Posted on 01/16/2016 9:25:53 AM PST by TBBT
I have been saying for a while that the fundamentals still matter. I think they do. They particularly matter in caucuses, which are not like primaries. Caucuses require a lot of time, are not always where you’d show up to vote in a primary, etc. If those fundamentals really do matter, Donald Trump probably cannot win Iowa. He can’t because he has not invested in a ground game operation there.
The New York Times has a pretty detailed look at Donald Trump, which makes him sound more like the second coming of Howard Dean 2004 than an outsider on the cusp of winning it all. Dean, you will remember, stole headlines across the nation in 2004 for his enterprising operation. He campaign had money pouring in, he had more energy and larger rallies than any other candidate. But while his campaign was investing in flash, tech, and coliseums for the crowds showing up, the other campaigns were investing in boots on the ground in Iowa to get out voters. Polling showed Dean ahead almost to the end, trending down slightly before the caucus. But CNN, on January 15, 2004, had Howard Dean at 19% and Wesley Clark at 14%. In the end, Dean came in third.
Trump looks like he is repeating that mistake and if his supporters see their man bleed, particularly when he has not really bled this campaign season, it may become impossible to stop that bleeding.
(Excerpt) Read more at theresurgent.com ...
“”Trump is the first one who doesn’t think we need to surrender the country to fraudulently documented foreigners.””
Enough with the cult talk lumin!! ...TBBT knows best.
We Freepers are MoeRons.
All hail King TBBT! Fall before your genius ruler! ...and his slobbering three legged minons.
>> You offend this site and it’s members.
I’m not offended.
Why do you presume that you can speak for me?
Eddie, I must say, your saying, “I have dirt on my hands I cannot get off” is just what I have been looking for to express just how I also feel about some of the foolish and desperate things I have done while growing up. The good news is, “I have grown old while living in America”.
I didn’t say *all* members, did I?
Fair enough. Just making sure you weren’t taking on a job you can’t fill.
If you’re not offended by being called a cult like group thinker, then you either are a cult like group thinker OR you’re incapable of being offended.
Either way, I don’t care.
I have also said I do not know if Trump the celebrity, can win over a ground organization like that. If he wins Iowa, it will be the first time in modern history that celebrity wins over excellent ground organization.
What I have written above is what Erickson is talking about. He says, “I have been saying for a while that the fundamentals still matter. I think they do.” He goes on to explain the fundamentals and that is the ground game I covered above.
When Trump entered the race and for months after that, had no ground game, I thought Trump had NO chance in Iowa due to it being a caucus state which requires workers in every county. I have changed my mind about that due to the Trumpcult that has sucked in angry people. I do not know if the cult will manage to get to caucus meeting places. If Trump loses, then I will know the fundamentals DO still matter as Erickson suggests. Therefore, if Trump loses, it tells me Cruz's ground game, the fundamentals, in South Carolina has an excellent chance to deliver that state to Cruz.
Erickson thinks if Trump loses in Iowa, Trump will come verbally unglued as Howard Dean did. First, Trump has to lose. Second, no one knows what Trump will do and I doubt Trump knows, either, as he cannot vision a loss.
I have predicted, and still predict Trump being third in Iowa.
>> then you either are a cult like group thinker OR you’re incapable of being offended
False dichotomy.
One can simply choose when, and when not, to be offended.
No, it is South Carolina. Iowa is a caucus state and New Hampshire is northeasterners who tend to be more liberal. Trump and Chris Christi are more their type of candidate. It is South Carolina with a regular primary (not a caucus) that represents the entire southern states. If Cruz loses there, not winning first or second, that will indicate his showing in all the southern states that vote two weeks from South Carolina, will not give him enough delegates to give him the win after all the primaries.
Red state GOPer speaks.
Weird how RCP skips Reuters and other major polls
New Hampshire's primary result generally matters for a whole presidential campaign if there isn't an incumbent President running for re-election.
EE is a POS GOPe me too.
Desperately clinging to the old rules.
One thing is certain, the GOPe and the K street crowd NEED the old rules to apply, they NEED their ‘fundamentals’ to matter.
If this primary season shatters the paradigms, then the old network and old advice and old experts are no longer valid. You want campaign finance and election reform ... prove the K Street crowd immaterial.
I remember when Rush let Chris Matthews host his show. Rush was seduced by Chris coming down hard on Bill Clinton’s antics. At least that’s how I remember it.
He didn’t make that mistake twice. I don’t know much about Erickson but the article didn’t sound too strange.
Well, you’re here so ....
Just a hint here ... meant only to help you.
Referring to Ted Cruz as Rafael all the time is a schoolyard tactic and makes you seem dumb, which I’m sure you are not.
I’ve noticed that most posters here are attacking Erickson and not the content of his article.
Is it kill the messenger day on Free Republic?
The writer may have forgotten the enormous impact of IA’s First Lady, Christie Vilsak, coming out to endorse Kerry a day or two before the caucuses. That was perceived as the popular governor’s endorsement, and totally turned the tables. It had little to do with Kerry’s “ground game.”
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.