.
I heard the report on CNN. They were saying the desks where you could change party affiliation were crowded and they explicitly said people were switching to help or hinder Trump. I can’t find a replay on CNN – the report was around noon.
I’ll keep digging. Maybe it was extra enthusiasm on the GOP side and lack thereof on the Democratic side. It was just striking to me that the drop on one side roughly matched the increase on the other side.
Maybe a lot of traditional Democrats have simply switched parties. After 7 years of Obama, they are starting to realize their party has left them.
On the right, its a three way race.
Many Trump voters are not going to vote for Rubio. Like Jeb, they see Rubio as the other side of Hillary. So, if Rubio is the nominee, you have a split electorate on the right.
If Cruz is the nominee, will the GOP offer anything beyond lip service as support?
If Trump is the nominee, will reflective, thinking conservatives stay home?
The same, though to a lesser degree, applies to Hillary vs Sanders. Sanders is too radical and enthusiasm for Hillary is abysmal among the young. They know she’s a liar.
PatD:
They may have changed parties, but we don’t know why. There is certainly no shortage of reasons why they might!
Personally, two or three friends have already spontaneously said to me they are thinking of voting Republican for the first time in their lives, and want advice on the field. All of them say one person they will never vote for is Trump (that’s BEFORE I gave them advice, not after).
That’s just anecdotal. But I believe there’s a huge number of Democrats discouraged and ripe for the picking in 2016, at least temporarily (their defection may not be deep or permanent). And all of them have expressed liking for Rubio. They don’t know much about him, though, or about any of the GOP candidates except Trump (and to a lesser extent Cruz, who they don’t like either).
I agree with olderandwheezier regarding Palin. The people of Alaska chose her as their Governor and she walked off the job (to be a reality star, no less. No wonder she likes Trump!). I have never admired quitters and her endorsement could not have helped Trump.
Can’t wait to read how Neo sees Rubio and the “amnesty” charge against him. I am now pretty strongly in the Rubio camp.
davisbr:
That piece you linked has quite a few problems that make it unconvincing, IMHO.
On blogs and among activists, Rubio is not liked at all. I certainly have observed that, for years. But in the big picture, it’s not that big a group, and a lot of them would fall in line vs. Hillary. It’s a factor, but I don’t think a huge one (and many of them would vote for no one else but Trump, anyway).
In addition, Democrats really do like Rubio. Polls reflect it; I’ve written about it before. I also have friends—Democrat friends—who have spontaneously told me they like him and would think seriously of voting for him because they dislike Hillary and Sanders. They are not drawn to the other GOP candidates, for the most part.
I think Rubio is the most electable GOP candidate by a long shot. Would it be enough? I believe so, although it’s awfully early to say. Those who hate him for immigration (something I’ll be writing more on) won’t care. But otherwise he would be the most conservative nominee the GOP has had since Reagan.
The whole story of the “Carson quit” bru ha ha is not always being reported. CNN reported that Carson said he was going home rather than go on to New Hampshire, or South Carolina. Certainly ambiguous.
Now that Carson got 10%, he is saying he is going on, and just planned to go home for a break–eight days before NH. Did he change his mind after the results were in?
Cruz will be smeared; and I do not think the smears will be entirely justified.
Neo:
Chances of winning six coin flips in a row is 1:64, or 1.56%, not all that easy.
But Hillary is an expert at beating the odds. Back in her AK days, armed with nothing but the print version of the Wall Street Journal and, according to her adoring acolytes in the media, the highest intelligence level of any sentient being in the known multiverse, was able to take a $1,000 investment and turn it into $100,000 in the cattle futures market in just one year, by buying at the day’s low and selling at the day’s high every single time she made a trade, even though the prices in the WSJ were only reflective of the previous trading day activity.
A little later, three guys, a journalist, an experienced trader, and a statistician, examined her trading record and calculated that the odds of doing that were some 5 billion to one against.
Of course, despite nasty accusations from the RW Conspiracy, investing through a friend at Tyson Foods, one of BJ’s biggest donors, who used an account for her with a broker later convicted of allocated daily profits to people he liked and losses to people he didn’t like irrespective of their actual trades, had nothing to do with her success whatsoever.
I bring this up because back in the day, you were still surrendering to the Dark Side of the Force, so you might not have heard of her amazing prowess.
“I think Rubio is the most electable GOP candidate by a long shot.”
I agree. Cruz is too religious for a depraved electorate and too conservative to get enthusiastic GOP support.
“Would it be enough? I believe so, although it’s awfully early to say.”
If he gets the nomination, he has a shot. Crossover democrat votes might compensate for those conservatives who stay home.
“Those who hate him for immigration (something I’ll be writing more on) won’t care.”
I’m one of those who ‘hate’ him on immigration but I’ll vote for him over any democrat. Though I trust him against ISIS and some other issues, I can’t pretend that ultimately, a Rubio Presidency signifies anything beyond a slower March to the Collective.
“…he [Rubio] is now the ‘establishment’ candidate.”
*Yawn*
Everyone here knew that a couple of months ago. The only ones surprised by this were the MSM (and I’m not even sure of that).
The big winner: everyone who said “wait for the votes to be cast to see where the race stands.”
Lookit how smart we are! 🙂
On your point 1: I think a lot of Trump supporters are low-information non-voters. They’re willing to tell a pollster who calls them that they like Trump, but they can’t be bothered to go to a caucus or vote in a primary. It’s a common and easy mistake for those of us who care about politics to think that everyone else is equally concerned, but most are not. Trump, in particular, appeals to people who don’t know and don’t care about politics, because he’s a TV celebrity. This is the main reason he won’t be nominated.
Neo said; “In addition, Democrats really do like Rubio. Polls reflect it; I’ve written about it before. I also have friends–Democrat friends–who have spontaneously told me they like him and would think seriously of voting for him because they dislike Hillary and Sanders.”
I’ll add to the anecdote storehouse: my moderate wife, and my more left leaning brother and sister-in-law have all said this past weekend they would consider Rubio.
I contacted friends who caucus in Iowa City (University of Iowa), Ames (Iowa State), and Cedar Falls (University of Nothern Iowa). They reported lots of college students present last night and observed the young ones were about evenly divided between Rubio, Paul, and Trump supporters; all three gathered more votes than Cruz in the big 3 college towns.
I don’t buy the conspiracy theory than democrats switched party to vote against Trump. If Iowa is indicative of the electorate in 2016 (a rarity) young voters are attracted to R, P, and T. If Rubio is the nominee he may attract a significant dem voting block.
Via Ace — Rush Limbaugh today: Rubio is a “legitimate full-throated conservative”
@Parker: It doesn’t have to be a conspiracy theory. In 2008, some GOP voters in deep blue cities voted in the Democrat primaries in an attempt to stop Obama. Limbaugh was promoting cross-over voting. My wife held her nose and voted for Hillary.
I would like to trust the new Rubio on amnesty and denying illegal aliens a path to citizenship, but he will have a difficult time convincing me he is sincere about this extremely important issue. The one issue where I do trust him is foreign policy. On that issue he gets two thumbs up.
It is a bit ironic that I, an agnostic, do not find Cruz’s evangelical heart on his sleeve off putting. I support him because he is conservative on the issues that I believe are crucial to a republic that is rapidly dying. I vote for my grandchildren. And, good news, a new grandchild will enter our family this year.
I’m reading here about young people going for Rubio. They would vote for him if the candidate, but my sons (26 & 32) like Cruz best, and sense Rubio is an opportunist. Of course we live in California and only know too well the deleterious results of sanctuary city, unabated illegal immigration and Democrat party rule. In an earlier thread GB stated that Rubio would likely just lengthen the time to the complete demise of our Republic. With a significant portion of our young population embracing Sanders and another sizable group willing to vote for Hillary, it’s clear we are on life-support as it is.
PatD,
Ok… but it looks like these particular voters did not go to Cruz, and Trump got his share of the ‘cross-overs’ as my friends observed. I have no reason to think their observations were anamolies. But, the other 96 counties may have been flooded with anti Trump ‘cross-overs’ who voted for Cruz, Rubio, and Carson. Once in a while there is a blue moon.
Fairly often I read about Rubio and how articulate and glib he is. When I listen to him speak I don’t find those qualities very attractive. He sounds to me like a tape recorder being played back with the speed adjusted up slightly. I think he would do himself a favor if he just slowed down a little bit. It’s as if he’s trying to annihilate the natural spacing of spoken words. Having said that, I’d vote for him in a heartbeat over anyone on the other side.
I live close enough to New Hampshire that I could make a day trip down that way, on my day off from work. That might be fun. Estimated costs would be $30 for gas plus $5 for tolls minus whatever food I can help myself to (and I’ll bring my jacket with the big pockets).
Anyone else think I should go? I won’t be able to see Trump, but I would have a good chance of seeing Cruz, Fiorina, Kasich, and Christie. And I could see Clinton, too, but I feel scared about that.
For what it’s worth, Trump has been really big on the radio down here, with the Howie Carr show on WRKO out of Boston. As for TV ads, most of them pre-Iowa were ones that attacked Rubio.
parker Says:
I would like to trust the new Rubio on amnesty and denying illegal aliens a path to citizenship, but he will have a difficult time convincing me he is sincere about this extremely important issue.
Yes, absolutely.
Levin just spent some time reminding us that he had Rubio on his show in 2011 when he was at 5% in the polls. Rubio said he was totally against both amnesty for illegals and a path to citizenship. Then, within 12 months, he betrayed his Tea Party backers and Levin by joining the Gang of 8, with the likes of Schumer, Durbin. McCain, Graham and Flake. He became their main spokesman for amnesty, a path to citizenship, and no border security to speak of.
He really hasn’t backed off much, claiming only that it was a mistake to do it all in one bill, without border security first. He won’t even allow himself to be pinned down to specifics at all about his new immigration proposals, and even dishonestly tries to claim Cruz is for amnesty, too.
I’m really looking forward to Neo’s rationale about Rubio’s new stripes.
I read somewhere that the hang-up rate on polling was quite high – 70-80% if I recall correctly.
Not sure if that number can be confirmed, but if its true, polling is mostly useless at this point. All questions about “why the polls didn’t work” can be answered by that one statistic.
james:
The hang-up rate is very high, but that does not mean that polling is useless. Or at least, it needn’t mean it.
The reason is that of the people who do answer, pollsters have to make sure they are a representative sample in terms of demographics. This is true even if fewer people hang up. If the sample is representative enough, the hangups don’t matter (or at least they matter less; you never know if there’s something importantly different about those who hang up, other than that they hung up).
So let’s say that Iowa has 3% black people (I made that statistic up). You’d want 3% black people, or close to it, in your sample, and if you didn’t have that, it would be flawed. Same with a whole host of factors: religion, education, age, etc. Polling is not just a question of calling people till you get the right number of people who will answer.
For half a year, I’ve been reading columns by “thoughtful” analysts about what Trump meant for the Republican Party. The consensus: an ugly nativism. Yesterday, 60% of Iowan Republicans voted for either Hispanic or black candidates. Donald Trump couldn’t break 25%. I want articles about this in major publications. I want every last one of those analysts not to apologize – because there’s no crime in being wrong – but to analyze what this huge minority success says about the Republican Party. I don’t know who’s going to win this thing, but there were a lot of depictions of Republicans’ character that were made with the assumption that the GOP is racist, and now I want to see an equal amount of discussion about what Iowa’s caucus really showed us.
NIck:
Of coure, we’ll never see it because most of them will never say it. But we should see it.
Rush Limbaugh mentioned it, by the way—I happened to come across this, which he said today: “Sixty percent of the Republican vote in Iowa last night went for two Hispanics and an African-American, and 100% of the Democrat vote went for a couple of tired, old, decrepit white people.”
Hillary’s winning streak explained:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbInZ5oJ0bc
Trump is a democrat running as a republican. We are in the last year of a narcissistic egomaniac who knows nothing about the world (EVERYTHING IS FINE IN HIS IVORY TOWER) and who has been a disaster, no way will I vote to replace him with another narcissistic who boasts that he will be able to deal with Pelosi and Reid. If it is Trump vs Clinton I will for the first time ever vote for a democrat in the election (1976 was my first election), the only way Trump gets my vote is if Bernie is the nominee (imo he’s the only one more liberal than Trump).
Preferred order – Cruz, Carly and then Rubio.
As for the general – Cruz can win and will win. Every speech I’ve seen him give has been good with optimism, self effacement and good humor. Besides, anyone who can quote Princess Bride and read Green Eggs and Ham on the Senate floor is priceless.
Why vote Hillary over Trump? Simple, he would do the same things she would and that would be even more disastrous because then The GOP would be equally responsible for this mess. The DEMS own Obamacare, own the pathetic economy, own the mess in Iraq, own the blood that will be spilled when Iran blows up Israel and they should continue to own it!!!
I will vote for Rubio because like Neo says he would be the most conservative to run since Reagan and would be a good president, but Cruz has the potential to be a great president!
IMHO
1 more thing postal abreviations
AL – Alabama
AZ – Arizona
AR – Arkansas
AK – Alaska
sfc — Cruz can’t win. He’ll get no crossovers, no independents, no Reagan Democrats. And a lot of LIVs who would have stayed home — kids, African-Americans, women — will come out to vote against him. I mean, if you knew nothing, and just saw one appearance of each on TV, who would you vote for, Cruz or Biden?
I’d prefer Carly, but I’d vote for Rubio in a heartbeat, because
WINNING ISN’T EVERYTHING — WINNING IS THE ONLY THING!
Cruz is too evangelical and too conservative.
Can that be OK?
Too devout, too conservative? So say you all?
But it’s OK for Barack to go to a mosque tomorrow.
it is s 1 c – as in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S1C_reactor
The no independents is a GOPe trick. He will destroy the Democrat in the debates. I expect and believe he will get a large expansion in the Hispanic vote – maybe over 50% but much greater than the 35% and he will get an increase in the Black vote, not that the black vote will mean as much but if he approaches 20% that will double it historically. As for the Reagan Democrats – they are gone Republican or did you think the Republican growth in the south was just snowbirds moving down there.
I grew up in the south when the Democrats were the conservatives, but as the party drifted left, they moved to the GOP. As for the LIV’s – I know plenty of them here in CT. I see them daily at work, they were Rubio followers (not sold on Hillary), but after showing them his speeches they have slowly came around to being Cruz supporters. One convert at a time.
I also believe that millions of conservatives stayed home the last 2 elections because they just could not vote for McCain and Romney was not much better so even more stayed home. If you truly give the people a choice, a stark choice then you would be surprised.
People forget that McCain was winning until he stopped his campaign and then started it up again over the financial crisis, but that was because his pick of Palin energized people who were not sold on him, nor should they have been, a Keating 5 senator and his absolute knifing of George W Bush after the election. McCain and Gramnesty are the chief Rino’s in the Senate with the dear leader Mitch running a close 3rd.
Cruz would win by 10 points with an energetic base coming out in droves for him. Rubio would win, but get ready for Amnesty because he will push for it. Trump would just say forget it, no wall, no enforcement and oh yeah Trump would lose by 10 because the Democrats will go Romney II on him and because he isn’t as good of a man as Romney they would succeed.
Rubio, Carly and Cruz will fight and they will do it such a way as to make people sit up and notice. Don’t thinks so, then reflect on the “apology” that Cruz gave about NY values!
‘I’m not sure whether Steve D. meant to put Rubio down when he wrote “bottom of the barrel,”’
I meant it the way you took it (the most natural meaning). I don’t have anything against Rubio. I think he’s more honest than most politicians today. I’d vote for him in a heartbeat against most of the present candidates but…
This is a critical election, maybe not the last chance for the US to reverse direction but close enough. The populist (demagogue) campaigns of Trump and especially Sanders have ushered in a new stage in the long slow march of the US toward a dictatorship. Trump and Sanders are effects, not causes, made possible only by the low state of our culture. Only a few decades ago both men would have withered before they got out of the gate which demonstrates how far we have fallen and how fast.
To change the politics we need to change the culture. For that we need time and time is running out. Our existential threat is not immigration as the Trump supporters like to bleat but the loss of our freedom. My issues (to foster freedom) are individual rights and the rule of law. In America that means fealty to the constitution. So my support goes to the candidate most likely to remain true to the constitution and through it the rule of law. I’m pretty sure all your readers know who I am talking about so I don’t need to name him.
@Steve D:
Our existential threats are both illegal immigration and the loss of of our freedoms and the two are linked.
Illegal immigration is encouraged by Democrats because they want to legalize illegals, give them a path to citizenship and make them an ever expanding Democrat voting block. Most of the illegals will go on welfare. Large numbers will be involved in criminal enterprises, such as selling heroin at $10/hit to HS and College students.
Supporting the illegal underclass costs taxpayers billions of dollars. 36% of our prison population is comprised of illegal immigrants. That is a huge burden on tax payers.
Taxes have to go up to pay for illegal free-loaders and felons. As taxes go up, freedom goes down. As illegals gain political power, the freedom to oppose them becomes more limited. Say a bad word about an illegal, and La Raza and the PC police will shut you down. Say a bad word about Muslim immigrants and the full force of the PC state will descend upon you.
BTW, illegal immigrants and Sharia compliant Muslims don’t give a tuppeny f*ck about individual rights and the rule of law. Obama opened the flood-gates to them because he doesn’t give a tuppeny about American values and the constitution.
I know who you are talking about and you know who I am talking about. I’m going with the guy with the guts to tackle the PC police head-on, and not back-down.
‘the two are linked.’
Yes, but not the way you think because you have cause and effect mixed up and by doing so you are playing into the enemies hands who have been trying to force us into tribes for decades.
I know the guy you are talking about and he will switch sides as soon as he is nominated. but I think you already know that and that’s the whole point.
s 1 c,
I understand RA’s rationale. But I, like you and Steve D, see the clarion call of Cruz’s movement. It reminds me of Reagan. Every accusation, every criticism, every bleat about why Reagan was a disaster reminds me of the sentiments aimed at Cruz. Aim small, miss small.
I will be twice blessed in a lifetime to see Cruz take the oath of office.
Steve D, 11:04 pm — “This is a critical election, maybe not the last chance for the US to reverse direction but close enough.”
The last chance was 2012. [Said it before, will say it again.]
So why am I still involved?
-1- I’m a political junkie;
-2- I gawk at auto accidents;
-3- The flame must burn for the remnant, our political progeny.
-4- I don’t think I’m wrong about 2012, but I concede I *may* be wrong. (It’s rare, but it does happen. Hey, ask my wife!)
And in that rare event, I’d like to get it right in 2016!
s1c – Sorry, I saw that and immediately thought Sergeant First Class.
And no, this isn’t the GOP Establishment talking, this is an old fart who campaigned for Goldwater and saw him go down to defeat 62-38%, and who is trying to pass on that knowledge. Cruz is a fine, upstanding man, a principled conservative with a brilliant mind, who will go down to defeat — just like Barry Goldwater.
Who’s the only full-on conservative elected in my lifetime — Ronald Reagan. Does Cruz have any of the charisma of Reagan? Any of the ability to reach out to non-self-identified conservatives that Reagan had? Not by a long shot.
You don’t like that charisma and folksiness are required? You want a principled conservative?
Well, I have long believed that human beings only learn through pain, so, you get Cruz, your principled conservative nominated, and watch him go down to ignominious defeat, then join me at the bar — I’ll buy you a 50 cent beer (1964 prices) that you can cry into.
Richard
Not old enough to have worked for Goldwater but I do remember the campaign, mainly I remember the “Ad” that turned that campaign.
Times are different now, and the young folks don’t like Hillary because they sense the hypocrisy and they aren’t for Trump for the same reasons. As for Cruz, don’t sell the man short, he has a different charisma and they will respond to that, because Cruz will reach out to them. Rubio has more of the charm, but I don’t trust him when it comes to immigration because he still listens to the Schumers and McCains.
Ask yourself this, If Cruz is so unlikable why is he still winning? Every endorsement has gone against him but he still won! That means he is reaching the people himself. Watch his interactions with the other side on global warming, on NASA’s job etc.
As Instapundit says they loathe Trump, but they fear Cruz.
“. . . but they fear Cruz.”
And if you believe Cruz’s own assessment of the situation, it is not him they fear but you and the millions of us little people who demand to take our sovereignty back. Now of course it is possible that Cruz lies to us, that he does not represent our interests as he goes about his political business. However, we can see what distinguishes his speech and actions from the speech and actions of his fellow competitors for the office. Cruz is remarkably consistent in word and deed, consonant with the Constitution; his speech and actions are remarkably coherent, consonant with the Constitution; whereas his fellow competitors are not so very consistent or coherent, save for one or two who have not quite as much political experience or at the moment, electoral weight, like the good Doctor. But by golly, it’s almost as though Cruz, in political matters, views himself as ruled by the Constitution, rather than overruling it at every hand.
It isn’t difficult to see why the ruling class fears the country class, is it?
Apparently Rand Paul has just suspended his campaign.
Hmm, what’s this?
There’s a great deal more of that. Whooof.
Regarding Trump’s tweets about Cruz “stealing” the Iowa caucuses through fraud, I had a momentary vision: it is as though Trump, in the interests of showing his utter opposition to political correctness or “PC” had decided to tweet out the ultimate break with PC language, only ironically couched in other figures of speech (the anti-Cruz tweets in question) so as to say: I, Donald Trump, am so completely opposed to PC language I declare myself to be a moral cretin America! Take that, PC!
@sdferr:
Trump is referring to the Cruz campaign falsely claiming that Ben Carson was dropping and that his supporters should switch to Cruz. Parker reported that on his blog.
Trump is also pointing at a Cruz flyer that was threatening and dishonest.
Strange, PatD, you seem to think I don’t know what Trump is referring to, and furthermore that I don’t know that Trump’s accusations are all a pack of lies? You needn’t take me for such a simpleton. You’re welcome to make yourself one along with Trump however, if you like.
s1c — Cruz is winning in the PRIMARIES! THE PRIMARIES! That’s easy to do, because the number of people who are interested in politics enough to vote in a primary or caucus is so small.
The primaries are the scrimmage. The national election is THE GAME! Think about THE GAME! THE GAME! THE GAME!
I am thinking of the GAME – here’s a story about Cruz that you might find interesting http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/the-top-10-things-you-need-to-know-about-ted-cruz/
s1c – you don’t have to convince me what a great guy, brilliant lawyer, real conservative, lover of the Constitution, etc., etc., etc., Cruz is. I agree, and I’ve posted here before that I agree. Just tell me how Cruz gets votes from independents, Reagan Democrats, moderate Republicans, and keeps the yout’s and African-Americans home.