Newsmax is reporting Cruz at 28%, Now Leading Trump at 25% in Iowa.
This is getting interesting.
If Cruz wins, he'll definitely gain steam and get more voters in NH, putting Trump in a risky spot.
If Trump wins, anti-Trump voters in NH might become that much more motivated to stop him with the primary turnout. But that doesn't necessarily mean it will make things easier for Cruz.
Consider my breath bated. Because I honestly don't know who I want to win. Cruz is still my go-to, but Trump is not without good qualities in this election.
Hillary is holding a slim lead over Sander at 51% to his 49%.
Again, I'm not sure who I want to win since Hillary is a sinking ship whether she gets the nomination or not. Her PR will take a wild down turn and demotivate younger anti-establishment voters.
On the other Sanders is an idiot. He's not a gaffing Biden mind you, but he's going to lose some appeal as people realize his so-called anti-establishment positions are no different Obama's.
.....Are you trying to use Jeb's pathetic level of support as a point of Republican embarrassment?
The only ones being humiliated by Jeb's plummet in the poles are his campaign workers and the same establishment fucks that tried to kill off Trump's and Cruz's chances at a nomination.
It was fun watching Hillary declare victory for herself in Iowa, while the votes were still being counted, before she was declared victor by the media. And as she, chameleon-like, tried to swipe Bernie Sanders' schtick and declared herself a "progressive" the audience booed her, and began chanting "She's a liar!"
Nomiki Konst (the best looking liberal pundit out there) summed it up well: "She [Hillary]'s been in Iowa for 2 years, and she won by a coin-toss!"
And a highly questionable set of 6 coin tosses that Hillary oddly won all of, at that.
I was glad to see Jeb Bush not make any traction. One pundit (I think Frank Luntz) said Jeb spent over $2,000 for every one of the few votes he got. He can't drop out soon enough. The sooner Jeb drops out of the race and stops bombarding with negative ads attacking other Republicans, the better.
I don't share Pariah's disdain for Rubio. While Rubio is not as much an insurgent as Cruz or Trump, he is eloquent and has cross-party appeal, particularly for Hispanic voters. And he's the most eloquent Republican since Newt Gingrich, with an inspiring optimistic vision for the country. I resist Rubio most on his leniency toward illegal immigrants ("First we need to secure the border, then we can talk about amnesty...") in most ways he is arguably the [borrowing the phrase from William F. Buckley] most conservative Republican who can get elected.
But Cruz is the most conservative, and after his Iowa victory, has a good chance of expanding that victory into southern states. It's getting interesting.
I don't share Pariah's disdain for Rubio....I resist Rubio most on his leniency toward illegal immigrants ("First we need to secure the border, then we can talk about amnesty...") in most ways he is arguably the [borrowing the phrase from William F. Buckley] most conservative Republican who can get elected.
He is an open boarders cunt and an establishment agent. Whatever eloquence he exhibits is bluster and subterfuge.
He's another Ryan in the making: He's going to get into office and proceed to break every promise after talking a big game about defending conservatism. Like a good republican foil for the democrats, he's going to play the mean and nasty villain that the DEMs eventually smite so that they tell their shills that they're looking out for the common man while the republicans can say to their base, "Hey, at least we tried amirite?"
Rubio's surprise close third makes me think back to Jeb's attacks on Rubio seemingly out of nowhere in one of the previous debates. People speculated that he was simply vying for more support from establishment voters in the face of a surging Trump with whom it was obviously fruitless to quarrel. But the popularity of Trump, Cruz, and Carson made it seem like he was fighting for an irrelevant seventh place more than anything else. Rather odd.
Then, suddenly, Rubio skyrockets into third place, bare inches from Trump with what Rubio's team admits was an unexpected insurgency.
The obvious explanation to the casual observer would be that it was punishment for Trump skipping out on the Iowa debate and, therefore, shedding voters to Rubio and Cruz. But if that many people were voting for Trump, odds are a more sizable number would go to Cruz himself who, despite being neck and neck with Trump throughout the entire Caucus, didn't see more than a three point uptick over Trump.
With Rubio and Jeb doing so poorly up to this point, I figured that they were both simply banking on a brokered convention due to Trump being unlikable/risky. But after tonight, I'm beginning to think that maybe, perhaps Jeb knew that whichever candidate secured the distant third establishment candidacy was going to get into--at least--a close third regardless of how pitiable said candidates numbers would. Perhaps he knew that his place would be assured not by any establishment voters, but by establishment powers......
It was fun watching Hillary declare victory for herself in Iowa, while the votes were still being counted, before she was declared victor by the media. And as she, chameleon-like, tried to swipe Bernie Sanders' schtick and declared herself a "progressive" the audience booed her, and began chanting "She's a liar!"
Nomiki Konst (the best looking liberal pundit out there) summed it up well: "She [Hillary]'s been in Iowa for 2 years, and she won by a coin-toss!"
And a highly questionable set of 6 coin tosses that Hillary oddly won all of, at that.
.....
The coin toss's were county delegates and not the state delegates so Clinton didn't win because of coin toss's. She was the first woman to ever win Iowa and should be able to give a victory speech like anyone else would have.
Before the experts have even declared her the victor?!? I don't think so. Bernie Sanders is struggling to not challenge it. Everyone can plainly see that it's a 0.3% victory, in a contest of roughly 100,000 votes among the top 3 candidates, where even a few coin-tosses to determine the outcome of several counties make a huge difference. Again, it is not a Republican, but a liberal who made this observation. One of many.
Also funny was the beautiful, eloquent victory speech by Marco Rubio for his miraculous performance rising 8 points above what was projected in polls for him to gain.
Except... he didn't win, he came in third! The media celebration of Rubio's "victory" was discussed with annoyance by both Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, both of whom got thousands more votes than Rubio, and yet the media acted as if they lost!
Originally Posted By: Pariah
He is an open boarders cunt and an establishment agent. Whatever eloquence he exhibits is bluster and subterfuge.
He's another Ryan in the making: He's going to get into office and proceed to break every promise after talking a big game about defending conservatism. Like a good republican foil for the democrats, he's going to play the mean and nasty villain that the DEMs eventually smite so that they tell their shills that they're looking out for the common man while the republicans can say to their base, "Hey, at least we tried amirite?"
It's a one party system. And it's left.
That would explain why the [80%-plus liberal] media is celebrating victory for his 3rd-place showing.
My worst fear is that another RINO is elected president, who betrays [like W. Bush] Reagan-conservative principles, and further diminishes the brand of what Republicans stand for. And if amnesty is given to millions of illegals (the estimates are about 20 million illegals, but that number has been touted since 2002, and I think the real number is about 35 or 40 million who would receive amnesty) that would tip the scales and give the DNC a permanent majority, and make the DNC like the Pri in Mexico, where they ruled the country for 100 years and just corruptly rubber-stamped whatever they wanted unopposed, because the other party ceased to have the numbers to ever win another election. While I have a suspicion and concern that Rubio would be such a Republican, you seem convinced of it, Pariah.
From last night, Ted Cruz voiced well the concerns of disaffected voters who have voted for him, Trump, and Ben Carson (over 60% of the votes). His comment about Bob Dole's remarks is chilling. That Republicans would rather see Hillary Clinton win, because that would advance their agenda better than Ted Cruz! This underscores why the Republican establishment has to be overthrown.
Donald Trump, with more humor, had similar remarks about the media hyping Rubio's third-place "victory".
Before the experts have even declared her the victor?!? I don't think so. Bernie Sanders is struggling to not challenge it. Everyone can plainly see that it's a 0.3% victory, in a contest of roughly 100,000 votes among the top 3 candidates, where even a few coin-tosses to determine the outcome of several counties make a huge difference. Again, it is not a Republican, but a liberal who made this observation. One of many.
...
Her campaign did the math and she also didn't use the word victory in that speech. You would have no problem with it if it had been a republican with a narrow win. And no, the coin flips didn't make the difference. There have been many fact checks on this that you can check out. Nor does it matter if it's a conservative or a liberal saying it, it's still incorrect. County delegates are not the State delegates that formed the .3 gap.
Btw it's not just about winning obviously. Meeting expectations and surpassing them plays a role. Rubio's 3rd place was better for him than Clinton's first place was for her.
While I have a suspicion and concern that Rubio would be such a Republican, you seem convinced of it, Pariah.
Yup. Rubio showed his true colors when he hopped into bed with people like McCain, Schumer, and Boehner immediately after the Tea Party put him into office. Then he tries to have his cake and eat it too by claiming to be against amnesty all the while trying to concern-troll republicans on "deporting grandmothers"--just like a good McCain lackey.
Conservative icon and grassroots heroine Phyllis Schlafly has released a new report extensively detailing Sen. Marco Rubio’s efforts to deceive the American people in his determined pursuit to open the nation’s borders.
Schlafly’s 15-page report on Rubio’s “betrayal” provides hyperlinked sources to document Rubio’s “big con.”
Schlafly’s memo warns the American people that Rubio’s push to deliver globalist immigration policies for his donors is not finished. “There is likely no person in the United States of America in a better position to enact mass immigration legislation than a President Rubio — no one who could deliver more votes in both parties for open borders immigration,” the memo states. “Senator Rubio is not Main Street’s Obama, he is Wall Street’s Obama: President Obama was a hardcore leftist running as a centrist; Senator Rubio is a Wall Street globalist running as a tea party conservative.”
The report is broken up into more than a dozen subsections, including “LYING TO CONSERVATIVE MEDIA,” in which Schlafly details how Rubio made countless false promises to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, National Review, and others. “Rubio traded shamelessly on the affection and trust conservatives had placed in him,” the memo states. “His deceptions about his immigration bill rivaled and exceeded Obama’s claims about disastrous Obamacare.”
Although in recent months, many of National Review’s writers have sought to boost Rubio’s candidacy, the memo later notes that “National Review has never received an apology for being repeatedly lied to by Rubio.” The memo reports, “To this day, Rubio has not only never retracted one of his false statements — never admitted any wrongdoing — but never even apologized to those he deceived, and their millions of listeners. Instead, he is raising more money and telling the same lies all over again, as he continues his push for mass amnesty and mass immigration.”
Another subsection of the memo entitled “AMERICAN WORKERS CAN’T CUT IT” states:
In a for-attribution interview with Ryan Lizza, two senior Rubio staffers expressed frustration that they couldn’t get even more foreign workers crammed into the bill for their boss. They explained:
‘There are American workers who, for lack of a better term, can’t cut it.’
Rubio’s spokesman — now his campaign spokesman — also compared opponents of amnesty to slaveholders. More on that here.
The memo also documents the back-room deals involved in the bill. A subsection entitled, “IMMIGRATION-FOR-PROFIT” reports that “Rubio’s lawyer, who wrote the bill, also enriched his clients through it.”
The “FIANCÉ VISAS” subsection points out that “Rubio’s bill opened the floodgates for fiancé visas — and fiancé children — an unprecedented security risk and another handout to the foreign immigration lobby.”
In a subsection titled, “DECEIVING LAW ENFORCEMENT,” the memo states:
Revealing Rubio’s character, it is also worth recalling that during his introduction press conference, Rubio stood frozen like a statue as ICE officer, council President, and former Marine Chris Crane was removed from the room for trying to ask a question. Shameful. Crane would later testify: ‘Never have I seen such contempt for law enforcement as I’ve seen from the Gang of Eight.’
In a section entitled, “BACK TO HIS OLD WAYS,” the memo notes that “Rubio is also the only candidate in the race still advocating citizenship for all illegal immigrants, and all that necessarily entails in terms of fiscal costs and chain migration. (Jeb’s book did not call for universal citizenship, as Rubio does.) To this day, Rubio has not backed off a single policy in the Gang of Eight bill (see more here).”
The conclusion of Schlafly’s memo is posted here in full:
There is no single major distinguishing policy difference between Marco Rubio, Sen. John McCain or Sen. Lindsey Graham. They have the same trade policy, immigration policy and foreign policy. But on immigration most especially — the issue in which all four have invested the most — there is no daylight separating them.
The difference, then, is one of persona, not policy. And in the arena of immigration, this translates into a vital difference. The biggest change from McCain-Kennedy, which could not get out of the Senate, and the Gang of Eight — which was nursed along by conservative pundits despite being to the left of Kennedy’s bill — was the presence of Rubio. Rubio created the conditions necessary to produce a considerably more open borders bill: conservatives who were invested in the Rubio Brand provided no early pushback but accepted Kennedy’s old talking points, and Rubio gave red state Democrats the political space necessary to support it. This is how it got 68 votes in the Senate.
The stakes of course are raised considerably if Rubio is President or Vice President. Rubio would have a much, much better chance than Obama of getting an open borders bill through Congress — while Boehner could refuse to bring up Obama’s mass immigration/amnesty bill for vote in 2014, Ryan would never refuse Rubio’s bill. Rubio’s presence, as it did with the Gang of Eight, would create the cover for both certain Republicans and all Democrats to get behind a far more open borders plan. Given that nearly every House Democrat sponsored the Gang of Eight House version (including Pelosi and Gutierrez), Ryan would not need to gather that many additional votes (House GOP leaders might have refused Obama’s 2014 request for a vote but they would not refuse President Rubio’s).
All of which adds up to: there is likely no person in the United States of America in a better position to enact mass immigration legislation than a President Rubio — no one who could deliver more votes in both parties for open borders immigration. Senator Rubio is not Main Street’s Obama, he is Wall Street’s Obama: President Obama was a hardcore leftist running as centrist; Senator Rubio is a Wall Street globalist running as a tea party conservative.
Unlike other legislation, the effects of bad immigration policy cannot be repealed. They are forever. The Republican party would never nominate a pro-Obamacare candidate, and it must be an even stronger maxim that it should not nominate any candidate who is committed to a policy of mass immigration. Rubio wrote the Obamacare of immigration policies: a bill that would have eviscerated the middle class, plunged millions into poverty, legalized the most dangerous aliens on the planet, overwhelmed our schools and safety nets, and done irreversible violence to the idea of America as a nation-state. Rubio is the candidate of open borders, Obamatrade and mass immigration, making one last attempt to pull off one big con.
Newsmax is currently reporting Trump in first place with 24% with Kasich and Cruz constantly edging each other out at a micro-thin close second. So it's 24s across the board......With Rubio and Bush at 5% or lower. Ah, schadenfreude.
Clinton is getting her ass beat by Sanders. Reap what you sow, I guess. One step back from the WH, two steps closer to an indictment.
Doubt she'll get to that point though considering all the dirt she probably has on Obama and friends.
In any event, I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised about Kasich considering NH is establishment central. It's pretty irritating to see his name so high on the board, but at least this means Rubio won't get second place again and that Jeb won't get second place at all. I'm also fairly comfortable in the belief that Kasich won't achieve such high numbers in Carolina. Although, with Cruz and Trump splitting the anti-establishment vote, there is a danger that kasich, or someone similar, could edge them out.
After doing some more research, I'm less depressed about Kasich's turnout being that much better than Cruz's. Apparently, Kasich has been on the ground in NH for months and attended at least a hundred town hall meetings. Like Bush and Rubio, he's spent a lot of time and money on exposure in the state, essentially betting the farm on it. By comparison, Cruz has spent less than a million with minimal face time--with Trump being a similar case.
Despite the wildly disproportionate level of spending between the two camps, the more economic anti-establishment insurgents are the ones who cleaned house.
Cruz called both his and Trump's NH performances a resounding success for grassroots conservatism. Seems right on the money.
Sanders' and Hillary's campaigns, on the other hand, seem substantially more money-driven. According to [url=www.politico.com/story/2016/02/bernie-sanders-new-hampshire-218906]Politico[/url], Sanders outspent Clinton in the state 3-1.
That was a fun political commercial. The humor in it makes it much more palatable than any of the latest round of Jeb Bush super-PAC ads attacking Rubio, Cruz and Trump. I wish Jeb would do the nation a favor and just drop out already, or focus on how his policy as president would be better, and stop committing fratricide on fellow Republicans. He should withdraw, and give his eventual endorsement support to whoever the final Republican nominee is.
The Cruz ad that unwittingly hired a porn star probably will get much attention only for that faux pas by the values-issue-centered Cruz campaign.
The pornstar girl in question is Amy Lindsay, although her stuff is only Cinemax-variety "softcore". I'm still not fully aware of where the line is drawn between hardcore and softcore.
Unfortunately, while we look at the issues, most vote with such warped priorities that these are the kind of ads they feel are necessary to draw the public's attention.
I've often thought that it was better in the days where citizens had to be property owners to vote in elections. Because that at least tested whether people had a basic understanding of economics, business and current events. Vs. now, where 50% of the public (at least) is collecting state assistance, and votes only for the party that continues to give them free stuff.
Rubio and Cruz effectively tied. And that means potential Cruz voters are hemorrhaging into Trump's base.
Even if it is possible, however unlikely, for Cruz to get a handle on the nomination, the perception of Trump's populist rise being totally unstoppable is only going to be reinforced, and thus strengthen his turnout in the states to come.
Furthermore, despite Beck's best efforts, Cruz is still going to have less voters than he would have had sans Trump, predictably putting him in third place from here on out behind Rubio, who will be in second thanks to the establishment. Cruz is attempting to strong arm the establishment vote by saying that he's the only one that can beat Trump, but I get the feeling that establishment politicians would rather deal with Trump than with him anyway, so that probably won't work.
[youtube]Jeb! is out.
Rubio and Cruz effectively tied. And that means potential Cruz voters are hemorrhaging into Trump's base.
Even if it is possible, however unlikely, for Cruz to get a handle on the nomination, the perception of Trump's populist rise being totally unstoppable is only going to be reinforced, and thus strengthen his turnout in the states to come.
Furthermore, despite Beck's best efforts, Cruz is still going to have less voters than he would have had sans Trump, predictably putting him in third place from here on out behind Rubio, who will be in second thanks to the establishment. Cruz is attempting to strong arm the establishment vote by saying that he's the only one that can beat Trump, but I get the feeling that establishment politicians would rather deal with Trump than with him anyway, so that probably won't work.
This contest is over. I don't see Rubio folding his tent after this and the delegate math doesn't work for Cruz whether he wins in his backyard or not. Further, it is a pipe dream to believe that the people behind Rubio would really get behind Cruz in droves. Say hello to your candidate, Donald Trump!
Looks like it's going to be Clinton vs game show host that has a bunch of bankruptcies, multiple marriages and a David Duke endorsement. Gee I wonder who's going to win, lol.
Sooooooooo....Trump wins the three states that were most likely to go to either Kasich or Rubio (Mass., Vt., and Va.) and Rubio wins the same state that elected Pat "The Body" Ventura as Governor.....This is absolutely delicious.
Of course, I would much rather Cruz be cleaning up and making a fool of Rubio, but it's not too hard for me to enjoy the Trump wins thus far.
Originally Posted By: iggy
Further, it is a pipe dream to believe that the people behind Rubio would really get behind Cruz in droves.
When we say "droves", how big are we talking? Clearly, Cruz isn't going to absorb the open-boarder cunts from Rubio's camp whether he closes up shop or not, but a significant portion of hangers-on for Rubio are probably sticking with him purely because they are traditionally establishment. As such, if Rubio does throw in the towel, Cruz would probably snatch up--at least--50% of Rubio's portion.
Even supposing Rubio does as he says he will and campaigns in all fifty states (like a pathetic idiot), and provided that the establishment crowd isn't voting out of shear bitterness, people are going to see that he's a lost cause, inevitably shedding voters onto Cruz.
Looks like it's going to be Clinton vs game show host that has a bunch of bankruptcies, multiple marriages and a David Duke endorsement. Gee I wonder who's going to win, lol.
Do you honestly believe that millennials are going to shill for Clinton at this point? Are you really that delusional?
Rather than a rally behind Ted campaign, many of those establishment guys are saying they'd vote Hillary. Those who don't say they would hold their nose and vote Trump in the general. Nary a word about Cruz is ever spoken by those guys because...Newsflash: everyone but his fanboys hate Ted Cruz! The states that he could carry will go red anyway and I don't see any real proof that he could flip Colorado, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Virginia come people really tuning in during the general. He can't even win his foolproof base despite his best efforts to dog whistle them at every turn. He just can't win...
Also, say what you will about Rubio's possible win but it is coming from outside of the usual red states. You can massage that into a message of electability a lot easier than you can saying I win states that go red anyway.
Rather than a rally behind Ted campaign, many of those establishment guys are saying they'd vote Hillary. Those who don't say they would hold their nose and vote Trump in the general. Nary a word about Cruz is ever spoken by those guys because...Newsflash: everyone but his fanboys hate Ted Cruz! The states that he could carry will go red anyway and I don't see any real proof that he could flip Colorado, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Virginia come people really tuning in during the general. He can't even win his foolproof base despite his best efforts to dog whistle them at every turn. He just can't win...
The politicians hate Cruz. And everyone hates the politicians. While I have no doubt that there's a large chunk of people who simply do whatever McConnell and Ryan say, your average republican--establishment or otherwise--is only going to inherit second-hand hatred characteristic of an unaccountable politic rather than a prevalent culture of dislike.
And I don't know what dog whistles you're referring to, but the people flocking to Trump don't necessarily do so out of any dislike for Cruz. Of the apparent populist tendencies between the two of them, Trump draws upon them much more flagrantly than Cruz, and therefore he attracts a larger populist vote. Were Trump not present, there's no doubt that Cruz would have snatched them up.
The only reason that Romney didn't win in 2012 is because three million republicans stayed home. This is a different ball game: Trump is winning an unprecedented combination of states in the primaries right now, and with jobs being shipped out to Mexico while H-1B workers are shipped in, he is taking advantage of a cross-party outrage with far more efficacy than any other candidate. Cruz could do the same assuming he competes with Trump more appropriately.
The primaries themselves are getting record turnouts out the ass for republicans. The Dems, by comparison, couldn't even get fifty percent of the turnout that they received three years ago in South Carolina. One of the reasons that Cruz and Trump went for it this time around is because Democrats are in a state of super low energy. I'm not saying they're going to be easy to beat, but there has been a clear seven year long disillusionment process, the effects of which can be felt without even a single pollster. Even in California, millennials are just not giving a shit about Democrats--they're all registering Independent.
Also, say what you will about Rubio's possible win but it is coming from outside of the usual red states. You can massage that into a message of electability a lot easier than you can saying I win states that go red anyway.
