Posted on 02/05/2016 7:54:05 AM PST by mononymous
Hey Rush, what boggles some of your faithful listener's minds, is what you have been saying on your show for the past two weeks.
Claiming it did have an impact on the outcome when it is clear it couldn’t isn’t sleazy at all.
Got it.
(I can play, too)
How many votes were won or lost is not the point. That’s like saying how many lives were actually lost with Hillary’s emails.
The arguments are twisted on this 100 ways to clear Cruz and Rubio but it doesn’t work. They both effectively took Carson out of the race in many voter’s minds on a phony story. How their deception actually panned out, not the point.
No, it is not possible that this put Cruz over Trump. Cruz beat Trump by about 6,200 votes. Carson got about 17,400 votes (9% - which met or exceeded his pre-caucus polling numbers). In order for the Carson rumors to have put Cruz over Trump, that means that around 23,600 people would have had to enter the caucus intending to vote for Carson, and that 6,200 switched their votes to Cruz. 23,600 votes would have put Carson at 13%, well above his pre-caucus polling (and well above his entrance polls, too). And that is assuming that EVERY voter who was affected by the rumors switched from Carson to Cruz (and not to some other candidate)
There is simply zero evidence that any voters were swayed by the Carson rumor, much less 6,000+ voters.
Carson or someone on his campaign started the whole thing when they indicated he was heading back to Florida.
Chris Moody’s (CNN) tweet was perfectly logical based on that information.
The Rubio and Cruz campaigns then notified their precinct captains, which again, was the perfectly logical thing to do based on the information in Moody’s tweet.
Cruz is in the clear here, as is Rubio.
I don't know, coin toss I imagine.
=================================================
Greta V/S is not a Carson supporter.....but she went ballistic when she reported on the Cruz campaign/s intellectually facile response to his critics. ...claiming they used Carson/s own resignations words....when no such words exist.
=====================================
.....reports indicate that the schemers who did this were hired PRECISELY by Cruz b/c they did it before. That Cruz keeps them on his payroll, suggests the report is accurate.
Nice take. The evidence is all there for a criminal complaint. Cruz was caught w/ his pants down. Cruz had victory without triumph.
=========================================
Karl Rove, not a Trump fan by any means, explained how the Cruz cheating could have cost Donald the election.
The Cruz Campaign tweeted: Press says Carson is going to take a break...... so tell all the Carson people to campaign with Cruz.
But Rove explains that at 7:53 the Carson people send out a release saying, We/re here. We/re staying in the race. We/re going to New Hampshire and South Carolina.
And at 8:20 Cruz campaign chief Steve King tweets deceptively: It looks like Carson is getting out of the race...... knowing full well this was inaccurate.
Cruz characteristically lies.....said we sent it to our team, insinuating this had to do with sending it out to staff members.
W-r-o-n-g...says Rove. The Cruz team sent this to nearly 1,500 Cruz precinct captains.
Now why does that matter? The gap between Trump and Cruz is 6,239 votes. There are 1,500 precincts. Do the math. If that message cost Carson four votes per precinct to switch to Cruz, then Cruz beats Trump. If opportunistic Cruz hadn/t manipulated those four votes, he/d be the loser.
EXCERPT The Iowa secretary of state was mostly concerned that Cruz’s campaign mailers appeared partially disguised to look like an official communication from the state government.
After looking at several mailers posted online, I was more curious about how the Cruz campaign came up with its scores. On all the mailers I saw, every voter listed had only one of three possible scores: fifty-five per cent, sixty-five per cent, or seventy-five per cent, which translate to F, D, and C grades, respectively. Iowans take voting pretty seriously.
Why was it that nobody had a higher grade.
Although Iowa voter-registration information is free and available to the public, voter history is not. That information is maintained by the Iowa secretary of state, who licenses it to campaigns, super PACs, polling firms, and any other entity that might want it.
So was the Cruz campaign accurately portraying the voter histories of Iowans? Or did it simply make up the numbers?
It seems to have made them up. Dave Peterson, a political scientist at Iowa State University who is well-acquainted with the research on “social pressure†turnout techniques, received a mailer last week. The Cruz campaign pegged his voting percentage at fifty-five per cent, which seems to be the most common score that the campaign gives out.
(All of the neighbors listed on Peterson’s mailer also received a score of fifty-five per cent.) Peterson, who is actually a Hillary Clinton supporter, moved to Iowa in 2009. He told me that he has voted in three out of the last three general elections and in two out of the last three primaries.
“There are other people listed on my mailer who live in my neighborhood that are all different ages, but everyone on this sheet has the same score of fifty-five per cent,†he said. “Some are significantly younger and would have not been eligible to vote in these elections, and others are older and have voted consistently, going back years. There is no way to get to us all having the same score.†(Peterson also spoke with Mother Jones.)
If the Cruz campaign based its score on local elections, Peterson said, the number also wouldn’t make sense, based on his participation in those elections as well. A source with access to the Iowa voter file told me that he checked several other names on Cruz mailers and that the voting histories of those individuals did not match the scores that the Cruz campaign assigned them in the mailer. ---SNIP--
REST AT: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ted-cruzs-iowa-mailers-are-more-fraudulent-than-everyone-thinks
Rush is good about talking about the issues of the day.
DO NOT listen to election advise.
If he is advising Rubio, then you know it’s bad.
Rush liked Romney, W and Karl Rove.
Don’t forget that Rush said if we elect the Republicans to both houses of congress we could stop Obama, Obamacare and the Obama agenda.
None of it happened.
Under the bus you go, Limbaugh!
Or both. Obviously a good entertainer, but he's in the NWO and establishment bag, bigtime. His role is to blow off steam, create the illusion that there is meaningful opposition to the political trajectory. The only real contest is figuring out which actors get to play on the "professional government" stage, which is about as real as professional wrestling.
Anyone that listens to Rush on a regular basis knows full well who he prefers, but if you read free republic you know for a fact he is in the tank for Trump. [:-)
If Cruz had opened his campaign on the same topics as Trump did the candidate would have already been anointed. The fact that he didn't come to that party until much later speaks volumes.
Some one should figure out that about 80% of the electorate could care less about the Constitution, we are not the country we were in 1941.
Rush does not care about off shoring or the H-1B scam because his buds are IT executes who benefit from indentured slave labor at the expense of you r fellow Americans and so he carries the water for them. Rush is compromised to the max. Who do you thin he plays golf with?
I know. I tuned him out years ago. The last time I really listened to the show was in 2008. I was furious about McCain.
Rush is the Placator-in-Chief. I fell for it. His job is to make Americans think conservatism means caving into the NWO glowBULLit cabal at the behest of international corporation.....
Once you are on to his shtick it is really obvious.
Rush has convinced many a conservative left is right and up is down.
Good point.
I understand your belief that this could not have been the difference between Cruz and Trump. We will never know for sure.
According to Rove’s interview on Fox, (I know, I know, but his math is right), it would have taken an average of only 4 switched votes from Carson to Cruz per location to make the difference for Cruz over Trump.
That does not mean this many actually switched, but it is certainly possible.
Just as a side note: Rove avoided any mention of the effect lowering Carson’s vote total had on Rubio. That is consistent with the GOPe trying to push Rubio down our throat now that Bush has flamed out.
His math is correct in a sense, but is tremendously misleading. 4 votes per precinct sounds like a small number, until you consider that (a) there are over 1,600 precincts in Iowa (so 4 votes per precinct is over 6,000 votes), and (b) Carson only received around 11 votes per precinct. Adding 4 votes to 11--on average, in over 1,600 precincts--is a substantial increase.
To paraphrase from 2012, you could say that Rove's math is just math you do as a [Carson/Trump/anti-Cruz] supporter to make yourself feel better.
I’ve been Washington state’s version of a precinct committeeman multiple times, gone to many county conventions, etc.
I can tell you with absolute certainty that at the meetings I have gone to it would be easy to sway a significant number of voters away from their candidate of choice if they thought that candidate was going to drop out. It would be even easier if they thought the person they were switching their vote to had values similar to the person they were originally supporting.
I do not know if Cruz reduced Carson’s average level of support from 15 voters down to 11 voters per location. But to assert that this would simply not be possible is flat out wrong.
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.