Poll shows Trump, Fiorina, and almost any Republican beating Hillary in IA badly

NBC/Wall St. Journal ^ | 10/5/2015 | Mark Murray

[LS]

I wouldn't accuse you of being either GOPe or a plant. You raise valid points.

Remember we ALL raised those exact same points in 2008, then again in 2012. Both times we were wrong. The RCP average was in fact almost dead on. For the very low sample sizes, you have the huge Reuters and the other one (Ipsos?) which do a five-day rolling poll of 5,000 people. No, at this point, no one will be a "likely" voter.

Yes, Trump has name recognition.But what is interesting is that his Twitter following has rising by 2 million SINCE he declared. In other words, more people have begun following Trump after he became a politician than ANY other candidate even has. That is very, very significant. It shows a level of interest, not in Trump the "Apprentice" guy but in his policies.

Then there are the crowds. I think you're really wrong on "not paying attention." I was in AZ when his speech was announced and the rush to see him was incredible. The venue went from 1500 to 20,000 OVERNIGHT. It was all driven by his comments on illegals. He doesn't have 20,000 people everywhere---but aside from one Carson event, he's the only one EVER getting 20,000 people to events. So by your logic, this would be even more incredible---in July and August and September more than a year out, and a candidate is drawing 20,000 people a pop? Well, that's impressive. They ARE paying attention.

I don't know about Cruz's "grassroots" movement. We heard that about Ron Paul. As I've written here extensively, Cruz has a big problem, which is no matter how much he "opposed" whatever was happening in DC, he was still a part of DC. He voted for fast track. He voted for Corker. Most of all, he was unable to ever put together a coalition of even the most conservative senators to follow him. Why did he not at least have a rump caucus of Sessions, Lee, Ernst, Scott, and maybe Paul? To lead you have to get people to follow. Cruz absolutely could not (or would not) do that in the Senate. Seems a little disconcerting then for him to say he will lead all Americans.

As for Jeb, I do take him lightly. When you say "money" I say "Phil Gramm" and "Steve Forbes." These guys had by far the most money of any candidates at the time, and crashed and burned. Both had Jeb's problem namely they weren't exciting---at all.

On a "litmus test" of issues, yes, Cruz is as close to a perfect conservative as I'd want. But on the intangibles of whether or not he could actually lead America, I'm highly skeptical. He has just enough of the GOP club---even though, again, he's an outsider---that I think he would constantly try to do things the "old fashioned" way, whereas I think Trump knows from his NY building experience how to pay off the right guy, threaten the right guy, and simply get it done.

Now, as to delegates counted: I'm on record here that I think Trump will put this thing away pretty much after Super Tuesday. In the polls, he's not only leading, but he usually leads a DIFFERENT CANDIDATE in each state. That's terrible news for Trump, or Rubio, or anyone else. It's not like Cruz is running a close second in every state. Rather, Cruz is running a distant 4th or 5th, but in between, the #2 guy or gal constantly varies between Carson, Fiorina, Rubio, or Bush. What that means is that in all the proportional states, Trump will be constantly getting delegates even when he doesn't win, but the others will be cut out. I've done the math on some other threads. Suffice it to say Trump could easily have 500 delegates not long after Super Tues, while his next closest rival---NO MATTER WHO IT IS---would not have even 100. Look at the way things are structured.