2016 Presidential

[DougMacG]

http://www.dickmorris.com/brunch-alert-hillary-flailing-trump-cruz-exchange-fire-weekly-wrap-up/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports

Hillary is accusing Sanders of being establishment because he has been in the Senate so long.  That's it, I think I'll vote against Bernie because he is too establishment!

She is not the brightest light, is she?
-----------------------------------------------------

On a related matter, I see Obama's numbers creep up.  His disapproval rate is what will determine the outcome of the election more than anything else.  R's should stay focused on running against HIS record, leftist and WHY leftism fails.  Instead we are on birtherism, footwear, shiny objects and 50 shades of amnesty.

Our media and our message is noise.  We are about to got through 8 years of Obama, 10 years since Nov 2006 if you count when they actually took over Washington, and people aren't going to know what went wrong.

[ccp]

"On a related matter, I see Obama's numbers creep up."

Unbelievable how some will people will change their minds with the wind isn't it?

Either you agree with Brock or not.  How can one change their minds from week to week?

Sickening.

[DDF]

"On a related matter, I see Obama's numbers creep up."

Unbelievable how some will people will change their minds with the wind isn't it?

Either you agree with Brock or not.  How can one change their minds from week to week?

Sickening.

I'll never forget the day a Herion junkie told me that they voted for Obama and didn't realize until later that they did.

It all makes perfect sense.

[Crafty_Dog]

"50 shades of amnesty"

Great turn of phrase!

[Crafty_Dog]

My son tells me Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders are going to have a debate of their own.

This is a REALLY good idea!  Cruz (or Rubio) should challenge Trump to a 1 on 1 or a three way debate.

[ccp]

Off of Breitbart, this article highlights some good points by Pat Caddell.  I agree with him that Elizabeth Warren missed her moment.  She could have beaten Hillary I think.  My very liberal Republican aunt who HATED republicans (except for hopefully me; but she recently passed ( )     stated she did not like Clinton.  I looked at her with shock and she immediately burst my bubble to say she liked Warren.

Warren would unlike Sanders not only attract younger Crats but the older ones who are tired of Hillary's stench.

BTW my aunt also thought Rachel Maddow was brilliant and great.  I never had ANY chance of having a bllateral political conversation with her.  But I miss her dearly otherwise.

[DougMacG]

Cruz keeps scoring better than expected, IMHO, way better than Trump, slightly behind Rubio.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/#

I like what Crafty said, that Rubio should be touting his advantage here.  Problem there is that it is to act Trump-like, bragging about your polls as a reason to elect you President.  Maybe more powerful (and also Trump-like) would be for one of these guys to paint Trump with a big "L" on his forehead for the general election poll "Loser" that he is.  I would expect something like that to come out shortly, after all the polls are released before an important contest.

Anyone want to predict the next 3 momentum shifts in this race.  I'll come back and post the right answer later...   )

[Crafty_Dog]

From Doug's posted URL


New Hampshire: Trump vs. Clinton    CNN/WMUR    Clinton 48, Trump 39    Clinton +9
New Hampshire: Trump vs. Sanders    CNN/WMUR    Sanders 57, Trump 34    Sanders +23
New Hampshire: Cruz vs. Clinton    CNN/WMUR    Clinton 47, Cruz 41    Clinton +6
New Hampshire: Cruz vs. Sanders    CNN/WMUR    Sanders 56, Cruz 33    Sanders +23
New Hampshire: Rubio vs. Clinton    CNN/WMUR    Rubio 45, Clinton 44    Rubio +1
New Hampshire: Rubio vs. Sanders    CNN/WMUR    Sanders 55, Rubio 37    Sanders +18
New Hampshire: Kasich vs. Clinton    CNN/WMUR    Kasich 43, Clinton 43    Tie
New Hampshire: Kasich vs. Sanders    CNN/WMUR    Sanders 54, Kasich 33    Sanders +21
New Hampshire: Christie vs. Clinton    CNN/WMUR    Clinton 45, Christie 42    Clinton +3
New Hampshire: Christie vs. Sanders    CNN/WMUR    Sanders 57, Christie 34    Sanders +23
Florida: Trump vs. Clinton    Florida Atlantic University    Trump 47, Clinton 44    Trump +3
Florida: Trump vs. Sanders    Florida Atlantic University    Trump 47, Sanders 42    Trump +5
Florida: Cruz vs. Clinton    Florida Atlantic University    Clinton 47, Cruz 42    Clinton +5
Florida: Cruz vs. Sanders    Florida Atlantic University    Cruz 43, Sanders 43    Tie
Florida: Rubio vs. Clinton    Florida Atlantic University    Rubio 46, Clinton 46    Tie
Florida: Rubio vs. Sanders    Florida Atlantic University    Rubio 47, Sanders 42    Rubio +5
Florida: Bush vs. Clinton    Florida Atlantic University    Bush 45, Clinton 42    Bush +3
North Carolina: Trump vs. Clinton    PPP (D)    Clinton 43, Trump 45    Trump +2
North Carolina: Trump vs. Sanders    PPP (D)    Trump 44, Sanders 43    Trump +1
North Carolina: Cruz vs. Clinton    PPP (D)    Cruz 46, Clinton 43    Cruz +3
North Carolina: Cruz vs. Sanders    PPP (D)    Cruz 43, Sanders 38    Cruz +5
North Carolina: Rubio vs. Clinton    PPP (D)    Rubio 47, Clinton 42    Rubio +5
North Carolina: Rubio vs. Sanders    PPP (D)    Rubio 43, Sanders 39    Rubio +4
North Carolina: Carson vs. Clinton    PPP (D)    Carson 47, Clinton 44    Carson +3
North Carolina: Carson vs. Sanders    PPP (D)    Carson 44, Sanders 40    Carson +4
North Carolina: Bush vs. Clinton    PPP (D)    Clinton 43, Bush 45    Bush +2
North Carolina: Bush vs. Sanders    PPP (D)    Bush 42, Sanders 41    Bush +1

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/26/after-donald-trump-announced-hed-skip-fox-news-debate-ted-cruz-offered-him-this-challenge/

[Crafty_Dog]

Hillary's Black Wall Shows Cracks
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on TheHillaryDaily.com on January 26, 2016
The latest Fox News poll (Jan 24th) shows Bernie Sanders gaining nineteen points against Hillary nationally among black voters.  In the Fox News poll of January 4th, Hillary bested Sanders among black voters by 71-20.  But on January 24th, Sanders had closed much of the gap and trailed by only 59-27.

As Hillary fights to fend off the unexpectedly strong challenge from Bernie Sanders, the African-American vote is key.  Blacks cast one-quarter of the vote nationally in Democratic primaries and caucuses and are heavily concentrated in states -- beginning in South Carolina -- that must provide a firewall for Hillary if she is to recover from defeats in New Hampshire and/or Iowa.

Sanders had been stuck at 20% among black voters nationally in previous Fox News polls.  In their surveys of November 16, December 16, and January 4, Sanders drew 20% of the African-American vote.  Now, he has risen to 27% -- a key development.

Sanders' growth among blacks is likely a key reason for Hillary's recent efforts to drape herself in Obama, attacking Sanders for wanting to start over on health care and saying she wants to "build on" Obama's accomplishments.

But the data suggests that Bernie is punching through among African Americans.  As his campaign gathers momentum over Hillary's dependence on Wall Street for campaign money and personal income, he is attracting more African-Americans than he had previously.

If this trend continues among blacks, and accelerates following possible Sanders victories in Iowa and New Hampshire, Bernie could actually win.
=============================
A Two-Way Race By March
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on January 26, 2016
Nobody has been paying attention to the rules governing the Republican Party's early caucuses and primaries. They make it inevitable the 12-person field will be winnowed down to a two-way race by March 15. Here's how:

It will take 1,237 delegates to win the Republican nomination in July.

Of the nearly 700 delegates Republicans will parcel out on March 1, 363 of them -- 52 percent -- will be in states that require candidates to reach a threshold of either 20 percent or 15 percent to share in the proportional allocation of delegates. Only two candidates are likely to meet that threshold. The others will win no delegates, even if they win 10 or 12 percent of that state's vote.

Of the next 356 delegates, chosen on March 5, 6, 8 and 12, 215 (or 60 percent) will be selected according to rules setting a 20 percent or 15 percent threshold.

So, before March 15, 578 delegates -- about 47 percent of those needed to for the nomination -- will have already been selected from threshold states. It is very unlikely a third candidate can reach this level. Right now, for example, neither Jeb Bush nor Marco Rubio nor Chris Christie nor John Kasich nor Ben Carson can point to any single state in which they top 20 percent of the vote.

Before March 15, 478 delegates will be selected from states that do not require a threshold to receive delegates. But, having been excluded from winning delegates in threshold states, a third or fourth candidate would have to win an unrealistically high proportion of those 478 delegates to get back into the race.

If we assume, for the sake of argument, that the two candidates who do pass the threshold -- at the moment it would be Donald Trump and Ted Cruz -- evenly divide the available delegates in high-threshold states, that would give them each 289 votes. If we further assume that Bush, Rubio, Christie, Carson and Kasich evenly divide half of the delegates chosen in non-threshold states and that Trump and Cruz evenly divide the other half, Trump and Cruz would have about 400 delegates apiece and Bush, Rubio et al. would limp along with only approximately 48 delegates each. Even were one of the candidates excluded by the threshold to win a disproportionate share of the non-threshold delegates, it is hard to see how he could catch up.

Of course, a candidate might get lucky on March 15 and win some of the big winner-take-all states that vote that day, like Florida (99 delegates) or Ohio (66 delegates) but the lead that the two front-runners will have amassed before then is likely too big to overcome.

So all the talk about when Bush or some other candidate will drop out is quite irrelevant. It doesn't matter when reality dawns on them -- they will be forced out by the math of the process in the month of March.

Unfortunately, the voters in the March 1 proportional threshold states may not understand all this, with many casting wasted ballots for candidates who have no chance of passing the threshold. In early March, this lack of understanding of how the process works will cost the two front-runners delegate votes, but the voters will soon catch on and vote primarily for one of the top two.

This will create a new dynamic in the GOP nominating process. Now, in a dozen-person beauty contest, we vote for who we like the best. But when it comes down to two candidates, many voters who may not have voted for Trump or Cruz as their first choice will have to choose the lesser of these two "evils."

Ironically, with two such iconoclastic and sui generis people as Trump and Cruz, the nomination could go to the one who is most broadly acceptable -- or least widely unacceptable.
View my
 

[DougMacG]

From Iowa, Fox News, 9pm ET, 6:00 pacific?

Trump already knew the ratings would be down.  Everybody watch!   )

I don't know anything about Megyn Kelly's politics, but for a mainstream media personality, she is smart, good looking and asks tough questions.  Same goes for Bret Baier and Chris Wallace - minus the good looking part.

Smaller stage, better conversation is possible.  I hope they don't spend all their time on scorched earth politics, taking down their own friends who may end up being the nominee.  Instead they should be calling out Obama's failures, explaining why leftism doesn't work, and laying out their own positive agenda.

Next debate in a week and a half in NH.  One month to go until March 1, after which Dick Morris says the field narrows to two.

[DougMacG]

Correction to previous post where I said it is tonight.

[DougMacG]

http://reason.com/blog/2016/01/27/about-that-1980-iowa-debate-ronald-reaga

[DougMacG]

(ccp from Rubio thread)

"Rubio is the most likable , but I still cannot see him as leader of the country but then again may be best to beat the Democrats.
Cruz's positions are best for me but there is something about him that he is not warm and fuzzy.  Not many think he would be great to beat Democrats.
Trump is really losing me.  I am beginning not to like him much at all but he is best on some of the positions by far, but then again has very high negatives.
Kasich is likable, talented and probably could beat any Democrat but his policies are way to leftist.

In conclusion a Presidential race that should be a blowout for us is leading down to the wire."

I would post more from around the internet,  but this is the best analysis I have seen.   )


"BTW as for the debate I watched for about 10 to 15 minutes and got bored.  Not because T wan't there but because it was a lot of the same old questions and answers.  Just getting tiring and redundant to me.  Did you hear anything new perhaps that I missed?"

I listened to the whole thing on the radio as an excuse to keep working into the evening and that question stumped me.  I thought it was a very good and substantive debate but maybe I didn't hear anything new.  All in all, they did a nice job of attacking the Obama agenda and showed some restraint attacking each other.  People were given chances to clarify past positions and make a stronger emphasis on the main points they want to leave with their audience, either in Iowa or NH.  It is probably good that we get to a point where nothing new comes out.

From the bottom, Rand Paul had a good night.  Didn't go after anyone real hard.  I think he clarified that people who agree with him particularly on foreign policy should support him.  He already has that and shouldn't move up.  His defense of his father paled as it followed JEB calling his own father the greatest man alive.  Jeb also had a good night but probably won't move up either.  He was the only one to seriously challenge Trump, which was fine but I thought the other strategy of silence about the missing man was better.  A serious Presidential debate on issues and leadership went on just fine without him.  

Nothing new to say about Christie.  He would make a strong general election candidate and President if not for the others running.  He sometimes is a jerk, but DT already has that lane.  He is a strong personality, executive experience, but other Governors have better records of accomplishment.  He would prosecute Hillary very well in a general election debate if given the chance, but others can do that and I would rather have our candidate lay out our vision and why their policies are wrong than just tear down their messenger.  He tried jumping in again after a re-run of Rubio-Cruz debating what happened in the Senate and didn't really pull it off.  His experience in a Governor's mansion in a Dem state with a Dem legislature where no conservatism gets done is not that much different that their experience in the Senate where nothing good got done either.  Presumably that's why they all are running for higher office.

Kasich was Kasich.  Answered his questions well.  Seems to be in the race in case 6 others stumble, or he believes in the lanes theory, but he doesn't attack or compare with Bush or Christy, so maybe he is running for VP.  Kasich is doing pretty well in NH, still a number of them need to get out after NH.

Ben Carson had an off night and won't move up either.  He had moments that were great, another where he seemed to lose his track.  At the beginning they seemed to ignore him, then a gave him a tough foreign policy question which is where he had shown weakness previously.  Another question was all asked and then the questioner said out of the blue, Dr. Carson, that one was for you.  He sounded surprised like being called up from the audience.  Like I said, I was listening, I wonder how that looked.  Carson made a valid point about ethanol.  Govt subsidies are bad policy, but people have made investments relying on them so the ending must be done with care.

This is shallow and obvious to say about Dr. Carson, but having him black and still among the GOP leaders has temporarily shut down the false criticism by the shallow left of conservatism being for whites.  Carson's support comes largely from whites and it is genuine.  I would love to see him continue on in some role where he is able to reach more demographics with his and our message.

Rubio had his best night.  He raised up his energy and oratory to higher level, clips you will hear in ads...  A few moments not so.  Cruz beat him on one immigration point and his attack on Cruz was overly harsh, Cruz will say anything to get elected.  When they used film to corner Rubio on immigration, he had promised not to offer blanket amnesty and all the deals entered were clearly not blanket amnesty so that attack failed in one sense but conservatives who don't forgive him for Gang of 8 are once again reminded of it.  For those not following old Senate business, Rubio is very strong now on border security and stopping ISIS from coming in.

With Trump gone, Cruz took arrows from various directions.  He did fine, not great.  Beat Rubio on one immigration point.  (paraphrase)  'In our campaigns, Marco and I made the same promise.  I kept mine; he didn't.'  As G M has pointed out, Cruz showed backbone on ethanol.  And as I suggested, he put it in the context of ending the whole practice of government picking winners and losers.  Amen to that.  That could play at least neutral in Iowa and makes a strong setup for a conservative and populist argument general election argument against team crony-Solyndra.

[Crafty_Dog]

The Rubio Gamble
There’s a method to his unusual strategy. It all depends on a strong showing in Iowa.
Sen. Marco Rubio in West Des Moines, Iowa, Jan. 27. ENLARGE
Sen. Marco Rubio in West Des Moines, Iowa, Jan. 27. Photo: Reuters
By Kimberley A. Strassel
Jan. 28, 2016 6:12 p.m. ET
259 COMMENTS

Marco Rubio is suddenly everywhere in Iowa. He’s campaigning alongside Joni Ernst, the state’s popular senator. He’s in the headlines of the Des Moines Register and Sioux City Journal, both of which endorsed him. He’s playing to standing-room-only crowds, jamming in three or four events a day.

That is a change for the Florida senator—and a carefully planned one. Of all the Republican candidates, none is playing a more complex (or longer) game than Mr. Rubio. Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz are following the conventional route of betting that big early victories will lock in the nomination. Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and John Kasich are using another classic approach—putting all their chips on one state, hoping to jump-start a move.

Mr. Rubio by contrast is flouting the usual rules, playing everywhere at once and nowhere on top. It’s the Wait Them Out strategy. The plan hinges on edgy calculations and big risks. Yet given the unusual nature of this primary cycle, the approach may prove as plausible as any other.

The first of those Rubio calculations is that he has the ability to finish strong in Iowa. The Rubio team has bided its time in the state, convinced that it is possible to peak too soon. And Iowa voters do tend to be last-minute deciders. Rick Santorum, a few weeks from the 2012 Iowa caucuses, was averaging about 7%; he finished with nearly 25% of the vote. Newt Gingrich, by contrast, saw his numbers tank in the homestretch.

Mr. Rubio’s relatively low-key approach to early campaigning in Iowa all but guaranteed he would never match Trump-Cruz heights. His final, feisty Iowa push is instead designed to produce a surprisingly strong finish that gives him momentum out of the state.

The follow-on Rubio calculation is that the loser of Monday’s Trump-Cruz death match goes into New Hampshire wounded. A Trump loss would certainly inspire a rethink of the real-estate mogul. Mr. Cruz, meanwhile, has based his candidacy on a strong pitch to Iowa’s evangelicals and activists that he is the only true conservative in the race. Yet if Mr. Cruz can’t win in Iowa, of all places, where does he win? He would limp into New Hampshire, where even now he is only polling in the middle of the pack.

Cue the next Rubio calculation—that after Iowa, a lot more votes will be up for grabs. Surveys show that both Mr. Rubio and Mr. Cruz are vying for the same voters. Any Cruz pain is potentially Rubio gain. Meanwhile, a poor showing by Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee will likely knock them out of the race. Iowa also might spell the end for Ben Carson or Rand Paul or Carly Fiorina. Collectively, this latter group commands about 12% of New Hampshire voters—who would be looking for a new candidate.

An Iowa boost for Mr. Rubio would separate him from the Bush/Christie/Kasich scrum, allowing him to present himself as the viable alternative to Mr. Trump or Mr. Cruz, assuming one of them is the front-runner. And the calculation would hold from there on out. Mr. Rubio has been building his presence in all the states that follow Iowa, ready to scoop up voters as other candidates drop out, until it’s a two-man race between him and either Mr. Trump or Mr. Cruz.

If all this sounds tenuous, it is. And plenty can go wrong. Mr. Cruz and Mr. Trump could both finish strong in Iowa, leaving Mr. Rubio an afterthought. The Florida senator is facing an onslaught of negative advertising from his rivals in New Hampshire (Jeb Bush’s super PAC has spent about $20 million attacking him). The barrage will only increase, and weathering it may prove impossible.

Some of Mr. Rubio’s mainstream competitors might stay in the race longer than expected, muddying his two-man hopes. The longer the field stays crowded, the harder it will be for Mr. Rubio to raise the money needed to keep fighting. Even if he gets the two-man race he wants, the specifics matter. Many Republicans think Mr. Trump—given his high negatives—is beatable in a one-on-one match. A Rubio-Cruz face-off, however, could prove a longer, harder battle over who has the better conservative credentials.

What Mr. Rubio may have going for him is time, and timing. This primary cycle is truncated—starting late, moving briskly, ending early. Yet the early section, including the March 1 Super Tuesday voting in more than a dozen states, is stacked with contests that award only “proportional” delegates—the states aren’t winner-take-all. That makes it harder for any one candidate to stand out quickly in the delegate count. The real crunch comes on March 15, when the first winner-take-all states kick in.

And so back to Iowa, where the latest polls show Mr. Rubio inching up, and where his team is fervently hoping that anything in this race is still possible.

[DougMacG]

Makes sense to me.  A perfect start for Rubio is to go third, second, first in the first three.  If he finishes distant third three times in a row or worse, I don't see how he gets it turned around.

[DougMacG]

Average age of Dem candidates goes to 71.

(CNN)

[DougMacG]

Cruz, Trump Rubio, 28, 24, 23
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/694360776639942656

It turns out the Trump 'ceiling' in Iowa wasn't 40, 50 or 100.
Doug calls on Trump to drop out and stop splitting the Cruz-Rubio vote.

Clinton 50, Sanders 49.

Updates welcome...

[G M]

I am quite happy to see this result.

[ccp]

Clinton by 5.  I wonder how many they bribed to come in at the last few hours.

[DougMacG]

I am quite happy to see this result.

Yes, it seems good all the way around.  Cruz gets a win but not any kind of runaway.  Trump is now just a politician.  Rubio made as good of a comeback and third place finish as was possible, essentially tying Trump and soundly defeating 4th through 17th place.  Carson in the highest single digits is in a very respectable place for an exit.  He, Fiorina and others should 'suspend' now with their head held high.

We are probably lucky to have Clinton ease out Sanders as well, keeping the excitement of the Dem race near zero.

My biased readings tell me Rubio gave a great 'victory speech'.  Trump was uncharacteristically gracious, and Cruz went on and on until coverage cut out to Hillary. 

"Every vote counts" they say but oddly, the Iowa Dem party won't release the raw vote tallies. (?) 
"Clinton so far awarded 699.57 state delegate equivalents and Sanders awarded 695.49 state delegate equivalents"   Huh?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/02/01/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-iowa-caucuses/79664210/

[G M]

¡Jeb! did 3 times the vote I expected.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4578575/clinton-voter-fraud-polk-county-iowa-caucus

http://www.conservativeoutfitters.com/blogs/news/85864001-clinton-caucus-caught-on-camera-committing-voter-fraud-in-iowa

=====================

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/02/02/hillary-clinton-has-the-most-statistically-improbable-coin-toss-luck-ever/

[Crafty_Dog]

Ted Cruz wins Iowa, but he won’t be the GOP nominee for president
By Charles Hurt - - Tuesday, February 2, 2016 - The Washington Times.

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

DES MOINES — Well, that's settled. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz will not be the 2016 Republican nominee for president.  At least not if recent history is any guide. It has been 16 years since Republican caucus-goers here have accurately picked the eventual GOP nominee for president. In other words, not once in this entire century has Iowa picked the winner for Republicans.

Ted Cruz joins former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and ex-Sen. Rick Santorum, who won the caucuses in 2008 and 2012, respectively.
Neither Mr. Huckabee nor Mr. Santorum were able to convert those Iowa victories into any kind of groundswell of support outside the frozen cornfields of Iowa.

Mr. Cruz carefully followed the same playbook deployed in the caucuses won by his predecessors.

First, he built a massive and highly organized grassroots ground game. It was impressive. Also, Mr. Cruz spend significant money and a huge amount of time and energy courting Iowa voters.

Mr. Cruz was handsomely rewarded with the highest number of caucus votes of any Republican in history. Which means he is really popular — in Iowa.
Similarly, Mr. Huckabee and Mr. Santorum bet their entire presidential campaigns on Iowa, and it paid off for them as well. At least, in terms of winning Iowa. In the end, of course, those victories turned out to be meaningless.

Mr. Cruz also followed in the footsteps of previous Iowa winners in that he shamelessly and overtly deployed his religious faith as a guiding — perhaps overriding — reason for electing him. The man was literally quoting scripture during his campaign events. This preaching culminated in the creepy footage of Mr. Cruz directing his supporters to "awaken the body of Christ." Ick.

Obviously, it is a strategy that works in Iowa. But I am also pretty sure that God is not so hot about somebody awakening the body of Christ for personal political purposes. Sounds, well, a little self-centered and diabolical.  And, unfortunately for Mr. Cruz, it doesn't usually work so well going forward. Even in a place like South Carolina where they love their Christian politicians, Mr. Trump is beating Mr. Cruz by 15 points, according to the polls.

The problem for Mr. Cruz is that it is undeniable that Mr. Trump has at least broken through to Christian voters. Many of them trust him and believe that he is serious about fighting for them and protecting religious liberty.

Mr. Cruz's impressive win Monday night, of course, sparked a wildfire of giddy gloating among the Great Punditocracy who find Donald Trump so vulgar and repellent. It is like the only thing that matters to them is winning.

But Donald Trump had the last laugh when he walked out on the stage to deliver his concession speech.

For weeks and months we have been told that Mr. Trump cannot handle losing. His entire campaign is built around winning every time. And if he loses Iowa, we were told again and again and again, Mr. Trump would fall apart. The first chink in his armor would utterly crumple him to the ground.  Only, instead, Mr. Trump came out with his family and delivered a wonderfully gracious and funny and hopeful concession speech and told his supporters how honored he was to come in second place in Iowa.

Alas, the Great Punditocracy keeps alive their perfect streak of being wrong about everything when it comes to Donald J. Trump.

• Charles Hurt can be reached at charleshurt@live.com. Follow him on Twitter at @charleshurt.
 

[ccp]

We all knew that in a close election there was 100% of fraud from the Clinton campaign and likely the DNC.  It never ceases to amaze me how much democrats hate republicans that they will persist till their dying days supporting these corrupt slobs:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/02/sanders-campaign-iowa-democrats-lost-5-of-the-vote/

[Crafty_Dog]

Things that make you go hmmmm , , ,

Clinton 44    Sanders 42

Clinton 46    Trump 41
Clinton 45    Cruz 45
Clinton 41    Rubio 48

Sanders 49  Trump 39
Sanders 46  Cruz 42
Sanders 43  Rubio 43

I'd love to see a discussion of the implications of these numbers, especially the Sanders numbers.  Along with this forum, Sanders is a big critic of the corruption between big business and the government.  IMHO this is resonating strongly and our side should be making similar noises.  Cruz shows courage and good instincts with regard to ethanol, but IMHO this is not enough.  Isn't Sanders right when he calls for the reinstatement of Glass Steagal?   

[ccp]

Iowa demonstrates that Clinton will win any close ones within "the margin of error".

[DougMacG]

Things that make you go hmmmm , , ,

Clinton 44    Sanders 42

Clinton 46    Trump 41
Clinton 45    Cruz 45
Clinton 41    Rubio 48

Sanders 49  Trump 39
Sanders 46  Cruz 42
Sanders 43  Rubio 43

I'd love to see a discussion of the implications of these numbers, especially the Sanders numbers.  Along with this forum, Sanders is a big critic of the corruption between big business and the government.  IMHO this is resonating strongly and our side should be making similar noises.  Cruz shows courage and good instincts with regard to ethanol, but IMHO this is not enough.  Isn't Sanders right when he calls for the reinstatement of Glass Steagal?   

I like some of these numbers, Rubio 48, Clinton 41, that Rubio is still matching up best.

Regarding this, Sanders 43  Rubio 43, I would just say that I like that matchup.  If Bernie's socialist ideas and proposals can hold up to scrutiny and defeat the optimism of greater liberty and opportunity presented by our best spokesman, we deserve the result.

My two cents on Glass Steagall, it didn't cause the collapse and reinstating it doesn't solve or address any of our top 100 problems.   But yes, government insured institutions unfortunately need to be highly regulated and Republicans can't just leave this mundane work to the occupy Wall Street left.

Crafty, please expand on your thoughts...

Glass Steagall explained:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Legislation

[DougMacG]

Trump down 9 points nationwide, Rubio up 8.  If the field could narrow, Rubio runs away with Republicans, not just leads in general election matchups.

Given the choices of just Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz who would you support for the Republican nomination for President?
Trump 33% Rubio 34% Cruz 25%

Who would you prefer as the Republican candidate if you had to choose between just Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio? Cruz 40% Rubio 46% ....between just Ted Cruz and Donald Trump? Cruz 47% Trump 41%

Between just Marco Rubio and Donald Trump?
Rubio 52% Trump 40%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_20416.pdf
PPP Feb 2-3, 2016

[ccp]

Can i cheat and pick the someone who has the best qualities, and none of the worst qualities of all 3?

One can dream, no?

[DougMacG]

Can i cheat and pick the someone who has the best qualities, and none of the worst qualities of all 3?  ...

We can't do that but they can take and learn from the strengths of their competitors and I hope they do!  For one thing, have Trump build the wall and pay for it.

Both Cruz and Rubio have been acknowledging what Trump tapped into, and both probably see the weaknesses in their own tax plans as they argue out the positives.

Learning and adapting without being branded a flipflopper is difficult but sometimes needs to be done.

[objectivist1]

Bernie Sanders Beats Hillary in a Lying Contest

The angry old leftist future of the Democrats.

February 5, 2016


Daniel Greenfield - frontpagemag.com


The future of the Democratic Party was two angry old leftists screaming at each other for two hours to decide who hates capitalism more.


With the MSNBC and the Democratic Party's logos on a red background, the stage was set for a redder than red debate. Red was everywhere, reflected in the thick glasses of Bernie Sanders and in the garish red lipstick around Hillary Clinton's orifice of lies, and in their clamorous rants about Wall Street and the evils of capitalism that could have come from a back alley Communist pamphleteer in the 50s.


Bernie Sanders promised to end “a rigged economy” with Socialism, which is the very definition of a rigged economy. Both candidates showed their Socialist bona fides by rattling off the names of the corporations they hated the most. Bernie Sanders cheered normalizing relations with Cuba, ridiculing the idea that being Communist is objectionable. But he did express some concerns about the nuclear weapons being held by his fellow Socialists in the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea.


NBC’s Chuck Todd, who was born for Archie Bunker to call him “Meathead”, and MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, whose giant fake eyelashes made it impossible for her to wear her trademark glasses, moderated a debate that had no reason for existing because none of the participants had developed a new idea since the 1970s (and in Bernie Sander’ case, possibly even the 1870s) and were just yelling the same things that they had yelled at all the previous debates, only louder, as if we hadn’t heard them the first time. The MSNBC audience applauded every line as if it were the only job they were qualified for.


Except maybe teaching gender justice or reviewing organic cruelty-free smoothie places on Yelp.


Meanwhile Bernie Sanders picked his ear and Hillary Clinton nodded frantically during every question as if she were a bobblehead doll that had come to life and wanted to go right from plastic to president.


Anyone who had the misfortune to sit, stand or sleep through the previous Democratic debates kept hearing the same tired lines both candidates have been repeating for months; rigged economy, Donald Trump's kids, the middle class bailed out Wall Street, a progressive is someone who gets thing done, political revolution, not radical ideas, not only did I vote against the bill and “Moozlimb” countries.


Maybe it’s too much to expect two career leftists with a combined total age of 142 to come up with any new ideas, but would it really have killed Bernie and Hillary to come up with some new lines?


Instead the future of the Democratic Party recited their memorized lines and rants from the previous debates. It got so bad that in response to a question about Afghanistan, Bernie Sanders reeled off the same exact rant about ISIS, Muslim souls and the King of Jordan that he had recited in the last debate until Chuck Todd gave up on the senile Socialist as a hopeless case and switched to Hillary Clinton.


The only thing that Bernie Sanders appeared to know about foreign policy was that Hillary Clinton had voted for the Iraq War twelve years ago and he hadn’t. That is the only thing he will ever know.


Don’t ask Bernie Sanders to find Afghanistan, Iran or Ukraine on a map. But wake him up in the middle of the night and he’ll tell you that he voted against the Iraq War and that we need to raise taxes.


But what Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders lacked in the way of ideas, they more than made up for in volume. Hillary Clinton screamed, "I can get things done" as if she were pitching a product on an infomercial. Bernie Sanders ran his own telethon, stumbling over words as he boasted how much moolah he had taken in, “a million people” and “27 bucks a piece”.


Eat your heart out, Wall Street. Bernie is better at suckering small-time investors than you are.


Hillary Clinton compensated for her complete lack of likability by falling back on playing the victim. She accused Bernie Sanders of ignoring feminism, black people and gay rights. She sputtered that, “Senator Sanders is the only one who would describe me, a woman running to be president, as exemplifying the establishment.” Somehow a fabulously wealthy woman who is backed by the entire Democratic political establishment isn’t the “establishment” because of her gender.

Hillary Clinton had tried to use 9/11 as a shield for her Wall Street donations and now she switched to using Obama's Wall Street donations as her human shield. Accusing her of being bought by special interests was engaging in an “artful smear”, she indignantly insisted. Like Picasso or Jackson Pollock.


It was neither artful, nor a smear though. It was just common sense that no one was giving Hillary Clinton money because of 9/11. And a genuinely honest opponent would have made that case.


But when Hillary Clinton dared Bernie Sanders to accuse her of being bought off by special interests, the courageous political revolutionary turned tail and fled. Instead of confronting her with the facts, he began mewling something about Republicans and the Koch Brothers. Just as with the emails, Bernie Sanders backed off his criticism and showed that he didn’t have the spine to stand up to Hillary Clinton.


Under all the “authenticity”, Bernie Sanders is just as fake as Hillary. He paradoxically insists that he wants a political revolution, but that his ideas are not radical. After all his rants about the SuperPAC devil, he admitted that he had contemplated setting up his own SuperPAC.


Between Hillary Clinton’s painfully tight smiles and Bernie Sanders checking his watch, this debate was just another infomercial for a fake election between two candidates who voted the same way 93 percent of the time. All that was left was the inane rhetoric and memorized applause lines.


“A progressive is someone who makes progress,” Hillary Clinton blathered. No one asked her what progress she had ever made. Besides the progress from defending a 12-year-old girl’s rapist in Arkansas to defending her rapist husband in the White House.


“I want to see major changes in the Democratic Party,” Bernie Sanders demanded. He could just rename it the Communist Party.


“I have a record,” Hillary Clinton boasted. But that’s really up to the FBI. She promised the country half-a-billion solar panels, which it needs about as much as it needs another Clinton in the White House.


There was no truth in the New Hampshire Democratic debate, but it was child’s play to spot the three biggest lies.

“I say what I believe,” Hillary Clinton said. And somehow, no one laughed.


“I have been moved by my heart,” Hillary Clinton said in her closing statement. “I will bring my heart with me.” Medical records have already revealed that Hillary Clinton has no heart.


“I love this country,” Bernie Sanders said. And for once, someone else beat Hillary in a lying contest.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/clinton-email-scandal-why-it-might-be-time-for-democrats-to-draft-joe-biden/2016/02/05/cd69dfea-cc18-11e5-a7b2-5a2f824b02c9_story.html

[ccp]

Well that article is as grudgingly as good as it gets from a liberal newspaper.  King admits it is serious, and even she sounds almost as bad as "I did not have sex with that woman"  but then rather disassembles it to be as lenient on Clinton as possible.  Even suggesting someone else purposely or inadvertently sould have set her up.
And in the very end of course takes the view of worrying about the Democrat Party.  Instead of calling for her to go to jail or at least drop out of the race he calls to "warm up" Bien.

If I had the time I would go back and see how lenient the Wash compost was to Nixon.   By now they were almost certainly calling for his resignation or impeachment.

That all said this is a crack in the Democrat machine's armor.

 

[Crafty_Dog]

I notice we have not had much overall commentary on the debate.

I thought Trump's opening statement very good, almost presidential.  Woefully inadequate on Obamacare and its replacement (and the other day he sounded like he was advocating single payer.  Pathetically evasive in his response eminent domain.  Sounded like a real yahoo on waterboarding.

The governors gang attack on Rubio looks to neuter his surge, thus leaving victory to Trump.  Glad to see Rubio double down this morning.  Also, I thought he had several good sallies last night.  Quite eloquent on Life.

I thought Cruz had some excellent moments where he sounded presidential , though the IQ, thoughtfulness, and precision of his responses on North Korea and waterboarding probably went over the head of most with nary a look back.  Stunned at the rare display of emotion about his sister.  It was well outside his usual modes and all the more powerful for it.

Though his closing statement was bland, I thought Carson had some good moments; I wish the moderators had taken up his challenge to be questioned on North Korea.

Bush now calls on his brother and his mommy.  Oy fg vey.

[G M]

Bush really needs to drop out and issue refunds at this point.

[objectivist1]

I missed the first 30 minutes of the debate.  Overall, I thought the moderators did a surprisingly fair job, considering we are talking about ABC.  For the most part it was substantive, but very little new information was presented by any of the candidates.  Crafty's observations about Cruz are on the money.  His personal disclosure about his sister's heroin addiction was welcome and moving.  

As for his analysis of the North Korea situation and waterboarding likely going over most viewers' heads, that's possible, but methinks we here on this forum tend to underestimate the intelligence and common sense of much of the voter base - at least those who take an interest in these Republican debates.  

It's very easy to be influenced by the narrative that media spin and selective reporting creates.  For example, though I'm not a big fan of Rubio, and don't trust him after his "gang of eight" betrayal despite his protestations that he's rethought his position on amnesty - I thought the Fox News media piled on a bit much over his exchange with Christie and the fact that he repeated his line about Obama being very deliberate in his destruction of the economy and diminishing the U.S. on the world stage.  The pundits insisted that this made Rubio look weak and as though he were simply reciting memorized talking points. They said Christie landed a decisive blow and diminished Rubio in that exchange.  What crap. To the contrary, I think that point needed to be made and deserved emphasis.  

Finally, yes - Trump's evasive non-answer to the eminent domain challenge issued by Bush was frustrating and cause for concern.  

Can't see this debate making any difference whatsoever in the voting results on Tuesday.  All this media hype and minute-by-minute analysis strikes me as nothing more than B.S. designed to fill air time and convince viewers they're getting deep insights where none exist.  Not unlike stock analysts with horribly wrong predictions' Monday morning quarterbacking explaining why the market moved up or down in retrospect.  How convenient for a gullible audience.  What these pundits say prior to the vote is often diametrically opposed to the explanations they offer after the results have come in, yet they never seem to be held to account for this.

[Crafty_Dog]

I too was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the questions.

[Crafty_Dog]

I find myself wondering why no one is going after Christie for not going after Trump.

Kasich might find strong resonance in NH.

[DougMacG]

http://theodysseyonline.com/colgate/you-know-youre-from-new-hampshire-when/186872

Since the whole game is to beat expectations let's set up the expectations:
1. Trump  2. Kasich  3. Rubio

Trump is polling at about 30%. If he hits high 30s, NH is a win for him.  30 or less with all this confusion among his competitors and his low ceiling is an insurmountable fact.

In the second position, Kasich, Bush and Christie bet the farm and have one shot to move up and onward.  One of them needs to hit 20%.

As for Rubio, he needs 3rd.  If they all pass him up then real damage was done.

If Cruz breaks into the top 3, its a win for him.  If he doesn't, he's a regional candidate who will have other strong states.

And if Trump, Cruz and Rubio finish 1, 2, 3 - again - the rest are irrelevant, just playing spoilers.

My two cents.

[DougMacG]

I enjoyed hearing Mark Levin rip Chris Christie last night.  Second highest taxed state in the nation and he supported Sonia Sotomayor.  '"I support her appointment to the Supreme Court and urge the Senate to keep politics out of the process and confirm her nomination."http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/15/chris-christie/marco-rubio-says-chris-christie-supported-sonia-so/

He changed positions on a lot of issues.  Levin had no shortage of material to work with . And they put together a montage of his repetitions.  

But senators just give speeches, don't have to make tough choices..

[ccp]

"But senators just give speeches, don't have to make tough choice"

But governors do not have to support SS court nominees either.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/01/11/ben-carson-entire-super-pac-staff-quit-and-joined-ted-cruz-campaign/mTaafD40dEsjPsbFiLrRpO/story.html?s_campaign=bcom:gigya:facebook

[Crafty_Dog]

Working from memory of a graphic on FOX this AM:

Cost per vote:

Hillary:  $120
Bernie:  $60

Bush:   $1200 
Christie $900   
Rubio   $500
Kasich 
Trump   $38   
Cruz      $19   

That's right, Bush spent approximately 50 times as much per vote as Cruz!

[Crafty_Dog]

The Left-Right Revolt
Sanders and Trump ride very different populist uprisings in New Hampshire.
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders speaks to supporters after winning the New Hampshire Democratic Primary on Feb. 9. ENLARGE
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders speaks to supporters after winning the New Hampshire Democratic Primary on Feb. 9. Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images
Feb. 9, 2016 11:52 p.m. ET
433 COMMENTS

Americans keep telling pollsters they’re unhappy—or worse—with their political leaders, and on Tuesday they proved it in New Hampshire by handing victories to a 74-year-old socialist and a blustery businessman with no political experience. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are still a long way from the White House, but their victories reveal parallel but very different popular revolts on the left and right.
***

The uprising on the left is perhaps most surprising given that Democrats hold the White House, and Hillary Clinton campaigned to build on President Obama’s record. But in New Hampshire the revolt was ideological and personal against Mrs. Clinton and the status quo.

Mr. Obama tilted before the Iowa caucuses toward Mrs. Clinton as his preferred successor, but New Hampshire shows that his Presidency has been a hot-house garden for nurturing progressives. According to the exit polls, nearly seven in 10 Democrats described themselves as liberal, up from 56% in 2008. Roughly a quarter described themselves as “very liberal,” and Mr. Sanders won them two to one.

Mr. Obama calls inequality the defining issue of our times, and Democrats believe him. A third of Democrats said it is the most important issue facing the country, and about 70% of those voted for Mr. Sanders.

Mrs. Clinton won the New Hampshire primary in 2008, but this year Democrats seem to have rejected her on personal and character grounds. Mr. Sanders won nine of 10 voters in the exit polls who said that only Mr. Sanders or neither of the two candidates were “honest and trustworthy.” The Clinton campaign has tried, as it always does, to plow through her email scandals by portraying them merely as Republican attacks. But even many Democrats don’t believe her anymore.

Mrs. Clinton now finds herself in a populist showdown she never anticipated and doesn’t play to her strengths. She’s best as a machine candidate of the unions, feminist volunteers and wealthy environmentalists. Mr. Sanders is motivating the younger liberals who were also drawn to Mr. Obama and who are voting for the Vermonter by three or more to one.

The Clinton campaign will console itself that the campaign now moves to states where the electorate will have more minorities and fewer gentry liberals. And to win the nomination Mr. Sanders will have to show that he can expand his support among minorities, especially the black voters who are so important in southern primaries.

The Vermont Senator’s other great obstacle is that many Democrats still fear that a self-avowed socialist can’t win in November. But that argument becomes less damaging as it becomes clearer that Mrs. Clinton has weaknesses that also could be fatal in the fall. As Republicans get closer to nominating the mercurial Mr. Trump, more Democrats may also conclude that even Mr. Sanders could win so why not take a chance on their true heart?

Which brings us to Mr. Trump and the revolt on the right. This is less about ideology and policies than the businessman’s political style and Republican disgust with Washington. The New Yorker dominated the field with some 34% of the vote as we went to press, while no other candidate broke into the high teens. The victory showed that, contrary to Iowa, Mr. Trump could translate polling leads into actual votes. And it showed that the ceiling in his support is higher than many Republicans have believed.

The businessman did especially well among voters without a college degree, but his support was strong across most demographic and ideological groups. He’s the choice of voters who like that he “tells it like it is” and think he can change Washington. But the exit polls also showed some signs of potential weakness. A little less than a third of his voters said they liked Mr. Trump but had reservations. And his share of voters who said he could best handle an international crisis was below his overall vote share.

As for the others, Mr. Trump will be happy that no clear alternative emerged. John Kasich’s investment in the Granite State—100 town halls—paid off with a second-place finish. The Ohio Governor did well among independents and especially moderates. His challenge going forward will be that there are fewer of both of those voting blocs as the primaries head to South Carolina next week and elsewhere in the South on March 1. He will have to raise money fast to be competitive, as well as show he can win over more conservative voters.

Jeb Bush spent heavily in the state and has to be disappointed to finish in the mix for third or fourth place as we went to press. He has been performing better in debates and has the money to fight on in South Carolina, but he will have to show he can beat Mr. Kasich and Marco Rubio to go much beyond that.

Mr. Rubio may be the most disappointed by Tuesday’s result because the Florida Senator couldn’t build on his Iowa surge and suffered from his debate brain-freeze on Saturday. More late deciders turned to other candidates, and some two-thirds said that debates influenced their votes.

Ted Cruz also failed to capitalize on his Iowa victory, notably in failing to make inroads among voters who aren’t evangelicals or very conservative. The Texas Senator will find more fertile territory in the South, but his showing in New England bodes ill for winning swing states if he is the GOP nominee in November.
***

All of which means that New Hampshire hasn’t performed its traditional role of winnowing the field as much as usual. Chris Christie will find it hard to continue after his sixth-place finish, as will also-rans Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina. The rest have a case to fight on. But one big lesson of New Hampshire is that if the non-winners want to become the GOP nominee, they will sooner rather than later have to stop attacking each other and start educating voters about Donald J. Trump

[ccp]

"Which brings as to Trump and the revolt on the right.  This is less about ideology and policies than the businessman’s political style and Republican disgust with Washington. "

Depends what one means about ideology.  I suppose if one means strict "conservatism" or strict "constitutionalism", I would agree.

But if one means the ideology of putting America first, dealing with the world with our interests first, immigration, loss of jobs overseas, trade deals that may not be the best for us, being wimps with other countries, no giving ourselves away for globalization then I would say ideology has a lot to do with Trump.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://usuncut.com/news/the-dnc-superdelegates-just-screwed-over-bernie-sanders-and-spit-in-the-faces-of-voters/

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268935-clinton-likely-to-leave-nh-with-same-number-of-delegates

[ccp]

I saw this too.

yet we have BSers still saying they don't understand what is meant by "establishment" .  That it is merely a myth   

Just like steroids is not rampant in the NFL , UFC etc.

Just like there is no theft in entertainment industry.

Just like those who insist Hillary is honest.

I could go on.

[Crafty_Dog]

GOP Infighters Need to Focus on Trump
The four mainstream candidates are only wasting time if they go after each other.
Donald Trump on Tuesday in Manchester, N.H., after winning the New Hampshire Republican primary. ENLARGE
Donald Trump on Tuesday in Manchester, N.H., after winning the New Hampshire Republican primary. Photo: Jim Bourg/Reuters
By Karl Rove
Feb. 10, 2016 6:48 p.m. ET
53 COMMENTS

Tuesday’s outcome in New Hampshire means two things: First, Donald Trump, while not unstoppable, is more likely than any other Republican to be the GOP nominee. Bet on Donald, but heavier on the field. Second, Bernie Sanders will win plenty of delegates, enough to influence the Democratic platform.

Mr. Trump had a very good night. He outperformed his poll numbers, receiving 35% of the vote, four points higher than his Real Clear Politics average going into Tuesday. The businessman ran equally well among Republicans and independents (who can vote in the state’s open primary).

The Donald’s tone in his victory speech was much improved. He movingly paid tribute to his parents. Gone were incessant references to polls. So, too, were insults about his competitors, replaced by praise of them as “really talented people . . . terrific.”

Mr. Trump even strung together a rudimentary platform, pledging to negotiate better trade deals, take care of veterans, build a border wall, replace ObamaCare, create jobs and “knock the hell out of ISIS.” He now must flesh out and defend these platitudes, as Republicans hit him for supporting single-payer health care and saying that he won’t increase the defense budget.

Second-place finisher John Kasich benefited enormously from having hosted 106 New Hampshire town halls, a feat he cannot replicate in South Carolina before its Feb. 20 primary. The Ohio governor is likely a one-state candidate—or, at best, a regional one, with future strength only in the central Midwest.

The overwhelming nature of Mr. Trump’s victory threatens Tuesday’s third-place finisher, Ted Cruz. He played down his chances in New Hampshire but quietly focused on carrying the state’s evangelicals, who made up 23% of the GOP turnout. Even so, Mr. Trump beat Mr. Cruz among evangelicals, 28% to 24%. If that happens in South Carolina, and in the southern “SEC primaries” on March 1, the Texas Senator is toast. Mr. Cruz must confront the New York hotelier, and not just on social issues as he pledged to do Tuesday night.

Then there are the Floridians, former Gov. Jeb Bush, finishing fourth, and Sen. Marco Rubio, fifth. After his surprise Iowa performance, Mr. Rubio was expected to do well in New Hampshire—until his robotic meltdown in Saturday’s debate. Now Mr. Bush is the one with a semblance of momentum.

The Granite State winnowed the GOP field to those five. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina dropped out Wednesday. Poor showings and an empty war chest will end the candidacy of surgeon Ben Carson. Still, five candidates is too many. If they all hang on until mid-March, the chances of nominating a mainstream Republican may dissipate.

Messrs. Kasich, Cruz, Bush and Rubio must resist the temptation to go after one another—which only wastes vital time—and instead concentrate fire on Mr. Trump. South Carolina is a great venue to pop him on defense spending and health care. They must also bring up the front-runner’s greatest weakness: Americans have never elected a serial bankrupt. Populist South Carolinians may not understand why, when Mr. Trump’s companies went under, such a wealthy man didn’t dip into his fortune to do right by the people who were hurt.

There is also Mr. Trump’s claim to be a great businessman: His casinos never reported a profit. The only person who may have made big money on them was The Donald, when he sold. So far Mr. Trump’s response to the bankruptcy charge has been that he “took advantage of the laws.” Thoroughly airing the issue will provide an opportunity for him to give a better answer—or for Republicans to decide they don’t want a nominee with such baggage.

Democrats are also in a pickle. Mr. Sanders beat Hillary Clinton across the board: among voters of both genders and most racial, age, education, income and ideological groups. Mrs. Clinton won only voters 65 and older and those making over $200,000 a year.

The self-proclaimed socialist celebrated by promising a raft of free things, and stirring up envy and class resentment. He is firmly inside Hillary Clinton’s head, causing her to offer a paler version of his left-wing agenda. Still, she leads in states coming up, where the Democratic electorate is not 93% white, as in New Hampshire. And even Democrats may realize how toxic his socialist vision is.

If you had predicted last summer that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders would overwhelmingly win New Hampshire, you might have been placed in an institution. Now, you would be seen as prophetic.

Mr. Rove helped organize the political-action committee American Crossroads and is the author of “The Triumph of William McKinley: Why the 1896 Election Still Matters” (Simon & Schuster, 2015).

[Crafty_Dog]

second post

Donald Trump Among the Canaries
Trump owns persona. His opponents have to go after him on policy and substance.
Wonder Land Columnist Dan Henninger on the results of the state’s Republican presidential primary. Photo credit: Getty Images.
By Daniel Henninger
Feb. 10, 2016 6:56 p.m. ET
162 COMMENTS

The one reliably true thing we are witnessing in this 2016 election season is a bipartisan repudiation of Barack Obama’s presidency.

When Democratic voters in Iowa and New Hampshire vote for a socialist senator because 79% of them say they are worried about the direction of the economy, the incumbent president’s seven years in office takes the fall.

When Republican voters make clear that their state of angst and anger is such that they will cast their unhappy lot with Donald Trump, that reflects disgust with Barack Obama’s conduct of the American presidency.

This isn’t raised merely to throw sand on Mr. Obama’s last year. It is more serious than that. New Hampshire’s voters, all present for the Obama experience, are the canaries in the coal mines of American political life.

Just as dying canaries warned coal workers that the shaft was filling with toxic gases, New Hampshire’s voters have told the political status quo, to coin a phrase, you are killing us.

Donald Trump owns the 35% of the Republican electorate that is hacked off about everything. In nearly every exit-poll category—age, ideology, the economy, terror—Mr. Trump has at least 35% secured.

What this means for the other candidates is they cannot possibly compete with Donald Trump on his terms, on display in his victory speech Tuesday, which began contained and ended semi-unhinged.

A story from the political past will illustrate. In 1958, when George Wallace, then considered something of a Southern liberal, lost the Alabama governorship to a segregationist candidate, he remarked, “I will never be out-segged again.” Wallace became the premier angry-man populist of his era, running in four presidential races.

No one is going to out-rant Donald Trump about the state of America. Chris Christie got in as the tough-guy candidate. He’s gone, unable to compete with the Marvel Comics character Donald Trump created.

Ted Cruz especially had better reflect. Mr. Cruz’s path to the nomination runs through the Southern states and leans heavily on evocative rhetoric and buzzwords—primarily immigration and attacking Washington and “them.”

But Donald Trump owns all of that, and will so long as four or five candidates are dispersing the other 65% of the GOP vote. Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio have the money and mutual animosity to go on. Ben Carson won’t quit. John Kasich is talking about winning Michigan—in a month.

If Mr. Trump’s persona is impermeable, the other candidates will have to go after him on substance.

Mr. Trump has been floating in an inch-deep pool of policy and shows no inclination to expand his pre-existing knowledge of anything. It will require patience and persistence, but his opponents have no choice but to start challenging the implications of what he says and criticizing it in detail.

At the core of the Trump campaign is one policy idea: imposing a 45% tariff on goods imported from China. In his shouted, red-faced victory speech Tuesday, he extended the trade offensive to Japan and Mexico.

Some detail: Combining the value of goods we sell to them and they to us, China, Mexico and Japan are the U.S’s Nos. 1, 3 and 4 trading partners (Canada is No. 2). They are 35% of the U.S.’s trade activity with the world. The total annual value of what U.S. producers—and of course the workers they employ—sell to those three countries is $415 billion.

Wal-Mart has 1.4 million U.S. employees in stores filled with foreign-made consumer goods. With a 45% price increase, many won’t be working for long.

Mr. Trump says the threat alone of a tariff will cause China to cave. Someone should ask: What happens if they don’t cave? Incidentally, unlike Mexico, China has between 200 and 300 nuclear warheads and 2.4 million active-duty forces. Irrelevant?

He said Tuesday about drugs: “We’re going to end it at the southern border. It’s gonna be over.” How?

He said: “I am going to be the greatest jobs president that God ever created.” How?

Another campaign venue Donald Trump owns is the national debates. In New Hampshire, 67% said the debates were important to their decision, suggesting the debates are backing out retail politics. If so, the survivor candidates need a new debate strategy.

They will always finish behind Donald Trump if they let the moderators design their performances by making the debate a pinball machine, as ABC did in New Hampshire. The randomness, baiting and irrelevance (immigration, the inevitable debate whipping post is the lowest-rated issue in exit polls) make it hard for voters to shape an impression beyond persona, which Mr. Trump owns.

Iowa and New Hampshire revealed there are three GOP voting issues in the primaries: economic anxiety, Islamic terrorism and voters’ emotional belief in their candidate. A competitive Trump opponent will find a way to drive those subjects—and ignore the rest—across two hours in 30 to 60-second increments.

Donald J. Trump reinvented modern media politics. Somebody has about three months to reinvent his invention