Posted on 01/03/2016 3:48:53 AM PST by BigEdLB
Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are locking horns in a few early voting states, but when it comes to states that vote later in the season, Trump seems to have a noticeable advantage. He leads among likely Missouri Republican primary voters 36-24%, with Marco Rubio not too far behind tallying 18%.
(Excerpt) Read more at overtimepolitics.com ...
If I believed that, I would agree with your analysis.
Eleven recent nationwide polls - As you say, most “push 40,” but not one 40 or over (Ipsos 39, Clout 38, YouGov 35, CNN 39, Q 28, Em 36, Fox 39, Raz 29, PPP 34, MC 36, Gravis 34)
The average of most polls “pushing 40” and some not pushing 40 is not 40. It’s 35.0. Taking state polls into account, I have the following weighted average:
12/16 - 12/31 N=18,230, 33.0
This is not a horse race, and might not become one. But, we are not yet through the winnowing process. The decision states through Super Tuesday are p.r. for a reason, viz., the winnowing. In 2008, the social conservatives remained split, and as a result Romney won a lot of states with less votes than Santorum plus Gingrich. The alignment is different this time. Now, a populist-conservative has cleared his orbit, while the social-conservative/economic conservative orbit has not been cleared.
My point is only that Cruz would have roughly the support Trump has were he to clear the social-conservative/economic-conservative orbit to have a chance in the WTA states. Cruz does not also have to persuade the e-Republicans to back him.
Your point of who is the second choice of whose voters is exactly the right point. Somebody with access to the micro data of surveys that include the second choice question might know the answer. But, so far, Carson’s fall has equalled Cruz’ rise.
And, let’s not forget about Trump being a second choice. In the last month or so, Trump broke through the 30 point ceiling. He’s now in the mid 30s, or the low to mid 30s if you also consider state polls. So, obviously, Trump has been the second choice of some of the candidates whose have left or who have fallen.
The 5-day Reuters had Trump over 43 last week and 39 a couple of days. I call that pushing 40.
You must be living in a cave....or you're not on FR all that much. Which is it?
Leni
I am on FR enough for the attacks on Ted Cruz by a dedicated core of followers to remind me of Ron Paul’s crazy followers. I registered on this site about 17 years ago - one month before you did - but I have never seen a true conservative attacked the way that Cruz has been over the past few months.
I suspect there are more than a few us that wished he had a few more terms under his belt.
But as Amntn pointed out and you ignored........
The problem with your second choice theory is that many of the Trump/Cruz votes overlap.
Trump is my first choice and Cruz my second. For me to vote for Cruz, Trump would have to drop out and that isn't going to happen.
But it did not free one slave in the North. Strange huh?
Trump is the most unconventional candidate in the race and IMO, those who are open to supporting him most likely have already made that decision. Trump is closer to his ceiling than Cruz is, although Cruz's ceiling may not be high enough to overtake Trump.
Sorry, I don’t rely on Hollywood for history. Although I thought the Daniel Day Lewis movie was very good, it played fast and loose on the 13th Amendment.
Lincoln was an advocate of compensated emancipation but walked a tightrope with regard to interfering in the states, seeking to avoid a civil war, or trying to keep the border states loyal once civil war broke out. The emancipation proclamation was issued by Lincoln as commander-in-chief during time of war or insurrection, and only pertained to those places that were in rebellion. It was a game-changer. There was no going back after it was issued.
The federal government had jurisdiction over DC and, so, by law provided compensated emancipation for that place. Slaveowners were paid $300 a head by the federal government. Male slaves in good health, having no particular skill, sold for $800 on average in New Orleans, so we can suppose that slaveowners got about half the market value of their slaves. (This sharing of the loss characterized compensated emancipation in the British colonies of the Americas several decades prior.)
Maryland and Kentucky, on their own, freed their slaves by state Constitutional amendment.
The main argument against the 13th Amendment was that compensation should be offered the slaveowners of Delaware and Missouri and the places in the South that were at the time of the emancipation proclamation under federal jurisdiction. But, by then it was too late. By the time that the 13th Amendment was being considered, there was no sympathy for slaveowners. The slaveowners of Delaware and Missouri, which defeated compensated emancipation measures within their states, got zip.
The people of the South should have abolished slavery.
Lincoln did NOT start the Civil War or fight the Civil War for the purpose of abolishing slavery. He fought the Civil War to suppress the right of secession, which is a natural right whose existence is affirmed in the Declaration.
So, Arthur, just so I finally get it into my thick skull: it would was wrong for Lincoln to attempt to avoid a Civil War, thinking that if we just contained slavery, instead of allowing slavery into the territories, we would eventually find a way to peacefully end it? Because he didn’t, on day 1, issue the Emancipation Proclamation and commence an all-out war, he’s morally repugnant?
And, Henry Clay he must be in the category of morally repugnant since he too advocated a peaceful resolution of the thorny issue of slavery, seeking compromise, thinking that eventually we would obtain a peaceful resolution. It’s either embrace war or embrace slavery. And, Britain. If slavery was wrong and needed to be abolished, it was wrong to offer compensation to slave-owners?
And, Ronald Reagan, believing that a strong U.S., with a vibrant economy, would so outpace communism that they could never keep up with us and would collapse if they tried to do so. If communism was a bad thing, we should have made war against it. On the other hand, you must really admire George W. Bush. Didn’t Bush show us how is the way to deal with evil?
Lincoln didn’t start the Civil War at all. South Carolina did. At that time, Lincoln offered the command of Union forces to General Lee, thinking this would contain the rebellion to the states of the deep south. But, Lee declined, considering himself more a Virginian than an American. Yet, Lee’s acceptance of the commission might have kept Virginia in the Union.
Even when Virginia and other border states joined with the confederacy, Lincoln laid out the possibility of restoring the status quo antebellum. (This did not sit well with the abolitionists of the North.) But, as the war demanded the sacrifices that it deed, merely maintaining the union and trusting that eventually there would be a peaceful resolution of slavery was no longer sufficient.
It was after the tide had swung that the South send emissaries to Lincoln to a truce and the restoration of the status quo antebellum. So, your heroes showed that they, like Lincoln, were wishy-washy and morally repugnant. Men of expediency. Not men of principle. But, it was too late for any restoration of the status quo antebellum.
BTW If the South had ended slavery, not only would Lincoln have been unable to sustain a war effort, it [the South] might have been supported by Britain, France and other members of the Holy Alliance. They had their reasons to fear a unified U.S. stretching from coast to coast, but were repulsed by slavery. That the Confederacy didn’t free the slaves reveals their purpose.
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.