Posted on 02/02/2016 5:31:18 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
WEST DES MOINES, Iowa -- Donald Trump's supporters showed up at the Sheraton Monday night fully expecting their man to win the Iowa caucuses. And why shouldn't they? Trump had held a lead of varying sizes in 13 of the last 13 polls listed in the RealClearPolitics average of Iowa polls. How could that not win?
"Beats the hell out of me," said Michelle Tepley, a Trump fan from Waukee. "It doesn't make any sense."
"Sad," said Kimberly Hawn of West Des Moines.
"I don't know, I don't know," said Steve Brewer of Norwalk.
Months ago, before Trump took the lead in Iowa, a number of analysts argued that he wasn't a "good fit" for the state's Republican electorate, made up heavily of voters who describe themselves as born-again evangelical Christians. Then Trump took the lead and -- in the polls at least -- fought off challenges from Ben Carson and eventual winner Ted Cruz. So analysts thought Trump might not be so bad a fit after all.
But on caucus night, some of Trump's supporters returned to the old "bad fit" theory to explain Trump's surprise loss.
"It was the evangelicals," said Dick Stoffer of West Des Moines. "They've done it before -- they did it four years before with Santorum, they did it with Huckabee before that."
"The evangelicals," said Carol Anne Tracy of West Des Moines. "We've got a lot of evangelicals, and I just don't think they felt that [Trump] praised God enough."
"It's happened before -- the guy with the biggest Bible wins Iowa," said Ken Crow, a Tea Party activist from Winterset.
The caucus results -- Trump soundly beaten by Cruz, finishing barely ahead of Marco Rubio -- seemed to confirm another nagging suspicion about the Trump campaign: that it had not paid sufficient attention to turning out its voters.
Most of the people at the Trump event had attended caucuses earlier in the evening. At those caucuses, the presiding officer asked whether there was a representative from each campaign present to speak, and, if not, whether anyone attending would like to speak on a particular candidate's behalf. At the caucus I attended, in Pleasant Hill, a suburb just east of Des Moines, there was no one to speak for Trump -- no representative of the campaign -- and no voter willing to stand up and speak on his behalf. (The precinct ended in a Cruz landslide: 110 votes for the Texas senator, versus 36 for Trump and 34 for Rubio.)
At the Sheraton, some Trump supporters had similar stories.
"We were at a caucus and Trump didn't even have anyone there to speak for him," one man told me.
"That's insane," added a man nearby.
Rubio’s love for amnesty has not had time to be publicized.
Let me help you with your your own apparent lack of political grasp.
Cruz didn't "win" Iowa. This isn't the electoral college. If Trump came up with no delegates, then you could say Cruz "beat" him. But saying that because you scored one more point in the first quarter of the first game of the season, well, go ahead and celebrate "winning" the first quarter.
The only reason this circus is front and center is because it gives people like Chrissie Matthews "butterflies in his stomach".
Political realists know that Iowa isn't any sort of reliable bellwether for Republicans. Just ask Huckabee and Santorum.
His win in Iowa last night means that Cruz will be one of the last two or three standing. That puts him in a very good position.
I think he will be in the top 3, but Trump still dominates nationally and is still the most likely.
And I'm not a Trump supporter, just stating reality. If Trump wins New Hampshire by 20 and South Carolina by 15, no one will be talking about Iowa, other than it being a strange hiccup in the Republican Primary. Those two states have actual primaries, not media-driven novelty acts like the caucuses.
Most of Christie's supporters go to Trump. Paul's go to Cruz. Kasich and Bush's go to Rubio.
Cruz also won in very upscale suburban neighborhoods where Evangelicals keep a low profile.
Yup. Iowa is a blip. A failed early knock out attempt by Trump but that’s it. At least he fought in a state he had no real prospects in months ago.
Trump needs NH and he’ll likely get it, which puts him in the delegate lead going into SC.
The establishment spent tons of money to make sure Cruz wins in Iowa to blunt Trump and push Rubio forward. The choice it seems has been made for Rubio. The establishment has shown its hands now.
Yes it certainly could, why a 4 point Tsunami victory by “Baggage Carrying Ted” and a HUGE one delegate lead in the least typical state in America says it all: Trump is done for stick a folk in him.
GOD works in mysterious ways....lol Sometimes silence is Golden. Never let you right hand know what you left is doing.....the low profile voters were the true silent majority.
Quote:
“Iowa has always been liberal Democrat. Tons of college age + Evangelical farmers. And they love government handouts. Ever been through that state?”
Many times. Usually at 70+ MPH at ground level or 450 kts @ 35,000 ft.
He's been number one in NH since late August, most of the time by 10 points or more.
Nobody from the campaign rose to speak for Trump and no voter took to the floor on his behalf— and he still beat Rubio??
I don’t think Trump is that worried about Iowa. Anymore than President Pat Robertson is now.
Trump winning Iowa was always a long shot, I fully expected someone else to win Iowa.
Iowa picked the most Evangelical, as it traditionally has.
Trump however had a very strong showing, especially in a format that is designed to support the traditional/establishment politician over the outsider.
Rubio as well, clearly was the candidate the establishment voters supported in IA as well.
Can Cruz change the calculus before NH in a week? Time will tell, but I do fully expect Trump to run the table now that primaries are all traditional walk into a voting booth and cast your ballot.
I don’t think IA changed anything in the long game, but its politics, nothing is ever certain.
I think Rubio doing as well as he did in IA is also surprising and scare. It shows the GOPe voter, at least in IA doesn’t care about illegal immigration, or at least doesn’t care enough to actually punish a politician for selling out the country.
If Trump&Cruz can’t combine for over 50% of the vote, We wind up with Rubio... I don’t think this is a risk outside of IA, but time will tell.
At this point I think Trump takes NH by a wide margin next week.
This absurd statement has no facts behind it, is ludicrous on every level, and is simply an idiotic lie - but you ywrote it on the Internet for other trumpezoids to read. Now, they'll repeat back and forth amongst themselves until it becomes trumpgospel - an obvious truth that does not rely on facts - it's true because it's true and cannot be challenged.
Other trumpgospel facts - Trump will win all 50 primaries (currently under revision), Trump will carry the black vote, Trump will win NY & NJ in the general, NYC loves Trump, etc.
IA traditionally picks the most evangelical candidate.. had Trump won IA, the race was over... I still think Trump will run the table now that the caucus format is behind him. The format of Caucuses is set up to support the establishment/traditional politician over the outsider. Trump did incredibly well... Rubio’s string there is disturbing.
“I thought Cruz was a pure conservative. We import over a million legal immigrants per year. Why is he so interested in importing more democrat voters.”
I’ve given you this information several times. Here it is again.
April 2, 2013
President Obama is pushing a path to citizenship as a “poison pill” to prevent meaningful immigration reform, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) charged Monday.
“The part that I’ve got deep concerns about is any path to citizenship for those who are here illegally,” Cruz said during an interview with Sean Hannity. “I think that is profoundly unfair to the millions of legal immigrants who have followed the rules, who have waited in line.
“I think the reason that President Obama is insisting on a path to citizenship is that it is designed to be a poison pill to scuttle the whole bill, so he can have a political issue in 2014 and 2016. I think that’s really unfortunate,” continued Cruz.
The Tea Party favorite said Congress could easily pass a comprehensive immigration reform deal if Democrats, and particularly Obama, stopped demanding the inclusion of a pathway to citizenship for immigrants living in the country illegally.
Cruz’s comments came as a bipartisan group of senators indicate that it’s nearly done crafting a broad immigration bill. The so-called “Gang of Eight” hopes to unveil the legislation in April, with Sen. Lindsey Graham on Sunday suggesting that the group could unveil legislation as early as next week....”
May 8, 2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/ted-cruz-immigration_n_3238085.html
“WASHINGTON - Among the 300 amendments to the Senate immigration bill is one that would take away one of its central purposes: giving a pathway to citizenship to the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), an almost certain “no” vote on the bill from the so-called gang of eight, filed an amendment on Tuesday to ban anyone who has been in the U.S. without status from becoming a citizen at any point.
The path to citizenship under the gang of eight bill is already a difficult one. It would take about 13 years and require immigrants to complete a number of requirements, such as learning English and paying hefty fines. Undocumented immigrants would first apply for provisional immigrant status, and most would be required stay in the U.S. for at least a decade before being eligible to apply for legal permanent residency. They could then eventually apply to be a U.S. citizen. But the government would have to meet certain border security benchmarks before any provisional immigrant could move into legal permanent resident status.”.......
May 8, 2013:
Ted Cruz Files Amendment To Deny Path To Citizenship As Senate Works On Bill
......”The amendments filed today to strengthen border security and reform our legal immigration system will not only bring meaningful, effective improvements to our immigration system, but also have a chance of becoming law,” said Cruz in a statement. “America is a nation of immigrants, built by immigrants and we need to honor that heritage by fixing our broken immigration system, while upholding the rule of law and championing legal immigration.”
His amendments are among more than 300 filed by the Tuesday evening deadline. Republicans wanting tighter enforcement provisions filed a majority of the amendments, with Sen. Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, leading the pack with 77 amendments.
Supporters of the bill, mainly of the part of it that would legalize millions of undocumented immigrants, kept a steady drumbeat in defense of the measure though emails, websites and social media.
In a press release, America’s Voice, a leading national group that advocates for more lenient immigration laws, singled out Cruz’s anti-citizenship amendment as particularly worrisome.
“This would not only destroy the path to citizenship in the Senate bill - the popular heart of an immigration reform solution - but also turn its back on 100 years of precedent in immigration policy,” said the release..........
Dec 17, 2015
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/ted-cruz-immigration-record-216919
“........Cruz says his amendment was a “poison pill” designed to doom the Gang of Eight reform package that Rubio co-authored.
So who’s actually correct? There are two big points to unpack.
First is whether Cruz’s amendment was indeed a “poison pill” meant to kill the immigration bill, which the Texas senator’s campaign now contends. That is unequivocally true, so point goes to Cruz.
Second is whether Cruz’s amendment signaled his true policy beliefs at the time. That’s significantly murkier and ultimately, may never be knowable.
Let’s start with the first point.
The bipartisan group of eight senators - including battle-tested veterans and relative newcomers like Rubio - painstakingly negotiated a delicate compromise in early 2013 that would overhaul every corner of the U.S. immigration system, including a 13-year pathway to citizenship for millions here illegally.
Fans and foes of the legislation, as well as observers at the time, knew the core bill couldn’t change too dramatically because that would upset that compromise, which not only had the backing of Democrats and Republicans in the Senate but also coalitions off the Hill, such as labor unions and the business lobby.
Cruz’s amendment - which called for stripping out a pathway to citizenship, but keeping a path for legalization - would have done precisely that.
The night before each Senate Judiciary Committee markup, senior Gang of Eight aides would huddle to scour through each of the amendments that were teed up for the following day, determining which proposals would be palatable and which would be unacceptable. This strategy was meant to ensure the core elements of the Gang of Eight deal would stay intact (the four members of the Gang who sat on the Judiciary Committee would vote in a bloc, usually with the rest of the committee Democrats, to vote down potential deal-killers).
“This one was one that clearly we all had to oppose because it went to the core of the deal,” recalled an aide to a Senate Democrat during the 2013 negotiations. “It could’ve unraveled the whole deal.”
Sure, Cruz himself never called it a “poison pill” at the time. But no senator refers to his own proposal as a poison pill, even if it plainly is. The Gang of Eight never considered Cruz as “gettable,” and it was well-known at the time that Cruz was never going to vote for the bill and was in fact, trying to kill it.
“Everyone was rolling their eyes and smirking when he said it would improve the bill,” said the aide. “I don’t think anybody took it seriously.”.........
Can you imagine how bad it would be for Trump if he hadn’t bought King Corn votes with promises of other peoples money?
Three questions?
1. Do you slap a Trumpster like this?
2. What does your screen name mean to you?
Decided not to ask the other.
Take care.........pilgrim
Trump needs to be more worried about fellow moderate Marco Rubio.
There will be some churn in the polls - there always is once the voting starts, and especially if you get some "unexpected" results. Whether the changes will be "yuuuge" or not, we will have to wait and see. But while I think Trump will win NH, I don't think it will be by anything like his current lead in the polls. And I think SC will be a dogfight.
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.