So now we are back to, ‘Can we believe the polls?’ Was IA just a freakshow?
In both states we saw heavy turnout-—much higher in NH than IA. However, in both states we saw Trump vastly exceed expectations about numbers! Recall we had a poster here whose name I can’t recall who assured us that Trump couldn’t beat Huckabee or Santorum’s numbers. Well, he did, handily-—yet still lost IA. However, Cruz seriously underperformed in numbers in NH. So, that little piece of evidence tells me The Donald is real. That he got beat by an exceptional ground game in IA, even though he got his voters out (as people said he couldn’t). Now, Fox said that he left about 24% of his voters “on the table” and could have gotten more out. He still wouldn’t have won IA, but he would have beaten the Santorum number by about 20% if he had-—incredible.
It really is, but more so now than back in the "old days." (FWIW, people erroneously think that Iowa's "first in the nation caucus" goes back to 1846 or some such hoary date. It doesn't.)
That he got beat by an exceptional ground game in IA. . .
Which was maybe not so much a Ted Cruz ground game as the ground game of the existing evangelical power structure within the Iowa GOP, which is still formidable (though often at odds with the moneyed good old boy wing of the Iowa GOP).
If Ted had not been in the running, Huckabee and/or Santorum probably would have split most of his votes, but I'm not sure which of those two would have gotten endorsements from Vander Plaats, etc.
Mr. niteowl77