Posted on 02/02/2016 3:56:16 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
On Monday, Iowa voters did something that Republican "party elites" had failed to do for more than seven months: They rejected Donald Trump.
Trump received 24 percent of the vote in the Iowa caucuses, placing him closer to the third-place candidate, Marco Rubio (23 percent), than to the winner, Ted Cruz (28 percent). Trump underperformed his polls, which had him winning Iowa with 29 percent of the vote, while Cruz and Rubio outperformed theirs.
It's not uncommon for the polls to be off in Iowa and other early-voting states, but the manner in which Trump underachieved is revealing. It turns out that few late-deciding voters went for him. According to entrance polls in Iowa, Trump won 39 percent of the vote among Iowans who decided on their candidate more than a month ago. But he took just 13 percent of voters who had decided in the last few days, with Rubio instead winning the plurality of those voters....
(Excerpt) Read more at fivethirtyeight.com ...
Trump’s platform is Trump first.
“Yet the NH polls shows Trump ahead.”
As long as Trump is ahead in the “polls” and not in actual election that matters, by all means. When the rubber meets the road, Trump is Toast.
You're looking at each state race in isolation. But each individual state result is meaningless in isolation, save for some possible effects on momentum and $$$$ contributions.
After last night, the delegate count is Cruz(8), Trump(7), Rubio(7). If the Broncos are leading the Panthers 8 to 7 at the end of the first quarter, they have not "won" anything but a point lead and possibly some great momentum going forward.
Iowa was just Game 1 of a 50-game match, with Cruz now leading by one point. Nobody is anywhere near winning anything yet.
Pot, meet kettle.
Trump and Cruz have followed similar themes, though they certainly lack the conviction Buchanan had.
Cruz’s total votes last night were the highest ever for a Republican, higher than any previous caucus in IOWA.
Guess what, 5,000 votes behind him was the second biggest Republican vote getter of all Time Donald J. Trump.
I don’t think that was a humiliating performance. Cruz spent tons of money and had 12,000 Texans camping out for a month to help him. Ministers were ordering whole Churches to get to the polls.
Trump spend the second least per vote , amazing, he didn’t have 12,000 people camped out, or congregations being ordered to the polls.
If Branstad had endorsed Trump, used his political machine built over the past 20 years, all his State employees given marching orders to help get Trump elected it would have leveled the playing field. Branstad was to cute and gutless to go all in for Trump, and we know he didn’t want Cruz. Branstad was the biggest loser of the night. IOWA pick Cruz and thus will go 20 years picking a loser. All those losers on Branstad’s watch.
The GOPe has already said publicly their plan to rob Trump if he goes into the convention with the delegate count required to win. I'm sure in Republican controlled voting precincts in Iowa the GOPe "lost" some Trump votes, and "found" some Cruz votes, or some combination of the electioneering that in the 21st century the Dems have mastered.
(The "mailer" dirty trick was originally used by Obama in 2008)
PS FWIW: Iowa has gone Democrat in EVERY presidential ELECTION SINCE 1988 except GWB re-election year, when Iowa went Republican by literally a few hundred votes. I'm trying to figure out where all those Cruz evangelicals are in a state that is SOLID BLUE.
Can not understand how he lost, he had huge rallies. Really huge.
Trump underperformed the polling; that’s a fact. But still, as you correctly point out he scored an impressive second place.
What I don’t get is the sudden media infatuation with Rubio. It seems a bit insincere to me.
As for Cruz’s chances going forward, you would be making a huge mistake to discount them as you seem to do. It’s far more likely that Trump’s thin glossy surface will start to wear off, and the real Trump start showing through.
Let’s talk again mid-March and compare notes.
Yeah...but what if Cruz’s dirty trick with Carson’s supporters netted him some votes he otherwise wouldn’t have gotten? He might not have ended up the winner after all.
Yeah, it’s a shame Pat didn’t win back in 1996, when we still had a chance to rescue this country from the demographic and economic nightmare it is becoming.
Lots of EX NY. people live in FL. PA. NJ. NV where I live at least 125k. Polls show IA was bigoted against NY. folks. Ted must have poll tested that one.
Ted said Trump was for Obamacare, Trump corrected that lie today in Milford NH. Ted said 6 mo. ago Trump was for Amnesty. Hey, Trump is in this race for 6 months.
I think Ted is the Second Coming of Dick “Tricky” Nixon.
Lots of EX NY. people live in FL. PA. NJ. NV where I live at least 125k. Polls show IA was bigoted against NY. folks. Ted must have poll tested that one.
Ted said Trump was for Obamacare, Trump corrected that lie today in Milford NH. Ted said 6 mo. ago Trump was for Amnesty. Hey, Trump is in this race for 6 months.
I think Ted is the Second Coming of Dick “Tricky” Nixon.
It's big news because the fact is, Cruz came <---> this close to being edged out in the state that was supposed to be a slam dunk for him. Cruzers everywhere are breathing a huge sigh of relief.
I saw an interesting idea, I think it was on Ace of Spades HQ, that the media may have been artificially pumping up Trump's numbers in the last week of Iowa polling to create a false impression that he was rising in the polls so that when he didn't win, it would serve as a huge "let down" to deflate his momentum.
Instead of tariffs lets keep tinkering with that Marxist income tax you love.
RE:
Hate to tell you but Trump is all NAFTA
I agree. Buchanan was right. Iowa was a wash and more of a empty victory. Cruz deserves credit for proving the worth of his machine. I like Cruz. I don’t even hate Rubio. I just don’t think they will seriously address the immigration issue. Both are receiving so much money for billionaires who don’t want it. Now of course they both will go through the motions but when it comes down to fighting to stop illegal immigration I’m not convinced they will have what it takes. Rubio especially doesn’t have what it takes. Hell he’d been in the Senate no time at all before he was snuggling up to Schumer.
Trump gets the issues that matter more to the future of this nation than any others. Whether it is jobs lost to bad trade deals or illegal immigration America can not recover while these issues remain unfixed. America as we know it is ceasing to exist. Even in Virginia immigration has transformed the once red state into a purple one. What fools we are if we elect people who will replace Americans with people from cultures who have no desire to assimilate?
I’m talking straight-up supply side economics. You don’t understand it. That’s why you resort to the red herring.
At least you’ve self-identified.
More than 1200 delegates needed to nominate, get 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.