politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: The Big Loss For Donald Trump: The Dog That Didn't Bark [new voters, Iowa]
Source:
AceOfSpades
URL Source: http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=361319
Published: Feb 2, 2016
Author: Ace
Post Date: 2016-02-03 08:31:44 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 7498
Comments: 59
He doesn't think New Hampshire really loved Clinton. Rather, given that Obama had won Iowa, New Hampshire voters were confronted with a dilemma: If we vote for Obama, essentially Obama is the winner of the entire primary. Back to back wins will make him nigh-unstoppable. Caddell's idea is that it wasn't that New Hampshire was really backing Clinton, so much as it was saying "Let's make sure this Obama is really acceptable, let's have a longer nomination process." He thinks that given all the talk that if Trump won Iowa (given his big lead in New Hampshire) that the nomination would be all but his caused Iowa voters, this time, to take a step back and ask: Do we really want such a short nomination process? Are we really entirely comfortable with Trump? Maybe we should keep kicking the tires on this thing a while longer and vote for Cruz (and also, the huge third-place finisher who really won everything, Marco Rubio). That's a theory. However, here's another important consideration. All along, I have been open to the idea of a Trump candidacy on the possibility that there was an X Factor lurking out there, a mass of voters -- doesn't have to be huge, just 2-3% would be plenty big -- who were disaffected from the political system but who could be induced into it by the Trump candidacy. Personally, I felt like Iowa in Caddell's theory. I was interested in this idea, while not being convinced it was actually accurate. I, too, wanted a longer nomination process to test this theory of Democrats crossing over to Trump, and long-alienated Perot/Buchanan voters rejoining the process. Trump's second place finish is not some huge setback -- except that it calls into question the size of this hypothesized block of Trump voters willing to vote for Trump but not other candidates. Trump's three big selling points are his position on immigration, his rejection of politically correct norms, and the possibility he can motivate a large block of disaffected voters back into the political process. After Iowa, I don't know how much juice this third consideration has in it. In a way, Trump's good performance with evangelicals is bad for him, because we already knew evangelicals had high voting rates -- that is, they were always already part of the political process. They were known votes. Thus, to the extent you think Trump did well with evangelicals, you have to deduct those Already Known Voters from his hypothesized pool of Non-Voters Suddenly Becoming Voters. While he probably does attract more of such voters than most -- and we can attribute a bit of the very high turnout to a few of those non-voters deciding to vote -- Trump's second-place finish suggests (though it does not prove) that Trump's X Factor might really be a rather less impressive Z Factor. Something that exists, but not in some kind of paradigm-disrupting size. I suppose this is where entrance and exit polling could provide further tenuous clues. But the big proof -- Trump rolls to a comfortable win in Iowa, powered by new voters -- did not happen. We're left with the possibility of lesser proofs, of a phenomenon of a lesser dimension. It could be that Trump remains a viable candidate, and maybe even improves along the way (as he's improved already). But in the first big test of one of the most important justifications for his candidacy, he failed to deliver these long-sought-after Missing Voters. Before getting to that, let me pass along a theory from Pat Caddell. Pat Caddell noted that New Hampshire voted for Clinton in 2008, after Obama had won Iowa.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-19) not displayed.
.
.
.
#20. To: tomder55 (#19)
He'll drop out a month from now, ensuring Evita wins and he'll welcome all the goobermint contracts coming his way. I believe they call that payback.
I believe they call that payback. I believe you are right on . Despite the harsh things he's said about the Clintoons this campaign , odds are good that is an act ,and he is their trojan horse in this race. "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
I didn't know until recently that P.T. Barnum was also a politician.
I think Trump's schtick has worn very thin. And his attention-getting gambits start to sound much more desperate and whiny. Cruz and Rubio are ready to take advantage of Trump's errors. This is how populist campaigns always end up in America. The same is true of Sanders who will just implode after New Hampshire. Hitlery has all the Dem minority voters in her back pocket and they aren't going to support an elderly socialist like Comrade Sanders. I think Trump has no real campaign manager or top election specialists. Trump is managing his own campaign. While a candidate may win now and then by being their own campaign manager, normally they lose by making too many errors, like Trump skipping the FNC debate in Iowa which may have cost him a win there.
You worship a deity with feet of Canadian clay.
New Donald Trump site... loser.com Funny pic. LOL
He won seven delegates. You thought Iowa was a winner take all state? Or were you just being disingenuous?
Yes, there is a difference between 1st place winning, and 2nd place losing. The Senator from Alberta Canada won Iowa. Raffie E. Cruz. Mybe Trump can get one of those highschool PC trophys they give out for "trying."
He won 7 delegates. You didn't know that?
You didn't know that Raffie Cruz won 8, making Trump a loser. The next loser Rubio, also got 7 delegates. Losers Rand Paul and Jeb! each got one delegate. Iowa isn't a winner take all state, making you a liar. Repeatedly.
Yep
For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
Yes "he who adapts well and makes adjustments quickly brings a better chance of victory." Musings of RLH One thing is clear. No matter what one thinks of Trump, he has put the GOP firmly ahead in "ratings" and media coverage. The other campaigns are more engaged due to the Trump factor. I guess the question is when he eventually drops out what happens? For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
Bush? He stays in until SC. For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
Or they just can't stomach DemoncRATS. For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
Yeah but it's like the difference between being famous and being infamous. Trump has brought a lot of negatives to the GOP's brand as well as summoning the zombie hordes.
You're the one who said, "first engagements with the enemy can tell you a lot" It tells you a lot about the viability of campaigns advancing. For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
Nice allusion to Daniel For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
Why? Just to bash Rubio? Bush should be bashing Trump. Trump entered the race to destroy Jeb and he did so. Jeb should at least return the favor, rather than trying to destroy his protege out of spite that he wouldn't "wait his turn" in the way the Bush party faction considers appropriate. Jeb almost certainly cannot win. So why continue? To be a kingmaker with his remaining funds in the tens of millions? Why help Trump by destroying Rubio? I don't expect you to have a good answer because there isn't one. And Jeb will wake up one morning in the next week and decide to drop out after the NH election and endorse Rubio. It's his only real play. If he does stay in, it would only make sense for him to do it just to spend every bit of his campaign dollars and superPAC funds defeating Trump.
I didn't think anyone would notice. : )
Why indeed? He can otherwise save that money for his son's run. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
And Mussolini made the trains run on time. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
That's a long time. And failing to stop Trump when he could have tried to is not something the party elite would forgive the Bushes for.
I assume you already knew that this is a historical myth. The improvements in Italian rail service were quite marginal and concentrated mostly on a few main daily trains on specific rail corridors that had received massive investment from the government prior to Il Duce. Benito did almost nothing for rail service improvements. Yet because of this horrible saying that people just keep repeating, everyone thinks Mussolini was some kind of railway genius. He was anything but.
I assume you already knew that this is a historical myth. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
That's a long time. What do you think Obama is going to do with stash of campaign cash? There's no drop dead date to use the money. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I guess the question is when he eventually drops out what happens? If he were to drop out, the other candidates would breath a sigh of relief and return to candidicies without addressing serious issues.
Not Iowa. That's the state that picked Huckabee in 2008 and Santorum in 2012.
Notice how the MSM and the Democrats have said nothing about this issue? But they will be all over him like white on rice if he gets the nomination, claiming he's not a natural born citizen. Without a court ruling, the doubt alone will elect Hillary. Trump is right. Settle this issue now.
When Cruz loses, he has a job at The Onion to fall back on.
Bush should be bashing Trump. Trump entered the race to destroy Jeb and he did so. Jeb should at least return the favor, rather than trying to destroy his protege out of spite that he wouldn't "wait his turn" in the way the Bush party faction considers appropriate. I thought the Bush family had "people" in SC that did dirty and effective campaign ads. Remember when McCain went ballistic in 2000? For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
That was all Rove in 2000 in SC, the robocall thing about McCain's dark-skinned south-Asian adopted daughter.
It is being settled. Just yesterday, the Illinois board of elections certified Cruz to appear on their ballot. Many other states have done the same or are about to. The Illinois board specifically rejected any Birtherism around Cruz. Once certified for the ballot, they start planning ballot layouts and ordering them from the printers. You can't just stop on a dime and order new ballots. There's a lot more to it than that, even in states with loose election laws. Once certified for the ballot, it is much harder to have any standing to challenge someone on Birther grounds. You can't get into court with it, same as it was with Obama. And we already know the courts really hate this Birther crap.
The "Birther crap" had to do with where Obama was born. There is no question that Cruz was born in Canada, and the courts have never addressed this issue. "Once certified for the ballot, it is much harder to have any standing to challenge someone on Birther grounds." Any candidate would have standing, including Hillary. "the Illinois board of elections certified Cruz to appear on their ballot." States are not required to look at a candidate’s qualifications. "New Socialist Workers Party candidate Róger Calero, for example, appeared on several ballots around the country in 2004 and again in 2008 — despite being a Nicaraguan citizen."
The Court has issues it doesn't like. Like the gun rights case in Heller, the first major gun rights case since the Sixties and quite a shock when the Roberts court took it up and ruled the way they did. The Court has been repeatedly dragged into these Birthery issues since early in the country's history, largely because they decided from the beginning that they would make Congress define what "natural-born" means, not determine it for themselves. You simply cannot assert that the top courts have ever had any interest in getting involved in Birthery cases, not in the 18th or the 19th or the 20th centuries. They avoid it like a plague. And they don't seem likely to change their minds at present. He appeared on six ballots, several of them under the name of a legit natural-born citizen. This is what we used to have laws about subversives for. He should be deported. That doesn't mean you'd find it easy to get a court to grant you standing to challenge his name on the ballot. She would not have standing. She could demonstrate no possible harm in advance and she would be unable to object after the fact as well due to the way the electoral college works. The popular vote does not determine the outcome. And the electoral college and its rules for settling disputes in the House (for prez) and Senate (for VP) are a design feature to keep the courts out of the elections business. People just seem to imagine that standing in court gets sprinkled around by the Supremes like some fairy dust over the laws and jurisprudence of the legal system. Well, it doesn't. The courts use standing to keep cranks and crackpots from tying the country in knots. Quite often, standing is denied because the Court is a pack of cowardly pussies (and smart to be that way too). See the result of the 2000 election for an example of why the courts have this attitude. And that is far from the only example in our history.
How about it, nolu? Standing for Hitlery or no?
Lol Rove was on Greta tonight was accusing Cruz of dirty campaigning. For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
I saw it. He was spinning a lot of lies and leaving out a lot of details. The GOPe has it in for Cruz. Trump doesn't worry them much. As Jimmuh Carter says, Trump is "malleable".
He needs to seriously rethink the way he campaigns if he REALLY wants to win.
#21. To: Fred Mertz (#20)
He'll drop out a month from now, ensuring Evita wins and he'll welcome all the goobermint contracts coming his way.
#22. To: tomder55 (#21)
#23. To: tomder55 (#19)
My observation is that Trump has become a lazy candidate .He is relying on the force of his persona ,and silly negative personality attacks .
#24. To: TooConservative (#15)
#25. To: Roscoe, TooConservative, A K A Stone, loser.com (#24)
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#26. To: hondo68 (#25)
#27. To: hondo68 (#25)
#28. To: Roscoe (#27)
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#29. To: hondo68 (#28)
#30. To: hondo68 (#28)
Yes, there is a difference between 1st place winning, and 2nd place losing.
#31. To: Roscoe, Jeb got 1 delegate, winning (#30)
He won 7 delegates
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#32. To: hondo68 (#31)
making Trump a loser.
#33. To: hondo68 (#1)
#34. To: TooConservative (#4)
As with real-world military battles, first engagements with the enemy can tell you a lot and help you to shape your tactics (in various primaries) and your strategy (to win the nomination).
#35. To: TooConservative (#6)
Now Paul and Huckabee are out after Iowa and probably two (or all three) of the Bush/Kasich/Christie trio will be out after New Hampshire.
#36. To: hondo68 (#8)
Millions of Republicans voted for McCain and Mitt. Tells me that they like voting for progressive losers, like Trump.
#37. To: redleghunter (#34)
No matter what one thinks of Trump, he has put the GOP firmly ahead in "ratings" and media coverage.
#38. To: misterwhite (#9)
"If the job of Iowa and New Hampshire is to "pick a winner", then why do we even bother to vote in the rest of the states?" That's my point. They don't.
#39. To: TooConservative (#15)
You worship a deity with feet of clay.
#40. To: redleghunter (#35)
Bush? He stays in until SC.
#41. To: redleghunter (#39)
Nice allusion to Daniel
#42. To: TooConservative (#40)
It's his only real play. If he does stay in, it would only make sense for him to do it just to spend every bit of his campaign dollars and superPAC funds defeating Trump.
#43. To: redleghunter, TooConservative (#34)
No matter what one thinks of Trump, he has put the GOP firmly ahead in "ratings" and media coverage.
#44. To: SOSO (#42)
Why indeed? He can otherwise save that money for his son's run.
#45. To: SOSO (#43)
And Mussolini made the trains run on time.
#46. To: TooConservative (#45)
And Mussolini made the trains run on time.
#47. To: TooConservative (#44)
Why indeed? He can otherwise save that money for his son's run.
#48. To: redleghunter (#34)
One thing is clear. No matter what one thinks of Trump, he has put the GOP firmly ahead in "ratings" and media coverage. The other campaigns are more engaged due to the Trump factor.
#49. To: redleghunter (#38)
"It tells you a lot about the viability of campaigns advancing."
#50. To: Roscoe (#24)
"You worship a deity with feet of Canadian clay."
#51. To: misterwhite (#50)
#52. To: TooConservative (#40)
Why? Just to bash Rubio?
#53. To: redleghunter (#52)
I thought the Bush family had "people" in SC that did dirty and effective campaign ads. Remember when McCain went ballistic in 2000?
#54. To: misterwhite (#50)
Trump is right. Settle this issue now.
#55. To: TooConservative (#54)
"And we already know the courts really hate this Birther crap."
#56. To: misterwhite (#55)
(Edited)
The "Birther crap" had to do with where Obama was born. There is no question that Cruz was born in Canada, and the courts have never addressed this issue.
States are not required to look at a candidate’s qualifications. "New Socialist Workers Party candidate Róger Calero, for example, appeared on several ballots around the country in 2004 and again in 2008 — despite being a Nicaraguan citizen."
Any candidate would have standing, including Hillary.
#57. To: All, nolu chan, misterwhite (#56)
#58. To: TooConservative (#53)
That was all Rove in 2000 in SC, the robocall thing about McCain's dark-skinned south-Asian adopted daughter.
#59. To: redleghunter (#58)
Lol Rove was on Greta tonight was accusing Cruz of dirty campaigning.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]