Posted on 02/02/2016 12:11:04 PM PST by GIdget2004
Agreed.
You keep on repeating that The Donald had no ground game in Iowa as though that were a virtue. Do we want a nominee who spends all of his time being a blowhard and NOT creating a ground game. Ted Cruz did the hard work that wins in Iowa. Last night The Donald made a very gracious concession speech. Neither Cruz nor Trump is a flunkie for the GOP-E. On to New Hampshire, South Carolina and beyond! May the best man win. May both of them compete with detailed plans and commitments as to how they will put an end to the mess we are in. Let there be great ground games for both of them since that becomes the basis for a ground game in the general election. Let the guttersniping end on BOTH sides of this dichotomy, remembering always that the purpose of this exercise is the restoration and advancement of this republic and our liberties.
Your comments are all hypothetical. And factually, there wasn’t much daylight when all three were in the twenties. Cruz should have been the perfect candidate to run away with IA and truly stake out the social conservative vote. Had he hit mid thirties and up, possibly he could say, “Rally around me.” But Cruz can’t because the numbers indicate Cruz is locked in a threesome. And, if Cruz isn’t solidly in the top three in NH I would say he might be finished.
Well, if the worst thing to be said about Cruz’s night in Iowa is that he needs practice on his victory speeches I doubt Ted would complain. Even those given in November are rarely historic. And suspect he’d be happy to accept more practice! Meanwhile Trump did his second place speech well in spite of being little practiced in such. And Rubio overdid things in third. You’d have thought he’d won.
I’m a Cruz supporter and I agree with you.
But I don’t think it will have any real effect on events.
Trump should have ignored Iowa. But he wanted to test his political skills. And he is locked in the threesome as a leader. Unless it’s all you have, you don’t spend 2 years slugging it out for a handful of delegates that aren’t even committed to you anyhow. IA is a nothing burger.
I don’t know if it was a Howard Dean moment, but it was not a good speech.
Trump demonstrated that a popular movement candidate could turn out large numbers of voters to the polls without knocking on their doors, calling them at all hours, or scaring them with official violation letters. Trump also demonstrated he was competitive with the evangelical voters. The Cruz campaign knows this even if his rapid online supporters do not.
you are correct,, Cruz’s speech was a sermon.. problem is Cruz is a horrible speaker who talks through his nose.. he had the whole Jimmy Swaggart cadence thing going on(which is annoying)and it being so rambling and went on for so long it multiplied by ten how hard it was to stay with it.. no honest person watching that speech could say it was good
I didn’t see the possibility of a misread there.
Well it was a cringeworthy speech and I like Cruz.
I love how you tout that Trump’s zero ground game as some sort of positive. I thought Donald was in it to win it? Didn’t he also hire Santorum’s coordinator?
In the end, Donald filled stadiums where throngs came out to view the celebrity harangue and bloviate, while Cruz went from town to town (completed the full Grassley - all 99 counties), meeting the people of Iowa face to face, explaining his positions and policies and the people liked what they heard. He also had the best ground game and turned out the vote.
The better man won. Sorry if that sticks in your craw.
Just a friendly warning to those Cruz supporters who are foolish enough to gloat over last nights victory. The more you gloat, the more painful it’s going to be for you next week when reality rears its ugly head.
Serious question: I never watch the news. I get all my info online and radio, so I rarely if ever see video of the candidates. Is Trump always that orange? For someone who never sees him, it was quite striking.
“The better man won. Sorry if that sticks in your craw.”
Your right, Cruz won, that huge 1 delegate lead.
It’s hardly sticking in my craw.
Nor did I.
He’s a winner. Like Charlie Sheen.
Typical Trump: follow up a loss with the most petty, childish things you can think of.
Before last night Cruz’s ground game was unproven and untrusted outside his campaign. And pundits have plenty of allegedly strong GOP ground games that flopped: Romney, McCain... Cruz now receives earned praise for delivering at least as well as he promised. Trump’s problem —today — isn’t that he didn’t have a ground game, but that he’d claimed he didn’t need a ground game and would get huge results without one. He blew his prediction. Now his next predictions are getting discounted. Cruz actually ran a relatively cost effective campaign for what he got. Rubio spent a LOT more for his votes. Trump spent quite a bit less, but now people wonder whether he went too cheap and what he could have done had he invested more up front. Trump could certainly start spending more, on the expensive Rubio model, but can’t put a Cruz style ground game together in time for the next few states even if he now wants one.
I do think Cruz overplayed it.
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.