During the 2008 race, Republican Mike Huckabee surged 17 points between an October poll and a late November poll, moving into a lead he did not relinquish.And:
In 2004, Democrat John Edwards jumped from 5 percent to 22 percent, also a 17-point leap, in the final poll before the vote. And Democrat John Kerry rose 10 points, from 15 percent to 25 percent....
Among Trump supporters, a strong number say Cruz is their second choice (49 percent). Ben Carson's second-choice votes go mostly to Cruz (35 percent), with Trump getting 17 percent. Carson and Trump are nearly tied for Cruz supporters' second choice, 26 percent and 25 percent respectively.As this new poll attracts new attention to him, Cruz should be able to take great advantage of the debate coming up on Tuesday. Cruz has unique skill in debate, and people should think about how that skill will work in a general election debate against Hillary Clinton.
ADDED: Rich Lowry asks "Does Trump Realize the Game that Ted Cruz Is Playing?"
An important question here is what matters more to Trump: the fact of the (transparently insincere) gestures of submissiveness from Cruz, or the purpose of the (transparently insincere) gestures of submissiveness from Cruz, namely to tip-toe around Trump in Iowa?I have a question: If he cared, would Trump understand the game Rich Lowry is playing? I say the answer is yes, because I just assume Trump figures out whichever games he wants. But I myself don't know. But here's something Lowry put up on December 6th: "All Things Considered, I’d Rather Be Ted."
Posts
54 comments:
Reminds me of the two-season comedy show, "Better off Ted". A hilarious take on corporate life.
Attacking Trump has been a fool's game. It may get you some undecided voters, but it won't get Trump supporters to switch. If someone is Trump supporter and you attack Trump, then you are attacking the supporter, implying that the supporter is stupid for supporting Trump. Do not belittle the consumer's previous choice. It is an unsound sales strategy.
I think Cruz's strategy of avoiding Trump bashing was a very wise move, at least in Iowa, where there are still a dozen candidates. Trump will go on the attack because Trump is Trump. It may not win him back any supporters, but it may be effective in stemming the flow.
Carson can't attack Cruz without destroying his own image.
Polls taken from small samples (400, I believe) are more vulnerable to outlier results. We'll see.
The GOP field is blessed with some excellent brains, all of them markedly superior to Hillary, who, if it were not for her brilliant but sociopathic husband, would be an ethically dubious junior partner in some obscure regional law firm rather than the putative Democratic nominee. The brains are different, however. Trump is shrewd and calculating, everything he says or does it calculated for effect. His skills at manipulating the battle-space have certainly paid off, allowing him to blow marginal minds to gibbering smithereens and simultaneously to cement a loyal following. Obama has been remarkably busy these last seven years marginalizing the middle class who have been ceaselessly hammered with high unemployment, lurking inflation, and exploding health insurance rates. Trump used his tycoon smarts to identify and court these marginalized voters, who, grateful for the attention, reward Trump with unquestioned loyalty. Trump's strength is also his weakness, unfortunately.
Carson is brilliant, no question. One cannot master pediatric neurosurgery without either formidable intellect or preternatural good fortune. However, I think he lacks the ruthlessness a nominee will need to combat an unprincipled and morally corrupt opponent like HRC.
Rubio has been seen by the MSM as the pretty face whose main advantage is an Hispanic surname. Read this and know why that glib dismissal is laughably mistaken.
It was Carly Fiorina's misfortune to have joined HP at a time of necessary transition. A cursory look at Hewlett-Packard's market performance during her tenure (and that's as deep as 99% will look) is pretty damning, but she did position her company to gain marketshare in the server and network infrastructure business. The Veep job is hers for the asking, and I'm sure that's why she remains on the national stage. She'll help defeat the Hildebeast by adopting the persona of the pit bull -- savaging Hillary at every opportunity, yet remaining immune to the whinging cry, "Sexist!"
If Trump has been the Republican's crouching tiger, Cruz has been the hidden dragon. Anyone who cares to examine Cruz's resumé will be staggered by the man's sheer brilliance as a lawyer and legislator. Whereas Obama, the Law Review president whose actual career in the law is underwhelming to say the least, Cruz is the real deal. He's a bit odd; it's true. Camille Paglia, has famously critiqued him for having "a womanly face". If that's the worst the razor-tongued erinys can say, then it's just a matter of getting used to him, much like Lincoln's gangling frame and squeaky voice at first repelled and then endeared. Maybe the electorate has finally gotten used to Ted Cruz the oddball, and now appreciate Ted Cruz the Death Machine.
I assumed it was because god protects the US in times of dire need.
-XC
I am not happy with first term Senators as candidates, given recent experience, but this Lowry comment seems pretty good.
"I’m not sure what the establishment in particular (which is much less cohesive than advertised) can do to stop him, "
The only one who will stop Trump now is Trump. He has to implode somehow and I don't see it happening yet. I didn't see it with Perot but he did do it.
The comparison between a first term Senator and a successful businessman is not enough to sway me. I was a Walker supporter until he wasn't there. Rubio may have made a fatal mistake on immigration. Perry blew it in 2012. Kasich just seems an unpleasant man. I liked him when he was in the House but his appeal is weak. Christie is too self centered. His behavior at the 2012 GOP convention alienated me.
Obviously I don't decide who wins but I am a pretty conservative, pretty well educated person and I suspect there are many like me.
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. Trump is not the early worm, he is the first mouse.
Quaestor, good summary. I liked Carly and sent her some money but she has missed the tram on the Muslim issue.
I have strong feelings on this.
Looks like some incoming fire for Cruz coming across the transom this morning.
Ted Cruz's Festival of Fraud
Just FYI. Haven't read it.
I suspect that if the positions were changed so that Trump all of a sudden took a big lead over Jeb!! who had been leading by double digits all these months we would hear somethign different.
"Oh, it's only one poll. An outlier. Doesn't mean anything, Yadda,yadda, yadda, blah, blah, blah etc"
Since it is Trump, all the oracles are saying that it means that Trump is losing.
I serious doubt this poll. If we see a couple more, over the course of the week, showing similar movement then maybe I'll pay attention. Until then it is just clickbait.
John Henry
News Media owned Polls are rigged on demand. They can be ordered like Pizzas in different crusts with your choice of toppings. The Des Moines idiots just served us up one with rotten cheese on religious piety crust covered with live anchovies.
I don't read Cruz's attitude toward Trump as either submissive or insincere. Calculating, yes, obviously, but rational and above board. He's the obvious fallback option for Trumpians who come to their senses. But he would be more effective (i.e., raise chances of GOP win) as Rubio running mate. Let's see if "the base" can figure it out.
How will Hillary debate Cruz? She will rely on the devastating logic of "As a woman, I find your argument very offensive."
Ted Cruz is not eligible law prof. Are you really a "law prof"? What could those students possibly be learning if you can't see this?
He was born in CANADA, and had Canadian citizenship until a year ago. If born before 1934 he would not have been even a citizen, much less a natural born Citizen---DUH!
(“Not until 1934 would that person have had any conceivable claim to United States citizenship”. Rogers v. Bellei, 401 US 815, 826 (1971), describing the citizenship situation of one born to a US Citizen mother and a foreign father abroad.)
the 14th Amendment “has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents, and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization”. (Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649 @ 688)
Are you really not aware of this?
And see:
“It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency”. (7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency (TL: CON-68; 04-01-1998 (a))
Seems to me like Lowry is trying to prop up Cruz and I heard somewhere that 'they' will prop up Cruz against Trump and when Trump falls, and Cruz rises, it is easy to take him down and replace him with the placeholder Jeb!. Everybody is playing a game.
I'll be interested to see how Trump reacts.
When Carson went ahead of Trump in one Iowa poll, Trump started to attack Carson.
It would be a shame to see that pattern repeated in this week's debate.
Last week, I myself switched my support from Trump to Cruz.
Cruz now has adopted enough of Trump's immigration position to satisfy me.
https://www.tedcruz.org/cruz-immigration-plan-summary/
Quaestor: Polls taken from small samples (400, I believe) are more vulnerable to outlier results. We'll see.
Any other polls confirming those results? Don't know, haven't looked, but I was enjoying scrolling through all the lib-source headlines radiating wild delight over, lol, Ted Cruz surging in the polls. It's as if a bunch of starry-eyed groupies were writing the headlines. This is much, much funnier than when they pretended to like John McCain. It's going to get even funnier if Cruz should maintain a lead in the polls.
Anyone who cares to examine Cruz's resumé will be staggered by the man's sheer brilliance as a lawyer and legislator. Whereas Obama, the Law Review president whose actual career in the law is underwhelming to say the least, Cruz is the real deal...Maybe the electorate has finally gotten used to Ted Cruz the oddball, and now appreciate Ted Cruz the Death Machine.
I've run across people - Trumpies and others - who don't much like Cruz as a Presidential candidate but love the idea of Cruz on the Supreme Court, where he could mercilessly troll libs for decades to come.
If that's the worst the razor-tongued erinys can say...
Never knew that was the proper singular of erinyes. Thanks for the vocab improver.
Lowry and national review are part of the GOP establishment. Trump is an existential threat to them but Cruz is not.
I
Being everyone's second choice worked for A. Lincoln. Just sayin'.
Cruz is like Trump in that he doesn't attack other Republicans unless they attack him first. And I believe that, like Trump, he doesn't mind an honest attack. That's politics. His take-down of McConnell, in the Well of the Senate is a perfect example of his honesty and courage when confronted by egregious dishonesty. Further, I believe that when it comes from within his own party, he regards that as a betrayal. If it's Trump I'm voting for him but I'm pulling for Cruz.
Tom from Virginia said...
Being everyone's second choice worked for A. Lincoln.
Lincoln profited by being seen as less radical on slavery than Cameron and Seward. A centrist. Republican purists should remember that. He also profited from a deal with Cameron on the second ballot, which lead to most of Cameron's votes going to Lincoln. Cameron became Secretary of War. Lincoln had telegraphed his supporters (he was not at the convention) saying that he authorized no deals. But the unauthorized (wink, wink) deal helped him win the nomination.
Threat to the survival of the nation. Brokered convention. Numerous candidates. Third party threats. Radicals vs. centrists. Sounds familiar, eh?
"Lowry and national review are part of the GOP establishment. Trump is an existential threat to them but Cruz is not."
Actually, he is. But they see him as the lesser threat.
Trump's polling must have told him something. Maybe it was behind his more aggressive criticisms of Cruz this week.
I might actually watch the Tuesday debate. Until now it hasn't seemed worth it.
“It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency”. (7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency (TL: CON-68; 04-01-1998 (a))"
And do you really think the courts would rule him ineligible after nomination by a major party?
I'm with Mick on this one. I disagree with him about Obama but he is right on with Cruz.
The law may be vague on natural born citizenship but we have over 200 years of precedent. Why stop now?
John Henry
"He was born in CANADA, "
McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone. I have not made a study of this but I believe this is not an issue.
A very good reason to like Cruz is that he is the one person who can take on Hillary and the moderator and win. Carly Fiorina devastated Trump in the one debate with a look and a sentence. Can he really beat Hillary in a nationally televised debate when the moderator is in the tank for her?
But lots of surprises come out of Iowa, and not every favorite who wins Iowa has gone on to win the nomination. Two months to go.
Mick is pretty sure George Washington was ineligible to become president because Washington was not born in America.
I want another trick, pony. The one you have is boring.
In re the importance of relevant experience:
According to a number of polls about 75% of the people believe the country is on the "wrong track". Why would you want an engineer who can make the train go faster rather than a good brakeman?
Carly Fiorina devastated Trump in the one debate with a look and a sentence.
Obviously she didn't "devastate" Trump, because she tanked while he soared. I say that as a Fiorina supporter.
I think people here are expecting lawyer Cruz to torpedo Trump like Greenwald did to Queeg in "The Caine Mutinity." But it could also be that he makes Bush III and especially Kaisich look like Keefer,
It always seemed unlikely Trump would get the evangelical vote in Iowa.
"Cruz is like Trump in that he doesn't attack other Republicans unless they attack him first."
I think this is largely true of Cruz, but not of Trump. Ben Carson, for instance, hadn't done much to motivate Trump's unhinged attacks on him.
So, if Obama really were to have been born in Kenya, he still would be a US natural born citizen. All that hoopla, for what?
Good things are happening - at least politically-speaking.
1. Jeb has faded without any bloodletting.
2. Obama and Hillary have lost all credibility with their pathetic response to ISIS and radical Islamic terrorists
3. Trump is being challenged, smartly, by Cruz. The key is not to attack Trump; the key is to jab and move (like Ali)
4. Rubio has taken the lead for the "establishment" wing of the GOP
I have only 2 words: Beat Hillary!
Less radical on slavery? I dunna think so.
Lincoln was just as much of a perceived radical in his day as Cruz is in our day. His mere election - nothing more - before even being sworn in, resulted in the secession of seven states.
If Cruz is elected, we may lose Cher, but I am confident we'll still have all 57 states in the Union on January 20, 2017.
Blogger Michael K said...
McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone. I have not made a study of this but I believe this is not an issue.
It was an issue in 2008. So big and issue that Congress (both houses, IIRC) passed a resolution saying that McCain was "natural born" Obama didn't use it because it would have raised questions about his birth. (I think he is natural born, in Hawaii but the questions would have been raised)
I think one needs to be a Constitutional, 14th Amendment, citizen to be "Natural born" and eligible for prez. Cruz is not There is plenty of knowledgeable debate on both sides of this. Our hostess, a conlaw prof disagrees with me and says he is eligible.
In any event, until McCain we have never had a major party candidate who was born outside of the United States or a territory that became a state.
Why start now?
I love Ted Cruz and think he would make a fantastic president. I think he is a terrific senator and would make an even better SC justice. I don't think he should be president.
What happens, for example, if he wins and someone like Alan Grayson files suit against his eligibility and the Supremes find him ineligible. I suspect he would have to step down. Since he would never have legally been president, what happens to legislation, appointments, treaties and so on that he may have signed? We could wind up with a real mess.
John Henry
Blogger Birkel said...
Mick is pretty sure George Washington was ineligible to become president because Washington was not born in America.
Really, Birkel? Where was he born?
In any event, he is covered under Article II, Section 1
John Henry
Surprised that Mick has not mentioned this yet but Cruz was born not just a Canadian Citizen but a British "Subject". Loyalty not just to Canada but to the British monarch, whoever he or she might be.
Did he renounce this when he renounced his Canadian citizenship? Anyone know?
John Henry
One further thought, spurred by the McCarren bio and a discussion of FDR running for a 3rd term.
Until FDR we had a custom and precedent, set by G. Washington, that the president would be someone born in the US. FDR ignored that custom and we had to pass an Amendment putting the custom into the Constitution.
Should Cruz be the candidate and win, perhaps we will get an amendment about what a "natural born citizen" is.
john Henry
Amanda said...So, if Obama really were to have been born in Kenya, he still would be a US natural born citizen. All that hoopla, for what?
That is an excellent point.
No, Mccain is not eligible either. He was born in the Panama Canal Zone, and naturalized by 8 US Code 1403. Resolution 501 has no force in law, and was only done to cover for the future Usurper Obama. At any rate, it said that he was a natural born Citizen because he was born in the US territory of a military base. All well and good, except military bases abroad are not considered US territory (See 7 FAM).
Just follow the logic if you can.
A2. S.1 C.5 has never been amended. Congress has no authority to amend it except through the Amendment process. Naturalization Acts cannot amend A2 S1 C5. Cruz would not have even been a US Citizen if born in the same situation in 1933. (See Rogers v. Bellei) Therefore he is only a citizen because of Congressional authority to enact naturalization law--- i.e he was conferred citizenship--"naturalized". He is thus not a natural born Citizen.
Cruz's conflicting stances on H-1B visas is a deal breaker for me.
David said,
"And do you really think the courts would rule him ineligible after nomination by a major party"?
It really doesn't matter what you think. What if he was challenged before the election?
Birkel said...
"Mick is pretty sure George Washington was ineligible to become president because Washington was not born in America".
No Washington and many of the early POTUS' were not natural born Citizens. They were grandfathered in by A2S1C5 ("or a citizen..."). He was a resident of a state at the time of the ratification in 1789-- so eligible. The first nbCs were only 13 in 1789 (born since the Dec. of Ind. 1776).
The first nbC was Van Buren, born in New York in 1781, to adherents to the Dec. of Ind.
If that's the worst the razor-tongued erinys can say...
Never knew that was the proper singular of erinyes. Thanks for the vocab improver.
_________________________________________________________
Man, if I had a nickel for every time I've had to correct someone misspelling or mispronouncing it I'd be able to buy that 'eschew obfuscation' bumper sticker I've always wanted.
John said,
"Did he renounce this when he renounced his Canadian citizenship? Anyone know?"
There is no right to give up British subjectship (perpetual allegiance) under British Common Law, although it was done by treaty in the Treaty of Peace (and then renegged on in 1812).
That's one of the differences between "Citizen" and "subject"
Obama is still a British subject, since he was made a subject by birth to a British subject.
I love Ted Cruz and think he would make a fantastic president. I think he is a terrific senator and would make an even better SC justice. I don't think he should be president.
What happens, for example, if he wins and someone like Alan Grayson files suit against his eligibility and the Supremes find him ineligible. I suspect he would have to step down. Since he would never have legally been president, what happens to legislation, appointments, treaties and so on that he may have signed? We could wind up with a real mess.
John Henry
12/13/15, 3:28 PM"
Has Obama ever renounced his Kenyan and Indonesian citizenship? If Grayson ever filled such a suit to keep Cruz from taking office and the court buys the argument then a lot of the Obama Administration also goes down the tubes.
I love Ted Cruz and think he would make a fantastic president. I think he is a terrific senator and would make an even better SC justice. I don't think he should be president.
What happens, for example, if he wins and someone like Alan Grayson files suit against his eligibility and the Supremes find him ineligible. I suspect he would have to step down. Since he would never have legally been president, what happens to legislation, appointments, treaties and so on that he may have signed? We could wind up with a real mess.
John Henry
12/13/15, 3:28 PM"
Has Obama ever renounced his Kenyan and Indonesian citizenship? If Grayson ever filled such a suit to keep Cruz from taking office and the court buys the argument then a lot of the Obama Administration also goes down the tubes.
Remember, the people who wrote the Second Amendment, also wrote the laws that prohibited a standing army in time of peace.
Yeah, sure. But the good news is that they did not put anything about standing armies in the Constitution. O those wise founding fathers!
Even the right to free speech we don't "infringe" when it comes to incarcerated inmates, and yet, time place and manner restrictions are a part of the game.
I could be reading this wrong. The comment seems to be saying that since free speech is ‘restricted’ that guns should be ‘restricted’ in some manner as yet undefined by the commentor.
But readers, just how many restrictions are there on speech? The answer is not many, not many at all. The Left, the Establishment and various other groups keep trying to restrict speech but the SCOTUS keeps allowing it. Thanks to the Constitution and the SCOTUS I am free to say practically any damn thing I want to say.
And so the anti-gun folks keep trying to disarm the citizens but the Constitution and the SCOTUS keep stubbornly allowing citizens the right to bear arms. This situation causes much consternation to those who want to make others do their bidding.
But not to fear. Going against the 2nd Amendment is political suicide for most Democrat politicians(those that are left in Congress). And they know it.
For instance, why does the 2nd Amendment refer to a "well-regulated" militia? Who is to regulate this militia?
“Well-regulated” to the founding fathers meant the same as “well organized,” or “well drilled.” The phrase had nothing to do with the state restricting the right to bear arms.
https://tinyurl.com/926tb
Trump's polling must have told him something.
Trump does polling? I think he probably reads the polls carefully but conduct them he does not. It’s one of Trump’s hallmarks: No consultants and no ‘interior,’ meaning ‘private/secret,’ polls, focus groups, etc.
Mick is Shouting Thomas is The Crack Emcee.
Get a new trick, pony.
Non-justiciable....
On one of the Sunday shows today, Kasich said God made pollsters so that astrologers would look even more reasonable, or something to that effect.
Although it's doubtful Kasich was thinking about Cruz when he made that remark, it does seem to sum up Cruz's strategy rather nicely: Let Trump go crazy pouring the runway, giving the steadier Ted a place to land his plane. Rubio is the foam, hopefully at the end of the runway.
We now know the GOP establishment is plotting to stop Trump by plucking up other candidates' delegates so it can broker the convention and install Rubio (Romney is a non-starter). It doesn't seem to care that the base -- including the Cruz and Carson factions -- is absolutely enraged. If the establishment does topple Trump, it will be interesting to see if it has any ammo left, come convention time, to shoot down Cruz.
Tuesday night ought to be a lot of fun.
Birkel said...
"Non-justiciable...."
Of course you simply ignore the correct answer to your silly assertion about G. Washington, and use the usual catchall.
Eligibility for office is a judicial question, therefore by definition it is justiciable.
"It has never been determined by a court of law..."= justiciable
John Henry said,
"I think one needs to be a Constitutional, 14th Amendment, citizen to be "Natural born" and eligible for prez. Cruz is not There is plenty of knowledgeable debate on both sides of this. Our hostess, a conlaw prof disagrees with me and says he is eligible".
"14th Amendment citizens" are NATURALIZED according to Afroyim v. Rusk. 387 US 253 (1967)
"The entire legislative history of the 1868 Act makes it abundantly clear that there was a strong feeling in the Congress that the only way the citizenship it conferred could be lost was by the voluntary renunciation or abandonment by the citizen himself. And this was the unequivocal statement of the Court in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649. The issues in that case were whether a person born in the United States to Chinese aliens was a citizen of the United States and whether, nevertheless, he could be excluded under the Chinese Exclusion Act, 22 Stat. 58. The Court first held that, within the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment, Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States, and then pointed out that, though he might "renounce this citizenship, and become a citizen of . . . any other country," he had never done so. Id. at 704-705. The Court then held [n22] that Congress could not do anything to abridge or affect his citizenship conferred by the Fourteenth Amendment". Id. @276
The 14th Amendment ITSELF "confers citizenship"
What is the definition of naturalization in INS 1952, and still used today?
"The conferring of nationality, by ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER" (INS 1952(23))
The 14th Amendment is a "means" to confer nationality. The 14th Amendment naturalizes by its own force, just like A2S1C5 did (the only naturalization act in the organic constitution)
"or a citizen at the time of the ratification..." was a naturalization act, as is the 14th Amendment.--- The constitution itself naturalizes.
The organic constitution described only 2 citizens---- The natural born citizens, born since the Dec. of Ind. to those that adhered to the Declaration, and those that were of the previous generation, born before 7/4/1776 or abroad, and resident of a new state that ratified the Const.
No other citizens existed
Therefore any new categories of citizenship must have been conferred citizenship by Congressional Act---i.e naturalized.
14th Amendment did not "amend" A2S1C5 (See McPhereson v. Blacker)
The 14th Amendment did not make the former slaves natural born Citizens, it made them "citizens" (members of the nation, see Minor v. Happersett @ 167).
There are natural born Citizens and there are foreigners. Anyone in between claiming US citizenship is naturalized by the 14th Amendment itself or by oath. (Id. @167) And also; Afroyim v. Rusk---- Wong Kim Ark was naturalized by the 14th Amendment, due to birth in America subject to the jurisdiction of the US, due to his parents legal residence.
Post a Comment