Carson loses his hold on Iowa’s conservatives

Politico ^ | 11/21/15 | Katie Glueck

[Isara]

Worried about security, these voters are shifting toward Ted Cruz.

SIOUX CITY, Iowa-Hours after terrorists attacked a hotel in Mali and a week after Islamic State fighters struck Paris, Ted Cruz took the floor here to deliver a harsh critique of President Obama's Middle East posture and pledge a hardline approach to Syrian Muslim refugees.

It was exactly what this crowd of mostly conservative Christians wanted - and an ominous sign for Iowa's weakened frontrunner, Ben Carson.

Across the state and at a major gathering of politically active evangelicals on Friday night, foreign policy was top-of-mind for the voters and state lawmakers once considered natural constituents for Carson. But after a week of confused comments from the former neurosurgeon and a dismissive critique by his own advisors, Iowans are now consistently voicing doubt about Carson's credentials to be commander-in-chief.

Indeed, they said the terrorist attacks have reordered the candidates in their mind, lifting Cruz and Sen. Marco Rubio and, for many, making Carson an afterthought.

"He's a great guy, he's fun to listen to, but I didn't hear anything substantive," said Alan Hilgerson, a Des Moines-based physician who said national security is an "extremely high" priority for him as he considers the 2016 contenders vying for Iowa. Of Carson, he continued, "I don't know that I'd want him as my president."

Worse yet for Carson, at the Family Leader Forum organized by social-conservative icon Bob Vander Plaats, voters said the more they thought about Carson's foreign policy credentials, the less comfortable they were with him.

Marilu Erdahl - who drove two-and-a-half hours in the snow to see the candidates speak, making her exactly the kind of Republican the candidates count on during the wintry caucuses - said she entered the event torn between Cruz and Carson. But as she talked through the importance of national defense, she decided on Cruz. "He has experience, he's shown what he can do," she said of Cruz. "With the state of affairs we're in right now, I think it is very important. It's vital...We need someone who knows the ropes, who's not the establishment but who doesn't need on-the-job training."

She went on: "I guess I've maybe made up my mind."

Carson and Cruz have been racing toward this collision in Iowa for weeks. Both have been courting the same Christian conservative community that makes up a crucial bloc of the state's caucus electorate. But the turning point came when security and foreign policy were forced to the top of the GOP agenda by the terrorist attacks.

Carson landed here fresh off a string of fumbles that included struggling to name countries he'd ask to join a coalition to fight the group known as ISIS or ISIL and smarting from a New York Times story the featured one of his own foreign policy advisers saying the candidate was struggling to grasp key issues.

The momentum, according to activists, state lawmakers and other voters here, now appears to be with Cruz. And he seems to know it.

"On the Republican side, I think the Paris attacks infuse a greater seriousness to the search for who is prepared to be commander-in-chief, who has the experience, who has the judgment, who has the understanding of the very real and growing threats facing America," Ted Cruz told POLITICO in an interview in Iowa.

"The overlay of the Paris attacks, even today, the horrific attack in Mali, makes clear that we need a president who's prepared on Day 1 to understand the nature of the threats facing America and to lead this country in standing up to these threats and defending our citizens from the growing menace of radical Islamic terrorism," he said on the sidelines of the Family Leader event.

Influential Iowa vote-broker Steve King, who endorsed Cruz last week, pointed to a new online NBC poll that showed Carson dropping, and said he attributed that slip to renewed interest in national security and Carson's struggles with the issue. Polls conducted by more traditional methods will provide a fuller picture in coming weeks.

"They'll often say, all politics are local, politics are domestic, domestic politics will elect the next president. I'm not sure that's right. Not when you see the pictures of the bodies in places like Paris and around the world, Beirut, now Mali today," King said. "When we see that, and we're almost guaranteed that's going to continue until we defeat [terrorists], that makes a candidate that's strong on foreign policy, strong on national defense...that makes that candidate stronger."

"Being [from] outside the Beltway doesn't help with that. Being inside the Beltway, as long as you're not ruled by that, I think does help," King said.

In interviews with voters and activists at stops in conservative western Iowa and then at the presidential forum in Des Moines, it was clear they do not see Carson as equally up to the challenge. In fact, the characteristics once cited by voters here as boosting Carson - his soft-spoken nature and disinterest in attacking his competition, for example -- are now seen as problematic.

"Carson, he's a wonderful guy, but we like Cruz better," said Judy Kirby of Des Moines, who said she is gravely concerned about foreign policy in the wake of several high-profile terrorist attacks. Cruz "seems more knowledgeable, he seems stronger."

Voters described Carson as "lacking fire in the belly," as being a nice person but too "soft-spoken," and said he doesn't come across as sufficiently tough. That's in contrast to both Donald Trump, a tough talker who pledges to "bomb the sh** out of" ISIL, and Cruz and Rubio, who have both sought to demonstrate Senate-acquired policy chops.

"It's probably one of [Carson's] weakest stances," said Chris Boley, a business owner who attended the Family Leader event and is now leaning toward Rubio. "That doesn't mean he can't get up to speed, but he has some catching up to do...In this day and age, with how important national defense is, with terrorism in the Middle East, you've got to be real studied."

At two campaign stops on Friday, followed by an appearance at a conservative cattle call, Cruz tried to highlight just how "studied" on both terrorism and the refugee crisis. And at each site, King stressed that part of the reason he is backing Cruz is that he trusts the Texas senator to play hardball with world leaders, a qualification that resonated with the hawkish mood of the crowds.

They cheered Cruz's analysis of the chaos in the Middle East - something he blames on both Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - and his with-us-or-against-us language on ISIL.

"If you join ISIS, you are signing your death warrant," Cruz pledged.

Voters also embraced Cruz's concerns about Syrian refugees coming to America, fears shared by many in the audiences.

Cruz said that Syrian refugees-who he conceded are suffering from a "humanitarian crisis" - should be resettled not in the United States but in the Middle East. Cruz said the United States is already spending huge sums to help refugees. Carson also opposes allowing in Syrian refugees, but Cruz has made a legislative push on the effort, a Washington credential he repeatedly points to.

On Friday night, Carson tried to demonstrate national security chops, accusing Obama of tying American troops' hands, and of being an "armchair quarterback, he is interfering tremendously." He earned applause for those remarks, and was well-received when more broadly criticizing "political correctness."

But Cruz, seated next to Carson on stage, quickly and easily upstaged him. Obama, Cruz said, was worse than an armchair quarterback. "The policies he's advocating are helping the other team."

The crowd rewarded him with applause and whistles.

[FourPeas]

Marilu Erdahl - who drove two-and-a-half hours in the snow to see the candidates speak, making her exactly the kind of Republican the candidates count on during the wintry caucuses

Gotta laugh at this. The author's from KC so she can be excused from understanding that 2.5 hours in the snow is not a big deal to people used to snow.

[Dagnabitt]

Weirdo Carson would be at zero percent if he were white.

Can't wait for this unqualified token to exit the race.

[9YearLurker]

Wow—that’s low, Mark Levin’s relative grades here.

Not only is Trump clearly much better on the economy—Rubio’s got a mess of tax credits and Cruz’s VAT tax is a recipe for disaster—but grading Trump “bad” on healthcare is a sham as well. Trump has come out for various free-market reforms such as repealing Obamacare, having HSAs and broadening competition across state lines.

And moral issues? Levin dings Trump for saying he will respect SC decisions. Also, as with the other ratings, he seems to hit Trump on positions from decades past, when Trump was a businessman in NYC. Rubio’s got as many red thumbs down on moral issues as Trump, but he gives Rubio a “green” rating.

We get it, Mark’s preferred candidate is Cruz, followed by Paul (not shown here, but no “bad” ratings) or Rubio, then Carson ahead of Trump.

Shame on Levin.

[TomGuy]

On more than one occasion, I have spent 2.5 hours or more in the snow and end up with a total of 20 miles driven.

[FourPeas]

It plays fine in...

Indeed it does. Iowa may be unique with its caucus, but the evangelical vote there is not. The evangelical outreach done in Iowa is noticed by Christians in later states.

[nixonsnose]

I’m in South Texas.
Talking to many clients in business,
many friends in the neighborhood,
my wife’s baptist family,
my own catholic family,
my friends who work the polls,
the signs in all the yards,
the bumper stickers everywhere,
NO ONE says they are voting for or against religion or religious affiliation.

This country is in trouble. As long as the candidate is not a devil worshiper, we are looking for a competent candidate.
We have sent money to Cruz and I’m not sure what denomination he specifically is (and I don’t care).
Religion is just for political talking heads to talk about.

[FourPeas]

Thank you, again, for the chart.

[FourPeas]

I lived 30+ years in a very wintry state.

[Dr. Sivana]

The South is religious, but it isn't the special type of stupid that votes for Romney, or Santorum, a Roman Catholic and a Mormon (in reverse order), just because they can give some religious one liners.

Santorum WON Alabama, Oklahoma and Mississippi. He certainly would have won Georgia and South Carolina if it weren't for Gingrich's presence.

The proof of that is that Carson, in any of the polls, never did as well in the South as he did in Iowa

Carson (who is considerably more narrowly a "religious" candidate than Cruz) led in Georgia in the most recent poll taken by Fox (11/14, Carson 26, Trump 24, Cruz 14), better than he has been polling in Iowa (mid 20s in most polls). Carson may also do better in Iowa than other states because he has focused more resources there.

[Moorings]

The red on free markets for Trump reminded me about his approval of government programs for student loans, posted today.

[Isara]

Trump supported TARP, auto bailout and Porkulus bill.

Trump's Record on Free-market Issue: (from the Conservative Review)

Trump has a terrible record on free market issues. The only bright spot is the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing, but this glimmer is countermanded by his repeated support for bailing out Wall Street and the auto industry, and increased stimulus spending. Of particular concern is Trump's belief that the government can use eminent domain powers to seize private property in the name of private economic development. This comes as no surprise, given his support for using eminent domain to profit his own company.

Trump supported the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of London, allowing public authorities to seize private land for economic development by private investors; Trump said, “I happen to agree with [the decision] 100 percent.” (National Review)  This is no surprise given Trump’s attempt to use eminent domain in his own line of work. (Institute for Justice)

Trump supported President Obama’s 2009 stimulus, saying: “The word stimulus is probably not used in its fullest…you know, certain of the things that were given weren't really stimulus. They were pork, as we call it, or they were gifts to certain people. But overall, I think he's [President Obama] doing very well. You do need stimulus and you do have to keep the banks alive.” (CNN) 

Trump supported TARP, saying, "You had to do something to shore up the banks, because ... you would have had a run on every bank." (CNN) 

Trump supported the 2008 auto bailout, saying, “I think the government should stand behind them 100 percent. You cannot lose the auto companies. They’re great. They make wonderful products.” He also said that the federal government could “easily save the companies.” (Daily Caller) 

Trump criticized the Federal Reserve’s intervention in the debt market, saying quantitative easing creates “phony numbers” that mislead the marketplace and “will not ultimately benefit the economy. The dollar will go down in value and inflation will start rearing its ugly head.” (CNBC) 

Donald Trump has a history of using eminent domain to complete business deals. Multiple times Trump has supported the use of government agencies to take possession of homes and businesses for use in his private business plans. Eminent domain seizures are reserved only for public use of property rather than abuse by the government taking property from one individual and giving to another. (Washington Post) 

Donald Trump has sought and received crony capitalist tax breaks for his commercial properties in New York. These tax breaks, and even an abatement, force the property taxes of other property owners to rise at the expense of the connected. Special treatment for one business or industry over another with the tax code conflicts with free market principles. (National Review) 

In 2009, Trump supported Barack Obama's call for limits on the pay of executives. (CNN)

[editor-surveyor]

.
As I stated while the attacks were on-going, The election has been handed to Cruz, and all subsequent events will serve to cement Cruz’ inevitability.
.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Give him a break on the sleep; he’s the oldest candidate.
.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Santorum WON Alabama, Oklahoma and Mississippi.

Keep in mind that there was nothing really better than Santorum or Gingrich at that time since Romney was such a dweeb. Nor was there any way that Santorum was ever going to beat Romney in the primary fight. His "Evangelical" sweater vest appeal died fast. Neither Santorum or Newt even made it on the ballot in Virginia as well, and Santorum only beat Newt because Newt couldn't beat the "conservative" media as manifested by Drudge or the Glenn Beck types.

If you have a primary with just Ben Carson and a Mitt Romney time, for example, he'd probably do okay, though he would have still lost to Romney, especially with how the primary rules are setup. But presented with the choice of a far superior candidate, the generality of the Republican electorate won't opt for the GOPe. By the way, note the retard in the link who is pulling from Carson to Rubio for some weird reason. These people in Iowa are stupid, and they are not the majority in the country.

As for the Fox polls-- they've been suspect to me from day one, since they routinely show Trump as having closer competition than any other poll put out. If Carson was ever as popular as they claimed, it never manifested itself in any verifiable way outside of Fox polls or Twitter and facebook likes.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Trump supported the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of London, allowing public authorities to seize private land for economic development by private investors; Trump said, “I happen to agree with [the decision] 100 percent.” (National Review) This is no surprise given Trump’s attempt to use eminent domain in his own line of work. (Institute for Justice)

This is the one complaint I've never understood, since: 1) It's so irrelevant to the election. No Republican President is ever going to lift a finger for a constitutional amendment, nor should they. Many states have already addressed the issue. 2) The entire GOP supports the Keystone Pipeline, which specifically uses eminent domain to transfer control over private property to a private entity. Yes, some idiots claim that it's "different" when an oil company does it. But it's not, actually.

[erod]

[Dr. Sivana]

Santorum's main problem was his 2006 loss in PA and his lack of money from a broad base of supporters. It didn't help that his win was touted as a Romney win until it was too late. Anyway, I am in Georgia, I don't know where you are. I know plenty of Republicans, and have talked to Cruz, Carson, Trump, Paul, Fiorina and Huckabee supporters. I have been to the district and state conventions. I attend the county meetings. Though I haven't been here for a long time, I know the lay of the land on presidential politics, if not the statewide stuff. Enough people are primarily motivated by underlying motivations rooted in religion which comes to inform their political philosophy that it makes the difference between winning and losing in a competitive race. My point about Santorum stands as he won in southern states even as he lost in others. His appeal was strongest in the south and heartland. You can't say Santorum won because Romney's a dweeb, and then that Romney's unbeatable. You don't like Fox Polls, or Quinnipiac Polls. I wasn't trying to cherry pick. I was only picking the most recent Georgia poll available on Real Clear Politics. Feel free to counter with other polls. I can tell you that Carson had a serious ground operation in Georgia back in MAY. Poll variations in some states may reflect the level of organization. Trump seems to be putting his efforts in SC and AL more than Georgia, at least so far. Of course, Cruz is more than a Pat Robertson style religious candidate. A lot of good conservatives who do not have a primarily religious motivation are concerned about gun rights. It was Solicitor General for Texas Ted Cruz who argued the landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller before the Supreme Court and won.

[erod]

Cruz has a lot of money and the best ground game in the early states. He could win Iowa, be competitive in New Hampshire and dominate the SEC primary. While Carson and Trump bask in the spotlight, Cruz is gathering an army of volunteers, laying down the ground game and gathering the money to run an impressive campaign that can go deep into the primary season.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Though I haven't been here for a long time, I know the lay of the land on presidential politics, if not the statewide stuff. Enough people are primarily motivated by underlying motivations rooted in religion which comes to inform their political philosophy that it makes the difference between winning and losing in a competitive race.

Are these people motivated to vote for a candidate purely because they are capable of making a religious pitch? I doubt it.

Santorum had no specifics and only ran on his personality, much like Carson. Cruz suffers as well since once you get outside of the religious pitch, he has to deal with issues like his fast track vote and his immigration shenanigans.

Trying to run solely on Evangelical sensibilities might shield him from those questions in Iowa-- where everyone is stupid-- but not anywhere else.

You can't say Santorum won because Romney's a dweeb, and then that Romney's unbeatable.

Nevertheless, Santorum still couldn't sweep the South based on his Evangelical appeal, even against Newt Gingrich with his ex-wife sleaziness. Romney was inevitable because Santorum was pathetic. Once the establishment, aided and abetted by the "conservative" media, took out Newt, Romney was inevitable.

[Dr. Sivana]

Santorum had plenty of defined positions and a well-established history as a full-spectrum conservative. Many don’t know that he has been much more aggressive on immigration issues than practically anybody, and for a long time. BUT, he was underfunded, underorganized, lacked retail charisma and Republicans hungry for a win didn’t take well to his huge defeat in Pennsylvania in 2006. Some also resented his endorsement of Arlen Specter.

While his religious credentials helped him with conservative Catholics and Evangelicals in Iowa, they would NOT have helped him if he were not a conservative besides anyway.

Neither Cruz nor Santorum ran on simply evangelical credentials. That’s more Huckabee and Robertson turf. Huck, of course, won a majority of southern states, though he is less conservative than Santorum.