Indiana has become contentious territory in the Republican primary elections. 57 delegates will go to Tuesday’s Republican primary winner. No splitting here — Indiana is a winner-take-all state.
For Cruz to have a chance of keeping Trump from the necessary 1,237 delegates, he must win Indiana.
Naturally, the airwaves are full of PAC ads questioning Trump’s credentials, background, and pretty much everything else.
Our Principles PAC released a new ad Friday and has devoted $2 million to their anti-Trump efforts in Indiana.
Make America Awesome! also has a new ad out:
Meanwhile, the Cruz campaign released two ads targeting Trump’s recent “bathroom” comments.
This one:
And this one:
Indiana’s Governor, Mike Pence, endorsed Ted Cruz for president Friday afternoon.
Real Clear Politics’ average has Trump up by just over 2 points, but trends have Cruz climbing in the polls while Trump’s number have steadily declined.
Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Hope springs eternal for the Cruzbots.
Trumps real RCP poll average is +6% for Trump.
But with an average MOE of 5% the results could go anywhere from a Cruz win by a few percent to a Trump blow out with a 10%+ victory. Tuesday will tell.
It’s amazing! That whole “averages” thingy still totally eludes you!
H&R Blockhead, indeed.
I just signed my Cat up for one of those Certified Fraud Examiners Society membership cards for non certified members like you have. The same one as you bragged about having in another post.
Now both you and my cat are equally unqualified to not testify in court as an expert.
Now I know who you remind me of, Britt: Vinz Clortho the Keymaster of Gozer
…Britt the loyal minion who obeys The Destructor!
You could have bought a lot of Prep-H for all that butt-hurt with the $175 it costs to become a member of the ACFE, AND you would NOT have had to lie to them on the application, lying liar who lies.
Of course, now your cat will have access to materials and networking that it would not have had otherwise. It can find certified fraud examiners MUCH more readily, along with materials to study to take the certification exam. Just the lists of experts is invaluable.
As any real trial attorney will appreciate. You could ask one, if you come across one.
Yeah $175 for a worthless piece of plastic and a secret decoder ring is pretty pricey. As for networking that is what the internet is for where you can search for actual CPAs which are far more qualified by both years of education and training to examine the books and records of a business for suspect transactions and problems with internal accounting controls. Real business lawyers know that of course.
Yeah, Britt, learning is not your bailiwick. You ascribe that to others, like Trump.
That STILL leaves you…
1. demonstrably clueless about a subject so basic as “averages”
2. a demonstrated liar (i.e., about your “Cat” with a capital)
3. a moron WRT your pretended chops (I’d cut you to ribbons if you were DISCLOSED as an “expert”, which would never happen if a real forensic accountant was available)
4. not worth a good shit compared to ACFE members I’ve used to very good effect
I love it when you brag and bluster. I get to demonstrate you are incompetent in two professions.
And you’re a liar.
Wow my demonstrating your incompetence and lack of knowledge really hit a nerve.
Here is another piece of education for you. Your bare assertions are not evidence of anything. They are just lawyer blowharding that get silenced immediately upon objection. Real lawyers know the difference between actual probative evidence and their own blowhard arguments. A point about which you seem to be continually confused.
Finally it isn’t my fault you chose to try and bolster one of b your baseless opinions by telling all of us about your fraud examiners membership card that can be purchased by anybody with $175 to waste.
You seem intimidated by people with real actual professional qualifications.
But Gari, you lying SOS, if I were less honest, and wished to burnish my creds (as you’ve done when caught in your incompetence) I would have done as you would do. I would NEVER have noted that I was not yet certified.
You lying SOS.
Gary, the ONLY probative evidence that you can produce is that which your hand and mind produce below the belt.
Rags the only person constantly making reference to the fact I’m a lawyer and a CPA is you. I’ve never brought it up. But you seem to have a serious case of cedentials envy.
Jennifer for a graduate of Moody Bible College you seem to be obsessively interested in my genitals. Are you trying to ask me for a d*ck pic?
Just ANOTHER iteration of your lies, Gaghdad Bob.
You have made SEVERAL references to “duel professional” creds in an effort to bolster your bullshit.
I’ve always found that particularly amusing, since you are demonstrably incompetent in at LEAST two fields of endeavor!
You must think nobody here has a memory. Or yours is as long as a goose. Which I can readily believe, given your lies here.
You are such a liar. When cornered in your lies you just invent new and bigger lies.
Just as in this thread you make direct or indirect reference to my credentials constantly. Most of the time I just ignore it along with the other bullcrap you puke all over LI.
If your claim is true should be easy for you to post a link to prove your point. So do it. I’d love to see it.
The only thing you demonstrate on LI is your profound immaturity and lack of rationality.
When you expose yourself in public, Gary, people tend to notice.
And Gary, I’ve seen pasty Donald, the ultimate d*ck pic.
Britt, only you and Carlos Dangerous would make such an offer.
More probative evidence of the subhuman standards of Trump supporters.
Trumps real RCP poll average is +6% for Trump.
That’s a question in statistics which has never been resolved. Should the “fliers” or wild outliers be thrown out, or should they be treated mathematically like all the other data points? There’s no general analytic way to answer this one; one has to go by common sense, and in statistics that’s usually risky.
In this case, RCP averages a bunch of polls, assuming all are “good” and, as is standard practice in this mathematically primitive industry, treats all numbers as if they’re counts of random variables. Given that simplifying assumption, the subsequent processes—addition and averaging of the numbers—is not a problem. Gaussian variables do work that way; so, OK so far.
The outliers, particularly the ones which are so far out that Carl Friedrich Gauss would say something like “Wtf?”, are often thrown out because they are likely to indicate systematic errors, and systematic errors will make the whole analysis worthless. Systematic errors usually mean the experiment was measuring the wrong thing altogether, or it was measuring the right thing but somebody miscounted.
Here, five of six polls show Trump leading Cruz by 2 to 9 percentage points. The solitary 9 isn’t a classic “flier” because there’s an 8 as well. (The 2 could be a bit of a “flier” as there’s nothing else near it, the closest being a 4; but I’ll leave it in as it saves me some typing.) The average of these is 6.0. The average weighted by sample size is 6.07.
The “flier” shows Cruz up 16 percentage points. All the other five say this is essentially impossible; 16 for Cruz is out past the three sigma point of all the others.
If the “flier” is included with the other five in the averages, Trump is still on top, but by 2.33 percentage points.
Were RCP my site, I’d have tossed the “flier” and figured Trump up by 6.07 points. The “flier” looks seriously suspicious, though with the info provided, there’s no way to prove that.
Some people think this stuff is boring. Probably weren’t raised right. Deprived childhoods, etc.
Yes you are correct. The IPFW poll that is so far off from all the rest looks quite suspicious as you state. There is one clue in what is reported as to the problem in that poll. They took the poll calling 400 persons over a two week period when all the other polls contact 400 persons over one or two days. It suggests not enough separate persons doing the calling which might mean some problem introduced by one of the few persons doing the calling and of course it is hard to take an accurate “snapshot” in hyper slow motion.
Unless other polls come out offering support for the IPFW results it is a flier that should be ignored.
All of this flies b over Ragspierres head when it comes to polls and averages thingys.
Time will tell as to the IPFW/Downs Center poll’s accuracy. But there are a few reasons to view the results cautiously.
Prior to the release of their GOP/Dem polls this week, IPFW/Downs Center has only performed THREE presidential polls in Indiana in it’s entire history, and those were in 2008 (2 primary, 1 general).
The only years they’ve released ANY polls/surveys were in 2008, 2010 and 2011. They haven’t released a single poll or survey since 2011.
In fact, in their entire history since starting in 2008, they’ve only performed 16 polls/surveys, the 3 Indiana Presidential polls above, 11 which were a collection of Indiana mayoral/state races, and 2 surveys in 2010 of Indiana Tea Party supporters.
That’s it. I even performed a number of rounds of Google searches to see if the IPFW/Downs Center might have released anything that they don’t report on their website, and I found none. You can see their entire history of polling/surveys on their website here:
http://www.mikedownscenter.org/surveys/
“Surveys
“In 2008, the Mike Downs Center began conducting public opinion polls. The news releases and crosstabs for those surveys can be found on this page.
“2008
2010
2011”
As such, I’m a bit surprised (ok, I’m probably not) the press and polling averages have given the results of this poll such weight. I’d scratch its “newsworthiness” up to the unusual/outlier results as much as anything.
Note, the full press release of the poll can be found here:
http://bit.ly/1SW43LS
I can’t find the release of the IPFW/Downs Center crosstabs of the actual polling data yet, so it’s not possible to review their methodologies/data.
By now, I hope my disdain and distrust for a lot of polling is well established. Gari (The Liar) Britt loves poll dancing, as do some other T-rump cultists. It leaves them with polls up their…proctological regions. As in Wish-consin.
These guys DO take the whole matter quite seriously, however, and seem rather unbiased.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/indiana-republican/
Interestingly, they seem to come to the same conclusion as the Clout poll.
We’ll see…
“and seem rather unbiased.”
LOL, unbiased as you. Oh, and they’ve been wrong this whole election with respect to trump.
That 16 pointer for Cruz is simply a BS poll paid for by some cruz lovin bunch.
Brittard, DIAF
Indiana doesn’t matter. Trump will likely take California and New Mexico with enough delegates to put him right around 1200 delegates. If Trump is that close and he is denied the nomination, his claim that the Republican party has stolen the nomination from him will be widely believed. If it is widely believed, the anti-establishment rank and file, who are voting against the establishment, will leave the process. Most of them will simply not vote in November. And, if Cruz is the nominee and these people do not vote, he will lose the election in November. Cruz MIGHT win the nomination, but he has no chance of winning the Presidency, unless Hillary is indicted and that is unlikely to happen.
As this article points out, this has never been a campaign where candidates are running on their records. Most tried, a little, and failed abysmally. The majority of the voters are voting against establishment politicians and for the anti-establishment outsider. They don’t really care what his policies are, as they really do not expect him to be able to carry them out, against the solidly entrenched establishment politicians of the Congress. This is a protest vote, nothing more. Now if the Republican Party wants a Republican in the WH, then they can get onboard. Or they can simply watch their constituents walk away they become the minority in Congress again.
and then Trump loses to Hillary … which is Trumps plan …
brillant ….
There is NO evidence that Trump wants to allow Hillary to win the Presidential Election. None. And, as things now stand, Trump, with the backing of the anti-establishment voters of the GOP, as well as the anti-establishment voters among the independents and the Democrats [most of whom will not vote for a conservative candidate], has a much better chance of beating Hillary than does Cruz, who would likely lose the current anti-establishment voters backing Trump as well as not be able to pick up the moderate independents.
But, it is still possible that Trump would lose to Hillary in November.
No, we don’t have any evidence. But, we do know that, as a fact, in 2008, Trump wrote that Monica Lewinsky’s ex-boyfriend’s wife would make a great president. So we do have a serious question that Trump supporters should ask themselves, and haven’t: How hard will Trump run against someone he has stated would make a great president?
And, of course, the evidence is piling up that trump is an insider in the Washington power game, comfortable with the GOPe. Something that anyone with a lick of common sense knew earlier in the game. And Trump supporters brush this aside as not mattering, because he’s telling them what they want to hear. A classic con man tactic.
This interesting piece by a Cruz PAC guy comparing Trump and Cruz campaign strategies has a lot of insights. One section compares dollar effectiveness of ad buys. Both the “cost per vote” and choices of geographic regions are discussed.
Well worth a read for anyone wanting to learn what worked and what failed this cycle. Quite free from bias, IMO, despite being written by a Cruz supporter. And shows clearly how initial perceptions of the key match ups and decision dates led to some predictable outcomes.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/what-trump-saw-and-cruz-did-not/article/2002126
Here’s the writer’s take on where Sen Cruz was starting:
“Just six years ago Cruz was low profile enough in Texas to get big-footed out of the state’s attorney general primary. His Republican U.S. Senate primary upset of a well-funded, well-known opponent in 2012 was somewhat out of nowhere. It launched a groundswell of support for him from conservatives around the country who revered his willingness to fight his party’s political establishment and the Obama agenda with equal ferocity. Cruz continued to grow that base by applying this cause at every major turn in the Senate – most famously on the healthcare law funding.”
In retrospect, the writer sees the decision to avoid a big effort in NH as a key error.
“Cruz … finished a distance third place, at 12 percent, while Trump blew away the nine-person field with 35 percent of the vote. This was not taken as a disaster or even as problematic by the Cruz camp. Instead, it was celebrated as a highly efficient performance of just $18 spent per vote (next-closest finishers Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio needed $1,200 and $500 per vote, respectively). Moreover, the media bought into this narrative. “New Hampshire Was A Very Good Night For Ted Cruz,” the Huffington Post headline read.”
Heh, love Love LOVE the down votes! 🙂
Appearing on “The Kelly Files” last December, Fiorina asserted that Cruz could not possibly beat Hillary Clinton. One of the reasons she claimed was because one of Cruz’s employees was spewing “sexist” comments against Fiorina. He said she was relying on the v-card. “This gentleman is more than a radio show talk host, he is a major surrogate for Ted Cruz and a major endorser,” Fiorina said. “And this is why Ted Cruz cannot possibly beat Hillary Clinton.”
Fiorina appeared on CNN earlier this year and was asked if Cruz would “doom the Republicans’ chances in November. Here’s how his running mate responded: “Ted Cruz is just like any other politician. He says one thing in Manhattan, he says another thing in Iowa. He says whatever he needs to say to get elected, and then he’s going to do as he pleases.”
In 2013 Fiorina attacked Cruz on Obamacare saying the Republican was the reason for the then government shutdown and that he was seeking fame and fortune all along. “There’s no honor in charging a hill that you know you can’t take, only casualties, although Ted Cruz maybe got name recognition and money along the way,” Fiorina said. “But President Obama wanted this shutdown. And Ted Cruz played right into his hands.”
http://radaronline.com/photos/carly-fiorina-ted-cruz-biggest-slams-video/photo/1290067/
Fiornia is an articulate defender of Cruz and plays the role of attack-dog well. But it’s hard to see Cruz’s decision as anything but a desperate gimmick. Fiorina insisted that discussions about her new role had nothing to do with Trump’s five-state sweep on Tuesday, with vice presidential candidate conversations starting last week. The offer was proffered and accepted on primary day. But Cruz surely saw what was coming and knew he needed to do something dramatic.
Could it work? Probably not. But make no mistake: Ted Cruz has played the woman card.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/29/carly-fiorina-ted-cruz-running-mate-pick-donald-trump-tuesday-victories-column/83668886/
Rep. John Duncan Endorses The Donald: Trump Will Use ‘Tremendous Leverage on Trade’
Yeah, Britt, Trump will create a “safe space” for you.
He was first elected to Congress in 1988, in a special election to succeed his late father, John Duncan, Sr., and elected to the seat for a full term in his own right the same day. He has been re-elected every two years since then from a district that has been held continuously by Republicans (or their antecedents) since 1859, and by a Duncan since his father was first elected in 1964. He has never faced a serious or well-funded challenge for reelection, and was reelected without major-party opposition from 1994 through 2000.
————————————-
Who is the very model of a modern career pol. Sort of a GOPe Sheila Jackson-Lee.
You can always count on Radspierre son of Lucifer in the flesh to try and trash the character of someone he doesn’t know simply for the sin of having thoughts and ideas of which Rags doesn’t approve. Rags doesn’t need laws to try and silence unapproved ideas. He and all his cruzbot moronic cabal do it with bullying, gang verbal assaults and other similar alinskyite tactics.
Wow. Gaghdad Bob Britt could be the Son Of Boehner, the way he throws around hellish name-calling!
Note that all I published was a factual synopsis of the man’s career as a life-long member of Congress, who’s daddy held the seat before him.
I never mentioned his character.
Gari, conversely, feels called on…by GAWD…to impugn mine in defense of ANYONE remotely favoring his little yellow god.
Interesting that one of Mr. Duncan’s assignments/responsibilities in Congress has been immigration. Where’s his accomplishment?
Wow Britt, you’re really blowing this thread up, aren’t you? Got nothing else to do on a Saturday but troll your favorite pro-Cruz/anti-Trump site?
Pathetic, no life having scumbag. No wonder you like Trump. Btw, I don’t actually read 99% of your regurgitated horse apples, I see your name and go scroll scroll scroll.
One last note: no matter how this whole thing turns out, to quote Charlie, “You get nothing! You lose! Good day, sir.”
No outcome will net anything positive for you. Wait and see.
What’s particularly amusing, Zachary, is that Britt almost invariably up-votes his own bullshit. He missed one (above), but that’s almost the only reason he has any approval at all on this thread.
Nothing more pathetic than an adult who feels the need to announce to the world they don’t read something.
That’s all you got? How about this then: I’ve never read the Satanic Bible. Does that make me pathetic?
Your posts have less value than that trash.
No you moron it would be going to a satanist gathering (like a cruz family reunion) and feeling compelled to announce you never would read their family bible that would make you pathetic.
…a Britt self-portrait!
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/04/hillary-wants-to-make-it-illegal-to-criticize-her.php
See? That’s another thing that Hellary and Der Donald see eye-to-eye on…!!!
Mac 45
you said that there is no evidence that trump
wants Hillary to win.
lets see Donald has given millions of dollars
to hillary and her foundation.
he has supported everything Dem his entire life.
Dem until 1987
GOP fm 87 to 99
reform party 99 to 01
Dem 01-09
GOP 09-11
Indy 11-12
GOP 12-present
supports Dem policies
stands with dems on immigration ( amnesty and DREAMERS)
he is an opportunists he knows immigration is a
hot button topic and he pushes it … look
at what he has said … a firm believer in amnesty.
so he becomes the nominee and will lose to hillary.
because lot of the votes he has gotten are Dems.
and on Nov they will pull the D lever …
and a lot of GOP voters will either
1. Stay home
2. Leave the president blank and vote down ticket.
3 vote Libertarian.
so there ya go. President Hillary.
Over the past 26 years Donald Trump has donated $584850 to Democrats AND $961140 to the Gop. He is listed on the Clinton foundation donor page as having contributed between $100000 and $250000. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jul/09/ben-ferguson/donald-trumps-campaign-contributions-democrats-and/
Now amwick, don’t go printing the whole truth, it will hurt the tender feelings of the deranged cruz crowd. They cannot handle the truth.
Please Donald Trump give us job security.
Please Donald Trump give our lives meaning!
Messiah D, we will bend over for you!
Please Donald, Save us!
LOL, you’re confusing trump with cruz. Cruz is the one with the god complex. You should know.
Be careful. Don’t blaspheme the annointed one the prophet of Salt Lake City. LOL
Cardinal Britt, Pope Trump is calling from his high horse. He wants you and the altar boys to collect fallen chips of his waxy gold skin for Madame Tussaud’s Wax Museum.
And prepare the cryogenic chamber for a November lift-off.
Your anti catholic bigotry peeking through again.
Updates from the California Republican Party convention: Former Gov. Pete Wilson endorses Ted Cruz
April 30 2016, 2:02 PM
Sen. Ted Cruz was endorsed by former California Gov. Pete Wilson before his lunchtime speech.
Carly Fiorina , the former HP executive Cruz has selected as his running mate, speaks in the evening.
Former California Gov. Pete Wilson jumped into the presidential fray Saturday, announcing his endorsement of Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in front of a packed house at the state Republican Party’s spring convention.
“He is committed to preserving our constitutional liberties,” Wilson told the crowd, and then took a subtle dig at GOP rival Donald Trump. “We can’t afford a wild card.”
Wilson became one of the most polarizing political figures in recent California history after advocating for Proposition 187, the ballot measure that would have barred public services for immigrants in the U.S. illegally.
The measure is largely blamed for driving California’s growing number of Latino voters away from the Republican Party and for the GOP’s diminished influence in the state.
Cruz, who is running behind Trump in polls of likely GOP voters in the state’s June 7 primary, has called for a crackdown on illegal immigration and said he supports deporting the estimated 11 million immigrants in the U.S. illegally.
Delegates at the California Republican Party convention await the arrival of Ted Cruz.
GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz on Saturday predicted a fierce battle in California, with the state’s June 7 primary deciding the Republican nominee.
He was introduced by former Gov. Pete Wilson, who announced his endorsement of the Texas senator. Cruz peppered his speech with references to the state, from Californians launching the career of President Ronald Reagan to it being the home state of his wife, Heidi and the one-time home of his newly announced running mate, Carly Fiorina.
Cruz struck familiar themes, arguing that this election was critical because the balance of the Supreme Court is at stake, and focusing his half-hour of remarks on jobs, freedom and national security. But he added a few California twists, such as slamming the federal government’s reduction of water exports to farms in a bid to save the endangered Delta smelt. The decision has led to the loss of more than 17,000 agricultural jobs, he said.
Cruz argued that if the Endangered Species Act was modified so that developers or farmers were permitted to do their business if they increased a species’ population by a certain amount, rather than having their projects blocked in an effort to save the species in a specific area, it would create a “win-win” solution for all parties.
“You put up a disco ball, play some Barry White, you let nature take its course,” he joked.
Cruz railed against GOP front-runner Donald Trump, who addressed the convention on Friday, and Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton as “flip sides of the same coin,” sharing similar positions on issues such as health care, Israel and the Iranian nuclear deal.
This next election will determine the course of the Supreme Court for a generation. And I give you my word that every justice I will appoint will be a principled constitutionalist. And I will not compromise away your religious liberty, and I will not compromise away your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz during his speech at the California GOP convention
Here’s what Trump contributed to Kamala Harris, Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom
It looks like one of Sen. Ted Cruz’s central tactics in California will be attacking Donald Trump for his political contributions to three of California’s top Democrats: Gov. Jerry Brown, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris.
He put out a statement referring to them as “extreme liberals” Saturday and brought up the donations again in his speech at the California GOP convention luncheon.
Here are the contributions Trump has made to the trio:
Trump has also given to Republicans in California — but not for 10 years.
He gave $25,000 to the state party in 2005 and $12,000 to support former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Time will tell if the attack sticks in the minds of California Republican voters.
1:39 P.M. Reporting from burlingame Javier Panzar
‘He is a man of faith, a family man, he loves his country’
Ted Cruz supporters Earl and Judy DeVries of Ontario attend the California Republican Party convention in Burlingame, Calif. (Marcus Yam/Los Angeles Times)
Ted Cruz supporters Earl and Judy DeVries of Ontario attend the California Republican Party convention in Burlingame, Calif. (Marcus Yam/Los Angeles Times)
Call them Mr. and Mrs. Cruz.
Even in a convention center filled with the candidate’s signs and T-shirts, Earl and Judy DeVries stand out.
Credit his Santa Claus beard and vivid red shirt. And her top hat covered in Cruz pins.
The two drove in from Ontario to catch Cruz’s lunchtime speech. It paid off: Judy scored Cruz’s signature on her pin reading “I’m Pro Life!”
She has been backing him since Bobby Jindal dropped out of the race, she said.
“He is a man of faith, a family man, he loves his country,” she said.
“He is pro-life; that is big for us,” Earl said.
Standing in the atrium of the convention center, Diana Forster, 77, handed out “2016 Cruz” stickers.
Forster, a Morgan Hill resident, said she is backing Cruz because she trusts his conservative bona fides, something she can’t say about Donald Trump.
“I’m not sure he is a conservative,” she said. “He has supported a lot of Democrats. He is a pragmatist.”
1:32 P.M. Reporting from burlingame Michael Finnegan
Cruz: California will decide the GOP nominee for president
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz told California Republicans on Saturday that the state was at a crossroads where it would decide the party’s nominee for president on June 7.
Candidates usually treat California as an ATM for campaign money, the GOP presidential candidate told a crowd of hundreds at the state party convention in Burlingame.
“We’re going to spend more in California than we’re going to raise in California,” said Cruz, who was scheduled to attend a fundraiser at the Montecito home of CKE Restaurants Chief Executive Andrew Puzder after the convention. “But for any of you who have your checkbooks handy, I would be glad for you to prove me wrong.”
The Texas senator played up the California roots of his running mate, Carly Fiorina.
“Carly will be the first Californian on a national ticket since Ronald Reagan,” he said.
Cruz also turned to attack Donald Trump as he reeled off the names of California’s top Democrats like a rogue’s gallery to excoriate the GOP front-runner for giving them campaign money.
Gov. Jerry Brown, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris: All of them backed policies detrimental to the state, and Trump gave them a combined $12,000, Cruz said.
“You all are experiencing first hand the consequence of those misguided liberal policies,” Cruz said.
———————————————-
Indiana will pay attention, too.
He continued to hammer Trump by criticizing him for giving money to House minority leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco.
That was a nice job, cut and paste wise.
Apologies. I thought I’d cropped that considerably.
Trotskyite Trump will make political connections/donations that will serve his ascendance to power.
Trump only needs like 2-3 states more to seal the nomination.
so yeah, he is going to be the nominee.
but in the meantime here is a lil bernie humor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHS-K7OuLAc
also… Trump is the best canidate if the GOP wants to win…
cuz he’ll pick up disafranchised bernie supporters.
(bernie supporters won’t vote for hillary… at least most of them won’t. …so either they’ll stay home and not vote… which benefits Trump… or they vote third party… which ultimately benefits trump …because that is one less vote for hillary.
….and hillary can’t win with just liberals… most of the bernie supporters are independents but cannot stomach hillary she is far to corrupt and crooked… oh, and the FBI investigation really screws her… whether or not there is even consequences of a prison sentence but there will be other consquences… there will be enough untrustworthyness in her over it by most voters that will turn ppl away from her to another. …more so by the bernie supporters than anybody else… Mwahahahahahahaha
IN – 2016 GOP Presidential Primary: Donald Trump 49% – Ted Cruz 34% – John Kasich 13% – (NBC/WSJ/Marist 05/01/2016)
Source: NBC/WSJ/Marist
Method: Phone
Date: 04/26/2016 – 04/28/2016
Voters: 645 (Likely voters)
Margin of Error: 3.9 %
Full Result:
Trump 49%
Cruz 34%
Kasich 13%
So much for the IPFW poll.
IPFW is a local poll, and a reputable one for Indiana, so I’ve heard. There’s no reason to believe a NY-based poll over a local one.
“and a reputable one for Indiana, so I’ve heard.”
LOL, you listening to the voice in your head? Or maybe Teddy?
It is a BS poll. Period. I think you know it.
Clowns.
Within the space of 4 days, we’ve had one poll at Trump +15 and another at Cruz +16. Nobody has any idea how Indiana will turn out, but some pollsters may have egg on their face after it’s over.
“Nobody has any idea how Indiana will turn out”
Sure we do. Trump will win Indiana.
The only real question – what does the loser do after?