February 2, 2016

"Having felled the brash Mr. Trump, who unceasingly predicted victory and dominated the race up until the first voting..."

"... Mr. Cruz can credibly portray himself, to conservatives who have yearned to unite behind a strong champion, as a giant-killer."

The presentation in the NYT.

87 comments:

BDNYC said...

That sentence is a disaster.

PB said...

I don't think Trump unceasingly predicted victory in Iowa nor did he dominate the polling prior to the caucus voting.

mccullough said...

Cruz beat Trump among Republican primary voters in Iowa. This was hardly David v Goliath

tds said...

Oh, hasn't NYT just accidentally admitted that Trump is a giant?

Nyamujal said...

Fivethirtyeight has Trump winning in NH and SC. After SC, if the field winnows and if Rubio is still in the top three, I see him winning the nomination. People supporting Fiorina , Christie, and Bush are more likely to switch to Rubio.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Laslo Spatula said...

The seventh post of the day, and we are still in Iowa.

I'd even settle for (God Forbid) a 'Tom & Lorenzo' post right now.

I am Laslo.

Paul said...

Just the Iowa caucus folks. Probably Cruz's best chance for a win before he faces a less evangelical demographic. Still a long way to go before the eventual frontrunner emerges.

tim in vermont said...

The purblind NYT roots for the candidate that they think Hillary can beat. They don't understand America west of the Hudson and Susquehanna rivers and given those limitations, and their rooting interest in the race, this is a logical position for them to take.

Brando said...

Again its' all expectations gaming--forgetting that for months the polls were showing Trump might win Iowa, the fact that he came only four points from first place is pretty impressive for a guy with no ground game and no political experience.

Iowa also usually goes for who the evangelicals prefer--Huckabee, Santorum--and Cruz is in good with them. The only surprising result here was Rubio coming so close to pulling second, and again that only means something because he was polling at 12% not long ago.

NH could upend our expectations again next week.

tim in vermont said...

Yes, I am bringing back "purblind," it's a great word.

Brando said...

"The purblind NYT roots for the candidate that they think Hillary can beat. They don't understand America west of the Hudson and Susquehanna rivers and given those limitations, and their rooting interest in the race, this is a logical position for them to take."

It's a dangerous move, as while I still think Hillary has some advantages (the electoral math, a more united party and the GOP's ability to stab itself) she might be the worst politician the Dems have nominated in decades, including Gore and Kerry. Democrats might be wise to think about the Republican they can most live with (though I guess they figure they can't live with ANY of the GOP candidates).

Paul said...

Those who expect Rubio to get the nomination are underestimating the importance of immigration to the base I believe.

lgv said...

"Fivethirtyeight has Trump winning in NH and SC. After SC, if the field winnows and if Rubio is still in the top three, I see him winning the nomination. People supporting Fiorina , Christie, and Bush are more likely to switch to Rubio."

It's a good analysis, but the field will not winnow after enough after SC. Bush and Christie will do well enough in NH to continue, even after SC. Bush will do OK in SC. The other minor players, like Paul and Fiorina, don't have enough support to bolster anyone else when they quit.

SC will be very important to Trump. Watch the polls for slippage. What isn't clear is where voters go if they move away from Trump.

Skeptical Voter said...

Well you could say that Cruz, with his appeal to evangelicals "naturally" would win in Iowa. But buried in that NYT story is that Cruz got just 1/3 of the evangelical vote. And since evangelicals were supposedly 2/3 of the voters in Iowa, Cruz must have been appealing to someone other than, and in addition to, the evangelicals.

I don't know. It's going to be an interesting election year.

tim in vermont said...

I can't believe that a quick search of my heart reveals that I haven't yet ruled out Sanders.

BDNYC said...

Can we hurry up and get our Rubio-Kasich ticket? The silly season needs to end ASAP.

Brando said...

"I can't believe that a quick search of my heart reveals that I haven't yet ruled out Sanders."

I don't see me favoring Sanders, but I am sort of at peace with the possibility of him being elected because it'll galvanize the Right, he won't accomplish any of his crazy ideas, and at least his foreign policy is likely to be restrained which would be a nice break. Hillary I think would be a disaster.

Witness said...

"...up until the first voting..." means he wasn't really dominating.

Dude's a 25% candidate. A pretty dedicated 25%, but wasn't really ever in danger of becoming president.

Laslo Spatula said...

Every one of the Republican Candidates has a Cock in their Mouth.

Some of the Cocks belong to Big Business.

Some belong to Big Donors.

Some may be Sucking their own Cock.

Of this, Rubio seems to be the most comfortable with it.

I am Laslo.

traditionalguy said...

I suspect New Hampshire to tell Iowans where to go. The New Englanders are independent minded and not that into Pure Faith in God being the purpose of the government's President.

RLB_IV said...

Huckabee and Santorum won Iowa and they didn’t go very far in their races. I doubt that Cruz could get the nomination.

Paul said...

"But buried in that NYT story is that Cruz got just 1/3 of the evangelical vote"

Which may have been enough to put him over the top, depending on the percentage that Trump, Rubio, Carsen, etc., got.

rhhardin said...

Trump isn't brash. His bigger-than-life persona is self-deprecating humor.

Which is how he can also do a gracious concession speech.

The left doesn't get Rush either, for the same reason.

You don't see self-deprecation at the NYT.

rhhardin said...

Iowa, Ohio and Utah. The big three.

Bill Peschel said...

I love commentators who use the decisions by a bunch of Midwestern morons to decide the campaign.

Oh, did I say love? I meant loathe.

Us morons want a voice, too, you know?

Mom said...

I see the NYT led with an unflattering, badly framed picture of the Cruz gang. Have they EVER used a good picture for anyone on their enemies list?

eric said...

A lot of people are not very self aware today and its driving me crazy. As a Cruz supporter, I would love to see Cruz win the nomination. But a lot of Cruz fans this morning aren't managing expectations very well. They're calling Cruz the frontrunner now. Ugh.

What happens next week when he undoubtedly loses in New Hamphsire? If Trump wins, who everyone is now having fun with because he is supposed to win at everything, they will then call him the comeback kid. And the narrative will change. If its Rubio, he will be the big new star of the party. Etc.

The narrative is what helps candidates win elections. And right now Cruz supporters are setting themselves up for big disappointment next week. It's frustrating to see.

As an aside, Scott Adams is a sore loser this morning. He predicted a Trump win. So, he admits his wrong prediction, claims to eat crow, and then gives mundane explanations for why Trump lost. All fine so far.

Then he starts a "rigged" election mean, which he tempers by saying "I'm not saying the election was rigged" over and over again.

What he doesn't say is that, in persuasion, you use the word "not" to send a subconscious message. If I say, you're not beautiful, your mind ignores the negative and hears "you're beautiful."

So in effect, every time he writes, "I'm not saying the election was rigged" he wants you to hear he is saying the election was rigged.

I doubt you could rig a caucus. So, its a really dumb theory.

UNTRIBALIST said...

As a retired I.T. guy, I marvel at Cruz’s use of technology and Data Analytics which was/is light-years ahead of his rivals in sophistication and competence.

How he won Iowa.

Original Mike said...

"I doubt you could rig a caucus. So, its a really dumb theory."

Hillary did it.

JPS said...

Eric, 10:30 - Ah, I hadn't picked up on that - must be some of the hypnosis Adams claims to be so good at.

Here I thought he was irresponsibly starting a corrosive conspiracy meme, as if we don't have enough of those out there, but I guess that's my two-dimensional thinking. Let us take a look in three dimensions….

rhhardin said...

Utah is in the integrated circuits belt.

Oso Negro said...

Eric, I don't see the inflated expectations of Cruz supporters that you mention. What I do see is that the slobbering fellation of Trump met the reality of a first voter test. I also see that the establishment, including the Democrats and media, remains desperate to anoint a candidate who is acceptable to them, the flavor du jour being Rubio, after the demise of Walker and Bush. It does delight me that Texas gets to vote while it actually makes a difference this year.

Tank said...

The interesting thing to me is that Cruz, unlike all the others except Paul, did not pander to the Iowans regarding ethanol subsidies.

Jack Wayne said...

The thing being studiously ignored by moderates is that Cruz went all in on ethanol. The governor of Iowa, Trump and others dug into his lead on that issue and he still won. Without that, he would have scored higher. I'm for Cruz, have been from the start, and still think he's gonna win.

eric said...

Oso Negro, I hope you're right. But my twitter feed says otherwise. Ben Shapiro wrote an article today titled, Cruz is now the frontrunner.

Ugh.

Michael K said...

"came only four points from first place is pretty impressive for a guy with no ground game"

This has been his weakness all along and Cruz was bragging about his GOTV program, which seems to have been true.

Hillary had a GOT coin program which was enough for Iowa. I think she goes down from here. It will be interesting to see if the turnout in South Carolina, which for Democrats is mostly black, is good or poor. It was high in Iowa, especially for GOP.

It's not over.

tim in vermont said...

Hillary's game is not Get Out The Vote, it's Rake In The Vote. That's how she lost the nomination to Obama after all, he played "Rake In The Vote" better than she did.

Dude1394 said...

Cruz 8, Trump 7, Rubio 7.

Rubio is the only big surprise here. Iowa was already Cruz's superbowl, win or go home.

I think this shows that the party is pretty strong in caucuses. NH, SC will be interesting.

cubanbob said...

Right now I'm for Cruz but come November I will crawl on broken glass to vote for whoever is the Republican nominee.

Hagar said...

NYT BS.
Iowa is not even the beginning of the end.

As for ethanol question, what are the candidates positions on the sugar racket?

machine said...

of please oh please oh please...and add Palin to the ticket.

Wilbur said...

I've been interested in Cruz since Jay Nordlinger started writing glowing profiles on him in NRO just before Cruz ran for the Senate. I believe he's the one candidate capable of seriously shaking things up if he wins the general. If he gets the Senate, you might be amazed; for example, he'll try to eliminate several Cabinet departments altogether.
And well he should: The greatest danger to this country is in the administrative law slice of the pie.

tim in vermont said...

please oh please oh please...and add Palin to the ticket

I love the smell of desperation in the morning.

tim in vermont said...

Right now I'm for Cruz but come November I will crawl on broken glass to vote for whoever is the Republican nominee.

Cruz is running too much of a scorched earth policy, like he is the ONLY POSSIBLE CHOICE and will take the party down with him if that is what it takes to prevent anybody else from winning.

damikesc said...

I suspect New Hampshire to tell Iowans where to go. The New Englanders are independent minded and not that into Pure Faith in God being the purpose of the government's President.

NH is MA Part 2 now. It's representative of basically nothing.

damikesc said...

Cruz is running too much of a scorched earth policy, like he is the ONLY POSSIBLE CHOICE and will take the party down with him if that is what it takes to prevent anybody else from winning.

Sounds like a Bush thing there, to be honest.

Michael K said...

"and add Palin to the ticket."

I think it is interesting how the hard left hates her so much.

I can see the New York elites see her as "Alaska Barbie" but their pawns seem to see this as an opportunity to claim sophistication and status even though they are plebeians and foot soldiers in the war on culture.

It's just amusing. I can visualize machine and garage sitting in their mother's basements typing away trying to convey sophistication and high status.

tim in vermont said...

Who knows on the R side about New England, but I am thinking a preference cascade for Bernie is in the works. The votes are serious now, if Dems back off of Bernie now, it is Hillary's for the taking, but if they double down on Iowa? There are a lot of quiet Bernie supporters voting the horse race who will get swept up.

Somebody should write an app that flips an honest coin six times and let people get a feel for how unlikely six wins out of six in only one try is.

machine said...

I do not hate her...she is very entertaining.

J2 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
garage mahal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
garage mahal said...

"I can visualize machine and garage sitting in their mother's basements typing away trying to convey sophistication and high status."

You forgot to tell me to go back to DKos. Very original. Searing hot burn. I'm devastated.

Anglelyne said...

eric: So in effect, every time he writes, "I'm not saying the election was rigged" he wants you to hear he is saying the election was rigged.

I doubt you could rig a caucus. So, its a really dumb theory.


Last night I came across some disgruntled Trump supporters muttering darkly about Microsoft putting its thumb on the scales. (Apparently Microsoft was involved somewhere along the line in ballot counting?)

Doesn't take long for conspiracy theories to take wing, does it? Me, I'm stickin' with the masonic lizards.

J2 said...

Trump rally in Little Rock AK Wedsnesday. Likely Huckabee endorsement. Evangelical cred.

Let the cascade begin.

Alex said...

If Cruz can barely win amongst the Evangelical crowd, he has no chance in a general primary.

The Godfather said...

The media never learn. This morning on ABC their "politics reporter" said, Well Trump lost in Iowa, but "he's ahead in all the other states." No, he's not ahead in the other states; not a single vote has been cast in the other states. Trump is ahead in THE POLLS in other states -- just as he was ahead in the polls in Iowa yesterday morning. I fear that polling has ruined the media. You shouldn't let the media play with polls any more than you'd let a 6-year old play with a loaded pistol.

Dan Hossley said...

It's probably a 4 or 5 person race right now. Trump, Cruz and Rubio are certainly in after Iowa. Carson, Fiorina, Santorum, Huckabee, Paul are out. Bush, Christie and Kasisch are on the New Hampshire bubble. At least the winnowing process has begun.

Turnout for the Republicans was huge, not so much for the Dem's. That's not a good omen for Hillary.

The NYT's is tongue tied.

Laslo Spatula said...

So Cruz was the candidate best set up for Iowa -- Evangelical, great ground game, in a State where this is critical -- and Trump (no ground game,"2 Corinthians", etc) ends up, when all is said and done, at just one delegate less? Rubio at one less delegate than Cruz for that matter?

People are trying to read the entrails and the goat hasn't even been sliced open yet.

America is Dead, people; we're just debating about the proper Undertaker.

I am Laslo.

Laslo Spatula said...

"America is Dead, people; we're just debating about the proper Undertaker"

We'll be voting on the Grave Digger in 2020.

I am Laslo.

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
eric said...

Doesn't take long for conspiracy theories to take wing, does it? Me, I'm stickin' with the masonic lizards.

We will hear this from Trump soon enough.

Very smart people, top people, have told him there were irregularities. He doesn't know. He didn't see anything. But top people have told him. Etc.

Oso Negro said...

Eric - be of good cheer. I know a lot more people who are Cruz supporters that doubt he can win than think he is the one to beat. Whatever else he may be, Ted is bold and lacks nothing in being able to think on his feet. I expect conservatism to be well-represented in this campaign. If Americans don't like it and choose a strongman, an establishmentarian, a crook, or a commie, the country gets what it deserves. If we get Ted, we know we get a man who doesn't worry over-much about going along to get along.

tim in vermont said...

I do not hate her...she is very entertaining. - machine

That's exactly how I feel about the New England Patriots, except it's a good thing for them the Super Bowl, or as it used to be known, the Tom Brady Invitational, is not decided by vote.

Michael K said...

" I'm devastated."

No, but it is coming. When Hillary is either indicted or has a sudden "health problem" and Sanders is the best you can do.

That's when we will see if Democrats are shameless enough to parachute Biden in.

Michael K said...

I can hear machine's teeth gritting as he says "she is very entertaining."

It's OK. We are sympathetic.

Ritmo will introduce you to his McDonald's manager.

eric said...


That's when we will see if Democrats are shameless enough to parachute Biden in.


We discovered that a few years ago, I believe it was in New Jersey.

For Democrats, its only about winning. The ends justify the means.

machine said...

why can't you believe she makes me laugh?

I would cross over to vote for the quitta from wasilla...

Gahrie said...

I would cross over to vote for the quitta from wasilla...

Says the man who intends to vote either for evil and incompetence incarnate, or a bad joke from the 70's.........

rhhardin said...

Vince Foster lost the coin toss too.

n.n said...

The New York Times endorses Cruz as an alternative to Clinton and Sanders.

madAsHell said...

Food for thought. Here's a list of the Republican Iowa winners in the past...

1976 (January 19): Gerald Ford (45%) and Ronald Reagan (43%)
1980 (January 21): George H. W. Bush (32%), Ronald Reagan (30%), Howard Baker (15%), John Connally (9%), Phil Crane (7%), John B. Anderson (4%), and Bob Dole (2%)

Fast forward...

2008 (January 3): Mike Huckabee (34%), Mitt Romney (25%), Fred Thompson (13%), John McCain (13%), Ron Paul (10%), Rudy Giuliani (4%), and Duncan Hunter (1%)
2012 (January 3): Rick Santorum (25%), Mitt Romney (25%), Ron Paul (21%), Newt Gingrich (13%), Rick Perry (10%), Michele Bachmann (5%), and Jon Huntsman (0.6%)

Iowa is interesting, but really not an indication of what is to come.

robother said...

"Having felled the brash Mr. Trump...." The Grey Lady harks back with Victorian purple prose, sniffing the scent of the low-born stubby fingered types polluting our national discourse.

Anglelyne said...

Oso Negro: If Americans don't like [what Cruz is offering] and choose a strongman, an establishmentarian, a crook, or a commie, the country gets what it deserves.

Funny, that's the one thing so many people with widely divergent views seem to agree on: that if those people don't vote the way I'm voting, then those ignorant, stupid, misguided sons of bitches are going to get exactly what they deserve.

But more often than not we end up getting what the other bastard had coming to him.

eric said...

Jane the actuary, who hasn't been here to comment, said of Iowa on twitter.....


Saying Cruz won or someone lost in Iowa is like saying someone won the baseball game after the first inning.

I didn't put that in quotes because its a paraphrase.

Clyde said...

Bosh. None of the candidates in either party won a majority (more than 50%) of the votes. The "winners" won narrow pluralities, but all of them had more people voting for someone else than for them. There were, however, a lot of losers, those whose vote percentage was in the paltry 1-3% range. And Jim Gilmore, with 12 votes. Not 12%, 12 VOTES. Time to pack it in, Jim.

Terry said...

The American experiment in liberty and subsidiarity is based on the idea that people are pretty good at knowing what is in their best interests, and not very good at knowing what is in the best interests of others.
The great liberal project is based on the opposite idea, that people are bad at knowing what is in their best interests, but very good at knowing what is in the best interests of others.

Oso Negro said...

Angleyne - I have been voting the lesser of two evils for decades. I am cheerfully for Ted Cruz, and fully prepared to own my share of the responsibility for electing him.

UNTRIBALIST said...

cubanbob, DM me at Twitter TheCubanGringo.

Beldar said...

@ Brando (2/2/16, 9:44 AM), who wrote: "Again its' all expectations gaming --forgetting that for months the polls were showing Trump might win Iowa, the fact that he came only four points from first place is pretty impressive for a guy with no ground game and no political experience."

Yes, and Mrs. Lincoln really liked "Our American Cousins," except for that assassination thing.

Seriously, how can you "forget that for months the polls were showing Trump might win Iowa"? Even that is a substantial understatement. Take a look at this chart showing the Real Clear Politics average in Iowa over time. As recently as January 25, 2015, Trump was at 33.6% (his all-time high) and Cruz trailed him at 23.9%. Trump blew a ten-point lead in a week to lose by a decisive margin (more than three points, outside the polls' supposed margins-of-error), despite getting the heavy turnout of first-time voters he sought and despite the winning candidate's head-on opposition to the state's four-term governor on ethanol, the state's biggest single economic issue, on which Trump pandered as hard as he possibly could.

That tells me that Trump's supporters roar when responding to pollsters, but barely squeak at the polls. I don't think any poll that includes Trump as a choice is going to give a good prediction. Don't trust the polls at all this year.

The Hindenburg was also YUUUUGE. Strange how today, the only photo anyone much remembers of the Hindenburg is the one of it crashing in flames.

Anglelyne said...

Oso Negro: Angleyne - I have been voting the lesser of two evils for decades. I am cheerfully for Ted Cruz, and fully prepared to own my share of the responsibility for electing him.

Not sure what you're responding to in my comment, ON. I was making a general observation about the vagaries of deserts, not suggesting anything about your personal sense of responsibility for your voting record.

Unknown said...

--As for ethanol question, what are the candidates positions on the sugar racket?

Who puts sugar in their gas tank and hurts their engines. Which state is the center of the known Sugar universe? (hint don’t forget beets.)

Bay Area Guy said...

The sole goal should be to beat Hillary. Yes, Bernie will win NH, but then get destroyed on Super Tuesday. But Hillary will, eventually, be the nominee.

But I still don't know whether Trump, Cruz or Rubio will offer the best shot in the General, although I tend to think its Rubio.

cubanbob said...

Bay Area Guy said...
The sole goal should be to beat Hillary. Yes, Bernie will win NH, but then get destroyed on Super Tuesday. But Hillary will, eventually, be the nominee.

But I still don't know whether Trump, Cruz or Rubio will offer the best shot in the General, although I tend to think its Rubio.

2/2/16, 11:08 PM"

Why this fear of Hillary Clinton? If ever the Democrats fielded a candidate with more negatives perhaps other than George McGovern I can't recall. Say what you will about McGovern, personally he was a brave man, he flew a number of combat missions, its just that he was too far left for the electorate but he wasn't a criminal. Hillary Clinton is a criminal. There is no Republican I could ever vote for that had the criminal equivalent to Hillary.

Rusty said...

machine said...
of please oh please oh please...and add Palin to the ticket.

This from someone who is going o vote for either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders and sees nothing at all wrong with it.
Your fly is open.