A win in Iowa does not mean a win in the other states. Huckaby won Iowa in 2008 and Santorum won in 2012.
So did W
So did dole
so.. yes it means a win except when it doesn’t.
And do you remember, it was MONTHS before the elites finally acknowledged Santorum as the Iowa winner. They immediately declared Romney the winner!
And Dole won in 88.....................IIRC..................
Thats true, and in both instances they recieved yuge influxes of donations. Both also had no setup to take in those donations, thereby cause them to use said money to build it. By the time they had it built, the election process had gone through three or four more states. The money then dried up, and they couldn’t compete.
The main difference for Cruz is that he already has that organization built. Meaning he can focus his attentions on winning the primaries and caucuses. Not on building the organization to handle that much money.
Everybody mentions this, it falls into many forms of logical fallacies for instance Oversimplification... Many oversimplify the cause of why Santorum and Huckabee lost the nomination, they never discuss the reasons that actually was the cause(I.e. lack of money, lack of organization.)
“A win in Iowa does not mean a win in the other states. Huckaby won Iowa in 2008 and Santorum won in 2012.”
A win in Iowa usually means a loss overall. Only with incumbents does Iowa ever get it right.