Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Republicans in Iowa did good tonight

Republicans in Iowa did good tonight

I still trust the people on this more than I trust the media.

The Iowa results are Cruz – Trump – Rubio, in that order, with Rubio surprisingly strong and (as of this writing) very close to taking second place.

This is a big blow to Trump, and a big win for Cruz. Trump seemed unstoppable, with the most recent polls showing him up by 7 points.

That is the big story of the night. At least in one state, Trumpmentum was stopped for a night. While Trump is far ahead in the polls in New Hampshire and nationally, this could burst the media narrative of inevitability.

For Cruz, it’s vindication. He has come under the sharpest attack in the past two weeks, and has been subjected to the sort of vetting and scrutiny that — while uncomfortable — was better coming now than later.

Cruz Iowa Results 2

For Rubio, this is the moment when he established himself as a viable contender. Now Rubio has to show he can turn caucus support into primary support. There will be pressure on others to drop out, and the first should be Jeb Bush.

Rubio Iowa Results 2

I don’t know where this is going, but the voters of Iowa did good tonight.

It has been really hard the past weeks to try to keep our coverage balanced. I respect the varying views of the readership, but our authors also have their own views. I suspect those views will come into sharper focus in the coming weeks.

In talking about the rise of Trump, and what it might portend, I wrote:

I figure the folks will figure it out at the voting booth. I trust the people on this more than I trust the media.

Iowa confirmed my faith in the folks. I hope they continue to figure it out at the voting booth in the upcoming states.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Good for Cruz.
With any luck, Trump will unload on Rubio with well-deserved negative ads, which may blunt Fox News’ push for Rubio.

It’s not a big blow to Trump. (Many predicted he would lose to Cruz in Iowa. The same pundits predict Trump will win in New Hampshire.)

    You’re right, it’s not a final blow to Trump, but Trump supporters expected him to win Iowa. He did not.

    casualobserver in reply to TheFineReport.com. | February 2, 2016 at 1:31 am

    Seems like a shocker for Trump to me. Massive, historical turnout especially of first- timers. Some reporting as many as 60k more than ever. Yet Trump came in second. So that means a whole bunch got motivated to get out and caucus AGAINST him.

    “Many predicted he would lose to Cruz in Iowa. The same pundits predict Trump will win in New Hampshire.”

    Could you list some of these “many” who predicted Trump would lose in Iowa but will win in New Hampshire?

    I don’t recall “many” polls or pundits — or even commenters on this blog — predicting Trump would lose in Iowa but will win in Mew Hampshire.

      Estragon in reply to Amy in FL. | February 2, 2016 at 6:57 am

      It’s the voices in his head again.

        It’s really weird – I’ve just seen that narrative a couple of other places this morning as well. “Silly, nobody ever thought Trump was going to win Iowa anyway!”

        “And here’s another thing that’s bugging me. I just looked at AOL and their big headline for the GOP caucus was MAJOR UPSET. No it wasn’t. That’s so stupid. Cruz was predicted to win until the last few days and Trump was predicted to be second with Rubio coming in third. Until the last few days with the talking heads and their pollsters started chattering about a major shift.”

        They’re obviously coordinating their talking points, but this one is so far removed from reality that I can’t imagine what they think they’re accomplishing with it. Anyone can hop over to RCP and check the poll averages for the last couple of weeks.

    Someone in reply says his fans expected him to win. Actually, that’s not true. He’s not spent as much time in Iowa as Cruz. He really only focused more on it recently and his people guiding the caucuses were fewer in number.

    That he did so well considering (only 4 percent behind) is very telling given these facts. And you can not where Rubio’s support was and that was urban areas, that also points out a weakness for him.

    I would hope that this encourages more of the other candidates to drop out than anything else. Huckabee’s now gone and so should a lot of others. That they stay in and muddy the waters is due to the rules which allow the candidate to keep any donations left over after a campaign.

      gmac124 in reply to jakee308. | February 2, 2016 at 10:03 am

      “That he did so well considering (only 4 percent behind) is very telling given these facts. And you can not where Rubio’s support was and that was urban areas, that also points out a weakness for him.”

      Other than the fact that ALL of the polls jumped Trump over Cruz when he sold out to big ethanol and got Sarah Palin to endorse him.

Obama succeeded in corrupting the Republican Party, as evidenced by two ineligibles placing in the top three in Iowa. A great victory for cultural Marxism.

    HandyGandy in reply to Skookum. | February 2, 2016 at 1:12 am

    It bothers me to hear some people say that only someone who is born on US soil can become President. ( This is the definition some are using. )

    As an example, let us assume that the next President makes Newt ambassador to Belgium to keep him out of the way. ( Smart guy that next President. )

    While in Belgium, Newt’s wife gives birth to Newt Jr.. Is he disqualified from being President because he was born in Belgium?
    What if his wife was just there visiting him and gave birth three weeks early. Does she have to go to the American embassy and give birth in there for Newt Jr. to be able to run for President?

    Cruz’s parents seem to have been going back and forth between America and Canada a lot, and we have the closest ties of any country to Canada. Frankly I think Cruz has a better claim then certain others.

      Milhouse in reply to HandyGandy. | February 2, 2016 at 4:24 am

      Ambassadors’ children are explicitly excepted from the normal rule, in both directions. The fourteenth amendment says that a child born to someone who just sneaked over the border five minutes earlier is a US citizen, but a child born in the USA to a foreign ambassador is not. And Blackstone says explicitly that children born abroad to “the King’s Embassadors” are natural born subjects, because they are born under the King’s protection.

      NC Mountain Girl in reply to HandyGandy. | February 2, 2016 at 7:44 am

      I seem to recall that John S. McCain III was born in Panama because his father, a future CINPAC, was posted there by the US Navy. That doesn’t make him a Panamanian.

        “I seem to recall that John S. McCain III was born in Panama because his father, a future CINPAC, was posted there by the US Navy. That doesn’t make him a Panamanian.”

        Because McCain was born to two US citizens on US soil who were serving their country, there was never any serious question as to McCain’s natural-born citizenship.

      Skookum in reply to HandyGandy. | February 2, 2016 at 2:18 pm

      “It bothers me to hear some people say that only someone who is born on US soil can become President. ( This is the definition some are using. )

      “As an example, let us assume that the next President makes Newt ambassador to Belgium to keep him out of the way. ( Smart guy that next President. )

      “While in Belgium, Newt’s wife gives birth to Newt Jr.. Is he disqualified from being President because he was born in Belgium?

      “What if his wife was just there visiting him and gave birth three weeks early. Does she have to go to the American embassy and give birth in there for Newt Jr. to be able to run for President?

      “Cruz’s parents seem to have been going back and forth between America and Canada a lot, and we have the closest ties of any country to Canada. Frankly I think Cruz has a better claim then certain others.”

      Read Vattel’s “Law of Nations.” In general, one is natural-born if one is born on a nation’s soil to two citizen parents.

      Obama has freely admitted being born to a Kenyan father who was never a US citizen, and to being born a citizen of the UK and Colonies.

      Cruz has admitted being born in Canada to a father who was either a Cuban or Canadian citizen who did not become a US citizen until a decade ago; he has also freely admitted to being born a Canadian citizen.

      Rubio has admitted being born in the US to parents who were Cuban citizens at the time.

      All three are not natural-born citizens. Not surprisingly, all three support the cultural Marxist concept of open borders to some degree.

      As to your Newt ambassador scenario, Vattel addresses it — the offspring of citizen foreign service employees born overseas on embassy grounds are natural-born citizens. In the 1700s children were born at home, not in hospitals. It seems reasonable to extend NBCship to hospital births to citizen foreign service personnel, as one cannot punish someone for serving his country.

      Vattel also says that a birth on a vessel registered to one’s nation is the same as a birth on that nation’s soil.

      You’ve earned your cultural Marxist card by saying that a Canadian citizen should be eligible for the presidency if his parents visit the US often enough. In a republic the rule of law prevails, not your feelings. But, we are in a post-constitutional era when even many so-called conservatives are fully pozzed. Exactly what are you conserving if it is not the Constitution?

      The principles of constitutional construction require that every word be given force and effect. Knowing that only the corrupt can interpret “natural born citizen” to mean “born citizen.” Furthermore, the Constitution grants Congress the power to establish a system of naturalization, the process by which a noncitizen becomes a citizen. Congress has no authority to redefine natural born citizenship, and the NBC clause has never been amended. Thus, anyone who must point to a law to prove his citizenship cannot be natural born.

      Obama thanks you for accepting his fundamental transformation, fellow traveler.

    casualobserver in reply to Skookum. | February 2, 2016 at 1:25 am

    You can’t be taken seriously.

      I remember when conservatives took the Constitution and the best interests of the country seriously.

        Barry in reply to Skookum. | February 3, 2016 at 2:24 am

        “I remember when conservatives took the Constitution and the best interests of the country seriously.”

        Perhaps you should read the constitution. Please let us all know where you find the definition of “natural born”.

    HandyGandy in reply to Skookum. | February 2, 2016 at 4:45 am

    While I disagree with your post, I think there is a significant issue here. First it was Obama, now it is Cruz and Rubio.

    I think sometime in between giving Obama something else he wants, and passing “laugh like Mork” day Congress should pass a law.

    The law would require a person to file an affidavit with the FEC claiming they would be eligible to be president on inaugural day.
    The FEC would then certify their eligibility. No person can take steps towards running for President until they have been certified.

    Estragon in reply to Skookum. | February 2, 2016 at 6:59 am

    No US court has ever accepted your idiotic interpretation of “natural born.”

      Skookum in reply to Estragon. | February 2, 2016 at 2:34 pm

      No corrupt court has ever addressed the issue. The vast majority have chosen to run interference for Obama like SCOTUS did on Obamacare. Our judiciary lead our three branches of government down the path of corruption by cultural Marxism. You can’t find a single case that concludes Obama is a natural-born citizen.

Congratulations to Hillary Cruz.
First it was mailergate. Now it’s drop-outgate.
http://time.com/4203730/ben-carson-ted-cruz-caucus-dirty-tricks/
What’s next?

About the time Trump announced, I was thinking Cruz, Walker, Carson. I added Trump. For about the last month though, Cruz has been making me seriously think about him. It started when he said that his plan was to collect Trump voters when Trump collapsed. One of the things that impressed me is that he agreed in part with some of Trump’s stands and refused to attack them. But how much of that was just an act to woo Trump voters.

These three things seriously make me reconsider Cruz.

    @HandyGandy, every single candidate intends to pick up the supporters of every other candidate. They all want to be the last man (or woman) standing, so they are all, including Trump, trying to woo the supporters of the other candidates. This is nothing new, and it’s certainly not a reason to reconsider someone … unless they were too stupid to think strategically about winning.

    You actually didn’t mention three points, just the one, so I hope I’ve addressed that for you.

      HandyGandy in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | February 2, 2016 at 1:28 am

      1) Agreeing with Trump so that when Trump fades, he gets Trumps voters.
      2) mailergate
      3) drop-out gate.

      That’s three.

      As for wooing, that’s the Democratic party. The Republicans just listen to some stump speeches and vote. Even if they did, I could understand pandering, exaggerating records etc. . I cannot understand outright lying. I’m sure right now, any Carson supporters who voted for Cruz are thinking, like Annette O’Toole said to martin Short in some movie, “I wish I could take back the sex.”

        As I explained, HandyGandy, as you must know, every candidate wants every other candidates’ supporters. That’s how it works, right?

        As for the mailers, so what? I get those every single election year; they “shame” my neighbors by showing who voted and who didn’t. Newsflash: people who don’t vote don’t care who knows it. This whole mailer shaming thing is a non-starter; these mailers typically end up where mine do, in the trash.

        I’m not sure what you mean by “drop-out gate,” but if you mean that Cruz’s success means that others drop out . . . um, what? Would you be upset if Trump–or whomever you support–was doing so well that others dropped out as a result?

        This is a presidential primary, and several things are a given: 1. ALL candidates want to be the last man (or woman) standing, and 2. ALL candidates WANT every other candidate to drop out.

        If your candidate doesn’t want the support of the other candidates after they drop out, you may want to think more carefully about your choice.

          HandyGandy in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | February 2, 2016 at 2:29 am

          Let’s get this clear?
          You are saying that as long as Hilary Cruz is “the last man standing”, it would be OK for him to position his supporters a legal distance from pols in NH and pass out flyers saying that Rubio is child molester?

          You are saying that as long as Hilary Cruz is “the last man standing”, it would be OK for him to position his supporters a legal distance from pols in NH and pass out flyers saying that Rubio is child molester?

          Sorry, pressed enter too soon.

          But, wow. Just wow. Is there some secret hidden version of this blog I’m not seeing, one where one of the co-bloggers is giving advice like “as long as Cruz is “the last man standing”, it would be OK for him to position his supporters a legal distance from pols in NH and pass out flyers saying that Rubio is a child molester” ?

          Because I somehow missed that one.

          HandyGandy in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | February 2, 2016 at 3:59 am

          The mailer doesn’t bother you? So were you posting on 2012? Do you have a post saying that it wasn’t significant that MoveOn sent out that “Voter Record Mailer”? You do realized that Cruz mailer was more egregious.

          In fact Hillary Cruz created some legal difficulties for himself. Being a Hillary though, he will never be called on it.

          Either those voting records were accurate in which case he probably broke Iowa election law by redistributing “licensed” material. Or if they were fake, as it looks like they probably were, then he libeled voters whose records did not come close to the percentages he printed.

          HandyGandy in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | February 2, 2016 at 4:24 am

          I’m not sure what you mean by “drop-out gate,”

          In other words you don’t know what you are talking about. Why are you replying to a post that you don’t understand?

          These instructions are simple, but since you have trouble counting to three …

          Let me know if they give you any trouble. I’ll try to simplify them even more.

          1. Beside the keyboard of your computer, there should be this box. You move the thing and the is pointer on the screen moves.
          On some computers you might have something else, but usually it is a box of some kind.

          2. Use this box to move the pointer up to my original post. There should be some orange/red text. Move the pointer over this text.

          3. On the box there should be some buttons. Push down on the left-most button.

          4. A new story should replace this page. Read the story.

          Now you should be able to discuss the post intelligent … that is, discuss the post more intelligently.

      DuraMater in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | February 2, 2016 at 11:06 am

      Absolutely true. I’ve rec’d the “shaming” mailers and so has one of my family members who is a registered Dem. It is a research driven strategy that I first saw in 2012 and by following up with my local elections board, discovered such lists are available for purchase by campaigns.

    accusations that all stem from ONE reporter.

    Carson accused the Cruz campaign of telling his supporters that Carson had dropped out, but the Cruz people deny it. Actually, news organizations were reporting that Carson was leaving before the caucuses, but not to go to New Hampshire or South Carolina. They started the rumor that Carson may be dropping out. If an individual Cruz supporter heard that and used it to push his guy in a caucus, that’s not Cruz’s fault. Blame it on the news organizations.

      HandyGandy in reply to NbyNW. | February 2, 2016 at 2:33 am

      And if were Clinton supporters doing it to Sandersz, would you buy that excuse. I think not.

        Tyrconnell in reply to HandyGandy. | February 2, 2016 at 3:27 am

        Why wouldn’t someone buy it? It is logical, the story was out in early afternoon that Carson was going to Florida and, in versions, skipping going to N.H. or S.C.

    Ragspierre in reply to HandyGandy. | February 2, 2016 at 5:53 am

    Yeeeeup. You’re an idiot.

I see where Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) issued an endorsement for Rubio tonight once results were in. He is becoming a sore disappointment in his leanings toward establishment. Hoped he would have better judgement and not become another go along/ getalong.

    The establishment’s power is substantial. It takes a Herculean effort to withstand its pull.

      Indeed it does, Rick. This makes me appreciate Cruz all the more.

        DuraMater in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | February 2, 2016 at 11:15 am

        Me too, Fuzzy. Me, too. And, yes, I know Rick is right but I’ve seen others stand up to the heat and hoped the same character would be manifest in those I’d supported for election.

      Valerie in reply to Rick. | February 2, 2016 at 11:27 am

      “The Establishment” is the product of the cumulated decisions by voters across this entire country. It represents 2/3 of the Senate and half the Congress. It should have substantial power.

        Radegunda in reply to Valerie. | February 2, 2016 at 11:46 am

        It’s odd how people complain that “the GOP keeps giving us bad candidates,” and imagine that if they sit out the election they’ll “send a message to the GOP” to do better next time. How do they think that works?

        OTOH, there are some thoughtful people who, when they say “the establishment,” refer to how elected representatives abandon principles on which voters elected them and become Washington-centric in their priorities.

        So there is a serious point in criticism of “the establishment.” But Trump is not our savior from it.

Very happy with Cruz victory.

But we need to slam the door on Rubio before he worms his into the race.

Rumor has it that Huckabee will announce tomorrow that he is out.

I just wish Bush, Kasich, Fiorina, Christie, and Santorum would all do the same.

They should limit the next debate to the top 5 vote getters.

    Lee Jan in reply to HandyGandy. | February 2, 2016 at 7:27 am

    Huckster trashed Cruz in the last days so of course,
    NY Values guy praised Huckster on his way out. Check out the Daily News front page. Awesome.

Patterico is having way too much fun with this.

http://patterico.com/2016/02/01/donald-trump-loser/

I’m really glad for these results, but it’s worth keeping in mind that this is just the first primary of many. I think many people’s inclination is to play up the importance of Iowa if their guy wins; and to downplay the importance of Iowa if their guy doesn’t.

President Santorum would probably be the first to urge caution against premature triumphalism or over-emphasizing the importance of Iowa in the grand scheme of things.

Based on Cruz’ win and the numbers who voted Republican over Deemocrat it appears that “fly-over” Midwest is shooting down High falutin NYC values.

Congratulations to Ted!
We must prepare for the coming battles. Please read and pass along this posting by Lloyd Marcus from American Thinker
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/voter_fraud_we_see_dead_people.html

    DuraMater in reply to Lewfarge. | February 2, 2016 at 12:04 pm

    I was looking for a place to post this info yesterday but couldn’t justify hijacking threads to insert . So I’m gonna put it out right here….

    Couple days ago, I read a L. Marcus piece at AT which was complimentary of Cruz. Trumpbots descended upon his piece similar to what has been observed at BB.
    Yesterday at the AT site, there were at least 3 articles and blog entries with titles suggesting either Cruz compliment or Trump criticism. Clicking the titles….the articles had been “disappeared”. All other articles of the day, including 2 by Trump supporters remained intact.

    I would like to think this was shear coincidence but must realistically entertain the alternative, sinister bot hit.

      DuraMater in reply to DuraMater. | February 2, 2016 at 12:09 pm

      Accordingly, I think Cruz supporters nationwide will need to up our game as computer warriors and strike back hard each and every time we witness foul info or file drops, whether originating from DNC or GOP or Trump, Carson, Huckabees.

My friends that had their head up Trumps rump may now take a breath and realize their guy is just a man. Not a god.

I’m glad at least some of our Sturmtrumperz are trying spin their way out of their butt-hurt, which must burn.

It is good practice for them.

Where are all the poll dancers…???

T-rump came || that close to a third place finish.

Interesting, no?

It is amazing the way the media is going on about Hillary’s great massive win of one more delegate than a 73 year old socialist reincarnation of Rev Jim Ignatowsky

Close shave: Indictable Hillary is feeling the razor Bern.

I know that I’ve just cautioned against triumphalism, but still…

Bacon for breakfast, anyone? 😀

One of several headlines that SHOULD come out of this…

“Crony Capitalist Politics As Usual Eats Big One In Iowa”

And I simply could not be more proud of Iowa conservatives!

    DuraMater in reply to Ragspierre. | February 2, 2016 at 11:44 am

    I want to send Steve King, Van derPlaats, Tony Perkins and several other genuine stalwart supporters a valentine. They were true yeomen, locked at the hip with the campaign and true conservative values voters.

Jim Geraghty…

“Take that bow, senator; you just won more votes in the Iowa caucus than any other Republican in history.”

Eric Ericson…

“Iowa Rejects Donald Trump’s Politics of Jackassery By 75%”

…and who says statistics can’t be FUN…???

    “Iowa Rejects Ted Cruz’s Politics of Jackassery By 72%”

    See how that works. Good night for Cruz.

    I think you celebrate a bit early.

It comes down to the Canadian versus the New Yorker. Rubio’s out of it.

The GOPe won last night.

Not Cruz.

I hope all the gleeful Cruz people here are happy with Rubio — establishment incompetence and opportunism, or another Democrat president. Because that’s what you will accomplish if you keep shooting down Trump, and spreading lies, invectives, and venom. The Trump campaign is populist, unlike the Romney campaign, which was heavily supported and protected by much of the media as well as establishment. Your continuing pile-on is supporting the liberal and establishment hysterics anti-Trump.

Cruz is being used as a tool against Trump in the interests of supporting Rubio and maintaining the status quo. And Rubio is basically Jeb Bush. Without the experience. Cruz knows all this; that is why he turned to campaigning mostly against Rubio and not Trump the week before this first primary, even though Trump was leading in the polls.

Cruz thinks he can play both ends against the middle and somehow come out on top. I fear that he cannot. Iowa pretty consistently has voted for the most right-wing person running. Huckabee. Santorum.

If Cruz can manage to win South Carolina and Florida then I will reconsider. But if he doesn’t, and the chance is huge that he won’t, I hope you will reconsider what you are doing.

    JimMtnViewCaUSA in reply to janitor. | February 2, 2016 at 11:32 am

    My guy Cruz had a good, in fact excellent, night. I think he got more votes than any Repub in the history of the Iowa primary.
    That said, I have 2 comments in response to Janitor.
    1) Cruz is not the puppet of the GOPe. If anything they hate and fear him more than Trump.
    2) You are correct in basically all you say. Trump deserves all the credit in the world for standing tall against the media. He refuses to bow down to PC and public shaming. He sees that the GOPe has been taking our votes yet doing nothing for years. And, let’s be honest. This was ONE result. Iowa is normally an outlier, not a predictor. At the conclusion of NH voting anti-Trump forces may be gnashing their teeth in frustration.

    gmac124 in reply to janitor. | February 2, 2016 at 11:46 am

    “The GOPe won last night.

    Not Cruz.”

    Oh my god the sky is falling. Trump lost so of course ONLY Bush…oh wait RUBIO can win. This trope is getting old.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to janitor. | February 2, 2016 at 12:33 pm

    I warned his supporters that Trump would break their hearts and here we have the tears pouring out of the monitor.

      No tears here.

      Cruz and Trump at the top is damn good.

      Mr. NY values came in second, close to 1st, with more votes than any republican in history except for Cruz, in an evangelical vote state, not what would be considered his strength.

      You Trump haters celebrate way too early…

Polling became unreliable when landlines started going away. I doubt it will be missed by many.

Comparing the total numbers of Dem and Repub, I see about 1400 Dem and 182,000 Repub. Can I intrepret this to mean that 130 times more Repubs turned out to support their candidates than Dems? What is wrong with these numbers? Does this presage a dismal Dem turnout in November?

    gmac124 in reply to LWP. | February 2, 2016 at 11:11 am

    Democrat and Republican caucus are set up differently. In Democrat caucus the voters discus their representative and come to a consensus on the winner. The winner gets the vote for that precinct. There are approximately 1400 precincts.

    The republicans have stump speeches for their candidates and than a vote is taken. This is also why only 3 democrats received votes while all of the republicans received some support.

NC Mountain Girl | February 2, 2016 at 10:32 am

The Iowa entrance polls show that the percentage of self identifying evangelicals at the Republican caucus was much higher that it had been in 2008 and 2012. That’s interesting as I know evangelicals who consider political activity too worldly to be of concern to them. Those evangelicals favored Cruz. That bodes well for Cruz on Super Tuesday.

riverlife_callie | February 2, 2016 at 11:22 am

I am constantly reading that Trump is the only one that can beat Hillary. What needs to be emphasized with Cruz’s victory, I think, is that the Iowa turnout was historic. And Trump lost. I believe that many turned out specifically to cast a vote against Trump. A lot of people, including me, are disgusted by Trump’s ass-hattery, and this is a motivator. In any case, good job, Iowa.

    A guy from Iowa told a radio show in another state that there was no prearranged speaker for Trump in his own precinct so he got up and spoke “from the heart.” He concluded that poor Donald must have suffered from not having supporters to speak for him in every precinct.

    Host concurred: Yes, it isn’t because people don’t really prefer Trump; it’s only because Cruz was better organized!

    In other words: The one and only guy with the boldness and savvy and pure love of America to save us all couldn’t organize a ground campaign, or he didn’t bother?

    Also, Trump was the best-known candidate from the start (which at least partly explains how easily he got a big following), and he has gotten vastly more media attention throughout the campaign – but somehow people just didn’t have a way to hear enough about the greatness of Trump? Really?

    BTW, the questions in my reply comment aren’t directed at you. Obviously you would see the weirdness of the pro-Trump spin I heard this morning.

It is a bit premature to draw any solid conclusions from the Iowa caucus results. The delegate allocation procedures vary widely from state to state. In the case of Iowa, Cruz, Trump and Rubio all won approximately an equal number of delegates. The lesser candidates picked up the remaining 24%.As only the top two, or possibly three, candidates will be viable at the convention, that means that the remaining delegates will be free to cast votes for any of those candidates, based upon a myriad of factors. Until the primaries held on March 15, all of the primaries have proportional accreditation of delegates. But, the criteria for such assignment varies widely. Texas is the only major state primary prior to the March 15. On the March 15th threshold, the rules change, allowing many states to award delegates on a winner take all basis. This substantively changes the primary race. If the pack remains large, it can “throw” the delegates to a minority candidate by draining votes form one of the front runners. According to the RNC, this system is supposed to both keep a single candidate from gaining the number of allocated delegates to lock in the nomination prior to the March 15 primaries. It is also supposed to winnow a large field through attrition, with minor candidates expected to drop out prior to the March 15th primaries. The proportional allocation of delegates, in the early elections, will allow a significant percentage of allocated delegates to become “free” to support a major candidate at the convention. This makes manipulation of the delegates, by the RNC, much easier at the convention.

So, until we see what happens with the Super Tuesday primaries on March 1st, it is going to be very difficult to make any real predictions on the outcome. Then there is California, on June 7th. California is in a position to decide a close contest or to cement a win for the leader. Usually, that late in the contest, many voters will either not bother to vote and those who do will usually be party faithful who will support the leading “front-runner”.

This is a very confusing process, at present.

These numbers look like a three-way tie for the Repubs and a dead heat for the Dems, with a substantial element of protest. Meanwhile, todays San Diego Union-Tribune published an editorial by Michael Gerson again, this one pleading for eventual nominations that leave out Trump and Sanders.

https://www.gazettextra.com/20160201/michael_gerson_the_american_dream_has_not_been_stolen

Michael Gerson is from the Washington Post, and this opinion article, like so many before it, substitutes gross mischaracterizations of Republican (and Sanders) positions for any genuine analysis of any issues. Shame on him. Here’s his chosen moneyshot:

“The actual problems of our economy will not be solved by barbed wire on the border.”

So, the many specific issues raised by Republicans having to do with policies that have needlessly prolonged and deepened a recession, are reduced to nativism.

This is why Trump continues to get a significant portion of votes: the voters know that influential people like Gerson aren’t listening.

I believe the same is true of Sanders. Yes, he’s an old commie, but he is not Hillary. He has an appealing streak of decency, AND the kiddies know that what we’ve done to our educational system is a sin against them. They know a college education can and should be affordable. They know we have the means to accomplish that goal in four years, if anybody gave a damn about the students, and that such a change would have a profound and positive economic effect.

Cruz was smart with his rear guard action against Rubio.

Rubio ended up taking Trump down.

Now can Cruz beat the Iowa curse or will he be another Santorum and Huckabee??

Cruz needs to win South Carolina (he has no chance in New Hampshire). Whoever wins South Carolina will have the big mo going into Super Tuesday.

New Hampshire is must win for Trump or he could be in big trouble.

I’m a Christian but I’m getting turned off by how Cruz sounds like a preacher running for President more and more in some of his speeches.

Plus hard to give all the glory to god when your campaign is telling precinct captains to lie about Carson dropping out of the race and using big government lie type mailers on voters. Or is it just me who finds these things combined to be offensive just a bit.

I just find willing to do anything and say anything to get elected to be a bit creepy when combined with simultaneously talking like a holy roller preacher.

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 2, 2016 at 1:36 pm

    “Plus hard to give all the glory to god when your campaign is telling precinct captains to lie about Carson dropping out of the race…”

    There’s your lie from the T-rump-0-thon lie machine. Took a while, but there it is.

    “…and using big government lie type mailers on voters. Or is it just me who finds these things combined to be offensive just a bit.”

    That’s just beeeeeeeezare. “Big government” mailers? You’re pitiful.

    Radegunda in reply to Gary Britt. | February 2, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    Your preferred model of Christianity appears to be someone who says that he never repents and that he has never actually done anything bad enough to need forgiveness, and who never tires of telling everyone that he’s the greatest and that people who don’t advance his ambitions are stupid losers.

    I know a good deal about Christianity, and I’ve never come across any denomination or sect that teaches those values.

      Nope. I want my preachers to be preachers and not run for political office. I don’t expect nor do I want someone running for political office to sound like a holy roller preacher. When they do I find it just a bit creepy and it makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.

      Any time I’ve ever been involved in a business deal and a person shows up preaching Jesus instead of just talking business, invariably the guy preaching Jesus is a crook trying to use Jesus talk as a smoke screen for his lies. That has been my personal experience and it is likely why I find people talking about Jesus like a holy roller preacher when doing business (or running for political office) to be a bit creepy and in need of watching for the slight of hand fraud that is usually coming right after the Jesus talk.

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 2, 2016 at 4:46 pm

        So when Donald Ducks showed up at Liberty University waving that prop Bible around and referencing Twoth Corinthians, you were all creeped out and doing hair stands, right…???

        Right, liar…???

        You’re TOO flucking funny. I heard a caller to Rush give your lying point pretty much word-for-word.

          Trump definitely doesn’t sound like a holy roller Jesus Freak when he quotes two corinthians. Trump was endorsed by Jerry Falwell because he recognizes that presidents need to be leaders and not holy roller end times dominion8st preachers.

          Trump = not creepy

          Cruz = holy roller Jesus Freak kind of creepy.

          Since you are an insane liar there is no accounting for what you thought you heard on Rush but if you were listening to Rush then you heard him speak about how Rubio is strong full conservative.

          There are almost zero differences between current stated positions of Rubio and Cruz. Except Rubio has friends and doesn’t have the creepy Jesus Freak factor.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | February 3, 2016 at 4:29 am

          I’m not only NOT an “insane liar”, I’m not a liar of any kind, contra Bierhall Bully Britt, the religious bigot and demonstrated liar.

          And T-rump suck boi. You are pitiful and disgusting.

          Nope Rags. You are insane and a liar. An insane liar plain and simple. I could also add in vulgar and often homophobic as in your post above. It is no wonder you have this unnatural affinity to Glenn Beck’s crazy holy rolling pal.

    Or is it just me who finds these things combined to be offensive just a bit.

    Forgive me if I find it just a bit laughable when an angry foul-mouthed Trumpian who is constantly firing spittle-flicked F-bombs at anyone on this blog who dares to question The Donald needs a fainting couch over things (such as mentioning God) that he finds offensive just a bit.

      At anyone ? Your powers of comprehension or objectivity or just your ability to tell the truth are obviously all not working properly. There was only one asshole who quite deservedly got that treatment.

      So stop lying and pretending to try and change the subject from Cruz’s all glory to god act while having his campaign lie about Carson and Palin and sending out phony fraudulent government documents. Its creepy and slimy and made more so with tbe Jesus freak act.

      Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | February 3, 2016 at 4:54 am

      See? THAT’S hilarious, you lying sack of T-rump spunk! You threw that F-bomb at several people, liar!

      You just went full-tilt bully-boi. Out of control. Again. Lost your “mind”.

        You are the asshole about which I spoke. And you are the only one who got that treatment in response to your constant name calling and vulgarity such as contained in your post above. It may just start up again if you continue to post your vulgar homophobic nonsense to me.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 3, 2016 at 11:23 am

          Oh, I knew who your lie referenced, butt boi.

          And I fully expect you are stupid enough to keep trying your bully-boi shutupery on me, knowing it has never worked in the least degree.

          Because you really ARE amazingly stupid. In addition to being totally dishonest!

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 3, 2016 at 6:22 am

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/03/donald-trump-admits-skipping-debate-may-have-hurt-him-in-iowa.html?intcmp=hpbt2

    Puuuuurrrr loser. I think the Donald Ducks episode was just more evidence of what most Iowans knew.

    They didn’t want T-rump or his phony “campaign conservative” line of BS.

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 3, 2016 at 6:33 am

    Geeez… We may need a suicide watch to keep ol’ Bierhall from offing himself…

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ruling-ted-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen/article/2582259

    Just one loser position after another comes crashing down.

    Harsh…

Henry Hawkins | February 2, 2016 at 1:07 pm

As we all make predictions and prognostications on what this or that candidate needs to do in NH, SC, Super Tuesday, etc., keep in mind it is all based on polling that is increasingly wrong and wrong by ever-increasing numbers. The near-impossibility of accurate polling is why Gallup quit doing them.

Trump’s self and media crafted image of Inevitable Winner Who Fights And Wins is thoroughly punctured and deflated, having not only lost Iowa, but coming within a whisker of dropping into third place, thus removing two of his biggest campaign themes, that’s he’s a winner and that all the polls and media say so. The polls and media might still say so, it just doesn;t mean anything anymore. He’ll maintain his base, about 20% of GOP voters, but will struggle to win new supporters with the reasons for his constant bombast now punctured in Iowa. A quiet, more subdued and humble Trump won’t work for him, just likie becoming a screamer all of a sudden would not help Ben Carson. “Polls” say Trump has a lead in NH – which they also said about Iowa. NH only has about 23? 24? delegates to win. Then again, the entire NH voter spectrum veers far left compared to Iowa – a moderate GOP voter in NH is a comparative radical in Iowa or the Bible Belt, so that favors the center/left Trump in NH. The Trump campaign had very little ground organization in Iowa and has yet to determine it can establish a winning one anywhere else, choosing to campaign mainly on TV screens and winning unreliable polling.

The Cruz campaign has proved itself capable of an excellent ground game and has the inside lane with not just evangelicals, but with any voters with strong religious beliefs, extremely important once the primary season heads south. Something I found remarkable was the Iowa voters’ ability to understand that Cruz was not against ethanol subsidies per se, but against big government meddling in private markets and picking winners and losers, with the ethanol subsidies being an example of that greater policy point. This bodes very very well for Cruz’ strict construction of the US Constitution. Voters, at least in Iowa, get it.

Having said all that, Rubio is now in a sweet position. He isn’t yet expected to win anywhere, so that pressure remains off while he amass support in a slowly dwindling field, having almost matched Trump in Iowa. There is an as yet indeterminable number of people in the GOP who do not consider Trump a serious candidate and who are concerned about Cruz’ electability in the general election. Rubio presents a happy medium, the middle ground guy, and he is actively exploiting it. I had mentioned in an LI post the other day, having sensed that so many people take it for granted that the GOP nomination will go to either Trump or Cruz, that folks might find that neither will win, that Rubio is coming on and has perhaps the clearest path to the nmination at present. So many of us, myself included, cannot forgive Rubio the Gang of Eight thing because that fiasco shows Rubio is capable of grand betrayal on conservative bedrock issues. But we need to remember that most of the GOP can forgive that mistake, with many never considering it a mistake in the first place.

I remain a firm Cruz supporter and I’ve never worried about Trump in the big picture. Rubio, however, is a problem for Cruz’ chances. I won’t vote for Trump under any circumstance, but I would vote for Rubio over the Democrat nominee if it comes to that.

    Uff dah! Well, then! I may find myself in the same place as you described in your last paragraph, Henry.

    My first choice was Scott Walker. Walker embodies the values that I cherish. Walker also embodies what the Constitution stands for. And, he is Midwestern.

    Like Walker, Ted Cruz carries my same values and is a strict Constitutionalist.

    Rubio, I would love to see him mature and then see him make a run later. Both Cruz and Rubio found the America that Bernie wants everyone to find in his socialist policies.

    Walker and Cruz would dismantle the Washington cartel. Rubio? I don’t know. But Cruz and Rubio did put Tclump into a Cuban sandwhich!
    ~~~
    The first three primaries IA, NH and SC are basically “grin and grip” primaries where candidates make the most progress when meeting people in the state. After SC are the ‘national’ primaries where TV ads are the most prominent campaign feature.

    As for Illinois, I don’t see Chicago voting other than Deemocrat because that is what sheep do – follow their welfare shepherd who beckons their vote and then moves them from one overly grazed pasture to another. The balance of Illinois is up for grabs.

    I will be pushing for Cruz over whatever the establishment is pushing to stay in power. No more Washington cartel!

      Henry Hawkins in reply to jennifer a johnson. | February 2, 2016 at 2:39 pm

      My path has mirrored yours. I favored Walker first too, because of what he accomplished as a governor, whereas Cruz could only do so much as a US senator.

      As for Illinois, I guess Chicago has always been the tail that wags the state dog. Michigan/metro Detroit & Ann Arbor is like that, too. NYC vs upstate NY is a little like that.

        Radegunda in reply to Henry Hawkins. | February 2, 2016 at 4:23 pm

        It’s a shame that the people who complain most loudly about “politicians” not keeping promises were so dismissive of the “politicians” who have actually kept promises. Instead, they flocked to a candidate who has only promises and swagger.

        The reasons they’ve given for why they trust Trump more than “politicians” are ridiculous, starting with “he’s not a politician,” down to “he’s not PC!”

        Then there’s the ultimate backtrack tactic (which I’ve heard from Trump fans): “If he does only one-tenth of what he’s promising, that’s enough!” So: Trump can have a 90% fail rate in keeping promises and he’s golden — while other candidates are rejected out of hand if they a 10% fail rate.

        Of course, the Trump fan who says that 10% is good enough takes it on faith that Trump will follow through on exactly the 10% she cares about most.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Radegunda. | February 2, 2016 at 4:39 pm

          They don’t want Trump to happen so much as they want what Trump says he’ll do to happen. As Trump continues to move away from his claimed conservatism and further embraces the center/left establishment, something he inexplicably began one week before the Iowa caucuses, support will trickle away – from Trump, but not for what Trump had promised he’d do. They’ll look elsewhere for the candidate most likely to deliver.

          In my first year of college I was an athlete with a scholarship (ice hockey), but totally unsocial, had no use for fraternities, parties, or the ‘popular’ students. I was therefore amazed when an absolutely gorgeous young lady of the sort usually far beyond the reaches of mooks like me agreed to go out with me, especially when a buddy informed she was one of the cheerleaders for the football team (hockey has no cheerleaders, a major plus for the sport). As beautiful as she was, we didn’t get halfway through that first date before I was looking to bail out. She was dumb as a box of rocks and knew nothing beyond fashion and the local popularity scoreboard, as transparent as cellophane and intellectually just as thin.

          I suspect a lot of Trump fans have already had and others will continue to have the same essential experience. From the outside and at a distance, wow! But get up close and look beyond the facade and….. yikes.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Radegunda. | February 2, 2016 at 4:43 pm

          Notice Trump’s errors growing in number as well, such as skipping the FOX debate just before Iowa, and somehow thinking a Sarah Palin endorsement would help him.

          At they learned a little something. They told Scott Brown, that great American conservative (/sarc), to withhold his endorsement until after Iowa, where it hurts Trump to cozy up to establishment turncoats, but before NH, where it is more likely to help, or at least won’t hurt him.

    msmith44a in reply to Henry Hawkins. | February 2, 2016 at 2:12 pm

    I think your analysis is spot on. However…

    Rep. King’s tweet re: Dr. Carson and the Cruz campaign’s use of misleading direct mail and emails re: Dr. Carson’s withdrawal has removed him from my list. I’ll not vote for any candidate who subscribes to the “by any means possible” school of politics (Trump and Jeb were eliminated weeks ago). I’ve had quite enough of candidates in both parties who are so willing to compromise the values upon which this country was founded for the sake of a few votes.

    Radegunda in reply to Henry Hawkins. | February 2, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    My sense for a while has been that voters who would choose Trump have already flocked to him for the most part (though some people imagine that Cruz and Trump are pretty much the same and might readily switch from C. to T.).

    After all, Trump had the most celebrity going in, and he’s had the most media coverage ever since. Some people love the over-the-top braggadocio and the lobbing of “stupid loser” bombs on anyone who gets in his way. They see the lack of impulse control as authenticity and therefore trustworthiness, and they like the idea of having the bully on their side (as though the bully would only bully people they don’t like).

    Other people see those attributes and think: Not in a president. No way. And let’s actually dissect the policy positions that Trump fans say they like. Have they even been consistent enough within the campaign time frame — let alone over the preceding years — to compensate for all the negatives in character and temperament?

    Anyone can promise anything on the campaign trail. When a candidate has no record to show what he actually does with governmental power and responsibility, it’s particularly crucial to make a careful assessment of character and temperament

It’s now the day after the 2016 Iowa Caucus.

Twitter Feed

John Dingell
@JohnDingell

The GOP’s Iowa Caucus, the morning after:

Third is the new first.
Second is the new last.
And first is the same old crazy.
7:10am · 2 Feb 2016 · Twitter for iPhone

It’s kind of inside baseball. But, what Cruz did in Iowa is illustrative of Cruz’s ability to communicate his message, even an unwelcome message to voter, who mostly vote in their own perceived best interest. Cruz won Iowa and never backed down from his position of advocating for the end to ethanol mandates. While all of his competitors, used the easy sound bite of Cruz ending ethanol in the largest corn producing states in the union, Cruz was able to explain his postition, and how in the long run would benefit the State of Iowa.
That’s some pretty impressive politicking there. If he can do that to corn in Iowa, imagine him explaining Social Security reform to voters.

To me thats the best take away from the Hawkeye state.

Ever the contrarian:

The “NY” values dude came in second in a state known for the evangelical vote, 3.5% out of first place, and with the exception of Cruz, garnering more votes than anyone in Iowa caucus history. Not bad at all. Expectations don’t really mean too much, results are all that count.

Cruz had a great night. He has however, put a tremendous amount of effort into Iowa. He had to stop the bleeding there, a second place finish would have been difficult. Still viable as the eventual winner, but I do not see the path. I don’t expect he will fair as well in less evangelical settings. One can hope…

Rubio, we shall see. The polls were wrong as he did well, a close third, but still third.

NH and SC coming up. Every republican that has one both of those has gone on to the nomination, I think. Trump is firmly in the lead in both. Polls may not be perfect, but it is hard to imagine they are off by the amount it would take to unseat trump.

IMO, we’ll know by 3/1. While I don’t care for Rubio, I like the fact that this year, currently, we have two non GOPe selections at the top.

    Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | February 3, 2016 at 4:37 am

    How many wrong predictions are you up to now, Carnak The Magnificent?

      Name a prediction I have gotten wrong.

      Of course, I did not really make a prediction in the previous comment, just a state of the election comment.

      My prediction of 5-6 weeks ago, trump will win the nomination still stands. That is the only real prediction I have made. Nothing has changed that.

      Iowa picks corn. NH picks presidents. (a stolen comment from somewhere)

      Regarding your prediction comment: If I were predicting a crushing Cruz victory you would have nothing negative to say. It is just your TDS that blinds you (and many others) to reality.

      The reality is based upon what we know. Trump has a crushing lead in NH. Large lead in SC. Sure, it could change, but this ain’t Iowa.

      Give us your prediction and will see how it stacks up.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend