[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
United States News Title: Is Cruz the frontrunner now? Yep, says Philip Klein. I hope hes right, but Im not sure the takeaway from a blowout win for Trump in New Hampshire is that its now Ted Cruzs race to lose. As the race moves to South Carolina, however, Cruz has a ground game in place and the electorate is much more tailored to his strengths
Furthermore, in Iowa, Cruz had to fend off Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, who were all competing for similar voters. Carson received 9 percent in Iowa, and though Huckabee didnt perform well, he did serve as an anti-Cruz attack dog to evangelicals. Now, Huckabee and Santorum are out, and Carson enters South Carolina greatly hobbled
[N]ow that the field has narrowed down and Trump has won a primary and proven himself a serious threat, there will be a lot more focus on his liberal record on abortion, guns, healthcare, property rights among other issues. Lets look at this short-term and longer-term. Short-term, Kleins right about South Carolina being way more favorable to Cruz than New Hampshire was. Its hard to believe that the guy who won Iowa based on his strength with evangelicals, whos already distinguished himself for having an outstanding ground game, is going to finish any worse than second in a state where evangelicals make up a huge segment of the electorate. (Thats also why its hard to believe a Rubio comeback, which would require a strong third place at a minimum, is in the offing. Cruz is in his way.) No one will be surprised if Cruz wins there on February 20th. But
no one will be surprised if Trump wins there either, right? Klein is correct that all of the polls showing Trump with a big lead in SC were taken before Cruz won Iowa, but they were also taken before Trump blew out the field in New Hampshire last night. Trump built his lead in the SC polls at a moment when it was still an open question whether he was nothing but media hype, a guy who was getting by on name recognition and camera time whose voters would evaporate into thin air once they were required to actually go out and vote. Trump put that to rest last night. Now hes headed into South Carolina with new credibility as a potential nominee and, in all likelihood, a poll bounce. I can buy that some evangelicals in South Carolina are going to shift to Cruz by dint of his win in Iowa. I can, however, also buy that some South Carolinians who held off on expressing their support for Trump before, whether out of embarrassment or simply because they thought his candidacy would fizzle early, are going to shift to Trump. The first polls in SC this week should show a tighter race than they showed in January but theres every reason to think Trump will still lead. And unlike Cruz, Trump doesnt need to worry as much about voters in his lane defecting to Rubio as he scrapes for a comeback. Its quite possible that Trump wins narrowly in SC because a few too many evangelicals wanted to give Marco a second chance at Cruzs expense. Related to that, dont forget that Trump so far has been competitive among evangelical voters, a bloc which you might assume would belong exclusively to Rubio and Cruz. Cruz did win decisively among evangelicals in Iowa, which probably accounted for the margin of his victory, but Trump finished tied with Rubio for those voters. Last night in New Hampshire, Trump (narrowly) won evangelicals along with virtually every other demographic. It could be that Cruz repeats his Iowa performance with born-again voters in South Carolina, but as I say, it could also be that some portion of the electorate that was skeptical of Trump evangelicals included will be newly open to considering him after his big win. If Cruz wins evangelicals narrowly in SC and Trump wins non-evangelicals comfortably, how would you expect the outcome of that race to go? And all of this assumes that the advantage Cruz got from his ground game in Iowa will also obtain in South Carolina. Team Trump is no doubt trying to catch up organizationally there, but even if you think theres no chance theyll succeed, consider that Kasich and Bush and Rubio also surely had organizational advantages over Trump in New Hampshire. Howd that work out? I cant remember who said it, but someone on Twitter noted last night that the most terrifying thing about the NH results for anti-Trumpers is that he actually outperformed his polls by four points. It may be that Trump will continue to struggle to match Cruz in turning out voters in caucus states but that statewide primaries will even the playing field. South Carolina is, of course, a primary state. But all of that is near-term. Even if Cruz wins South Carolina and outperforms Trump in the SEC primary, how does the rest of the race look? WaPo posted this graphic this morning as evidence of Cruzs strength, but theres good reason here not to count Trump out too: Lots of evangelicals waiting for Cruz in the south, to be sure. But
not nearly as many outside the south, which is a big problem, no? The whole point of last nights outcome is that, in states where born-again Christians are less of a factor, Trump can blow out the competition. Well, there are lots of states like that and lots of them will vote after March 15th, when delegates can be awarded winner-take-all instead of proportionally. Cruz supporters, and I include myself here, seem to be following an underpants gnome blueprint to ultimate victory that runs something like this: Step one: Cruz beats Trump in Iowa, South Carolina, and in the SEC primary Really? What happens when it really is a two-man race and, say, California and New York and other blue/purple states have to choose between the conservative fire-breather Cruz and the moderate deal-making centrist Trump? Cruz fans seem to be counting on dealing Trump enough losses that he simply gets demoralized and drops out at some point, but one of the huge consequences of last nights result, I think, is that theres much less of a chance of that now. Trump losing in Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina and Nevada really might have convinced him to throw in the towel in the name of saving face, but now that hes proved he can roll to a landslide in a purple state, he has every incentive to take his lumps in the south and bide his time for a true Trump vs. Cruz binary choice in the rest of the country. And that assumes that Cruz really does win big in the south, where hes expected to. Trump has consistently outpolled him there so far. Maybe that changed after Iowa. But, thanks to New Hampshire, maybe it didnt. Well know soon. Id give Trump something like a 60 percent chance at the nomination at this point and Cruz a 35 percent chance (which means PredictWise is underrating both of them). How ironic, though, that its probably going to fall to Ted Cruz, establishment bete noire, to save the GOP from Trump. Even more ironic: Establishmentarians will fight him the whole way. Poster Comment: Allahpundit underlines how tenuous Cruz's path to victory is. And the even more dismal prospects of a Bush or Rubio or other GOPe candidate to prevail over Trump. To liberals, Trump is more liberal than any GOPe conservatives because they (rightly) believe he's just playing the rubes and hayseeds. To conservatives, all Trump has to do is mutter vaguely about making Mexico pay to build a wall to keep out those Mexican rapists. Trump, like 0bama prevailing over McCain in 2008 and even Romney in 2012, manages to be on both the Right and the Left of his opponents. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 14.
#1. To: TooConservative (#0)
No Cruz isn't he front runner. That would be Trump. The one you establishment types irrationally don't like.
Hence the article. The Cruz faction and the anti-Trump element needs to realize that the battle is nearly over and that it will be Trump or Cruz. For Christians, constitutionalists, libertarians, regular conservatives, they are already nearing the point at which there is any choice to be made. Trump will simply clean house in ... Blue states. That is where Trump's great strength really is for winning the nomination. Look at LF as an example. Vicomte is his biggest fan, a notorious hater of the GOP and conservatives in general, and lives in a deep Blue state. A good example of a Trump voter in Blue or Purple states. The Bluer the state, the greater Trump's appeal. That should make you just a little curious, I would think. At any rate, if we want to know more about the candidates (Trump, Cruz), there is a good argument for giving Cruz the benefit of the doubt (and the state delegates) so there aren't regrets later when Trump is more obviously the Trojan horse than he really is. The South Carolina primary, if Trump wins it, could be the final death knell of conservative policy and the Reagan era. And the GOPe will be free to cut all the scummy liberal deals they've always loved. Trump will certainly be no impediment. Trump is the anti-Reagan.
Constitutionalists should despise Cruz.
Troll much?
Cruz supports Mark Levin's call to abandon our existing Constitution in favor of holding a convention to write a new one. But you knew that.
You can't help but lie about it. No one is suggesting we write a new constitution. No one. Levin does favor a specific list of amendments to the Constitution and using a states' convention to bring them before the states for ratification (since we all know that Congress and the Court would never allow term limits or balanced budgets and the end to other beloved corrupt practices by both parties).
You lie so transparently. Even Levin does not pretend such a convention would be in any way limited to his plagiarized "specific" (actually wildly ambiguous) list.
You obviously don't grasp how a state-invoked constitutional convention works, mostly because we've never had one before. Nevertheless, the process is not especially mysterious. I see you are subscribing to the ignorant view that any convention of the states would inevitably become an occasion to rewrite (or replace) the Constitution. Of course, it is perverse to pretend that amending the Constitution, authorized and specified by the Constitution itself, is somehow dangerous or un-American or unconstitutional. A good argument can be made that amending the Constitution is the only way to save it from those who have undermined the rule of law in both parties.
Democrat at the Constitutional Convention: I'll let you restrict the press if you let me restrict gun ownership. Republican: Deal!
There are no replies to Comment # 14. End Trace Mode for Comment # 14.
Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest |
||
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|