Posted on 02/10/2016 12:36:49 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Yep, says Philip Klein. I hope he's right, but I'm not sure the takeaway from a blowout win for Trump in New Hampshire is that it's now Ted Cruz's race to lose.
Though Trump's victory in New Hampshire was no doubt impressive, the electorate of independent voters and super high turnout was tailor-made for him, whereas Cruz didn't put substantial effort into winning the state -- where very conservative candidates don't typically do as well. He is currently in position to win third here, with votes still outstanding.
As the race moves to South Carolina, however, Cruz has a ground game in place and the electorate is much more tailored to his strengths...
Furthermore, in Iowa, Cruz had to fend off Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, who were all competing for similar voters. Carson received 9 percent in Iowa, and though Huckabee didn't perform well, he did serve as an anti-Cruz attack dog to evangelicals. Now, Huckabee and Santorum are out, and Carson enters South Carolina greatly hobbled...
[N]ow that the field has narrowed down and Trump has won a primary and proven himself a serious threat, there will be a lot more focus on his liberal record -- on abortion, guns, healthcare, property rights -- among other issues.
Let's look at this short-term and longer-term. Short-term, Klein's right about South Carolina being way more favorable to Cruz than New Hampshire was. It's hard to believe that the guy who won Iowa based on his strength with evangelicals, who's already distinguished himself for having an outstanding ground game, is going to finish any worse than second in a state where evangelicals make up a huge segment of the electorate. (That's also why it's hard to believe a Rubio comeback, which would require a strong third place at a minimum, is in the offing. Cruz is in his way.) No one will be surprised if Cruz wins there on February 20th. But ... no one will be surprised if Trump wins there either, right? Klein is correct that all of the polls showing Trump with a big lead in SC were taken before Cruz won Iowa, but they were also taken before Trump blew out the field in New Hampshire last night. Trump built his lead in the SC polls at a moment when it was still an open question whether he was nothing but media hype, a guy who was getting by on name recognition and camera time whose voters would evaporate into thin air once they were required to actually go out and vote. Trump put that to rest last night. Now he's headed into South Carolina with new credibility as a potential nominee and, in all likelihood, a poll bounce. I can buy that some evangelicals in South Carolina are going to shift to Cruz by dint of his win in Iowa. I can, however, also buy that some South Carolinians who held off on expressing their support for Trump before, whether out of embarrassment or simply because they thought his candidacy would fizzle early, are going to shift to Trump. The first polls in SC this week should show a tighter race than they showed in January but there's every reason to think Trump will still lead. And unlike Cruz, Trump doesn't need to worry as much about voters in his "lane" defecting to Rubio as he scrapes for a comeback. It's quite possible that Trump wins narrowly in SC because a few too many evangelicals wanted to give Marco a second chance at Cruz's expense.
Related to that, don't forget that Trump so far has been competitive among evangelical voters, a bloc which you might assume would belong exclusively to Rubio and Cruz. Cruz did win decisively among evangelicals in Iowa, which probably accounted for the margin of his victory, but Trump finished tied with Rubio for those voters. Last night in New Hampshire, Trump (narrowly) won evangelicals along with virtually every other demographic. It could be that Cruz repeats his Iowa performance with born-again voters in South Carolina, but as I say, it could also be that some portion of the electorate that was skeptical of Trump -- evangelicals included -- will be newly open to considering him after his big win. If Cruz wins evangelicals narrowly in SC and Trump wins non-evangelicals comfortably, how would you expect the outcome of that race to go? And all of this assumes that the advantage Cruz got from his ground game in Iowa will also obtain in South Carolina. Team Trump is no doubt trying to catch up organizationally there, but even if you think there's no chance they'll succeed, consider that Kasich and Bush and Rubio also surely had organizational advantages over Trump in New Hampshire. How'd that work out? I can't remember who said it, but someone on Twitter noted last night that the most terrifying thing about the NH results for anti-Trumpers is that he actually outperformed his polls by four points. It may be that Trump will continue to struggle to match Cruz in turning out voters in caucus states but that statewide primaries will even the playing field. South Carolina is, of course, a primary state.
But all of that is near-term. Even if Cruz wins South Carolina and outperforms Trump in the SEC primary, how does the rest of the race look? WaPo posted this graphic this morning as evidence of Cruz's strength, but there's good reason here not to count Trump out too:
Lots of evangelicals waiting for Cruz in the south, to be sure. But ... not nearly as many outside the south, which is a big problem, no? The whole point of last night's outcome is that, in states where born-again Christians are less of a factor, Trump can blow out the competition. Well, there are lots of states like that -- and lots of them will vote after March 15th, when delegates can be awarded winner-take-all instead of proportionally. Cruz supporters, and I include myself here, seem to be following an "underpants gnome" blueprint to ultimate victory that runs something like this:
Step one: Cruz beats Trump in Iowa, South Carolina, and in the SEC primary
Step two: ????????
Step three: Cruz is nominee!
Really? What happens when it really is a two-man race and, say, California and New York and other blue/purple states have to choose between the conservative fire-breather Cruz and the "moderate" deal-making centrist Trump? Cruz fans seem to be counting on dealing Trump enough losses that he simply gets demoralized and drops out at some point, but one of the huge consequences of last night's result, I think, is that there's much less of a chance of that now. Trump losing in Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina and Nevada really might have convinced him to throw in the towel in the name of saving face, but now that he's proved he can roll to a landslide in a purple state, he has every incentive to take his lumps in the south and bide his time for a true "Trump vs. Cruz" binary choice in the rest of the country. And that assumes that Cruz really does win big in the south, where he's expected to. Trump has consistently outpolled him there so far. Maybe that changed after Iowa. But, thanks to New Hampshire, maybe it didn't. We'll know soon.
I'd give Trump something like a 60 percent chance at the nomination at this point and Cruz a 35 percent chance (which means PredictWise is underrating both of them). How ironic, though, that it's probably going to fall to Ted Cruz, establishment bete noire, to save the GOP from Trump. Even more ironic: Establishmentarians will fight him the whole way.
What if Cruz wins South Carolina, which may vey well happen?
No. And no again. You clearly don't.
You also clearly can't read. I'm not saying things can't change, but you're a fool to start saying (like this author) that Cruz is the front runner or the favorite.
Sorry, that's the truth. Pretend all you want, that's simply the truth.
that’s absurd. he is not doing better than Cruz.
do the math. try.
if he is doing worse than cruz against her, where are these union votes?
I had been looking at that site earlier and found nothing.
But here is what he says on Twitter:
“
Josh Putnam â€@FHQ · 3h3 hours ago
Trump would have claimed an 11th delegate if it was the NH delegates and not the vote percentage that was rounded.
Josh Putnam â€@FHQ · 3h3 hours ago
Rubio got a 3rd NH delegate bc NH rounds the percentage of the vote 1st and then calculates the delegate share from that. #rulesmatter “
Sounds like 10 for Trump.
Heck, he’s only up by 5 in his own home state.
Yeah CNN is now reporting 3 delegates for Rubio and an extra one for Kasich, Cruz and Bush. So all delegates are accounted for.
Oh well, Trump will get the majority of S.C. delegates, because they are hybrid and not proportional.
Now who's arrogant? :)
i was angry about something when i wrote that. There’s a shock.
i apologize. NEVER want our guy to lose.
first primary i’ve followed and it’s getting the better of me
Good analysis but I would give Cruz a better chance.
Trump has only recently began to receive a lot of negatives ... about his character, about his business dealings and about his very recent conversion to conservatism.
We will see what we will see but I can’t imagine the social conservatives I know voting for the 59 year old womanizing frat boy.
That is exactly what I’m afraid of.
Right now, the Trump folks here love him to death and put their fingers in their ears if anyone says a word about him.
But I don’t think he’ll be all that popular in the general. Too many negatives.
And I am terrified about the general. We just can’t let the old socialist or Bernie Sanders have control of our country.
No, you just don’t want to admit that despite Trump’s boasts about his huge win to come in Iowa and the polls that claimed he would...it turned out the only real conservative who was the only candidate to oppose ethanol subsidies edged him out. The polls were off in New Hampshire having Trump down further than he was just as it failed on the second and third place predictions. You’re the fool if you don’t see the advantage Ted Cruz has in South Carolina and many other primary states with more evangelical voters than Iowa and a ground game that rivals what the republicans had in the 2004 election. Your blind support for a New York Democrat playing conservative will be forced back to reality. You’re side doesn’t seem to want to wait for the voters to speak instead preferring to trumpet his coronation. At any rate, I don’t really care if you downplay or underestimate Ted Cruz so long as when he carries the state, and others, you get behind the nominee.
I’m trying to follow the rule: Don’t post (or kick the dog) while angry.
Of course, I would never kick dear little Smitty, I love him to death.
I’ve been doing well lately about not getting angry on this board. It helps to realize the caliber of the people who insult.
i laughed when people told me primaries get nasty an tempers get raised.
Never me!! I said. oops.
i’m embarrassed at how i’ve lost it the past two months. that’s finished!!
Wishful thinking.... Trump will continue to win as long as the establishment vote is fractured.
Trump and Cruz will be heading to a showdown, as neither are highly likely to win in a 3 way race. Sooner or later one of them has to take out the other, or the highly probable scenario is the establishment coalesces around someone and they wind up winning.
Not a guarantee how it will go down, the most likely scenario if it goes to a 3 way race.
Of the 2 (Trump and Cruz), Trump is the most likely of the two to get his numbers up to a point that even if it is a 3 way he can win states, Cruz, I just don’t see him winning another state as long as Trump in around, and frankly I don’t think Cruz can take Trump out.
For all the hemming and hawing over the establishment turmoil, there is still a very very real scenario where they wind up winning the whole deal.
If I had to put odds on this, Trump or Cruz or an establishment Republican, Cruz by far has the longest odds of those 3 scenarios. I’d put Trump over the establishment guy in at 3 to 2. I think Trump is still being massively underestimated by the establishment.
But make no mistake about it, the idea that the establishment is vanquished at this point is not remotely guaranteed. Eventually they will coalesce around a single candidate, and if Cruz and Trump are still slogging it with their combined totals topping around 55-60% and neither of them independently getting over 40%, the establishment guy just slowly wins the slog.
Time will tell.
What do you have to be angry about? Record numbers are turning out to caucus or vote in primaries.
ah, i’m always angry about something. Been in NYC too long.
Moving with or without the Mrs. after the two old ladies drop.
somewhere with open space and cool weather :)
Will Cruz do better in SC than he did in NH? Almost certainly... I have always said I think Cruz will do well in traditionally red states, but does that mean he’s going to win their primaries? I don’t see it, not as long as Trump is in the race.
You seem to think that the polls being off in IA signified something, it didn’t. IA polling is NOTORIOUSLY off every cycle. The caucus system by its very nature makes it nearly impossible for accurate polls, and for the outside type candidate to win, because its not a secret ballot situation, its a situation where you are going be publicly known to support this guy or that guy, and peer pressure is applied etc etc. I told anyone who was willing to listen that Trump was a long shot in IA, had he won IA that honestly would have signified the biggest upset that probably could be... he did very well there, better than he should have, which signifies far more depth and breadth to his general support than pundits are still willing to accept.
I also predicted, once the primaries moved to traditional voting places, the polls would be more reliable, and Trump would do better. And low and behold, Polls in NH were for the most part spot on, the one place they were off were on Rubio, mostly because they didn’t have time to poll after he gave himself a gun shot to the head in the debates.
SC Polls will also be pretty much spot on, and if they are, the expectation that Cruz is going to magically change the dynamic in the next 9 days is pretty wishful thinking, and emotion not logic. Trump is polling in SC at nearly twice Cruz’s numbers. Cruz will certainly do better in SC than he did in NH, but he’s not going to rise 16 or 17 points in the polls in a week, Trump in SC is running about the same as NH right now around mid 30s in the polls, Cruz is running high teens to twenty. Its 9:30pm on the 10th, polls open on 20th, so in effectively 9 days you honestly think Cruz is going to close and overtake that gap? Based on what?
The latest polling is post IA, any momentum gained from winning there has already gotten baked in... Trump will get momentum from his NH win, and none of that has even been captured in the polling. What events do you think are going to happen in the next few days that is going to swing the electorate in a major way?? A Debate? Trump isn’t Rubio, he’s not going to pull a political Bud Dwyer. An attack ad? What? What do you think is going to happen or that Ted Cruz has up his sleeve that is going to miraculously turn this tide in SC?
I am not saying this as someone who hates Cruz, I am saying this as someone looking at the dynamics of this race today. Yes SC has more evangelicals... but guess what? Trump won those in NH, so you can’t just say well the south has a lot of evangelicals so Cruz will win them all... that’s just stupid, and not backed up by anything. The only state, I am aware of, where Ted Cruz outpolls Trump right now, and I may be wrong, but the only one I know of is Texas, Cruz’s home state... and even there his lead is single digits.
This Cruz is the lead dog argument is a very silly one to make at this point.
Obviously time will tell, and if I am forced to eat crow, I will, but I am pretty sure when the votes get tallied in SC, Trump will be on top with a pretty sizable lead. Cruz will do better than he did in NH, no argument about that, but he’s not going to unseat Trump.... Time will tell if I am right.
I am amazed, unless its someones first election cycle, they are just beyond ignorant if they think IA is ever remotely accurate.. Its always off by a country mile... ALWAYS. Anyone citing IA polling as an argument for ANYTHING is ill informed or completely inexperienced.
To then supposition that because IA polls are inaccurate that others will be defacto is flat out nonsense.
Anyone claiming Cruz is the front runner right now, is living on emotion, not reality. Only state I’ve seen where he is leading is TX, his home state, and even there his lead is single digits... in ever other state that I’ve seen polling out of, he’s behind Trump and most of them by 10+ points. To claim Cruz is the FrontRunner when faced with those data points show a “willful suspension of disbelief”... which makes me wonder why they aren’t supporting Hillary since they are living her line from the 2008 election cycle.
Seriously, I am not attacking Cruz here, but there is just no way you can make an argument that he’s the front runner, will he do better in the south, absolutely he will.. but the idea he’s on the verge of winning it all is just not supported by the facts.
Trump can win the general, and he’s going to.
Cruz can’t, though thankfully he’ll never get a chance to prove it.
It’s really quite simple.
Sometimes when you get behind a candidate your capacity to see clearly is thrown out the window.
This thread is a perfect example. Lack of judgment, silly jumps in logic, all on display.
I wouldn't mind Cruz as our candidate, but I'm not sure I could handle some of the mind numbed supporters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.