Funny how when Trump finished a close #2 in Iowa they called is a “loss” but when Cruz finishes a very very distant 3rd in NH, it’s called a “silent success”.
I guess that’s easier to spell than “a shellacking”.
Donald Trump nearly came in 3rd in Iowa. Ted Cruz spent a fraction of $$$ in NH vs other candidates. $580,000. The nearest candidate spent upwards of $15 million.
3rd place finish in a uber-liberal state like NH is quite an accomplishment, beating out Yeb and Rubio.
Exciting stuff. Can't wait for SC and Super Tuesday.
Not at all. Politics is about perception. Trump was expected to win Iowa according to the polls, and he exacerbated that expectation by constantly bragging about the polls. So when he underperformed the polls by 8% (from a 5% lead to a 3% loss), especially with as much effeort as he put into the state, it was viewed as a big failure.
Conversely, Cruz was not expected to do well in NH. Many pundits even expected him to wind up 4th or 5th. So by ending up 3rd, Cruz outperformed expectations - and he did so while spending least amount of any candidate and spending the least amount of time in the state. So the perception is that Cruz did really well in a state where he was not expected to do so.
NH is the least conservative state in the union. Meanwhile Kasich will find it hard to repeat his NH success anywhere else. The result tells you Cruz is likely to come in 1st or 2nd in nearly all the remaining states. That makes him a formidable competitor to Donny the Tramp.