Now that was an interesting Iowa caucus! On the Republican side, Ted Cruz came in first (8 delegates), Donald Trump second (7 delegates), with Marco Rubio nipping at his heels for third (7 delegates).
On the Democratic side, it appears that Hillary Clinton eked out a historically narrow victory over Bernie Sanders. I say “appears” since last night it was reported that results from 90 precincts had gone missing. Given her serial history of lawbreaking, and the entire weight of the DNC all-in on dragging her over the finish line, would anyone put it past Hillary to monkey-wrench the process to avoid a narrow loss?
Let’s take a look at last night’s biggest winners and losers:
Winner: Ted Cruz: Given no chance at the beginning of the cycle, or even a few months ago, Cruz pulled out a clear victory against a candidate given eight months of unprecedented free media coverage. As I noted while following his 2012 senate race, Cruz is a smart, disciplined and indefatigable campaigner, a true conservative, and will make a great President.
Loser: Donald Trump: See above. A novice politician pulling 24% and second place in the Iowa caucuses would normally be cause for celebration, but Trump roared into Iowa like a juggernaut on a wave of unbelievable media interest and limped out like a hobbled mule. For all the talk about Trump’s money making a difference, there are few signs any of it was spent on an effective ground game. And for once he wasn’t bragging after the results came in.
Loser: Jeb Bush: Remember a year ago how everyone was predicting Bush’s fundraising machine and organizational muscle would bulldoze his rivals aside? Not so much. Bush ended up spending $2,884 per Iowa vote to come in sixth.
Winner: Marco Rubio: A strong third keeps him in the game, and he’s well situated to pick up deep-pocketed Bush backers who aren’t turned off by the huge amounts of money they’ve already thrown away.
Losers: Governors running for President. It used to be that Governor was seen as the ideal perquisite for running for President (Reagan, Bush43, Clinton, Carter, etc.), but not only did Jeb Bush come in sixth, John Kaisch, Mike Huckabee, Chris Christie, and Jim Gilmore (who we’ll mention only because he was a governor, since he got a whopping 12 votes in all of Iowa) all did even worse, Martin O’Malley came in an exceptionally distant third on the Democratic side, and Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal and George Pataki didn’t even make it to Iowa. Huckabee and O’Mally have suspended their campaigns, and the other governors should follow suit.
Loser: Rand Paul: Few expected Paul to win, but few expected him to do markedly worse than his father. He should drop out
Losers: The remaining Republican candidates. At this point there’s no path to victory for Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina or Rick Santorum. They should drop out as well.
Winner: Bernie Sanders: He went from being a crazy old socialist with no chance of winning to a crazy old socialist who fought the Clinton machine to a virtual tie.
Loser: Hillary Clinton: She desperately needed to win Iowa and got it, maybe (the Iowa Democratic Party is refusing to release actual vote totals, as opposed to precinct results), with the help of some missing ballots and unlikely coin flips, by the skin of her teeth, but she vastly underperformed in a race that was supposed to be cakewalk for her a year ago. “Her inability to ride a first-class ground organization to a decisive triumph underscores the candidate’s weakness and the lack of a message that resonates with primary voters.” And there were accusations that Hillary was using paid staffers as precinct chairmen.
It’s now a three man race on the Republican side, and a dog fight on the Democratic side.
“CNN projects Ted Cruz wins…On the Republican side, with 99% of the expected vote in, Ted Cruz leads with 28%, followed by Donald Trump at 24% and Marco Rubio at 23%.”
On the Democratic side, things are much closer:
“With 81% of the expected vote in, Hillary Clinton leads Bernie Sanders only 50.1% to 49.2%.”
Early Iowa Caucus results show Cruz leading 28% to Trump’s 25%. Given the huge lead in free coverage and buzz Trump enjoyed the last eight months, that has to count as a big victory. Marco Rubio was running third, at 22%.
Ted understands the gravity of our situation, and he understands how to right the wrongs of the past eight years by holding true to the principles of the U.S. Constitution. It’s all there, written long ago by the brilliant men who fought the fierce battle for freedom and liberty. We don’t need a bailout, we don’t need any new government programs. We need to return to the First Principles laid out for us by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.
Ted Cruz is the George Washington we’ve prayed for. He’s here — the man who understands that government is not the solution but the problem. Ted Cruz understands that the restraints placed on the government by the Constitution are a good thing.
Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund endorses Cruz. The piece says that they’re the largest Tea Party group in the country, which makes me wonder what criteria they used and how they determined that.
Is 135,000 the magic number in Iowa? Turnout below that and Cruz wins, turnout above that and Trump wins? I’m going to need confirmation from the haruspices before accepting that conclusion…
Both Cruz and Trump have several events in Iowa between now and the caucuses.
This Washington Post piece is probably a pretty good distillation of current inside-the-beltway thinking on Cruz’s chances of winning. Just remember the same insiders were talking about Jeb Bush’s inevitable triumph six months ago…
Byron York interviews Donald Trump. When Trump says “the Republicans are fighting each other,” it rather suggests Trump isn’t a Republican, doesn’t it? His answer as to why he’s religious (“I went through my Sunday school, I’ve done everything that you’re supposed to do”) is deeply unconvincing, as is repeated answers to questions about how conservative he is (“I’ve had tremendous polling numbers with conservatives”). On the other hand, defending his fiscal conservatism, when he says “I mean, we owe $19 trillion, this is going to destroy our country, we’re going to be destroyed,” well, he’s not lying…
Democratic analyst John B. Judis: The birth of a Trump-Sanders constituency. Some of his points are wrong and others Democratic Party talking points, but there’s still some interesting analysis here. “Both are critical of how wealthy donors and lobbyists dominate the political process, and both favor some form of campaign finance reform. Both decry corporations moving overseas for cheap wages and to avoid American taxes. Both reject trade treaties that favor multinational corporations over workers. And both want government more, rather than less, involved in the economy.” That last one speaks, yet again, to the point that Trump is not a conservative. See also “How Trump fights against the free market policies Republicans embraced” and “He has had little contact with, and shown little interest in, conservative ideology.”
“Dear Trump Voters, Your Darling Is a Two-Timing Cad.” This message is objectively true. However, I do note that the same issue did not seem to harm Bill Clinton’s career…
I’m a Cruz supporter, but just look at this “Wah, Trump hurt my feelings, why won’t Twitter kick him off” Social Justice Warrior drivel Slashdot has posted to their front page. Note the central lie that Trump’s Twitter account is “a trolling stream of hate and other abuses that would cause any average Twitter user to be terminated in a heartbeat” without actually offering any examples of same…
Another installment on the battle between Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. Many of these links come from http://conservatives4tedcruz.blogspot.com/ (no #CruzCrew email briefing today).
“Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign announced Friday it ended 2015 with $19 million in the bank.” That’s all hard money, and it brings Cruz campaign totals to $50 million.
“Don’t choose your candidate based on who you’d prefer to have a beer with, but whom you trust most to remain aligned with your principles. For me, that’s Ted Cruz.”
Cruz doesn’t want or need approval from the political elite. He isn’t seeking to be well-liked among the electorate, probably because he knows he just isn’t likable. Cruz will never be Joe Biden or Marco Rubio. He doesn’t have a beaming smile or endearing anecdotes or a twinkle in his eye. But his shrewdness, calculation, and disregard for elite approval can make him a winning candidate—and, what’s more, a pretty good conservative president.
Here’s the thing: I’ve met Ted Cruz, and I find him quite likable in person. Yes, Cruz does a very polished oratorical style and a laser-like focus on message that can make him seem overly scripted at the podium (though he’s gotten a lot better in this regard). But get past that he’s a smart, likable guy. What he doesn’t have is the almost pathological neediness to be liked that drove (for example) Bill Clinton to become so adept at emotional projection.
“Conservatives have been hoping that “another Reagan” will come along for decades and we finally have one: Ted Cruz….Cruz’s consistent conservatism mixed with his willingness to fight is why he’s the ONLY CANDIDATE RUNNING who can absolutely be counted on to get rid of Obama’s executive orders, kill Obamacare, defund Planned Parenthood and build a fence on the border.”
“The very same group who has gotten everything else wrong about the 2016 election and the mood of the voters went on television tonight with well rehearsed, clearly orchestrated talking points and got the debate wrong too. Yes, I do think Marco Rubio had a really good debate and came across as more pleasant than Cruz in the debate. But that is not going to hurt Ted Cruz. After all, all the right people hate him and the voters love him. The voters, not the talking heads, matter.”
CNN admits that journalists are scared to criticize Donald Trump. That admission highlights two problems with modern journalism: When did it become a “journalist’s job” to criticize candidates rather than just report the news, and when did our reporting class become such cringing little cowards that they’re afraid to do their job because strangers on Twitter will be mean to them? (Hat tip: Ed Driscoll on Instapundit.)
Media sees Trump as identical to Rush Limbaugh. They have, what, 1/8th of a loaf there? Both love taking the piss out of the deeply unpopular national liberal establishment, and their followers love them for it. But admitting that would mean the mainstream media admitting just how deeply unpopular they actually are… (Hat tip: Ditto.)
But just because Trump gives the MSM the vapors doesn’t mean we should stoop to his level of crass vulgarity.
Winning in a district long held by Democrats, Republican John Lujan outpolled Tomás Uresti in Tuesday’s special runoff in Texas House District 118.
Filling a seat vacated last year by former state Rep. Joe Farias, D-San Antonio, the GOP candidate will serve out the remainder of Farias’ unexpired term, through the end of the year.
Another election is set for March 1 to fill the seat for a two-year term starting in 2017. Lujan and Uresti are seeking their parties’ nominations in that race, and each has a primary opponent, so the winner won’t be decided until Nov. 8.
“The district with about 87,000 voters handed Lujan the win by a 171-vote margin.”
State District 118 is three-quarters Hispanic and largely suburban/exurban, and in the 2012 election it went 60/40 for Democrat Joe Farias, who resigned in August. Why he resigned, triggering a special election, is a good question, as he had already announced he would not run for reelection this year, and the House is not scheduled to convene until 2017.
Despite the fact that the district is going to be hard to hold in November, it’s still an impressive feat for Republicans to have captured it at all. Proving that Republicans can win in clear majority Hispanic districts, and forcing Democrats to devote the time and resources necessary to effectively contest the seat, counts as a big win.
Ted Cruz has picked up the endorsement of former Texas governor Rick Perry for President, and will help campaign as a surrogate for Cruz in Iowa. It’s not a huge endorsement, given how Perry’s own presidential campaign flamed out, but it’s a nice pickup for Cruz, and solidifies his odds for winning Texas on March 1. Also, it’s not as automatic a choice as some out-of-state commentators may believe, given that Perry endorsed (however tepidly) Cruz’s opponent David Dewhurst in his 2012 senate race. It may also indicate conservatives are coalescing around Cruz as the alternative to Donald Trump.
In any case, it’s a worth a hell of a lot more than Lindsey Graham’s endorsement of Jeb Bush…
Dan Morenoff is an unhyphenated, full-spectrum Conservative who grew up in the suburbs, went to the only public high school in America named for a baseball player, and married a girl who sat next to him in a 7th grade history class.
He studied economics and political science at Columbia, while running the school’s Conservative newspaper (he believes it was the only one in Manhattan at the time) and working with a think tank on entitlement policy.
After college, Dan worked again on entitlement reform with Senator Phil Gramm for a number of years,before leaving for law school at the University of Chicago. There, too, Dan led the institution’s leading Conservative organization.
Since 2001, Dan’s lived in Dallas, where he’s worked as a lawyer and raised three girls with his wife Erica. In that time, Dan has led the local chapters of both the Federalist Society and the Republican Jewish Coalition, while serving on the boards of various local charities (including his kids’ Jewish day school and his synagogue).
King was sharp and funny, and well worth reading even at her most iconoclastic (she often claimed to be a monarchist). And she could take down puffed up political functionaries like nobody’s business.