Posted on 02/02/2016 11:29:52 AM PST by conservativejoy
Let's get back to basics here and wake up from fever dreams.
Ted Cruz won Iowa and did it impressively. The final turnout was 186,289, of which Cruz received 27.72 percent, or 51,646 votes. If the turnout had been lower, say 135,000, a number that Decision Desk founder Brandon Finnigan was more comfortable with, Cruz would have had over 30 percent of the vote.
In any case, Iowa Republicans smashed their 2012 caucus attendance record to smithereens, besting it by 64,000 voters. The models and polls (including the vaunted Ann Selzer) all showed Trump winning big in that scenario. In fact, Cruz beat Trump by 6,238 votes, and most of the undecideds who showed up in the cities Trump needed to carry broke for Rubio instead.
But Cruz dominated. He won 56 of 99 counties: Nearly 57 percent. He finished second behind Rubio in Polk (Des Moines), where Trump didn't do nearly as well as he needed to.
Even more basic: Cruz has never lost an election of any kind. He won his Senate primary in Texas; he won the general election in Texas, both against significant and well-funded opposition.
Now Cruz faces another well-funded, establishment-backed candidate-two if you include Rubio-but I'm referring to Trump.
Donald Trump has never won an election of any kind* (at least a public election). Those who now tout the fact that Reagan lost Iowa before winning the nomination in 1980 need to face the fact that Reagan was a seasoned campaigner. He had run for office since 1966 (that's 14 years for the math-challenged), winning the nomination for governor with over 64 percent of the vote, and beating incumbent Democrat Pat Brown by a million votes in the general election.
Reagan ran for president, as a Republican, never as a third party, three times before he won the office. Whoever is thinking Donald Trump is another Ronald Reagan is delusional.
And now Ted Cruz is a winner, and Donald Trump is the thing he hates most in the entire universe: a loser. Until just about an hour ago, the last tweet on Trump's Twitter timeline is over 12 hours old. It's dead silence from The Donald. Undoubtedly, Trump expected this loss could happen, and he's prepared for it. But you're never really prepared to accept a loss (believe me, I've worked enough losing campaigns).
From this point on, we know two important things. Ted Cruz can win, and a media-fueled demagogue is not unstoppable. Now that we know the boogeyman is not hiding under the bed, let's go forward without all the fear and nail biting, and take America back for conservatives.
*Wikipedia notes that Trump won two Reform Party primaries in 2000. I dispute this. The Reform Party wasn't organized enough to run primaries, and in any case, Trump withdrew early after the party started to disintegrate.
I listened to this stories of how Cruz had a plan to win Iowa, and those were proven correct. Kudos, I put too much faith in Laudner.
So now I would like the same kind of explanation as to how Cruz wins NH and SC.
They are very different states, and not caucuses but primaries.
In NH all the polls have trump way up, how does Ted close?
And in SC Ted is trailing as well. Rubio just snagged an endorsement that apparently matters to SC. So how does Ted catch and close in SC?
I’m not being a jerk, I just want to know what folks are seeing that I’m not. I was off several points in IA, so I’m curious how y’all see they lay of the land in NH and SC.
Hardly.
Iowa 1980, January 21
Reagan - 30%
Bush 32%
Seems like what just happened this year.
You may know Arnold well from being a Californian, but how well do you know Reagan. Did you ever see him in person? Go to a Rally? I did—even before he was the nominee, 3 or 4 years prior to his first election, and he was a lot like Trump.
I haven’t paid as much attention to New Hampshire. We’ll have to wait and see if a ground game means as much there.
I don’t think anyone knows right now about either N.H. or S.C. A week makes a lot of difference, and we have a bit longer for S.C.
(And I'm a Cruzer)
How, exactly? Trump does not remind me of Ronaldus much, he is much more in your face. Not being confrontational, just honestly curious why you say that.
You answer my question with a question....
Did you ever see him? Did you ever listen to a speech? Or Vote for him?
Why does he remind you of Arnold?
You are making this harder than it needs to be.
I saw him on TV. And in a few films.
I’ve listened to countless of his speeches, thank you Mark Levin.
I voted for him twice.
Arnold? You lost me completely there, I see no similarity between Ronaldus and the Austrian Oak, except of course both were Governator of Cooliforia.
Ah, you were not the original poster to whom I was replying who had refered to Trump being like Arnold... I was talking to someone else...no matter.
Try this for starters—as I said, I have actually seen Reagan in person, once when he was a long way from the oval office. Don’t even get me started on Mark Levin. Oh, and I voted for Reagan twice too.
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/trump-reagan-common-things/2015/08/03/id/665217/
I thought something seemed odd there, so OK, we’re cool. Substitute the name Cruz for Trump in that link and it works for me just the same. I don’t hate Trump, I’m just a Cruz guy, he is my homeboy. I’ll crawl a mile through broken liberals to vote for either of them, no prob.
So, yer a Levin hater then? It’s cool, but the man has taught me much about politics and the Constitution. He should be a Supreme Court Justice, IMHO.
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.