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 ...
Yes when the messenger is hack and has a personal beef with Trump. I guess we should ignore the messenger when Rove and lutz spew as well?
If it’s like his title I doubt it and I already know his mindset. Only 2 weeks when it all starts. We’ll find out who is Potemkin village and who is not.
Erick is pitiful and not only because he’s a one trick pony in this election. He’s pitiful all the time. Mr. P.C.
Trump probably wins NH. Therefore Trump does not have to have Iowa; it is far more nearly the case that Cruz does, to get to SC with a win.If you want to see a historical implosion parallel which IMHO is more germane, look at the comparison between Bernie Sanders and Eugene McCarthy. Sanders may not be an entirely credible nominee of a major party, but like Eugene McCarthy, he is running against a presumptive nominee of his party who has serious liabilities.
LBJ was not ethically compromised in the way Hillary is, but his party had turned against his signature policy - the war in Viet Nam. McCarthy only had to beat expectations, not win outright, in NH to destroy the inevitability meme associated with the LBJ reelection campaign.
Sanders will do better than McCarthy did in 1968, and Trump will erode - may already have eroded the legitimacy of the Clinton candidacy. The Democrats have to know that their best case, as it were, with Hillary is a presidency that starts with less moral legitimacy than the previous Clinton administration ended with. They may think that Hillary can evade legal accountability for emailgate, but they know that the letter of the law qualifies her for serious accountability. And they know that another shoe would inevitably drop. With the Clintons, it always does.
I seem to be the only one pointing out that
implies that the Clinton Foundation is unconstitutional absent prior congressional authorization. But I imagine, perhaps fancifully, that somebody will read that and say that “the emperor has no clothes.” And should be in jail. If Trump thinks Cruz has a constitutional issue for the courts . . .
- Article 1 Section 9:
- No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state
All in all I do not see that Hillary inevitably will be the nominee of the Democrat Party. Not that I am confident that Sander is, either, but that others will smell blood if Sanders does well in Iowa and NH.
We should not count on the Democrats to nominate Hillary. No patriot would wish it.
I don’t recall Trump ever downplaying anything even when he has lost... And yes he has lost in the past but he always plays to win.
Maybe he knows something we don’t about Iowa.
We will see soon enough how this will all play out.
““He can’t because he has not invested in a ground game operation there.—
If he doesn’t, then getting about the same support as Cruz there is pretty amazing.
“If I was Trump I’d let Ted win Iowa. Ted has put all his eggs in one basket. But I get the feeling Trump doesn’t like to lose. Period. If Trump does win Iowa it’s a devastating blow to Cruz and the rest of the field. Turn out the lights, the party is over...”
I have a feeling that even after Trump has enough delegates licked up, he’ll still go after every remaining one. He’s a fighter.
“I have changed my mind about that due to the Trumpcult that has sucked in angry people. “
Resorting to insults again I see. You don’t get your way so you call people names and stomp your feet.
AND ping your friends because you can’t stand alone. Who is behaving as if they are in a cult now?
“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.”
Isn’t dumb at all - it is his real name.
I didn't realize that. Makes me wonder why he doesn't use it.
Everyone needs to get out to their caucus sites on February 1, 2016 & VOTE TRUMP! Never been before? Have questions?...Posted by Donald J. Trump on Saturday, January 16, 2016
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.
.....seems to be a bit of a reach. It seems to assume that Cruz supporters aren't just as angry as Trump supporters - if we're not mad, we are prepared to take anything the Left hands out without resistance.
As far as Trump losing it like Howard Dean, those who believe that haven't been paying attention - everything he does has been pretty calculated and he's not some nutcase who can't see reality. Many might take comfort (would make them the nutcases) by hoping and wishing for it to be true, but they have no relevant foundation from which to make that assumption.
I've been donating to Cruz monthly, so I can't be tagged as a "Trump-bot/Trumpkin" etc., but I won't "misunderestimate" him or wish for him to self-destruct - part of my mind keeps asking how Trump or Cruz would fare in the General and, despite my preference for Cruz, I can't help but notice that Trump has a broader base of appeal.
Toss a coin and it might end up balanced on edge.
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.