Posted on 02/09/2016 10:43:20 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
MANCHESTER, N.H. - Donald Trump may have come out of New Hampshire with the victory, but Sen. Ted Cruz has emerged as the Republican front-runner.
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.
In Iowa, Cruz dominated Trump among "very conservative" voters, who made up 40 percent of the electorate, and evangelicals, who made up 62 percent of voters. But when it came to New Hampshire, evangelicals only comprised 25 percent of the electorate and "very conservative" voters dropped to 27 percent.
The South Carolina electorate is much closer to the Iowa electorate. In 2012, evangelicals were 65 percent of the electorate and very conservative voters were 36 percent of the electorate.
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.
Though the RealClearPolitics average currently has Trump up 16 points over Cruz in South Carolina, that's misleading, because none of the polls were taken after Cruz's win in Iowa.
Furthermore, now 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. It won't dissuade his strongest supporters, but it doesn't matter, because it will discourage enough very conservative voters and evangelicals to give Cruz the victory.
Which brings us to Rubio's poor performance in New Hampshire. The fact that Cruz was able to best Rubio in a more moderate state where Rubio should have been a lot stronger, is more good news for Cruz.
Had Rubio won a strong second in New Hampshire, he could have knocked Kasich and Bush out of the race and emerged as a serious threat in South Carolina. Now Rubio will still have to spend his time in the state trying to fend of Jeb Bush and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.
Should Cruz carry South Carolina, he will have won two out of the first three primary states, severely wounding both Trump and Rubio. That's why he should be considered the front-runner.
Last ARG and PPP polls ( I think these were the two) from SC had Trump tied with Cruz in SC among “very conservative” and leading solidly among “ conservative”-—how is it NOBODY ever notices that or asks why?
So Iowan conservatives and evangelicals are different from conservatives and evangelicals in New Hampshire?
Hope springs eternal if your candidate's face is made of play dough.
Well, that might be true if this was a once around the track race but it’s just the first leg - and we need to judge all aspects of the runners, the terrain, their support staff, their potential for infusions of money - endorsements, their conditioning and familiarity with the track, their knowledge of the issues, etc, during the remaining marathon - so to speak.
If the NH exit polls are any kind of an indicator Cruz is in trouble. He didn’t score well in any of the top five voter concerns.
Of course, Southerners vote for Yankees - they vote for the best candidates like the rest of us.
And yes, immigration and muslims, should be the top issue in this race. Trump’s the only one who has realized this. Go, Trump, go!
Distant third place finish? He barely beat Mr Low Energy and got smoked by Kasich. Yet he’s in the lead? The author of this article needs to smell what he’s shoveling
YUP.
That's why Ted Cruz crushed Trump amongst evangelicals and conservatives in Iowa, but didn't in New Hampshire, which is one of the most liberal states in the country.
It's a standard tactic of CW.
> She demands a link to prove a point.
> You provide the link.
> She then finds fault with the provided link
And that makes it ok to write them off in the general. Same as all of the Northeast and a lot of western states. It worked wonderfully in 2008 and 2012 didn’t it?
Trump dominated with "very conservative" and "conservative" voters in New Hampshire, whose numbers were actually up this year compared to the previous election. Trump dominated 35 percent to 23 percent for the 25 percent of "very conservative" voters. Trump dominated even more with those who only described themselves as conservative or slightly conservative. All in all, "conservative" voters represented nearly 70 percent of primary voters, and Trump dominated each category.
As for your, "they're not really conservatives!" Your assertion is stupid, because it means that the "very conservative" group, which was Cruz's only strong group, were all liberals voting for Cruz.
“Trump’s real speak on Islam”
Exit polling in New Hampshire revealed that the vast majority of voters liked Trump’s Muslim ban. When Trump announced it, Cruz held back.
I suppose now Cruz will come out for a Muslim ban and claim he was for it all along, if not the one who originated it.
“Jeb Bush could come in third in a two person race, and they would report that as a win.”
Maybe that is the goal they are trying to build up to.
“They love his socialists ways and esp his single payor government funded healthcare.”
Trump did not, never has, run on socialists ways or single payer government funded health care.
That only takes place in the demented imagination of Cruz-bots.
“Their definition of “very conservative†isn’t the same as Iowa or other states.”
I could not help but notice that their definition of socialism is the same as every other state.
Cruz has a good organization and is sharp as a strategist and candidate. It is unlikely he can beat Trump. Should he beat Trump it would not be the end of the world as Trump supporters might think.
If he beats Trump, it means he would have gotten a lot of votes and has a lot of momentum. He could then also produce a conservative tidal wave that should remake the House and Senate.
So as I see it, if either Trump or Cruz win, it is going to produce very good general election dynamics either way. It is also a big setback for the establishment and good for “we the people.”
“Donald Trump may have come out of New Hampshire with the victory, but Sen. Ted Cruz has emerged as the Republican front-runner.”
I thought the Washington Examiner drug-tested their columnists.
“Cruz CRUSHED Trump amongst the evangelicals”
Cruz and Trump’s vote totals were separated by only about 5,000 votes. How does that amount to being “CRUSHED”?
Again Iowa and South Carolina have vastly more conservatives and evangelicals than New Hampshire. Again New Hampshire is the least religious state in the entire country. Again New Hampshire is the 5th most liberal state in the country. Again Ted Cruzcame 3rd after spending just $580K vs. $32M for Bush, who came 4th, and over $10 million spent by Rubio who came 5th.
Again Ted Cruz has a better ground game in South Carolina than anyone else. Again Ted Cruz has more cash on hand than Jeb, Rubio, Kasic and Christie combined.
70% did not vote Trump. All polls say that Trump has the lowest favorability rating they’ve seen. As the field thins most of the voters who weren’t for Trump will end up voting for the alternative.
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.