Posted on 02/02/2016 2:48:21 AM PST by Berlin_Freeper
“Vote for anyone but Cruz,†declared the much-vaunted Iowa establishment governor, Terry Branstad. Between Trump, the establishment, and Fox News, they threw everything they had at him in the months preceding the 2016 Iowa Caucus.
We heard it all: birtherism, ethanol, Goldman Sachs loans, the Palin endorsement, Cruz supposedly losing every debate, the Santorum/Huckabee sniping, the entire establishment ganging up to defeat him. Then we were told that even if Cruz wins Iowa, a victory would only occur in the event of low turnout. After all, the newbies will all be for Trump. Well, Cruz won with a record turnout, projected to be near 180,000. It also appears that Cruz will break Mike Huckabee’s previous record of the most total votes received by the caucus winner. And he did it in an elevn-person race.
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativereview.com ...
Cruz isn’t the typical “social conservative” candidate though. He’s got a very credible libertarian streak on taxes and small government. His biggest claim to fame was the Obamacare filibuster, which was much more of an economic issue than a moral one. Cruz is also very credible as being tough on terror, unlike “nice guys” Huck and Santo. Cruz has more cards up his sleeve and isn’t a one-trick social conservative pony.
The demographics in this country have changed.
Look at Bernie - a mainstream socialist beat Hillary who scraped through on points.
That has never happened before in our history.
Romney only won the first debate. And his polls went up big after that. Then he failed to clearly best Obama in the next two.
Cruz could really slaughter Hillary in debates. But he has to polish up a little. I think he lost a lot of late decider votes because of flubbing some moments in last week’s debate and not having any knock-it-out-of-the-park answers like he did at the CNBC shooting gallery.
I’d say the Democrats are just showing their true colors more. And that the demographics already shifted decades ago enough to make a president Cruz unlikely.
Obama was a spread-the-wealth socialist and the Democrat base knew it. He was just an undeclared socialist. If Sanders was non-white, he would have destroyed Hillary in Iowa.
You lose too many points for being a white male in a Democrat primary.
Its gonna be a close election.
I give it to Hillary because of demographics, the women vote, the black vote, Hispanic vote, union vote and just plain ol’ fashioned ballot fraud.
As badly wounded as she is, enough people in this country simply won’t pull the levers for a Republican.
And she is counting on becoming the first woman President.
I hope you’re right, but I remain skeptical that debates matter all that much in a general election. Maybe enough to get 1-2% to one’s side, but certainly not enough to induce a landslide victory.
He destroyed Hillary with the youth vote and ran up big margins in the college towns.
His message is very appealing to young people.
I think the dirty little secret is a lot of people are uncomfortable with a woman president. I even know male left-wing Democrats who say they don’t like the idea. Hillary being a woman will be a drag on her electability.
I think Bernie is the more likely Dem nominee at this point. Either one of those clowns will obviously be disastrous though.
No, it isn't. What's IMPERATIVE is that ! and Kasich are as far away from the presidency as possible.
Not everybody dislikes Marco as much as you and others assume we do. I'm a Trumpster, for sure, but will acknowledge that Rubio conducted a very fine campaign and if he's the establishment fave, times indeed are changin'.
>> The GOP long knives will be out for Cruz with a vengeance now.
Yeah, right, like they weren’t before.
It has less to do with Hillary being a woman and more to do with her ethical baggage.
That is what caused her comfortable lead early in the night to shrink to the point of disappearing by daybreak.
IA is a personal repudiation of the invincible Clinton machine.
And she won’t take the humiliation kindly. IA was supposed to be an easy glide path to the coronation.
Of the top four candidates, two first term TEA party senators and two non-politicos, they collectively garnered 84% of the vote.
I know that marco was a tiger that changed his stripes with the gang of 8, but he was a TEA party guy {I know he betrayed us because I sent him money}.
The rest of the field should just go home, get off the stage, get some rest.
Cruz is the only andidate, win or lose vs hillary, that can educate the dumb masses how this government should work
Romney's a real smooth talker, so it was no surprise. The question is why did he throw the last debate (JMHO)
>> He sold oil to the ethanol lobby
LOL! DAMN good point. The guy is EFFECTIVE.
Governor Barn-yard must be having a bad day today. He really went after Cruz. The ethanol lobby went against him, Sarah Palin did her schtick to defeat him, and then there was the "shaming" mailer that was to be the final straw that that ended his campaign.
Ted Cruz went against the ethanol cronies in IA and won. All the naysayers pronounced him losing for not bowing to the cronies.
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.