Posted on 02/10/2016 6:12:21 AM PST by justlittleoleme
My gut (and let’s be fair, almost every analyst was united on this one) turned out to be correct; Rubio’s momentum coming out of Iowa was effectively killed on Saturday.
-snip-
What is more, the fact that non-affiliated voters are allowed to vote in the primaries rewards candidates who are perceived as moderate and authentic.
But here’s the thing: Maybe I’ll be proven wrong, but I’m skeptical Kasich can replicate this in other states where conservative voters matter a lot more in primaries.
-snip-
My guess is that Tuesday night will be the highlight of Kasich’s 2016 campaign.
So the really interesting point is that I think the big winner of the night is Ted Cruz . The primaries are about to head South, which is Cruz country. Unlike other Evangelical candidates who win Iowa but can’t parlay that into more, Cruz’s respectable finish in New Hampshire demonstrates that he’s not simply a regional candidate.
If you think about what happened on Tuesday night, Cruz swapped a serious rival (Rubio) for a guy who likely is a one-hit wonder (Kasich). That’s a trade he will take every day and twice on Sundays. Because the “establishment” lane is now muddled and muddy (even Jeb Bush is looking better these days!), there is a real danger that mainstream conservative voters could begin to coalesce around Cruz as the best, last hope to stop Donald Trump.
We’re not quite there yet. There’s still a chance that someone else could emerge. Maybe Rubio pulls out a surprise win in South Carolina? It ain’t over till it’s over. But we are getting dangerously close to entering a stage where it becomes a Trump vs. Cruz race.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Because coming in 3rd is “winning”.
So much disordered logic being being presented as “reasonable”.
I must observe
Ted Cruz 29,190 votes (-60,175) 11.6%
Jeb Bush 27,890 votes (-61,475) 11.1%
Marco Rubio 26,966 votes (-62,399) 10.7%
Ted is less than 1% ahead of Jeb and Rubio, are they winners too?
Undeclared voters in NH range from liberal to conservative, with a lot of people mixed in who either don't like either party or just don't care or know about them. And some voters who are savvy enough to want to be able to pick what party's primary they vote in.
Kasich probably pulled in a lot of the liberals who knew Sanders would win, or don't care if Hillary or Sanders is the Democratic nominee so they picked a Republican ballot instead. They won't vote that way in the general election.
The truth is Annie, that the establishment AND Media LOATHE CRUZ like so many here on Free Republic. Speaks volumes!
It is really a 3 way tie.
I offer two words to support your claim; Lindsey Graham.
To give this some perspective, the Japanese won at Pearl Harbor.
My point is that the author’s point is valid. Everyone knew trump was way ahead and Trump was not even the issue for Cruz. Rather, Cruz’s battle with others was the issue. And Rubio’s fall is a very big deal.
The article is about losing a battle, but coming out a lot stronger than expected - and winning the war.
I’m reminded of “Francisco” coming out of the dirt section of the first race in Cars 2. Cruz held his own in a state where he knew he was very weak. Trump did what was expected.
Also, if you understand NH, the state is, by definition, an outlier. My daughter is moving there as part of the “Free State Project”. (google it)
I guess Losing is the New Winning. ;-)
The real winner?
From Iowa ‘they’ said Rubio (#3) won.
From NH ‘they’ claim Cruz (#3 or #4) won.
Uh, no — the winners were the ones with the most votes.
I’ll up you two more: Nikki Haley.
“Trump WON ... everything else is Bull Shit”
Sure thing, he won a bunch of liberal crossover votes in a state chock full of liberals.
It means about as much as a primary in CA, who cares if you win in a state that votes 65% demonrat?
Everybody is a winner, except for the guy who got the most votes. He’s actually a loser . . . because his margin wasn’t as big as predicted by the pundits who said he’d actually lose.
Yep. Two faced, ungrateful and disloyal b*tch.
Someone just sent me a freemail saying that conservative might not mean the same in NH as elsewhere.
I prefer to respond here, rather than in freepmail, but will respect that persons privacy.
I disagree with the assertion that a NH conservative is somehow not a real or true conservative. (Sound familiar? Only Cruz supporters are true conservatives, dont ya know?)
There are strong conservatives in every blue state in America, especially NH. There is a strong old-time conservative tradition in that state and to say that the conservatives who supported Trump in NH arent real conservatives is just more of the denial that a certain hard-core group of Cruz pathetics are clinging to.
Cruz did what he needed to do. He neither overperformed or underperformed - his final total was very close to his polling average for the state.
There was no way he was going to win NH - it is too liberal. But by coming in the top 3, he keeps his momentum going. What is kind of impressive is that he pulled off 3rd place after spending only $1 million from both his campaign and the super pacs, and after spending only a total of 27 days in the state. He leaves the state with more hard money than any other candidate, and the best organization in the states coming up over the next month.
Now on to SC and the SEC primary!
Steve Deace nailed the order of the winners in his NH prediction, after nailing Iowa. His predictions will be the ones to watch in SC.
It’s wrong for anyone to pigeonhole Cruz as a “social conservative” candidate. He’s a social conservative in the way that Reagan was. They’re both socially conservative but both just as studied on economics and foreign policy as the best of their competitors. That’s why Cruz held up against the “mainstream” candidates. If you’re smart and like substance in your answers, Cruz was far and away the winner of the NH debate. Fox showed Cruz spent less money in NH per voter than any of the top 6, so he easily would’ve beaten Kasich if he spent as much time as Kasich did there.
Cruz’ biggest problem in the South will be that Trump is the first “dog whistle” candidate in a long time. Or more of an elephant gun than a dog whistle. Trump appeals greatly to anyone with prejudicial tendencies due to the bombs he’s dropped about Mexicans and Muslims. That makes the south perhaps tougher territory for Cruz than the Midwest. I don’t know how many of those voters there are in the south, but there are definitely more than in all other regions of the country.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for Grahamnesty voters to pull the level for Cruz in SC. Not going to happen. Cruz will pick up his usual chunk of evangelicals while Trump gets support across the board. That’s not a winning recipe for Team Cruz, sorry.
The Daily Caller is more like the Daily Bawler.
Every poll I’ve seen coming out of the South shows Trump winning handily. He’s 16 points ahead of Cruz in SC (pre IA and NH polls.) The only place I see Cruz leading is in TX, and only by 4 points last time I saw any numbers.
The person who e-mailed you is correct. If you call yourself conservative in a survey, you could be a libertarian or a fiscal conservative who is leftist on “social” issues. There are no doubt more people like that in NH than in Iowa.
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.