Posted on 01/29/2016 10:43:08 PM PST by drewh
Even before Thursday night's Fox News debate, there was talk that Cruz might have "peaked too early" in Iowa. Cruz narrowly led the Donald in the typically very accurate and influential Des Moines Register/Bloomberg poll released on January 13.
But since then the polling has shown slippage for Cruz, generally attributed to a combo attack from Trump on Cruz's Canadian birth and from the Branstad family (Terry, the six-term governor, and son Eric, the ethanol lobbyist) on his opposition to special treatment of the corn-based alternative fuel by the federal government. Even more ominously, third-place candidate Marco Rubio, the favorite of both the Republican Establishment and of many conservative Evangelical leaders, was beginning to creep up on Cruz in Iowa polls amid a major spending spree on TV ads by the Floridian.
Then came Thursday night's debates, where Cruz was almost universally deemed the worst performer and perhaps (depending on your assessment of the impact of Trump's absence) the big loser. Two particularly damaging moments were his trapped look when confronted with videos of his past statements seeming to support legalization of undocumented immigrants, and a shot of Terry Branstad chortling as Cruz struggled to explain his position on ethanol. And it didn't help the nerves of Team Cruz that Frank Luntz's post-debate focus-group report for Fox News was practically a Rubio rally
If the debate does move caucusgoers, it may not be reflected in late polls (e.g., the final Register-Bloomberg poll that will be released Saturday night) that were in the field before the event. More likely, the caucuses will remain a test of the turnout strategies of Trump, with his effort to expand participation deep into marginal voting segments, and Cruz, with his state-of-the-art organization focused on the most likely caucusgoers.
If Cruz wins, the debate stumble will be forgotten instantly. If he finishes second, and particularly a weak second, chins will be stroked and lost opportunities will be weighed. And if he somehow finishes behind Rubio, his candidacy is in very big trouble. Any way you look at it, it's been a long, strange trip for a freshman U.S. senator who would finish dead last in a poll of his colleagues.
I don't think Old Man Murdoch calls the shots at Fox anymore .... his sons are supposedly Libs and would be perfectly happy with 200 years of 'Rat Presidents and _Residents.
IMHO the London phone-games scandal was all about taking down Rupert Murdoch and forcing him to turn at least partial control over to the sons for "better outcomes".
Worst of all was the debate. He lost an excellent opportunity. After the initial question could have opened with:
"I'm not here to talk about Donald Trump. I'm here to present my optimistic vision for America's future, and I want to inform the voters of Iowa and the rest of the nation how I will lead us to that vision."
I would have been strong and powerful and mature, not second fiddle, a chance to steal the stage and set things up for a dominating performance.
Instead, he made the lame joke pretending to be Trump, feeding the narrative that Trump was winning a debate he wasn't even at.
You make a good point. Ted Cruz had the opportunity to get his message out at the debate and he flubbed it. Now he’s reduced to sending out shaming letters to Iowa citizens. Sounds desperate.
Sure seems like it.
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.