January 31, 2016
Jan 31 02:08 Shame on Cruz campaign Jan 31 02:40 Clinton, Sanders sideline the DNC Jan 31 08:47 Out from Trump's shadow? Jan 31 21:26 Rubio and the Santorum/Huckabee comparisons
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Shame on Cruz campaign
Late this week, the Cruz campaign sent out a "report card-style mailer" in an attempt to persuade people to caucus for Sen. Cruz. It failed and then some. The mailer said "You are receiving this election notice because of low expected voter turnout in your area. Your individual voting history as well as your neighbors' are public record. Their scores are published below, and many of them will see your score as well. Caucus on Monday to improve your score and please encourage your neighbors to caucus as well."
When Thomas and Steffany Hinkeldey received the mailer, Thomas posted a picture of the mailer through Twitter. Steve Deace, the most popular radio talk show host in Iowa by a wide margin and a staunch Cruz supporter, tweeted that Hinkeldey wasn't a real person . Less than 40 minutes later, Hinkeldey replied to Deace, saying "hi Steve. I am very real." Later, Hinkeldey confirmed that he will attend caucus Monday night, something he hadn't planned on doing. The bad news for the Cruz campaign is that he's caucusing for Sen. Rubio.
Additionally, Paul D. Pate, Iowa's secretary of state, issued a statement, saying in part "Today I was shown a piece of literature from the Cruz for President campaign that misrepresents the role of my office, and worse, misrepresents Iowa election law. Accusing citizens of Iowa of a 'voting violation' based on Iowa Caucus participation, or lack thereof, is false representation of an official act. There is no such thing as an election violation related to frequency of voting. Any insinuation or statement to the contrary is wrong and I believe it is not in keeping in the spirit of the Iowa Caucuses."
When the Twitterverse exploded with this news, the Cruz campaign arrogantly issued this statement :
I will apologize to no one for using every tool at hand to encourage Iowa voters to come out and vote.
That wasn't a statement from a campaign staffer. That statement was made by Sen. Cruz himself. My reaction to this is simple. Sen. Cruz isn't exercising good judgment. He's caught up in the campaign. He's making inflammatory statements that aren't remotely close to the truth. At one stop, he resorted to fearmongering :
At a sometimes awkward early morning gathering in a middle school in snowy Hubbard, 60 miles north of Des Moines, the Texas senator warned that even other Republicans would put at risk religious freedoms if they were in the Oval Office, and would allow a 'lawless' supreme court to push a radical leftwing agenda.
That's proof of Sen. Rubio's statement earlier in the day that Sen. Cruz will say anything to get votes.
Sen. Cruz's favorability/unfavorability is taking a hit because of his dishonest mudslinging. Sen. Rubio is gaining traction without misrepresenting the truth. It's possibly the truth that he's gaining traction because he isn't misrepresenting the truth. One thing's certain according to the DMR/Bloomberg poll: Sen. Cruz dropped 2 points since early January while Sen. Rubio gained 3 points.
Posted Sunday, January 31, 2016 2:08 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 01-Feb-16 07:13 AM
Mr. take no prisoners Rafael Edward Cruz; the Canadian, is not that cordial or mellow, eh? Probably never learned hockey, curling, or cribbage, eh? In Canada Cuban cigars have been available for decages, eh?
Clinton, Sanders sideline the DNC
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has more egg on her face now that Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have agreed to do 4 more debates . Though the details of the agreement are still being worked out, what's clear is that Ms. Wasserman-Schultz's iron-fisted statement that there would be 6 debates was thrown under the proverbial bus. This just additional proof that Ms. Wasserman-Schultz has lost control of the party she supposedly leads.
When the article starts by saying "If the Democratic National Committee were to sanction a Democratic debate on Feb. 4 in New Hampshire, it would likely do so without being co-sponsored by the state's largest newspaper, three sources familiar with the plans have confirmed," that's stating the DNC has essentially lost control. Ms. Wasserman-Schultz's past statements can now be hung around her neck. She fought for keeping a lid on the debates.
Now that Hillary's in trouble, Hillary wants additional debates. Sen. Sanders agreed but only if it was expanded to multiple debates. Mrs. Clinton wanted a single debate right before the New Hampshire Primary. Here's a hint for Hillary. Additional debates might help in the short-term but they won't help save her from the fact that she's a terrible candidate.
Posted Sunday, January 31, 2016 2:40 AM
No comments.
Out from Trump's shadow?
This morning, Byron York tweeted that Sen. Rubio and Sen. Cruz were fighting each other and that this fight was happening in The Donald's shadow. That statement would've been true a month ago. It was still true 2 weeks ago. It isn't true anymore.
During Thursday night's debate, Sen. Rubio emerged from Trump's shadow, thanks in part to Trump's decision to skip the debate because he was too petulant to tolerate being asked questions by Megyn Kelly. (I suspect he didn't appear because he didn't want to give Ms. Kelly the opportunity to prove she's a great journalist. If Megyn asked him some tough, fair questions, then he couldn't credibly tell his sycophants on Twitter that she's a terrible journalist anymore.)
During the debate, GOP activists learned nothing negative about Sen. Rubio. They were reminded that he was part of the Gang of Eight bill, which everyone knew. Admittedly, Sen. Rubio took a couple hits. Still, Cruz came out of that exchange the worse for wear because Sen. Paul, Sen. Rubio and Ms. Kelly exposed Sen. Cruz as a fraud on being the only flawless politician on immigration. They proved that he played games in an attempt to have it both ways.
The thing that lifted Sen. Rubio out of Mr. Trump's shadow, though, was his turning his fire outward towards Mrs. Clinton with laser-like precision. He especially hit her hard when he ridiculed her for saying she'd appoint President Obama to the Supreme Court. Sen. Rubio hit Hillary hard when he said she was disqualified for lying to the families of the men who died in Benghazi.
The thing that capped Sen. Rubio's coming out party was his appeals to lead America into a new "American Century." That's something his opponents on stage haven't talked about. That's something that Mr. Trump has only paid lip service to. Make America Great is Trump's slogan but his stump speeches are mostly him praising himself and reciting his big leads in polls. Nobody in their right mind thinks that Trump has a clue about implementing public policies that will get America's economy humming again. Mr. Trump had a casino go bankrupt while the economy was going well. Think about that. Bankrupting a casino takes some doing. The deck is stacked against the players.
Despite the inherent advantage of being the house, Mr. Trump's casino went bankrupt. We're now supposed to trust him in getting the U.S. economy going? That's rich. Sen. Rubio has outline a series of reforms that will help the private sector turn the economy around.
Tim Carney's article is worthwhile reading. People ready to anoint Trump the winner in Iowa should consider this:
TRUMP'S LEAD IS VULNERABLE TO TURNOUT WEAKNESS
Trump's lead is five points in this survey, that's smaller than other recent surveys. It is widely assumed Ted Cruz will have a strong turnout operation (which is more crucial in caucus states than in primary states), and that Donald Trump will have a weak one. If these assumptions are true, that five point lead should be considered a tie - especially given the 4.4 percent margin of error in the poll.
The other thing that can't be ignored is the fact that there's lots of people who are still persuadable:
Trump supporters and Cruz supporters are less persuadable, more committed than average voters - 71 percent and 62 percent respectively, say their mind is made up.
If these figures are accurate, that means 8% of Trump's supporters are persuadable. It also means that 9% of Sen. Cruz's supporters are persuadable. (It doesn't say what percentage of Rubio supporters are persuadable so I can't make that calculation.) Carney puts things this way:
RUBIO HAS THE MOST UPSIDE POTENTIAL
Rubio wins on the second-choice contest, with 20 percent to Cruz's 17 percent (Trump is in 4th place with 7 percent).
This is anyone's race, with Trump and Cruz having the advantage going into the last full day of campaigning.
Posted Sunday, January 31, 2016 8:47 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 01-Feb-16 07:09 AM
Rubio is a neocon. One who never served. He can tug Hegseth's sleeve as much as either cares to play that tune, but another chicken hawk is not what the nation needs. The donor class has its eyes past Bush, and it will be fun to see which, Bush or Rubio, wins Florida.
Presuming, of course, that by then Florida is relevant and presuming, of course, Trump does not win there.
Florida more than Iowa will be where parts of the Republican donor class have at it. Bush is treading water at present but with a brokered convention the early guess of a Clinton - Bush entrenched political family thing still is viable. Not that either of the two families is palatable. Just follow the money.
Rubio and the Santorum/Huckabee comparisons
If I had a $10 bill for every time I heard a GOP activist or MSM mouthpiece compare Sen. Rubio with Gov. Huckabee and/or Sen. Santorum, I'd be rich. This article mentions the fact that Gov. Huckabee and Sen. Santorum won Iowa, then went nowhere after that.
That's utterly irrelevant. The comparison doesn't fit the situation whatsoever. Gov. Huckabee and Sen. Santorum were niche candidates that did the "full Grassley", visiting all 99 counties in Iowa before Iowa's caucuses. That has nothing to do with Sen. Rubio. Sen. Rubio isn't a niche candidate like Gov. Huckabee and Sen. Santorum. Sen. Rubio is a mainstream, full spectrum conservative. I've started calling Sen. Rubio the "only complete package candidate in the race on either side of the aisle." Simply put, Sen. Rubio has things going for him that aren't going on for any other candidate.
He's likable. He's conservative. He isn't constantly grumpy. He relates to people. He enjoys campaigning. He's got solutions. He's telling voters that America has retreated from the world during the Obama administration. He's telling voters that this administration has crushed the economy with small businesses getting hit with too many regulations and too many reporting requirements.
Consider that the last two Republican presidential nominees, Mitt Romney in 2012 and John McCain in 2008, both lost Iowa. In fact, Mr. McCain placed fourth. 'Remember that the people who win here do not necessarily go on to win the presidency,' said Catholic University politics professor Claes Ryn, who clustered Saturday with several hundred Rubio supporters at a town hall here at the Hilton Garden Inn. Mr. Ryn noted that former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum placed first four years ago in Iowa, 'and he went nowhere.'
Santorum and Huckabee never had a path to the nomination. They appealed to a large percentage of voters in Iowa. That's where their appeal began and ended. It's like Rand Paul and Ben Carson this time. They didn't belong on the debate stage for more than 1 or possibly 2 debates.
This pretty much proves my point:
"I don't want Trump. That is one thing I do feel strongly about,' said Republican voter Jennifer Hughes of Glenwood, Iowa. "I had an open mind until I saw him in person, and then I saw he was even more narcissistic. I thought that the press was possibly just spinning, just showing sound bites of him being obnoxious, but no, he's like that all the time." She said that leaves her with a choice between Mr. Cruz and Mr. Rubio. "And Cruz is in second right now. But I really like Rubio better than I like Cruz, just personally," Ms. Hughes said.
Roger Bolte of Council Bluffs said he was "95 percent" in Mr. Rubio's camp, in part because "I think he has the best chance to beat" Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.
Nobody picked Santorum or Huckabee as being electable. That's because neither candidate was that electable. They both got in with the hope of winning Iowa, then hoping they'd catch fire. I think it's more appropriate to say that their campaigns went up in flames after winning Iowa.
Posted Sunday, January 31, 2016 9:26 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 01-Feb-16 07:04 AM
You'd know Gary, I would not, did either McCain or Romney come in third place in Iowa?
Not that Iowa means much. Your focus on a pair of losers who won there nails that door shut. Iowa is first, but largely irrelevant. Those saying Cruz is finished if he does not win Iowa are expressing more hope than courage.
Do you predict Trump losing Iowa? You're a bit coy there, saying Rubio this and that, while the big dog is still the big dog, top dog.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 01-Feb-16 09:05 AM
Romney came in second in 2012. McCain essentially ignored Iowa & came in 4th in 2008.
Comment 2 by JerryE9 at 01-Feb-16 08:17 AM
I think Trump's fate depends on turnout numbers that may be unrealistic for Iowa, especially with a winter storm on the way. I still like Cruz for his rigidity (we elect too many compromisers), but he lacks Rubio's boyish charm.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 01-Feb-16 09:16 AM
Jerry, Cruz isn't the principled conservative he masquerades as. He's much more of an opportunist who wants it both ways. When he proposed legalization for the Gang of Eight bill, he wanted to be able to say that he'd opposed amnesty but that he was reasonable enough to propose legalization, which isn't as harsh. Then he saw Trump's success in saying 'lock the doors; nobody gets in'. Suddenly, he proclaimed that he "never supported amnesty, never supported a pathway to citizenship and never supported legalization."
Cruz had a rough debate because Megyn Kelly played the video of him saying he supported legalization. Even though the video was clear, Sen. Cruz argued that what we'd just seen didn't happen.
Sen. Rubio has never argued that his participation in the Gang of Eight bill was smart. He's just argued that Sen. Cruz isn't the pure-as-the-driven-snow candidate he claims to be. Rubio is the smartest man on the stage in terms of foreign policy. He's super likable, which is why he's consistently the GOP candidate that beats the tar out of Hillary. Trump, BTW, gets his ass kicked up to his eyeballs against Hillary. Sen. Cruz loses to her but not by as much..
Comment 3 by JerryE9 at 02-Feb-16 08:02 AM
Yes, Cruz comes off a bit pedantic and unlikable, compared to Rubio, and he may not even be "authentic" in what he says. But he certainly says it with conviction, and the public is angry about sending people to Washington who will "compromise" too easily.
I'm still not convinced that Rubio has adequately "repented" for the Gang of Eight, though he says the right things, just as Cruz does. But if that's the only battlefield, I will take someone who might have said different things then and now over someone who actually DID something then and says something different now.
I'm not willing to choose, yet, especially based on all that "conventional wisdom" about who beats Hillary. It might even be Sanders.
