"And the winner of the Iowa Caucus is.....Donald Trump!"
Posted on 02/03/2016 2:29:45 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
On Wednesday morning, two days after losing the Iowa Republican caucus to Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, Donald Trump accused the Texas senator of stealing the election. According to Trump, Cruz’s campaign committed “fraud” by sending direct mail pieces to lapsed Republican voters and by spreading public reports that pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson might be dropping out of the race.
On the night of the Iowa caucuses, Ben Carson accused Ted Cruz's campaign of spreading false rumors about his campaign suspending its bid for the GOP nomination. Cruz’s people had been pushing a report that originated with CNN, which reported that Carson was planning on going home to Florida after the caucus instead of traveling to New Hampshire or South Carolina.
With his poor showing and diminishing numbers, it was not outlandish to deduce from this that Carson was toying with the idea of dropping out. Turns out he wasn't. It turns out Carson only planned to briefly return home so he could grab some "fresh clothes." Part of the incident can be chalked up to the ambiguous comments coming from Carson's amateurish campaign and the other part to Cruz’s campaign doing what campaigns tend to do: push narratives and stories that help them win elections.
But unless new evidence emerges, Trump's accusations of fraud and illegality are as absurd as his calls for a new election. Moreover, even if we believed Trump's charges, under no scenario does he win Iowa.
Ted Cruz didn’t win Iowa, he stole it. That is why all of the polls were so wrong and why he got far more votes than anticipated. Bad!
- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2016
Let’s say deception was afoot. Where is the evidence that the CNN story or the Cruz tactic changed the dynamics of the race at all? Carson's RealClearPolitics polling average was 7.7 percent-with some of the better polling putting him at 9 percent. One poll even had him at 10 percent. He finished the night with 9.3 percent of the vote. This seems right, and probably a little better than expected. Carson's numbers had taken a nosedive since peaking on Nov. 1st, and there was no evidence that a Carson surge was underway. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Even if we concede, for the sake of discussion, that Carson lost two or even three thousands voters to the rumor (which is pushing it), nothing changes. Even if Carson finished at 10 percent or 12 percent, the political outcome is the same. To believe Trump was cheated out of the race, you have to accept that Carson lost more than six thousand supporters, and all of them went to Cruz. Well, Carson pulled in a little over 17,300 votes.
In truth, it’s far more likely that any Carson defecting voters would have dispersed somewhat evenly among the other major candidates. Let's go big, though, and say Carson lost 15,000 supporters. According to a not-very-scientific NBC poll in early January, Cruz and Trump were tied as the second choice of Carson supports, at 26 percent each. Trump would have been in the same place. In a more scientific and more recent Des Moines Register/Bloomberg poll, Trump was tied with Marco Rubio as second choice. Trump's favorability tracked way below that of every other candidate except Chris Christie. Considering the Rubio surge, it's far more plausible that Carson's lost votes would have gone to Rubio and pushed Trump into third place.
Now, I realize nothing is going to change the minds of Trump and his fans. Believing they were cheated out of Iowa is almost a philosophical necessity. The story helps Trump continue to latch onto to polls as unvarnished Truth and dismiss the idea that he has ever really lost at anything. But even if we believe Cruz cheated, none of the outcomes lead to a Trump victory.
You didn’t do well in 8th grade English, did you Will? Notion and fact are not synonymous.
Now correct me if I’m wrong but weren’t you one of the Trump supporters who applauded Trump slandering Carson as a psychopath which drove Bens poll numbers down from 30 to 10 in Iowa?
Carson is bitching about being cheated, in his view. There is no excuse for what the Cruz campaign did, whether the victim lost one vote or ten thousand.
You’re defending a form of voter fraud. Since this is a peculiar circumstance that could only happen within a caucus system, there probably isn’t any specific law that addresses it. But it was still a form of voter fraud.
I was thinking the same thing on election night. Listening to Trump whine about Cruz today makes me wonder if Trump or his supporters have considered the possibility that, had Trump actually attended the only Iowa debate, perhaps he could have gotten himself over the 2nd place hump. Nah. They’re too busy bitching about a mailer being sent out urging people to get out and vote.
It is and I am sure Trump knows this (though not his fanatical supporters). Cruz just ran a better operation in Iowa and Trump all but admitted as much. Trump would rather as many people as possible dwell on his fraud accusations rather than see plainly that Ted out-campaigned him and that "the Donald" is no longer inevitable (he never was, but again Trump has to keep his supporters wearing blinders).
Trump is way ahead in the polls right now in NH, but if his lead dwindles and he somehow loses there too I am not sure if he will even stay in the race past South Carolina (assuming he loses that one too).
Trump’s problem is that he has some kind of mental block against the idea of accepting defeat. Always surrounded by sycophants reminding him of his awesomeness, the pain of reality biting him in the a** is more acute.
And no.. Cruz didn’t “cheat” Trump out of his assumed victory. Trump lost.
So get over it, kids.
"And the winner of the Iowa Caucus is.....Donald Trump!"
It is not voter fraud. You didn’t do well in pre-law either, did you?
I’m no expert on it, but doesn’t seem strange to allow the candidates and their people into the caucus?
You have campaign people in there clearly trying to sway votes and commit subterfuge...
Cruz won. This isn’t about that.
Cruz’s status won’t change one iota. It still seems like an environment rife with problems.
Here’s an attendee seeing the utter chaos I’m addressing.
It doesn’t seem right. It should be an election, not a free for all.
That would be my only observation.
By the way, are you trying to say that they haven't weathered that Cruz shenanigans? They're still there.
Most often, winning the Iowa Caucus is usually the kiss of death for Republican candidates. Huckabee won the Iowa Caucus in 2008 (McCain's year to win the nomination). Santorum won the Iowa Caucus in 2012 (Romney's year to win the Republican nomination). Old Bush won the Iowa Caucus in 1980 (Reagan's year to win the Republican nomination). Bob Dole won the Iowa Caucus in 1988 (Old Bush's year to win the Republican nomination). (1984, 1992, and 2004, Republican incumbants ran unopposed in the Iowa Caucus.)
Jimmy Carter won the Iowa Caucus just one time, in 1980. That same year (1980), Ronald Reagan actually lost the Republican Iowa Caucus, but went on to overwhelmingly defeat Jimmy Carter in the General Election, to become President of the United States of America.
For Republicans, winning the Iowa Caucus usually proves to be quite unlucky. (It won't take long at all to find out if this same kind of pattern is going to start repeating itself again this year. Just watch what happens in New Hampshire next Tuesday.)
If he manages to blow that lead in NH, he is gone.
Yes. He does.
I’m amazed anyone cares. IA means nothing. NH means nothing.
I’m not defending it at all. I’m just saying that a winning candidate can survive these tactics, as the eventual nominee will have to versus the Democrat machine. It sickens me that Republicans would stoop to Democrat tactics. But then Trump has been using Democrat attack lines for 6 months and now the entire field is following suit. I don’t defend that BS either.
Only problem, Steve Harvey is anti-Trump like yourself.
Let me ask it very slowly: if you are a caucus voter who is told by surrogates of admittedly sleazy politician Cruz that Carson has dropped out, they are stupid a. for believing sleazy Cruzers or b. for deciding to vote for somebody else instead of going home?
Um, not everyone owns a smart phone - especially the elderly.
I’m not anti-Trump, I’m ok with Trump or Cruz, I want the others to drop out before I have to choose between the two. But Trump and Cruz are not helping themselves right now by continuing to focus on what happened in Iowa, they both need to move on and carry forward their campaigns, or else Rubio will overtake them.
Being that Trump is a Democrat, couldn’t he just find some more votes in the trunk of his car?
Maybe he did and that’s why he came in 2nd place instead of 3rd.
I don’t think Trump wants the job. This is self sabotage.
That is one of the dumbest statement's I've ever read on FR. To have any basis for a notion, and to state that not one single vote was changed because of the Cruz attempts to change voter's choice, one must have something to base that sweeping "notion" upon.
If you knew - and you absolutely did not - that not one single vote was changed, then you had to have some sweeping set of facts covering 1,681 caucus venues to base your "notion" upon.
What a totally dumb and unsupportable statement you made. Your notions are best described as irrational, self-serving fantasies.
Now correct me if Im wrong but weren’t you one of the Trump supporters who applauded Trump slandering Carson as a psychopath which drove Bens poll numbers down from 30 to 10 in Iowa?
Instead of engaging in cheap, unsupported innuendo, provide links to support your cheap, childish little game playing.
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.