Ted Cruz has convincing win in Iowa, Trump votes barely above Rubio

mark46 said:

Go back in history if you wish. The last time was in 1992.

Click to expand...

Was anything I said inaccurate?

cow451 said:

Was anything I said inaccurate?

Click to expand...

This is not a debating sub-board. The implication was that Iowa caucuses don't pick the presidential winner, so we needn't pay attention. I merely point out that Iowa has picked every president since 1996. I understand that there was lots of primary history before that.

mark46 said:

This is not a debating sub-board. The implication was that Iowa caucuses don't pick the presidential winner, so we needn't pay attention. I merely point out that Iowa has picked every president since 1996. I understand that there was lots of primary history before that.

Click to expand...

Which implies greater probability because of using the "either-or" criteria of party.

And, whichever argument is used, it is a shaky analysis to base a prediction on this one factor. So, a win is a win but it is just one of many needed to get to the White House.

cow451 said:

I would not classify Cruz's victory as "convincing". But a win is a win.

Click to expand...

I would say it still shows Evangelicals still control GOP Caucasus in Iowa nothing more and really Iowa means nothing but that Cruz will lose

Allow me another observation: I think a record has just been broken for "most money spent to get 3% in the Iowa caucus".

NightHawkeye said:

Ted Cruz - 28%
Trump - 24%
Rubio - 23%

Click to expand...

According to one Newsmax analyst (and I believe he is right) it is not Cruz that defeated Trump, but Trump defeated himself by failing to support Carson. He should never have attacked Carson (or even Cruz), and had Carson attracted a lot of evangelical votes, Cruz would have remained second. IMHO, Trump and Carson should have teamed up from the get-go, and I believe the results would have been quite different.

topcare said:

I would say it still shows Evangelicals still control GOP Caucasus in Iowa nothing more and really Iowa means nothing but that Cruz will lose

Click to expand...

Evangelicals do control the Iowa caucuses.

I would note that only 1/3 of evangelicals voted for Cruz, compared to about 20% for Trump and 20% for Rubio. Of course, some also voted for Huckabee, Santorum, Carson and the rest.

Make no mistake, Cruz won among those who labelled themselves "very conservative", garnering 40% of that vote.

When you are saying that this mean Cruz will lose, are your speaking of the nomination or the general election?

Job8 said:

According to one Newsmax analyst (and I believe he is right) it is not Cruz that defeated Trump, but Trump defeated himself by failing to support Carson. He should never have attacked Carson (or even Cruz), and had Carson attracted a lot of evangelical votes, Cruz would have remained second. IMHO, Trump and Carson should have teamed up from the get-go, and I believe the results would have been quite different.

Click to expand...

Carson must have had a concussion or twelve because he was getting goofier by the day. He should do the GOP a favor and stay home. Trump insulted everybody and a segment of evangelicals ate it up. If he beats Cruz, evangelicals will fill up Trump's offering plate.

From where I sit, here in Iowa and who caucused last night, Trump did himself in.

QuiltAngel said:

From where I sit, here in Iowa and who caucused last night, Trump did himself in.

Click to expand...

That is no longer your judgement to make. You gave Trump as many delegates as Rubio, and 1 or 2 fewer than Cruz. Trump spent almost no time or money in Iowa. I wouldn't call this result as "doing him in".

Of course, I could hope that this was the case. We'll know a bit more by the end of the month. We'll see what message we send Trump when our state votes in a couple of weeks.

I am by no means a Cruz supporter, but I am glad to hear that he won Iowa. That said, there is only one scenario that I can envision that will convince me to vote for a major party candidate in November: if Trump wins the GOP nomination, I will plug my nose as I vote for a Democrat.

mark46 said:

That is no longer your judgement to make. You gave Trump as many delegates as Rubio, and 1 or 2 fewer than Cruz. Trump spent almost no time or money in Iowa. I wouldn't call this result as "doing him in".

Of course, I could hope that this was the case. We'll know a bit more by the end of the month. We'll see what message we send Trump when our state votes in a couple of weeks.

Click to expand...

Well, while it is true about the delegates, I do have a pretty good idea of why people decided not to vote for him here. It was said that there would be an increase in voter turnout to vote FOR Trump. Well, there WAS an increase in turnout and the vote was FOR Cruz, not Trump.

Kersh said:

if Trump wins the GOP nomination, I will plug my nose as I vote for a Democrat.

Click to expand...

Not a "Democrat" but a Marxist.

Kersh said:

I am by no means a Cruz supporter, but I am glad to hear that he won Iowa. That said, there is only one scenario that I can envision that will convince me to vote for a major party candidate in November: if Trump wins the GOP nomination, I will plug my nose as I vote for a Democrat.

Click to expand...

I'm always confused when I read a person who says they support a third party insist that they'll vote for one of the major party candidates if a certain person becomes the nominee of the other major party. Is there any logic in that which I'm missing?

Job8 said:

According to one Newsmax analyst (and I believe he is right) it is not Cruz that defeated Trump, but Trump defeated himself by failing to support Carson. He should never have attacked Carson (or even Cruz), and had Carson attracted a lot of evangelical votes, Cruz would have remained second. IMHO, Trump and Carson should have teamed up from the get-go, and I believe the results would have been quite different.

Click to expand...

While Trump went on the attack against several of the other candidates, perhaps Bush and Cruz the most actively, I believe that it was Democrats and the media who did the most to cut Carson's legs out from under him.

Albion said:

I'm always confused when I read a person who says they support a third party insist that they'll vote for one of the major party candidates if a certain person becomes the nominee of the other major party. Is there any logic in that which I'm missing?

Click to expand...

Normally, I'd agree with you. For the most part, I don't see enough difference between any of the candidates on either side to support any of them over others. But, while I disagree with all of them, Trump is the only one who legitimately makes me feel that he would willfully disregard the Constitution to acheieve his political ends. I'd love to have a libertarian president, but I know that there won't be a viable option this year. But, if I truly don't care which major party candidate wins (as would be in any race that doesn't include Trump), I'd rather use my vote to help to eventually make a third party more viable.

Kersh said:

I'd love to have a libertarian president, but I know that there won't be a viable option this year. But, if I truly don't care which major party candidate wins (as would be in any race that doesn't include Trump), I'd rather use my vote to help to eventually make a third party more viable.

Click to expand...

Yes, I do hear that a lot, but I always think that the third party needs to have its people committed to their party first of all--if it's ever to succeed. I suppose there are two ways of looking at that, though.

Albion said:

Gary Johnson will be sorry to hear that.

Click to expand...

I'm not a big fan of Gary Johnson, and I think the LP could do much better. But, until we become a more viable party, we'll always have trouble attracting viable candidates. So, my vote would be more for the party than for the man.

I'd take Cruz over Hillarious-HILLary any day

Albion said:

Yes, I do hear that a lot, but I always think that the third party needs to have its people committed to their party first of all--if it's ever to succeed. I suppose there are two ways of looking at that, though.

Click to expand...

Once again, I'd normally agree, but I think Trump is so dangerous that in this case, I'd place loyalty to my country over loyalty my party, even if it meant putting a socialist (like Sanders) in office. Incidentally, of everyone running, I think Sanders is probably the most decent and ethical person; I just disagree with his social policiea.