As a Californian, Donald reminds me far more of Arnold than Ronald.
Duck and cover...
In before the brawl between the Trumpets and Cruzers begins.
It’s going to be a long road to August...
> Iowa Republicans smashed their 2012 caucus attendance record to smithereens, besting it by 64,000 voters
Many of them Rubio Democrats?
Hopefully, the Cruz & Trump camps will go back to their policy of detente— holding their fire on one another and firing at the RINOs (most particularly the despicable LIAR Marco Rubio with his AMNESTY & OPEN BORDERS mindset). That is THE way that one of them will win, IMHO. Otherwise, they run an extremely high risk of handing the nomination to Schubio/Rubio. I fear a scenario of Trump and Cruz lowering their own votes because of a Trump-Cruz internecine war allowing Rubio to pick up the majority of the delegates, particularly when we get to the winner-take-all states such as Florida.
Cruz leaves Iowa with a one delegate lead = Cruz is the new Reganz!
Yeah, ok.
“Ted Cruz won Iowa and did it impressively. The final turnout was 186,289, of which Cruz received 27.72 percent, or 51,646 votes. If the turnout had been lower, say 135,000, a number that Decision Desk founder Brandon Finnigan was more comfortable with, Cruz would have had over 30 percent of the vote. “
Huh? That’s nonsense.
Yes, if 51,000 and change who did not vote for Cruz had stayed home, he’d be at 38%. But then if the 51,000 and change who did vote for Cruz had stayed home, he’d be at 0.
Yup....
I loved Ronnie but this go around we need a head ripper. We are circling the drain.
The difference between winner and whiner?
The letter ‘h’ and Donald Trump.
Cruz did win Iowa, give him credit. But Iowa is hardly an indicator of how well he will do winning the Republican nomination. The money markets moved Marco Rubio up to 54% probability of winning the nomination and the presidency. Cruz was down graded to 4%. And, they have been a much better predictor of success than Iowa. Trump moved down to 24%.
The fact that Trump has no background as a politician
makes his 2nd place finish in Iowa all the more impressive.
Trump is an Eisenhower in that Eisenhower was a great manager of his “Company” namely SHAEF. As President Eisenhower had a more pragmatic presidency. I believe Trump would do the same. It was Eisenhower who sent troops to force integration and also Used the government to get rid of the illegal population.
I listened to this stories of how Cruz had a plan to win Iowa, and those were proven correct. Kudos, I put too much faith in Laudner.
So now I would like the same kind of explanation as to how Cruz wins NH and SC.
They are very different states, and not caucuses but primaries.
In NH all the polls have trump way up, how does Ted close?
And in SC Ted is trailing as well. Rubio just snagged an endorsement that apparently matters to SC. So how does Ted catch and close in SC?
I’m not being a jerk, I just want to know what folks are seeing that I’m not. I was off several points in IA, so I’m curious how y’all see they lay of the land in NH and SC.
Iowa 1980, January 21
Reagan - 30%
Bush 32%
Seems like what just happened this year.
(And I'm a Cruzer)