A second major poll has Ted Cruz leading among likely Iowa caucus attendees. I just finished A Time for Truth: Reigniting the Promise of America a few days ago and Cruz is running his campaign exactly as he ran his winning U.S. Senate bid in Texas. Trump is running his campaign much like Cruz's Texas opponent, TX Attorney General, David Dewhurst ran his.
I expect that Trump will increasingly sling mud at Cruz and that Cruz will continue to campaign on issues before calling Trump out on his mudslinging face-to-face during a future debate. That is the way that the Texas campaign went and this one seems to be playing out the same way. Trump would be smart to study how Cruz overcame huge odds to win his Senate seat and avoid Dewhurst's mistakes - but I don't think that will happen.
[URL="http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/r64LeSt1xPPk"]BLOOMBERG POLITICS/DES MOINES REGISTER IOWA POLL
Cruz 31 percent
Trump 21 percent[/URL]
This is the second recent Iowa poll that shows Cruz leading Trump among likely caucus attendees. A Dec. 7 Monmouth poll showed Cruz leading Trump 24% to 19%.
The results of a CNN/ORC poll was also released on Dec. 7, which has Trump with a 33% to 20% lead over Cruz, but that poll covers 11/28 through 12/6, compared with the sampling period of the latest DMR/Bloomberg poll, which covered 12/7 to 12/10. The trend is definitely running in favor of Cruz, with Trump falling and most other candidates being nearly unchanged.
Iowa racking in the money on these polls maybe the smartest state in the union. Next week it will be somebody else.
nicker:
Cruz is doing good taking it one step at a time.
He hasn't fared as well in other state where Trump still leads by 20 points in NH and SCAR.
This is where Trumps advisers need to stop him. Don't attack Cruz and get him to follow the same strategy.
Either way, these are my top two and only two picks for the white house.
I think Cruz is counting on winning Iowa and riding the wave into the south. Cruz has a long term strategy and does not seem worried about the national polls. Trump is running a celebrity campaign and he seems to be very focused on the national polls. I do not believe that Cruz is really concerned about winning in New Hampshire and if he can manage to follow up a win in Iowa with a win in South Carolina, then we will see Cruz rise quickly in the national polls.
Anybody who does not understand why Ted Cruz has such a loyal and growing group of supporters should watch the video below. Cruz was being heckled by a group of Code Pink protesters who were attempting to shout him down. Think about how other candidates handle this situation and then watch Cruz.
Ted Cruz is a fearless debater. Instead of having security forcefully remove the hecklers, he challenges them to send a leader forward for an impromptu debate. He shames them into politely debating him by treating them with respect. Of course, no politician can afford to give equal time to rabid protesters at every event, but I think that this video shows how unflappable Cruz is during a debate and how confident he is in his positions.
This video illustrates why Donald Trump has been so reluctant to personally attack Ted Cruz the way that he has gone after Jeb Bush and other candidates. Cruz thrives when debating people who rude and easily agitated. Trump has rightly identified Jeb Bush as a candidate who is easily rattled when criticized and he has wisely decided not to try the same tactics against Cruz.
This video is pretty long, but I think that it gives us an idea of why the GOP establishment decided to limit the number of debates during the primary season and why so many candidates have been included in the prime time debates. Imagine Jeb Bush debating Cruz or Trump one-on-one for 90 minutes. It would be a political TKO, with Bush knocked senseless. That is why the debates were designed to protect Jeb as much as possible on his way to winning the nomination. Obviously, the strategy has backfired on the GOP.
[YOUTUBE="Ted Cruz Tames Code Pink Protesters"]1QCbpafD3Pw[/YOUTUBE]
As I have said, a Cruz Presidency would be an easy thing for me to accept. In fact, I would be thrilled. Safe to say then, I am a Cruz supporter.
I am leery none the less, as to the ever surging and daily barrage of anti Trump propaganda being put out there by the left and right alike. I just heard one of the most asinine and absurd Trump attacks to date. Citing the ever growing crowds of enthusiastic Trump supporters, the drift of the piece went as follows: John Kasich was shown saying that the great Trump rallies might not mean anything because these same rabid event goers might not show up to vote. Wow, that's profound. Then Eric what's-his-name of FOX, conducts an interview with an equally unremarkable guest who says it might be hard for Trump to get his supporters out to the polls to vote, especially in Iowa where the process drags on for hours in the cold, for speeches and other caucus style events.
So my question to these two geniuses and their writers would be... what will the weather conditions and the like be for the supporters of the other candidates? Warm and sunny and no wait times? Nobody except bloggers and media mavericks such as Hannity, Dobbs, Varney, Levin, ect. have been willing to speak of the plague of low information voters in the past. Now all of a sudden, they are more that happy to attribute the Trump phenomena to low brows. The truth is that many people are sick to their limits of the lies being put out there by manipulative media and bought and paid for politicians. So, how do they counter the rejection of their attempts to manipulate the system by the common man? EASY, tell more lies!
^^ It was not my intention to make it seem as though Hannity, Dobbs and Varney are attributing Trump's popularity to the low information types. Just the opposite in fact, as they have offered evidence to the contrary. My intention was to implicate media who I carelessly referred to above as "they" and who in the past have failed to point out the millions of low info voters who always vote Democrat, but those same media are now all-in on sticking Trump with that group. A completely dishonest tactic to say the least.
The establishment on both sides of the aisle are dog piling Trump. And is it not the establishment who are responsible for the mess we're in?
Not everybody supporting Trump its what I would call a low information voter, but I do believe that Trump holds a commanding lead among such voters and that they are responsible for his large lead in the polls.
I am amazed at the number of Trump supporters who are unaware of his numerous flip-flops on positions since he decided to run for president. Trump could write a book on political expediency.
BTW, Trump trademarked "Make America great again" in Nov., 2012, so he has obviously been planning his presidential run for some time - enough time to develop detailed conservative policies if he were a conservative. He has been vague on details for a reason. His trademarked campaign slogan reminds me of Obama's Hope and Change campaign and so do his childish insults toward anybody who disagrees with him.
I think there's a fine line between uneducated and low information. Theres a lot of millionaires who know a thung or two and only have a high school diploma to show for it.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Not everybody supporting Trump its what I would call a low information voter, but I do believe that Trump holds a commanding lead among such voters and that they are responsible for his large lead in the polls.
I am amazed at the number of Trump supporters who are unaware of his numerous flip-flops on positions since he decided to run for president. Trump could write a book on political expediency.
BTW, Trump trademarked "Make America great again" in Nov., 2012, so he has obviously been planning his presidential run for some time - enough time to develop detailed conservative policies if he were a conservative. He has been vague on details for a reason. His trademarked campaign slogan reminds me of Obama's Hope and Change campaign and so do his childish insults toward anybody who disagrees with him.
Well, it all comes down to who winds up getting the nomination. If that guy is Cruz, he gets my vote. If he is Trump, he gets my vote.
I know there are enough low information voters hanging out in the hollers of Kentucky to make a difference here. If those folks are not self sufficient, at least we know their farming parents were. The low information voters of which I and the pundits have been referencing are widely known for having reliably voted for Democrats. They are the blue collar and big city minority groups, as well as the various strange and undefinable special interest groups and the sexually deviant. That is the reason for my charge of dishonesty, the Trump detractors know the low information crowd will vote for Hillary, or Satan if necessary. And they know full well that they always pull that handle with a 'D' on it. I mean, there is a reason Dems insist on no voter ID laws while holding the border gates wide open and relaxing visa and immigration standards. Dems think they will vote for them as well. It boils down to a question of who promises to keep the heat on the judicial system to get beneficial laws passed for people such as the homosexual movement, and/or who promises to keep the welfare checks rolling in for the rest. It is Hillary and Sanders who are promising the moon, as it was Barack Obama filling that bill the last two election cycles.
The fact that Trump has flip flopped towards the conservative side does not concern me. Now, a Hillary or Sanders Presidency is a concern. I say that because the primary process will give us a nominee, and in light of what we have seen in the past four years, eloquence or details notwithstanding, I can live with either Trump or Cruz.
RunItUpTheGut Wrote:I think there's a fine line between uneducated and low information. Theres a lot of millionaires who know a thung or two and only have a high school diploma to show for it.
My definition of a low information voter is one who pays no attention to what is happening in the world and casts votes based on the promises that candidates make. Low information voters are clueless about what the candidates have actually done.
There are probably as many "well educated" low information voters as there are under-educated ones. Populists have always appealed to low information voters and relied on slogans, hats, and other freebies to spread their message to the masses. Twitter is a great way to reach people with short attention spans.
Trump is a populist, not a conservative, IMO. I will never trust him until he has actually fulfilled some promises. Trump is not a professional wrestler or a rodeo clown - he is a candidate for the most powerful elective office in the world. Is it to much to expect that his personal insults at least make some sense? So far, he seems more like a character playing a presidential candidate than somebody who deeply cares about making a difference.
TheRealThing Wrote:Well, it all comes down to who winds up getting the nomination. If that guy is Cruz, he gets my vote. If he is Trump, he gets my vote.
I know there are enough low information voters hanging out in the hollers of Kentucky to make a difference here. If those folks are not self sufficient, at least we know their farming parents were. The low information voters of which I and the pundits have been referencing are widely known for having reliably voted for Democrats. They are the blue collar and big city minority groups, as well as the various strange and undefinable special interest groups and the sexually deviant. That is the reason for my charge of dishonesty, the Trump detractors know the low information crowd will vote for Hillary, or Satan if necessary. And they know full well that they always pull that handle with a 'D' on it. I mean, there is a reason Dems insist on no voter ID laws while holding the border gates wide open and relaxing visa and immigration standards. Dems think they will vote for them as well. It boils down to a question of who promises to keep the heat on the judicial system to get beneficial laws passed for people such as the homosexual movement, and/or who promises to keep the welfare checks rolling in for the rest. It is Hillary and Sanders who are promising the moon, as it was Barack Obama filling that bill the last two election cycles.
The fact that Trump has flip flopped towards the conservative side does not concern me. Now, a Hillary or Sanders Presidency is a concern. I say that because the primary process will give us a nominee, and in light of what we have seen in the past four years, eloquence or details notwithstanding, I can live with either Trump or Cruz.
I have no problem with Democrats seeing the light and maturing into conservative Republicans. The evidence of that happening in Trump's case is pretty scant. The flip-flops that concern me are the ones that have happened over a period of months, not years. Swinging from throwing Trey Gowdy's name out as his likely Attorney General to ridiculing Gowdy as a failure, for example.
I also find Trump's questioning other people's religion troubling. On multiple occasions he has commented that not many Evangelicals come from Cuba - implying that Cruz chose his religion so that he could win the Iowa caucus. (I am just guessing that to be Trump's point, because it is such a stupid comment to make that I could be wrong.)
I am not even sure that Ted Cruz has ever been to Cuba. He was born in Canada to an American citizen mother and if he speaks Spanish at all, he is not fluent. I guess that we are to believe that Cruz's father became a preacher to boost his son's political chances in Iowa.
The bottom line is that I may hold my nose and vote for Trump but I find him increasingly unlikable. He is a jerk who shares many of the traits that I dislike in Obama. I would expect that if he is elected, Trump will have no more respect for the limits that the Constitution places on presidential power than Obama has shown.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:I have no problem with Democrats seeing the light and maturing into conservative Republicans. The evidence of that happening in Trump's case is pretty scant. The flip-flops that concern me are the ones that have happened over a period of months, not years. Swinging from throwing Trey Gowdy's name out as his likely Attorney General to ridiculing Gowdy as a failure, for example.
I also find Trump's questioning other people's religion troubling. On multiple occasions he has commented that not many Evangelicals come from Cuba - implying that Cruz chose his religion so that he could win the Iowa caucus. (I am just guessing that to be Trump's point, because it is such a stupid comment to make that I could be wrong.)
I am not even sure that Ted Cruz has ever been to Cuba. He was born in Canada to an American citizen mother and if he speaks Spanish at all, he is not fluent. I guess that we are to believe that Cruz's father became a preacher to boost his son's political chances in Iowa.
The bottom line is that I may hold my nose and vote for Trump but I find him increasingly unlikable. He is a jerk who shares many of the traits that I dislike in Obama. I would expect that if he is elected, Trump will have no more respect for the limits that the Constitution places on presidential power than Obama has shown.
I sincerely hope that your expectations along those lines would prove to be a bit wide of the mark. But, this uncertainty about the character of politicians at the highest levels is, owing to the current state of moral free fall our society finds itself, inescapable. I can assure you I don't like things as they stand. No one can say given the best of outcomes,
that being a conservative President is elected, that he even has enough time to ride in and save what's left of the vision of our forefathers. What I do know is personal integrity has taken a huge slide, and we are in dire straits. My opinion, another rabid liberal will just about finish us off.
So the way I see it, I will take the uncertainty of what may come our way via the Republican nominee, over the certainty of what's already aboil in that liberal pot, any day.
:Cheerlead Bush :Cheerlead Bush :Cheerlead Bush :Cheerlead Don't let the Bush Family down.
eriously:
Even Jeb could beat the likely Democrat nominee, Bernie Sanders. Hillary will soon be headed to court. It will serve Obama right for hiring an honest FBI director. :-)
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Even Jeb could beat the likely Democrat nominee, Bernie Sanders. Hillary will soon be headed to court. It will serve Obama right for hiring an honest FBI director. :-)
Hillary want even show up for a court date on BGR. Bernie might .... I will see a lot of JEB lover soon.
nicker: on this sites remember his name isn't George!!!
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Even Jeb could beat the likely Democrat nominee, Bernie Sanders. Hillary will soon be headed to court. It will serve Obama right for hiring an honest FBI director. :-)
If you are right about Hillary,
(there is no doubt you are right about Sanders) it could be a historic moment for our country. As there could actually be some hope that justice will regain at least temporary rule over the people again.
After suffering through one Clinton era, can you imagine having Bill and Hill back in the White House? The thought of it is both sickening and terrifying at the same time. Heck, if that happens, I would expect the libs will be full speed ahead on a Chewbacca candidacy. Not that our system of governance would even faintly resemble a free republic at that point.
TheRealThing Wrote:If you are right about Hillary, (there is no doubt you are right about Sanders) it could be a historic moment for our country. As there could actually be some hope that justice will regain at least temporary rule over the people again.
After suffering through one Clinton era, can you imagine having Bill and Hill back in the White House? The thought of it is both sickening and terrifying at the same time. Heck, if that happens, I would expect the libs will be full speed ahead on a Chewbacca candidacy. Not that our system of governance would even faintly resemble a free republic at that point.
Listening to Joe diGenova this morning has given me some hope. He knows the FBI Director well and he says that the FBI has seized several DoS servers and are negotiating with the man who set up and maintained the servers for Hillary. Lynch may balk at filing charges before the election, but Joe says that there is just to much evidence for the FBI to ignore. He thinks charges well be filed against Clinton staffers and when that happens, she well not be able to run a campaign.
At the very least, Democrats will know that they are voting for a criminal when they cast a ballot for her. Joe says that the feds will also be looking at the timing of the contributions to the Clinton's phony charity and policy decisions, pending bills, etc.
DiGenova and his wife, Victoria Tisdale are both well connected Washington insiders. Clinton had some people skills and Dick Morris's help to keep his approval numbers high to stave off impeachment. Hillary has neither.
^I misspelled diGenova's wife's name. It is Victoria Toensing. I blame my phone. I hate texting and typing on my phone, but I guess I was in a good mood after hearing such a rosy scenario for diGenova.
A few months ago, diGenova was not so optimistic when he said the Clinton's lawyers might be able to get her off by arguing âthat she was so stupid and so busy that she didnât have any idea what was going on.â
DiGenova said that the sheer number of classified documents that have been found among Clinton's emails will make it very hard for the FBI not to recommend pursuing cases against Clinton's staff, which will probably lead them to her eventually.
FBI Director James Comey is a Republican who served as Deputy Attorney General under John Ashcroft. Obama appointed Comey to a 10-year term in 2013, so if the evidence is there to pursue the case against Hillary Clinton, he has little to lose by recommending prosecution. It is unlikely that Loretta Lynch will agree to charge Clinton this year, but unless she is ready to retire at the end of Obama's term, she may be willing to let Comey to negotiate some plea bargains to avoid losing all credibility.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:^I misspelled diGenova's wife's name. It is Victoria Toensing. I blame my phone. I hate texting and typing on my phone, but I guess I was in a good mood after hearing such a rosy scenario for diGenova.
A few months ago, diGenova was not so optimistic when he said the Clinton's lawyers might be able to get her off by arguing âthat she was so stupid and so busy that she didnât have any idea what was going on.â
DiGenova said that the sheer number of classified documents that have been found among Clinton's emails will make it very hard for the FBI not to recommend pursuing cases against Clinton's staff, which will probably lead them to her eventually.
FBI Director James Comey is a Republican who served as Deputy Attorney General under John Ashcroft. Obama appointed Comey to a 10-year term in 2013, so if the evidence is there to pursue the case against Hillary Clinton, he has little to lose by recommending prosecution. It is unlikely that Loretta Lynch will agree to charge Clinton this year, but unless she is ready to retire at the end of Obama's term, she may be willing to let Comey to negotiate some plea bargains to avoid losing all credibility.
Well, you've succeeded in putting me in an impossibly good mood for the day. :biggrin: Listening to Lou Dobbs, I knew Comey was a straight shooter and the prediction was he (Comey) would not bow to political pressure. One can only hope!
I would get the day tattooed on my arm that Hillary got sent to prison.
RunItUpTheGut Wrote:I would get the day tattooed on my arm that Hillary got sent to prison.
^^ :hilarious: Now
that is funny! How about a new national holiday to go with it?
Heard Judge Napolitano saying she actually is in the deep doo doo over at least one email handled by her home server. It seems she received at least one top secret picture of a North Korean nuclear site. And not only did she receive it, she also forwarded it to other people, and all via her private email service.
According to the judge, her sizable goose is cooked. :biggrin:
I think the biggest question should be how can you not pursue charges against her the facts and evidence is there.
RunItUpTheGut Wrote:I think the biggest question should be how can you not pursue charges against her the facts and evidence is there.
The person over the DOJ is Loretta Lynch, as I understand it, she would have to charge Hillary.
TheRealThing Wrote:The person over the DOJ is Loretta Lynch, as I understand it, she would have to charge Hillary.
And for that reason she won't be charged. Obama will protect her.
Oh Canada or is it Cuba....Karma
nicker:
TheRealThing Wrote:The person over the DOJ is Loretta Lynch, as I understand it, she would have to charge Hillary.
That is true, however if the FBI and comey present the case, as there increasingly expected to do, then Lynch will have to pursue charges or gear up for impeachment proceedings if the Republican take that route correct?
This is where I'm uneducated on the matter. With a majority in the house and senate, could the Republicans proceed with impeachment if this is the case?
RunItUpTheGut Wrote:That is true, however if the FBI and comey present the case, as there increasingly expected to do, then Lynch will have to pursue charges or gear up for impeachment proceedings if the Republican take that route correct?
This is where I'm uneducated on the matter. With a majority in the house and senate, could the Republicans proceed with impeachment if this is the case?
In another less ambiguous time, questions about whether a US Attorney General had failed to do his or her duty would have been much more clearly defined. Wherefore, since we now live in the day of doublespeak, the Congress has shown to be a little gun shy about impeachments. I mean, how does one Lois Lerner not get charged, and how does the sitting AG escape without so much as a slap on the wrist? But yes, the Congress has the Constitutional power to impeach high office holders up to and including the President for certain derelictions, crimes and misdemeanors.
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Article II, Section 4
Reportedly, the latest batch of Hillary's emails contains what could be the smoking gun that will be her undoing. Even if her instructions were not followed, the message proves beyond any doubt that Clinton had no qualms about removing classification markings for documents and sending unencrypted copies of classified documents over unsecured servers. If she were a Republican, she would be preparing her statement on here withdrawal from the race to spend more time with her family.
Quote:Smoking Gun: Email Suggests Hillary Broke Law
Clinton instructed an aide to remove the classification marking from information, a federal offense
The latest batch of Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department early Friday contain what may be the smoking gun that forces the Justice Department to charge the former secretary of state with a crime, according to former federal prosecutor Joseph diGenova.
âThis is gigantic,â said diGenova. âShe caused to be removed a classified marking and then had it transmitted in an unencrypted manner. That is a felony. The removal of the classified marking is a federal crime. It is the same thing to order someone to do it as if she had done it herself.â
On the June 17, 2011, email chain with senior State Department adviser Jake Sullivan, Clinton apparently asked Sullivan to change the marking on classified information so that it is no longer flagged as classified.
Clinton, using her private email server, asks for âthe TPs,â apparently a reference to talking points being prepared for her. Sullivan, who is using his official State Department email, responds, âThey say theyâve had issues sending secure fax. Theyâre working on it.â Clinton responds, âIf they canât, turn into nonpaper w[ith] no identifying heading and send nonsecure.â