Think the 2016 GOP primary process favors the establishment? Hugh Hewitt says it benefits Ted Cruz

In February of this year – the “Reince Reforms,” the [Reince] Priebus rules — require that only four states vote, and those are Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

And Nevada is a caucus state that Rand Paul will win, but which will be dismissed because the Paul supporters there are deep and organized, and caucuses are really false positives, which is important. But he’ll win it. He’ll win some delegates.

So the three races that matter are Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. And what really matters are New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Ted Cruz has an enormous amount of under-the-radar strength in Iowa among young people. I ran 12 mock Iowa caucuses at the Young Conservative Leadership Conference last summer. I’m going to do it again next week. Ted Cruz won a plurality in each of the six original caucuses and a straight out majority in the re-votes after they had argued, reflecting deep ties into social media. He’ll do well in Iowa, he’ll get some delegates. He’ll go to New Hampshire he’ll finish in the top four or five. He’ll go to South Carolina and finish in the top three. And then they go to Texas. And he will win Texas on March 1st.

Which means that coming out of the first 31 days of voting, the person with the most delegates is gonna be Ted Cruz according to the calendar. He’s also got $37 million in the bank, the Mercer family behind him, and an almost unparalleled ability – Rubio and Carly Fiorina are very good, Marco and Carly are very good as well – those three are among the most able talkers I’ve ever met. And I think he’ll [Sen. Cruz] be able to run the board, if anyone can run the board.

2016 Chronological Cumulative Allocation of Delegates

Disclaimer:
These pages contain a combination of official, unofficial, and estimated data. The information posted here is subject to change.

Democratic jurisdictions are listed in chronological order according to their First Determining Step.
Republican jurisdictions are listed in chronological order according to the first Major Delegate Selection event.
The cumulative delegate counts reflect the total number of delegates assigned to the states whose process has begun.
The delegate selection information is only intended to be a rough guide to the chronological accumulation of delegate pledges. Please review the individual state's page for more detailed information as to EXACTLY how/when delegates are being pledged to candidates.

	Democratic				Republican
	Jurisdiction (delegates, delegate selection)	Delegates each Date	Cumulative Delegates	Cumulative Percent	Jurisdiction (delegates, delegate selection)	Delegates each Date	Cumulative Delegates	Cumulative Percent
Sunday 31 January 2016					Maine (23)	23	23	0.93%
Monday 1 February 2016	Iowa (54)	54	54	1.20%	Iowa (30)	30	53	2.15%
Tuesday 2 February 2016					Colorado (37)	37	90	3.64%
Tuesday 9 February 2016	New Hampshire (32)	32	86	1.92%	New Hampshire (23)	23	113	4.57%
Saturday 20 February 2016	Nevada (39)	39	125	2.79%	South Carolina (50)	50	163	6.60%
Tuesday 23 February 2016					Nevada (30)	30	193	7.81%
Saturday 27 February 2016	South Carolina (57)	57	182	4.06%
March 2016	Northern Marianas (11)	11	193	4.31%
Tuesday 1 March 2016	Alabama (58); American Samoa (10); Arkansas (37); Colorado (77); Democrats Abroad (17); Georgia (112); Massachusetts (121); Minnesota (94); North Carolina (120); Oklahoma (42); Tennessee (77); Texas (237); Vermont (23); Virginia (112)	1,137	1,330	29.67%	Alabama (50); Alaska (28); Arkansas (40); Georgia (76); Idaho (32); Massachusetts (42); Minnesota (38); North Carolina (72); North Dakota (28); Oklahoma (43); Tennessee (58); Texas (155); Vermont (16); Virginia (49); Wyoming (29)	756	949	38.42%

And be beat goes on until Saturday 9 July 2016......

Exclusive — Ted Cruz: Obamatrade Enmeshed in Corrupt, Backroom Dealings

The American people do not trust President Obama. And they do not trust Republican leadership in Congress. And the reason is simple: for far too long, politicians in Washington have not told the truth.

Both President Obama and Republican leadership are pressing trade promotion authority, also known as TPA, or “fast-track.” Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) both oppose it.

As a general matter, I agree (as did Ronald Reagan) that free trade is good for America; when we open up foreign markets, it helps American farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers.

But TPA in this Congress has become enmeshed in corrupt Washington backroom deal-making, along with serious concerns that it would open up the potential for sweeping changes in our laws that trade agreements typically do not include.

Since the Senate first voted on TPA, there have been two material changes.

First, WikiLeaks subsequently revealed new troubling information regarding the Trade in Services Agreement, or TiSA, one of the trade deals being negotiated by Obama.

Despite the administration’s public assurances that it was not negotiating on immigration, several chapters of the TiSA draft posted online explicitly contained potential changes in federal immigration law. TPA would cover TiSA, and therefore these changes would presumably be subject to fast-track.

When TPA last came up for a vote, both Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and I introduced amendments that would have barred fast-track treatment for any trade agreement that attempted to impact immigration law. Two other Republican senators objected, and we were both denied votes on our amendments. Instead, the House inserted substantially weaker language in related legislation.

At the time that Sessions and I introduced our amendments, many said our fears were unfounded. But now we have far more reason to be concerned.

Second, TPA’s progress through the House and Senate appears to have been made possible by secret deals between Republican Leadership and the Democrats.

When TPA first came up for a vote in the Senate, it was blocked by a group of senators, led by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), both of whom were conditioning their support on the unrelated objective of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank.

The Ex-Im Bank is a classic example of corporate welfare. It is cronyism at its worst, with U.S. taxpayers guaranteeing billions of dollars in loans for sketchy buyers in foreign nations. Ex-Im is scheduled to wind down on June 30. But powerful lobbyists in Washington want to keep the money flowing.

After witnessing several senators huddle on the floor the day of the TPA vote, I suspected that to get their votes on TPA, Republican Leadership had promised supporters of Ex-Im a vote to reauthorize the bank before it winds down.

At lunch that day, I asked Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) what precise deal had been cut to pass TPA. Visibly irritated, he told me and all my Republican colleagues that there was no deal whatsoever; rather, he simply told them they could use the ordinary rules to offer whatever amendments they wanted on future legislation.

Taking McConnell at his word that there was no deal on Ex-Im, I voted yes on TPA because I believe the U.S. generally benefits from free trade, and without TPA historically there have been no free-trade agreements.

But then the vote went to the House. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), to the surprise of many, led House Democrats to oppose TPA en masse. (Technically, they voted against TAA, which was wrapped into the deal on TPA.)

At that point a group of House conservatives went to Speaker Boehner and said they could support TPA if Boehner agreed not to cut a deal with Democrats on Ex-Im, and just let the bank expire.

Boehner declined. Instead, it appears he made the deal with Democrats, presumably tossing in the Ex-Im Bank and also increasing tax penalties on businesses.

Moreover, the Speaker punished conservatives, wrongly stripping Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) of his subcommittee chairmanship, and reportedly threatening to strip other conservatives of their chairmanships as well.

Why does Republican Leadership always give in to the Democrats? Why does Leadership always disregard the promises made to the conservative grassroots?

Enough is enough. I cannot vote for TPA unless McConnell and Boehner both commit publicly to allow the Ex-Im Bank to expire—and stay expired. And, Congress must also pass the Cruz-Sessions amendments to TPA to ensure that no trade agreement can try to back-door changes to our immigration laws. Otherwise, I will have no choice but to vote no.

There’s too much corporate welfare, too much cronyism and corrupt dealmaking, by the Washington cartel. For too long, career politicians in both parties have supported government of the lobbyist, by the lobbyist, and for the lobbyist – at the expense of the taxpayers. It’s a time for truth. And a time to honor our commitments to the voters.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.