[LS]

Well, there are "predictions" and there is evidence. Yes, lightning can strike Frankenstein and bring him to life, I guess. But the evidence of more than 30 state polls and over 500 national polls, where Trump has not trailed (I can give you the 4-5 exceptions: UT, one TX poll, two WI polls, a couple of IA polls--but not now---and a VA poll, as well as Carson led once, I think, in one national poll) . . . well, that's not wishful thinking and it's not "pride" or any other Cruzer nonsense.

It's hard, cold facts. We can all (and do) dismiss one or two strange outlier polls as "not reprsentative," but not every poll from every state over a seven month period. I'd say that counts as "inevitable."

Learn it, love it.

[hoosiermama]

It’s. A movement!

[justlittleoleme]

Ok since you place so much value in polls how about this:

According to our latest polls-plus forecast, Ted Cruz has a 52% chance of winning the Iowa caucuses.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/iowa-republican/

The polls-plus model is based on state polls, national polls and endorsements. (National polls are used in a slightly unusual way; they’re a contrarian indicator. More about that later.) The polls-plus model also seeks to account for how the projected results in Iowa could affect the results in New Hampshire and how the results in those states could affect the results in subsequent contests.

In theory, the polls-plus model should be more accurate than the polls-only model, but it’s a pretty small difference; in our backtesting, polls-plus was more accurate at predicting a candidate’s actual result 57 percent of the time, while polls-only was more accurate 43 percent of the time. That’s something, but there are plenty of times when the polls-only model will give the more accurate answer. Therefore, we think the models are more useful when looked at together.

[mandaladon]

Yes, lightning can strike Frankenstein and bring him to life, I guess. ...................LOL!