United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Is Cruz the frontrunner now?
Source:
HotAir
URL Source: http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/10/is-cruz-the-frontrunner-now/
Published: Feb 10, 2016
Author: Allahpundit
Post Date: 2016-02-11 08:24:55 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 1098
Comments: 29
Yep, says Philip Klein. I hope he’s right, but I’m not sure the takeaway from a blowout win for Trump in New Hampshire is that it’s now Ted Cruz’s 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 didn’t 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. Let’s look at this short-term and longer-term. Short-term, Klein’s right about South Carolina being way more favorable to Cruz than New Hampshire was. It’s hard to believe that the guy who won Iowa based on his strength with evangelicals, who’s 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. (That’s also why it’s 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 he’s 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 there’s every reason to think Trump will still lead. And unlike Cruz, Trump doesn’t need to worry as much about voters in his “lane” defecting to Rubio as he scrapes for a comeback. It’s quite possible that Trump wins narrowly in SC because a few too many evangelicals wanted to give Marco a second chance at Cruz’s expense. Related to that, don’t 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 there’s no chance they’ll succeed, consider that Kasich and Bush and Rubio also surely had organizational advantages over Trump in New Hampshire. How’d that work out? I can’t 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 Cruz’s strength, but there’s 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 night’s 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 night’s result, I think, is that there’s 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 he’s 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 he’s expected to. Trump has consistently outpolled him there so far. Maybe that changed after Iowa. But, thanks to New Hampshire, maybe it didn’t. We’ll know soon. I’d 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 it’s 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. Though Trump’s victory in New Hampshire was no doubt impressive, the electorate of independent voters and super high turnout was tailor-made for him, whereas Cruz didn’t put substantial effort into winning the state — where very conservative candidates don’t typically do as well. He is currently in position to win third here, with votes still outstanding. 
Step two: ????????
Step three: Cruz is nominee!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#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.
I hate the current GOP. But the GOP is a vessel. When Trump completes his hostile takeover, I will like the GOP a lot. Looks like you'll probably leave it and hate it at that point. I do not hate conservatives in general. If I did, would I spend so much time on this site, or on ChristianForums, or would I have been on FreeRepublic for all of those years. I think of myself as a conservative person. The Catholic Church is about 1985 years old, and it's the heir to the Jewish Temple, which goes back 1500 years before that. My economic beliefs come directly off the pages of Exodus and Leviticus. The religious views of the "conservative" who scream at me all the time come from a radical religious tradition that's only 484 years old, and that has changed constantly since then (which is why they each occupy some radical different little branch), and every one of them embraces the economic ideals of the British aristocracy over and against the written revelations of God. So who, exactly, is conservative? My economic believes are four thousand years old, and my religion pre-exists the English language. My loyalties transcend some transient nation state that has transmorphed into three different things in my own memory. My family traditions and knowledge of my forebears extends back to the period before the EXISTENCE of the religions and belief systems of the so-called "conservatives" who nip at my heels and call me names. I am the REAL conservative here, in every sense: One Faith, One Law, One God, One King. Faith, Family, Country. Because God is forever, and my family goes back to the dawn of time. I don't abandon true values for some foolish transient "patriotism". I am patriotic and loyalty to people, causes and countries that espouse my values. I can cooperate just fine with people who don't share all of them - something I have noted that Protestant "conservatives" are incapable of doing - which is why you have splintered into 6000 screaming sects. I am the definition of what conservative is. My economic values are 4000 years old because GOD REVEALED THEM DIRECTLY. And that means that whatever men have said since then that differs, is all bullshit. I might smile and nod, even get an "A+" on papers that espouse the "newspeak", but I don't believe any of it. It does not SURPRISE me that people who have abandoned the structure of True Faith, that God Himself founded, go wandering off into the fever swamps of error about everything. And I certainly don't hate them for doing so. I don't hate sinners. We're all sinners. Hate conservatives? That's silly. Nor do I the ankle-biters here. They weary me by their blindness and stupidity. Their arrogance makes me smile. I live in a deep blue state because my JOB is here, and my wife wants to live near a metropolis. Also, my daughter is a world-class athlete, and needs to be near the best training center for her sport, which in the USA is in New York. So I live here. If I had my druthers - if I were not primarily devoted to serving family (remember, Faith, Family, Country, in that order - Family comes before Country - I will live in an inadequate place for me, for the benefit of my family - I would have a cherry orchard and experimental no-kill deer dairy and no-kill sturgeon-egg-milking operation in Leelanau County, Michigan, on the shores of Glen Lake. THAT is where my heart is happiest. If I go to Paradise after I die, I will not be surprised if it looks an awful lot like Glen Lake. Is Michigan a "Blue State"? The GOP needs to change. And Trump is just the thing. "Conservatives" need to be a lot more conservative. I'm conservative. You're not. One is only a sojourner in whatever land one lives. I'm voting for Trump, and you should too.
Never. Along with 60% of the country who see through his con-man carnival barker persona.
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).
I've read that 86.7% of statistics are just made up.
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.
You obviously are simultaneously lying and projecting. Levin wants to change this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and that, and, this, and that, etc., and he even admits those are just some suggestions for starting the rewrite rolling. Destroy the Constitution in order to "save it." Orwell saw you coming.
And it's perverse to pretend that Obamacare won't lower your premiums. Or that future Social security obligations aren't kept in a lockbox that the government can't touch. Or that non-smoking won't be limited to air travel only.
Democrat at the Constitutional Convention: I'll let you restrict the press if you let me restrict gun ownership. Republican: Deal!
No. Looking out for Americans first is a nationalist trait. Who is better then Trump on Trade? He is the only one that would potentially dismantle all this globalist bullshit that has been haunting us since the first Bush. Even Cruz is a pro new world order trade policies. I told you Trump was going to win. You said he wasn't running. You were so wrong. You still are. It's like your panties are in a wad about Trump.
There you go making shit up again. The Catholic Church is the great whore spoken of in Revelation. The Catholic Chruch blasphemes God by calling the "pope" "holy father". The Catholic Church lies and says that the Pope is the closest person to God on earht. The popes live in palaces of stolen loot. They worship mammon. They pervert the 10 commandments. They are not the heir to any Jewish Temple. I don't know if this one is ignorance or a lie.
No No No they don't. That has already been disproven.
That is a lie. If not prove it.
It doesn't surprise me that you just described yourself but your arrogance and big head make sure you don't see yourself.
Good for your daughter. I don't fault you for where you reside.
Of course not. You're establishment. Duh. We don't need you guys to win. We will carry the load for you constant whiners.
I'm not sure how supporting Cruz can make anyone "establishment". It's Trump getting the endorsements of GOPe tools like Bob Dole and even Jimmuh Carter. Not Cruz.
Come on be honest. They didn't endorse Trump.
I'm gonna need a source on that.
He knows. He's at best indifferent to the truth.
Compared to Cruz directly, yes, they did.
You're going to be pretty miserable for the next 9 years.
That has already been disproven. Disproven? Ha! By whom? Some heretic snake-handler who calls blacks "niggers"? Your lens of what the truth is so cloudy and distorted that it really isn't POSSIBLE for you to prove something to me, or me to you. We do not speak the same language, for all practical purposes. But we both support Trump. Which shows you how badly the Republican and Democrat Establishments have misgoverned the country.
What a classless statement. God created all the races. Disproven by scripture. You support thievery. The Bible doesn't. You need so study more. You're not smart enough.
#2. To: A K A Stone (#1)
(Edited)
No Cruz isn't the front runner.
#3. To: TooConservative (#2)
#4. To: Roscoe (#3)
#5. To: TooConservative (#4)
#6. To: TooConservative (#2)
Vicomte is his biggest fan, a notorious hater of the GOP and conservatives in general, and lives in a deep Blue state.
#7. To: Vicomte13 (#6)
I'm voting for Trump, and you should too.
#8. To: Roscoe (#5)
Cruz supports Mark Levin's call to abandon our existing Constitution in favor of holding a convention to write a new one.
#9. To: TooConservative, misterwhite (#7)
Along with 60% of the country who see through his con-man carnival barker persona.
#10. To: TooConservative (#8)
Levin does favor a specific list of amendments to the Constitution and using a states' convention to bring them
#11. To: Roscoe (#10)
#12. To: TooConservative (#11)
You obviously don't grasp
amending the Constitution is the only way to save it
#13. To: TooConservative (#11)
"Of course, it is perverse to pretend that amending the Constitution ... is somehow dangerous or un-American or unconstitutional."
#14. To: TooConservative (#11)
"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."
#15. To: TooConservative (#2)
The Bluer the state, the greater Trump's appeal. That should make you just a little curious, I would think.
#16. To: Vicomte13 (#6)
The Catholic Church is about 1985 years old, and it's the heir to the Jewish Temple
#17. To: Vicomte13 (#6)
My economic beliefs come directly off the pages of Exodus and Leviticus.
#18. To: Vicomte13 (#6)
very one of them embraces the economic ideals of the British aristocracy over and against the written revelations of God.
#19. To: Vicomte13 (#6)
It does not SURPRISE me that people who have abandoned the structure of True Faith, that God Himself founded, go wandering off into the fever swamps of error about everything.
#20. To: Vicomte13 (#6)
I live in a deep blue state because my JOB is here, and my wife wants to live near a metropolis. Also, my daughter is a world-class athlete, and needs to be near the best training center for her sport, which in the USA is in New York. So I live here.
#21. To: TooConservative (#7)
Never. Along with 60% of the country who see through his con-man carnival barker persona.
#22. To: A K A Stone (#21)
#23. To: TooConservative (#22)
It's Trump getting the endorsements of GOPe tools like Bob Dole and even Jimmuh Carter. Not Cruz.
#24. To: Roscoe (#9)
"I've read that 86.7% of statistics are just made up."
#25. To: A K A Stone (#23)
They didn't endorse Trump.
#26. To: A K A Stone (#23)
Come on be honest. They didn't endorse Trump.
#27. To: TooConservative (#7)
Never.
#28. To: A K A Stone (#17)
(Edited)
No No No they don't.
#29. To: Vicomte13 (#28)
Disproven? Ha! By whom? Some heretic snake-handler who calls blacks "niggers"?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]