2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[revrew]

Record turnout in Iowa. But not for Trump. Instead, it's mostly Rubio, plus some Cruz. Iowa/media pundits baffled by this, but I'm not.

That thing I knew the media didn't? This is going to be a stunning, record year for Christians and church involvement in Iowa. Hundreds of churches that never got involved before challenged their people to participate. Tens of thousands more Christians got involved. Their support split between Cruz, Rubio, and Carson, but a big chunk of that additional turnout wasn't Trump supporters, but churchgoers.

[ISiddiqui]

Huckabee is officially suspending his campaign.

[Solecismic]

With 84% in, Cruz 27.7, Trump 24.4, Rubio 23.0, Carson 9.3, Paul 4.5, Bush 2.8.

For Cruz, a win is a win (if this holds up, and he's now projected to win), but given the strong religious right base in Iowa, I'm not sure it's enough to change the game.

For Trump, a repudiation of his debate-skipping strategy. He was significantly ahead in the polls last week.

For Rubio, a strong third actually could change the game. He's the big winner tonight.

For Carson, the beginning of the end. He was touching 30% in Iowa three months ago. He won't do well in New Hampshire.

For Paul, there just isn't much of a ceiling. He has to crack the top four in New Hampshire.

For Bush, he decided to stay away from Iowa, even today. That cost him the tiny support he had there. While he has the money to stay in, Rubio's rise will hurt him more than anyone.

Christie is in the same boat, but closer to sinking (lower center of gravity and all). Huckabee and Santorum will drop out now. Fiorina has to be close to giving up, too.

[Arles]

Feel pretty good about my prediction right now:

Originally Posted by Arles

Cruz seems like the most organized to get votes, so I would go:
Cruz 29
Trump 27
Rubio 22

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

With 84% in, Cruz 27.7, Trump 24.4, Rubio 23.0, Carson 9.3, Paul 4.5, Bush 2.8.

For Trump, a repudiation of his debate-skipping strategy. He was significantly ahead in the polls last week.

I think the debate is a bit of a red herring. I think Trump has a lot of what I would call "half ass support". Meaning "if you call or ask me who I like, I'll go with that Trump guy. But would I go out in the cold and actually vote for him? Meh, probably not".

[PilotMan]

The caucus format really benefited Rubio in all of this. I'm not sure if Iowa is a regular primary that he shows as well. Having said that, it really gives him a lot of free talking for the next week.

[Dutch]

Marco! You done good, kid.

[Edward64]

I don't like either Cruz or Trump but Cruz is lesser of 2 evils. I'm glad I was wrong about him in Iowa and hope this means better odds of him losing NH and SC.

I do hope most of the others drop out so there is a better delineation between Trump vs Tea Party vs Establishment.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Huckabee is officially suspending his campaign.

# Love Wins

[JPhillips]

Polling out of NH should be interesting. I don't expect much of a bounce for Cruz, but will Rubio be able to cut into Trump's 20 point lead?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yep. A great strong showing by Rubio and it suddenly becomes a 3 man race for the GOP crown.

It already was.

This might just mean everyone can finally admit that.

[PilotMan]

There will be a good enough showing from a few in NH that it'll stay wide until SC. NH might winnow the field some, but it'll really drop after SC. I wouldn't say it's going to shrink significantly just yet.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think the debate is a bit of a red herring. I think Trump has a lot of what I would call "half ass support". Meaning "if you call or ask me who I like, I'll go with that Trump guy. But would I go out in the cold and actually vote for him? Meh, probably not".

I disagree. I think Trump hurt himself badly - maybe even enough to cost him the caucus. I think Cruz hurt himself late, too, but it canceled out. And Rubio was the beneficiary of both their problems. I think we're going to see a large and immediate movement in the New Hampshire polls. Enough to make it a race? I don't know. Probably not. But it won't be a 20-point victory next week.

What's interesting is that you go back into last fall and most of the fall, the candidates with no experience - Trump, Carson, Fiorina - were steadily polling at 50-55% combined in Iowa. Today that was 35%. That's where Cruz took most of his support. Cruz is channeling that anger fairly effectively right now. He wants to bring the "Reagan Democrats" together with the angry Republicans. I'm not sure that can work in this day and age, but it was kind of Trump's base as well. Whether it works or not I have no idea, but the Republicans may be coming around to an actual strategy for the first time in a while.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think the debate is a bit of a red herring. I think Trump has a lot of what I would call "half ass support". Meaning "if you call or ask me who I like, I'll go with that Trump guy. But would I go out in the cold and actually vote for him? Meh, probably not".

This.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I disagree. I think Trump hurt himself badly - maybe even enough to cost him the caucus.

You're simply wrong. The key question on Trump has always been whether or not his supporters would actually get out and vote. Now we know the answer. It's as simple as that.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

You're simply wrong. The key question on Trump has always been whether or not his supporters would actually get out and vote. Now we know the answer. It's as simple as that.

Meh. I think Trump supporters (massive generalization here I know) are the type that will gladly go stand in a 20 minute poll line and vote but not necessarily the type that will go caucus for a candidate. I realize we are talking about the Presidency of the United States but I still think a caucus is too much too ask of much of the American public.

I also find the whole "Rubio 3rd!" media slant that is clearly catching on with people here as well hilarious. Such a mass media/GOP establishment play here. Four years ago it was Santorum wins, ROMNEY 2ND!!!!, Gingrich 4th.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by panerd

Meh. I think Trump supporters (massive generalization here I know) are the type that will gladly go stand in a 20 minute poll line and vote but not necessarily the type that will go caucus for a candidate. I realize we are talking about the Presidency of the United States but I still think a caucus is too much too ask of much of the American public.

I also find the whole "Rubio 3rd!" media slant that is clearly catching on with people here as well hilarious. Such a mass media/GOP establishment play here. Four years ago it was Santorum wins, ROMNEY 2ND!!!!, Gingrich 4th.

1) it was a reasonably strong 3rd, considering the Republicans don't do the support realignment thing the Democrats do. Just a couple points behind Trump, who's been the front-runner. That's not nothing.

2) 4 years ago it was ROMNEY WINS!!!, Santorum 2nd, Gingrich 4th, followed a couple weeks later by oh wait Santorum actually won but let's not worry about that now.

[albionmoonlight]

I am as fascinated to see what Trump does now as I have been about anything this race.

A normal politician would go into New Hampshire with a blend of humility and optimism and give some canned "rally the troops" and "We're still gonna win" speeches.

Trump could do anything from dropping out and endorsing Hillary to threatening the voters of New Hampshire to buying big trucks full of garbage and leaving them parked in Iowa parking lots. I feel that nothing is off the table.

[JPhillips]

I expect him to go full mecha-Godzilla on Rubio and immigration.

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by Ryche

Cruz 28, Trump 25, Rubio 22

Yep, pretty much.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I am as fascinated to see what Trump does now as I have been about anything this race.

Yeah..who knows? Rubio, Cruz, and Sanders are getting a lot more attention right now. What's he going to do/say to try to steal the limelight back?

[Thomkal]

So back when they announced their candidacy, who had Cruz/Trump finishing 1/2 in Iowa? Not me that's for sure, most of the "pundits" too. Many thought Trump would be out of the race altogether by now. Funny how political fortunes change sometimes.

[Arles]

How about this for a grassy knoll theory for Trump. Assuming he was honest and hires the "smartest people out there" for polling data - maybe they saw last week that their likely voter turnout for the caucus was going to be low. So, they pull Trump out of the debate to change the narrative from:

"Wow, you see people don't want to come out and support Trump on election day!"

to

"Well, the campaign made a mistake not sending him to the debate. But, they can recover in New Hampshire if they don't make a mistake like that again"

I feel like if Trump had done the debate and still lost to Cruz, the pundits would be pouncing on the idea that his support doesn't translate to votes and that could impact the polls in future states. Instead, everyone can write Iowa off to the "no debate gaff" and move on to New Hampshire with a cleaner slate.

[flere-imsaho]

While I'd love nothing more than to see grassy knoll theories about Trump come true, the most likely scenario is that the polling was undermined by professed Trump supporters simply not coming out to vote. Although, even in that case, the actual result was close to, if not within, the MOE of most Iowa polls.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I expect him to go full mecha-Godzilla on Rubio and immigration.

In New Hampshire? Good luck with that, I don't think the Canadians worry them so much.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by panerd

Meh. I think Trump supporters (massive generalization here I know) are the type that will gladly go stand in a 20 minute poll line and vote but not necessarily the type that will go caucus for a candidate. I realize we are talking about the Presidency of the United States but I still think a caucus is too much too ask of much of the American public.

I also find the whole "Rubio 3rd!" media slant that is clearly catching on with people here as well hilarious. Such a mass media/GOP establishment play here. Four years ago it was Santorum wins, ROMNEY 2ND!!!!, Gingrich 4th.

Rubio 3rd matters because he showed his support was pretty broad compared to what he was polling. So when other candidates eventually drop out, that means he most likely benefits more than anyone else. The sooner that happens for him the better though because I don't know what happens if he loses the next couple states (probably depends on who wins them and by how much), though he's supposedly playing for Nevada. As I understand it, other than Bush, Rubio has the best national 'machine' and most candidates have nothing yet in place after New Hampshire.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Arles

How about this for a grassy knoll theory for Trump. Assuming he was honest and hires the "smartest people out there" for polling data - maybe they saw last week that their likely voter turnout for the caucus was going to be low. So, they pull Trump out of the debate to change the narrative from:

"Wow, you see people don't want to come out and support Trump on election day!"

to

"Well, the campaign made a mistake not sending him to the debate. But, they can recover in New Hampshire if they don't make a mistake like that again"

I feel like if Trump had done the debate and still lost to Cruz, the pundits would be pouncing on the idea that his support doesn't translate to votes and that could impact the polls in future states. Instead, everyone can write Iowa off to the "no debate gaff" and move on to New Hampshire with a cleaner slate.

It was a real gaffe, being the only Iowa debate. I remember hearing that a lot when I was in New Hampshire. "Our debate" means something to them - even if it's just one local question like the Ethanol hand outs for Iowa.

No one's that clever. When you lose by four points, there isn't a campaign staff out there worth hiring that doesn't believe it could have won with a slightly different strategy in the last week.

We know that more than half of the Republican voters are angry, because all the candidates start speeches with "after seven years of..."

Trump is fighting for a share of that group, just like everyone else. The narrative isn't "Trump voters are stupid, Trump voters are weak-willed, Trump voters are horrible people" - as much as HuffPost and Daily Kos ram that down our throats on a daily basis. It's simply that Trump has high negatives and when voters worry that he won't fight for them - his one big positive - his ceiling gets lower. His skipping the debate spoke against that positive.

Two messages come out of Iowa. The first is that Trump's support may have a lower ceiling after all. And the second is that Republicans are angry enough to turn out - 180,000 in Iowa should scare the living you-know-what out of the Democrats.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

180,000 in Iowa should scare the living you-know-what out of the Democrats.

Iowa

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

So back when they announced their candidacy, who had Cruz/Trump finishing 1/2 in Iowa? Not me that's for sure, most of the "pundits" too. Many thought Trump would be out of the race altogether by now. Funny how political fortunes change sometimes.

It also shows how the media tells the story that it wants to tell. One could just as easily write a story after last night of "Maverick Trump and conservative Cruz beat establishment candidates." However, the story they are saying instead is "Rubio has momentum." Because that's the story they want to tell.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

# Love Wins

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

Meh. I think Trump supporters (massive generalization here I know) are the type that will gladly go stand in a 20 minute poll line and vote but not necessarily the type that will go caucus for a candidate. I realize we are talking about the Presidency of the United States but I still think a caucus is too much too ask of much of the American public.

This.

Hell, I can't think of a candidate in history that I'd endure that sort of crap for.
And I'm not exactly what you'd call politically disinclined.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JAG

Rubio 3rd matters because he showed his support was pretty broad compared to what he was polling. So when other candidates eventually drop out, that means he most likely benefits more than anyone else. The sooner that happens for him the better though because I don't know what happens if he loses the next couple states (probably depends on who wins them and by how much), though he's supposedly playing for Nevada. As I understand it, other than Bush, Rubio has the best national 'machine' and most candidates have nothing yet in place after New Hampshire.

If Trump isn't in play, I'd probably go for Rubio. Cruz is a nightmare candidate IMO. He likes to paint himself as a rebel for the far right, but I believe him to be a total puppet to anyone who will pull the strings.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

If Trump isn't in play, I'd probably go for Rubio. Cruz is a nightmare candidate IMO. He likes to paint himself as a rebel for the far right, but I believe him to be a total puppet to anyone who will pull the strings.

And I think of him as someone that could probably use a bit of string-holding at times.

Out of curiosity though, just for the hell of it, exactly who do you have figured as pulling his strings? There isn't, that I've ever found, exactly a ton of organization for the generic "tea party" label.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Cruz is a nightmare candidate IMO. He likes to paint himself as a rebel for the far right, but I believe him to be a total puppet to anyone who will pull the strings.

That seems a really strange impression to me. What leads you to believe that?

[JPhillips]

This is the kind of thing that I don't understand why it doesn't lead to more outrage.

In the final three months of 2015, the Carson campaign paid:

$4,769,922.68 to Eleventy Marketing Group. Eleventy Marketing Group’s president is Ken Dawson, who is also Carson’s chief marketing officer.
$2,871,229.50 to TMA Direct. TMA’s president and CEO is Mike Murray, who is also Carson’s senior advisor for grassroots marketing.
$1,256,436.09 to Communication Manager Source, which is run by Joanne Parker, wife of the aforementioned Dean Parker.
$138,666.06 to Vita Capital. Vita Capital’s CEO is Dean Parker.

Dean Parker was Carson's top money man.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

It also shows how the media tells the story that it wants to tell. One could just as easily write a story after last night of "Maverick Trump and conservative Cruz beat establishment candidates." However, the story they are saying instead is "Rubio has momentum." Because that's the story they want to tell.

+1

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This is the kind of thing that I don't understand why it doesn't lead to more outrage.

In part, most likely, because it's never been much of a secret that Carson's campaign was extremely insular & that this was pretty much how it was going to be done.

And, if we assume that services were indeed rendered then how much difference does it make who got paid for them? I'd want the people I trusted most handling my business too.

[JPhillips]

If I wrote a check for 100k I'd be really pissed to see it go the business of a staffer. Even if everything is entirely above board, and given the staff turnover I doubt that, it looks shady as can be.

edit: Even at my college we have conflict of interest rules that would prohibit this. There's just too much opportunity for graft.

[vex]

Cruz did the same thing.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If I wrote a check for 100k I'd be really pissed to see it go the business of a staffer. Even if everything is entirely above board, and given the staff turnover I doubt that, it looks shady as can be.

But if you wrote a check that size I sure hope you would have done at least a small bit of due diligence. This is who Carson is / how Carson operates, that's not any sort of secret.

Some grandma writing a $20 check because "he seems like such a nice young man", okay maybe that I can see. But a big dollar donor? How naive am I supposed to believe they are?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Cruz is a nightmare candidate IMO. He likes to paint himself as a rebel for the far right, but I believe him to be a total puppet to anyone who will pull the strings.

I would phrase it more like Cruz is a mobile QB who's being asked to stay in the pocket (a la Kaepernick). He so badly wants to go full on tea party conservative + religious right and his handlers keep enforcing some kind of political governor on him to stay controlled. If you look at a lot of Rubio and Cruz's policies, they are fairly similar. The difference is Rubio is in his wheelhouse acting as a come-together centrist in rhetoric, whereas Cruz is much more comfortable being an attacking divider in the "my way or the highway" mode.

I think the party realizes that in the primary, Cruz is a little more attractive to the crotchety, angry republican base (after complaining about Obama for 8 years) - but Rubio would have much broader appeal in a general election. I find myself torn as I doubt I would vote for Cruz (don't like his tone and he comes off too religious for my taste), but I could see myself voting for Rubio. Even though, from a policy standpoint, Cruz isn't that far off from Rubio. I just don't want to be preached to for the next 4 years by a president (who everytime I see I have this unhealthy urge to punch in the face).

[Dutch]

Christie calls Rubio "the Boy in the Bubble"....I am now in favor of Rubio responding, "John Candy said what?"

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by revrew

Normally, that's what I'd say, too. But I know something you don't know and even the mass media doesn't know ... We'll see if I'm right later tonight.

Were you right?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Trump is fighting for a share of that group, just like everyone else. The narrative isn't "Trump voters are stupid, Trump voters are weak-willed, Trump voters are horrible people" - as much as HuffPost and Daily Kos ram that down our throats on a daily basis. It's simply that Trump has high negatives and when voters worry that he won't fight for them - his one big positive - his ceiling gets lower. His skipping the debate spoke against that positive.

I'm struggling to get past the concept where Trump has high (let's be clear: very high) negatives, yet somehow his supporters are apparently above reproach.

And the second is that Republicans are angry enough to turn out - 180,000 in Iowa should scare the living you-know-what out of the Democrats.

From the sound of it, most of those 180,000 are mostly mad at other Republicans.

[nilodor]

Can I ask a silly question? Why is your whole presidential race thing so long? This year for our election we had the longest campaign ever, which was 80 days or something. I think the general opinion was that it was too long. I feel like I've been seeing headlines about Iowa and debates for months. Isn't the US election around the world series? Why does it take so much effort to even pick the candidates? How does the active president even govern if they have to spend a quarter of their term campaigning?

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by nilodor

Can I ask a silly question? Why is your whole presidential race thing so long? This year for our election we had the longest campaign ever, which was 80 days or something. I think the general opinion was that it was too long. I feel like I've been seeing headlines about Iowa and debates for months. Isn't the US election around the world series? Why does it take so much effort to even pick the candidates? How does the active president even govern if they have to spend a quarter of their term campaigning?

If I answer these questions as I see them, I'll sound like Bernie Sanders. The only mistake you make here is that presidents spend about half of their first terms campaigning, not one quarter. The unofficial start to the campaign is the July 4th parades in small New Hampshire communities 28 months before the general election.

We have a grand tradition of bloviation in America. But, without all that hot air spreading north, the average air temperature in Ottawa would drop 37 degrees (20.6 C).

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'll sign off on the "1/2, not 1/4th " observation about campaigning. Though it might even be higher than that since Presidents do have to keep at least some eye on mid-term Congressional elections.

It's all but a 24/7/365 thing at this point really, and that extends to levels well beneath the Oval Office.

[stevew]

Is it reasonable to question whether Cruz is eligible to become president?

[wustin]

Originally Posted by stevew

Is it reasonable to question whether Cruz is eligible to become president?

http://travel.state.gov/content/trav...rn-abroad.html

[wustin]

dola: the argument is how you interpret "natural-born" citizen

[larrymcg421]

If Cruz is eligible, then Obama was eligible even if he was born in Kenya, so I'm glad we wasted so much time on that.