Posted on 01/24/2016 7:33:38 AM PST by jimbo123
Like, inviting a known alcoholic to a party with an open and free bar.
“Beck is now out saying he would vote for Bernie over Trump
_________________________________
Beck is damaging Cruz in Iowa.
1. In general endorsements mean very little. Iowans really don't care who Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck support. Some Iowan activist endorsements may slightly matter as they have contacts that can be used. Only endorsement that may matter is if Chuck Grassley endorsed someone. He will not. He is running for reelection so he will show up at all the candidates rallys once to introduce them. He has already done one of Trumps, he will do the others.
2. Iowans ignore polls. We take this process very seriously and even if we are the only person caucusing for that candidate we generally stick with that candidate.
3. Iowans like to make their own decision. Most people who caucus go hear multiple candidates. Again we take this seriously. That's why it is dangerous to assume big rallies point to big leads. Maybe this year will be different but in general having many small events in smaller counties tend to result in better caucus results. Having said that, if you have 50 people at a Des Moines event probably indicate you are today.
4. The notion that half the people make up their minds in the last week is true, but to a point. Most people have their decision down to two or three candidates. They have already eliminated most.
5. Who has the most impact on late deciders? Friends and family. I will give you an anecdote. Again this is just my small circle of friends. Friday night I convinced a Carson supporter to support Cruz. Today at church had 4 Trump supporters agree to support Cruz. This week I will start reaching out to other friends. I realize every campaign has supporters that change minds, I am just giving you anecdotal examples of how fluid this race is.
I really wish this forum was a debate on policy rather than a debate on personal attacks.
I'm not laughing. Except at the prospect of Bloomberg entering the race. Even then it's kind of a sad laughter.
If Trust Fund Donnie were to get the nomination (and please, God, let that not happen), and Sanders wins, we'll have not one but THREE leftists to choose from!
-A full-blown, self-acknowledged Socialist (Sanders)
-A Nanny-State Fabian Socialist (Bloomberg)
-A corporate-statist phony nationalist liberal (TFD)
Sanders is horribly horribly wrong about everything, but at least honest about what he believes.
Bloomberg is horribly wrong about almost everything, but understands a bit about economics, and at least isn't pretending to be a conservative.
Trust Fund Donnie is horribly wrong about most things, is a childish buffoon and conman...and pretends to be a conservative. He can actually do the most long-term damage of the three by associating conservatives with policies that will lead to economic disaster.
I'd have to find a "Door #4." But I would get a sad chuckle out of the whole thing.
Hank
Nice that you conveniently left out there will be 1000’s of new voters
show up. Something quite different than the past.
Iowa hasn’t picked a winner in a very long time.
Iowa has gotten more attention than ever before.
Iowa will get it right this year and pick the winner.
So you're an unhappy County Agent. Cheer up Hank. Maybe Cruz will announce Beck is his choice for VP.
I'm hoping for Jeff Sessions or Mike Lee.
Hank
No surprise, sounds like you be making VP plans for Cruz if he were 19 points down and falling.
Good luck with that.
Republican caucus is different from Democratic caucus. Democrats go in and are supposed to fight each other to the death with knives to determine who will vote for who. Republican caucus, a guy gives a speech and you have to be present as they count the votes.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/24/fox-poll-trump-swings-into-lead-in-iowa/
Excerpt
In addition, Sarah Palin endorsed Donald Trump in Iowa early in the week. Her endorsement came just as the Fox poll was starting interviews in the Hawkeye State. The Palin endorsement boosted Trump considerably among voters who identify as “very conservative” and “tea party.”
Among both voters, Cruz had been leading Trump in the last Fox poll. Trump now leads among “tea party voters” and is essentially tied with Cruz among “very conservative” voters. Cruz had held a slim lead among more mainstream “Republican” voters, a group Trump now leads by 9 points.
Trump, it seems, is benefiting from a political perfect storm just before Iowa casts its votes. Palin’s embrace of Trump and the state’s Republican establishment’s united opposition to Cruz has pushed Trump into a strong lead.
Trump isn’t a conservative.
But then, neither is anyone in the race. Honestly, that has got me thinking.
:-))
Thanks!
Jeb 1%.
Right where he wants to be. Jeb does best when he feels like the underdog.
‘Trump isn’t a conservative.’
No but he spurred the revolution of patriotic courage.
‘But then, neither is anyone in the race. Honestly, that has got me thinking.’
Yeah. Reminds me how much influence professors have on our leaders. We should mandate professors to debate so that the world and their students can see other intellects pitted against their icons ....
For the next 60 years, each professor should be mandated to debate once-or-so each year. The state legislatures could collectively appoint a debate scheduler to pit professors against invited guests.
1. Web conferencing for convenience.
2. No moderator speaking — just a timer.
3. Most segments quick-paced. They can refer to web pages if it takes a while to make a point.
4. Term limited scheduler. Maybe three years. Three schedulers.
5. The constitutional amendment is expunged from the Constitution after 50 years or whatever number of years are decided on.
6. The professors’ students are required to watch the debate.
7. Not every professor need be mandated. For example — surgery hardly involves political indoctrination.
““If Trump and Cruz could kiss and make-up and run on the same ticket, they could be unbeatable.â€
Trump has already blown that opportunity by resorting to his “birtherism†attack on Cruz. How, after attacking Cruz over his “ineligibilityâ€, could he possibly ask him to run as his VP? How is he going to explain that, since the VP is one heartbeat away from being President?”
CRUZ blew the opportunity. Trump came right out in the debate and said that they needed to settle the question of Cruz’s eligibility in case he chose him as his VP. Cruz responded by making a joke out of the issue and then attacking Trump. Wrong move.
I completely agree with the second part of your post, though - unless the citizenship question is settled, I don’t think Trump would ever pick Cruz as his running mate. Actually, the way he’s been speaking about him at rallies, I’m not sure he would choose him any more in any event (one of the things I love about Trump is that if you piss him off he takes names, responds, and doesn’t forget. Just ask Jeb!).
If Trump wins the nomination, he will just say all that was just what you have to do to win, and will concede he never really believed what he was saying.. like so many of you remind me, politics in not bean bag
But then you should also wonder about any other claims he also made. Once he wins the nomination, or I suppose even before, any claims he made about the Lord and Pro life pro family values.
So from there how do you know he would ever appoint the proper judges? He will have to find a judge that is for Eminent Domain. Do any of the 3 and 1/2 Conservatives on the bench support Eminent domain? NO, so there goes Christian values out the window that he is supposedly promising
I wonder how he will force Dept stores to have Merry Christmas signs?
Your TDS is getting the best of you.
5 pts is nothing....
I have no clue what you mean. I’ve asked for someone form Iowa to tell us how these caucuses work, and I hear nothing.
What is it? People come, go to their corner then vote? Or do they talk and argue for three hours?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Iowa,_2016
Apparently, the Republicans in Iowa will caucus in what I consider a traditional way — there is a paper ballot, you indicate which Republican you want, and someone tallies those votes.
The Democrat caucus is different. They meet and discuss and debate and harangue each other. Eventually they split into groups and the biggest group wins. In this sort of method, I think name-calling (”You’re a racist!”) and aggressive debating styles could bully some people into switching their votes. My understanding is that the Obama people did precisely this in 2008.
I had originally assumed that the Republicans did it the same way as the Democrats and that this might have implications for Trump and Cruz. I now know that the Republicans use a paper ballot, so I do not expect so much drama.
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.