Ted Cruz makes his move

but it doesn't look like the state is that great a
predictor of who will win the nomination.

************

Iowa likes to make a splash but as you point out it's not always the predictor.
There are three more caucus gathers in Iowa before they settle on the final number.
Rules were changed form 2012 to give more of a precedent to the Feb. 1 caucus than in
the past.

I didn't think it would be easy to defeat Cruz with the religious vote going his
way. But I've read some articles that Trump has a solid ground game there also.
So we'll see in about 67 days who is the winner.

Here is a very good article on Trump and the Iowa effort. It may not work but it’s his
plan and features trying to make it local which it needs to be.

Long but gives some idea of what maybe happening that we aren’t hearing about.
Read down into the article for info.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trumps-ground-game-iowa-soaring-aides-say-n445336

Since 1976...Except for 2012, 2008, and 1980... Iowa has voted for the eventual GOP nominee.

In 2012 Santorum actually got a 34 more votes than Romney.

In 1980 George H.W. Bush won Iowa over Reagan by about 1.5%.

Of course there were years that a sitting president was running unopposed.

So from 1976 until 2012, the eventual GOP nominee has won or finished a close 2nd except for 2008.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3353881/posts

So it is important to do well in Iowa.
Glad to see Cruz moving up!

This is a real concern. Would Romney get a better turnout if he were to get the nomination again? Doubtful. If he couldn't get it versus an Obama second term, why would Bernie or Mrs. Clinton be any different.

GOP needs to listen very carefully to its voters. Those who sat out last time aren't beyond doing it again. They repeatedly say so. It's a candidates job to *earn* votes. If the GOP nominee can't (or won't), it does no good for the GOP to insist "there's no other place to go" and hope it all turns out OK.

There's a body of thought out there that Romney lost because he either didn't, or couldn't work harder at turning out voters who would have cast ballots for them if only they were pushed just a little bit harder.

There are several good articles about that, this one
Also to be considered is how the other side runs its voter identification and turnout effort. This article provides a nice overview. But in summary, Obama won in 2012 because his campaign expended its effort on getting non-voters who politically aligned with his base out to vote. Which turned out to be cheaper and more effective than the traditional "tack to the center" methodology. That's seen nicely in this graph:

In reality, the problem isn't just about ideology and enthusiasm. It's also very much about outreach and retail politics. A candidate can't earn votes if he doesn't know where or how to go about asking the voters for them.

There's been some suggestion out there that the GOP has a new voter id/targeting/mobilization system in place and operational. One that works (unlike Romney's "Orca"), and explains the series of "surprising" GOP high-margin wins/very-close losses in the last year.

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.