After getting shellacked by Donald Trump on Super Tuesday with a win in only one state — and let’s be honest, Minnesota is just barely a state — Senator Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) made the cable rounds hoping to spin his way out of a campaign that is now in very serious trouble. Even Rubio’s super PAC over at Fox News wasn’t buying it. But CNN’s Jake Tapper could hardly contain his disbelief at Rubio’s Rain Man-ian spin.
Near the end of the interview, Tapper just came out and asked, “I’m wondering if there’s a certain amount of denial that you’re in about this race?”
This was the look on Tapper’s face just before he asked the question.
—
—
Tapper: Senator, you keep saying that, and [Trump] keeps winning states, and you’re talking about Virginia and that’s another state that Donald Trump won. I’m wondering if there’s a certain amount of denial that you’re in about this race.
Rubio: No, Jake. We’re in the winner-take-all phase of this. Up you know this is about delegate count. You know in a usual race you’d have a front-runner and people would be saying you need to drop out and rally around the front-runner. What people are saying is fight as hard as you can…
After the interview Tapper said, “Call it determination, call it denial — Senator Marco Rubio.”
Sunday, former GOP presidential candidate Steve Forbes heaped praise on GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump’s on Sunday radio show “The Cats Roundtable” on AM 970 in New York.
Forbes speculated union leaders would support Hillary Clinton, but “the rank and file, a big chunk of them are going to go their own way.”
He explained to show host John Catsimatidis, “Trump, even as he criticizes and throws out charges and all that kind of thing, he always ends up on an upbeat note about the USA. People want that, people want to hear that. They’re tired of all this gloom and doom, and ‘the U.S. is going in a trash heap.'”
The magazine publisher then spoke out against the tax plan of
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)
79%
, calling it “the worst tax plan” of the GOP field.
A new round of polling from three Super Tuesday states shows Donald Trump dominating the Republican contest, with
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) locked in tight battles for second. These early polls show Trump leading in a diverse set of states across the country, including: Georgia, Vermont, and Massachusetts.
In Georgia, with the second biggest number of Super Tuesday delegates after Texas, Trump has 32 percent support, a 9 point edge over second place Marco Rubio with 23 percent. Ted Cruz is third with 19 percent support. Trump has gained 5 points in support since the last Georgia poll in early February, but his 9 point margin has stayed flat as Rubio has also gained. Cruz has gained just 1 point since the beginning of the month.
Trump and Rubio are tied in the Atlanta metro-area, while Trump has a large 15 point lead in the rest of the state. Another interesting aspect of the poll is that Rubio is running last, even behind Kasich and Carson, among Republican voters 40 or younger.
In the Super Tuesday states in New England, Massachusetts and Vermont, Trump has large leads against the rest of the field. In Massachusetts, Trump draws an overwhelming 50 percent of the likely Republican primary vote. Rubio is a distant third with just 16 percent, followed by Kasich at 12 percent and Cruz at 10 percent.
Unsurprisingly, the top issue for Massachusetts Republicans is “dissatisfaction with government,” picked by 35 percent of voters. The next most important issue, at 20 percent, is the economy. Almost half of Massachusetts Republican voters, 44 percent, say Ted Cruz is the “least honest” of the candidates. Trump is the second “least honest” at 20 percent.
In Vermont, Trump has a 15 point lead over second-place Marco Rubio. Trump has 32 percent, followed by Rubio with 17. Ted Cruz is in third with 11 percent, followed closely by John Kasich with 10 percent.
There are two enormous caveats to theVermont poll, however. The poll was conducted over a two-week period, February 3-17 and the Republican sample is tiny. The poll sample is only 151 likely Republican voters. The margin of error in the poll is 9 percent, almost high enough to render the poll meaningless.
In addition, the poll was conducted before Jeb Bush dropped out of the Presidential race. He earned 8 percent support in this poll. It isn’t at all clear where his support will go before Super Tuesday.
A total of 11 states will vote in the Republican contest on Super Tuesday, March 1st. A twelth state, Colorado will vote for delegates that day, but won’t vote for a Presidential candidate. The Colorado delegates will go to the convention “unaffiliated.”
All other polling of Super Tuesday states is from early February or earlier in the campaign. These earlier polls provide a base-line of each candidate’s support, but tells us little of the race today. In these, Ted Cruz led in two, Texas and Arkansas. Rubio led in Minnesota. Donald Trump led in Alabama, Alaska, Oklahoma and Virginia.
No Republican candidate for President has swept all of the Super Tuesday contests since Bob Dole in 1996. Donald Trump, however, is currently near accomplishing that feat. If Cruz can hold onto his leads in Arkansas and Texas, however, he will likely win sufficient delegates to keep the contest competitive and undecided throughout March.
by MATTHEW BOYLE 13 Feb 2016GREENVILLE, South Carolina
GREENVILLE, South Carolina — Corey Lewandowski, the campaign manager for 2016 GOP frontrunner billionaire Donald Trump, bashed the Republican National Committee (RNC) for stacking the debate audience here with pro-amnesty consultant class party donor figures.
Lewandowski told Breitbart News in the spin room after the debate:
I think the RNC does a terrible job in allocating the tickets, to be honest with you, There’s an opportunity—there’s 2,000 seats out there, there’s six candidates on stage, they should just divide them evenly so everyone has them, but instead they just give them to the donor class, they give them to the lobbyists and to all the special interests. It’s not fair, it’s not equitable. So I think what they should do moving forward is take the total number of seats available, allocate them across the board and let the candidates bring their people in, because that’s who should be here, not the donors.
Repeatedly throughout the debate, the audience cheered as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and his protegé Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) consistently and repeatedly made the case to grant amnesty to illegal aliens, while the audience oddly booed both Trump andSen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) as they made eloquent cases against amnesty.
“I don’t think it’s representative of the people of South Carolina,” Lewandowski added. “Those who don’t have the resources to give large sums of money to the RNC didn’t get a ticket here tonight and that’s a shame on the RNC.”
Trump’s campaign was hardly the only one upset with how the debate turned out as it relates to how audience tickets are handed out. Both Reps. Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) andRep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) bashed the establishment for stacking the audience with donor class folks not representative of America or of South Carolina’s electorate. Duncan and Meadows have both endorsed Cruz for president and were representing his campaign in the spin room.
“I was a little disappointed in CBS and the moderators in that they kind of let the debate and the crowd get out of control,” Duncan told Breitbart News, adding that the pro-amnesty cheers and boos aren’t representative of his state.
“It doesn’t represent the voters of South Carolina,” Duncan said. “Definitely, the room was stacked for Rubio—there’s no doubt about it, especially from where I was sitting. But look, I thought Ted Cruz had a great night and I thought he made a great point about the economy and about how he’d unleash an unbridled entrepreneurial spirit with less taxes and less regulation.”
When asked if the party was trying to game the system to help the establishment candidates like Rubio and Bush, Duncan said “yeah” but added that it probably won’t work, since most of the audience were donors imported into the state by party bosses.
“It depends on how it came across on TV,” Duncan said. “This is a small smattering of folks, and most of them are not from South Carolina. I don’t think Donald Trump had a great debate—he came across to a South Carolina audience as a little brash.”
Meadows added that he thinks the debate lacked focus on issues that people from Main Street—not from K Street or Wall Street, like the donor class—care about. Meadows said:
Obviously it was a fairly contentious debate as you start to see that, the feathers were flying so to speak. I think what most people want us to focus on are what’s going on on Main Street and what’s the key there. Being able to address those policy concerns, obviously it felt like Sen. Cruz had a very strong night tonight as he was able to articulate not only on national security but the economy as well—two things that affect not only the people of South Carolina but also my state of North Carolina and across the country.
Meadows added that the support for amnesty on display in the donor-packed audience this evening wasn’t just counter to South Carolina or North Carolina values, but run counter to American values.
“I can tell you from an amnesty standpoint, that’s not a South Carolina value, that’s not a North Carolina value—it’s really not a value that most people across the country support,” Meadows said. “I can tell you that no matter where you are on the immigration issue, ‘amnesty’ is that word that quite turns most people the other way. So I was surprised to hear some of the clapping as it related to that, perhaps an uninformed clap.”
Meadows also said that he doesn’t think an audience of ordinary people on Main Street would have applauded amnesty plans from Rubio and Bush while booing Trump and Cruz being against amnesty, as happened in the audience this evening.
“It’s hard to say—I can tell you that when you go on Main Street and you’re not at a debate, the amount of applause you got to hear on different topics doesn’t necessarily correspond to what you heard in the auditorium tonight,” Meadows said.
The RNC’s Sean Spicer, asked to comment on these concerns from the two top-polling presidential campaigns here in South Carolina—the only two campaigns to have actually won a state, Iowa or New Hampshire, that has voted already—said that while party donors did receive tickets this was the best debate yet for candidates.
“Each candidate received the greatest number tickets than any prior debate and overall the candidates received the largest share of tickets,” Spicer said in an email.
Spicer hasn’t answered, however, if future debates will see candidates represented better–and if the party will do as Lewandowski is calling for by eliminating donor tickets and giving them exclusively and evenly to the campaigns.
Earlier in the day, before the debate, Spicer told Breitbart News exclusively that there were 1,600 seats in the audience and only 600 tickets were divided among the campaigns. State party and local officials got 550 tickets, while the RNC got 367 tickets. Another hundred tickets were given to the debate partners, CBS News, the Peace Center, and Google.
On Tuesday night, the establishment of both parties got hammered. On the Democratic side of the aisle, the most establishment candidate in American history, Hillary Rodham Clinton, got demolished by a 74-year-old loonbag socialist – she’s currently losing by more than 20 points in the state that saved her campaign in 2008, and a state she led by 56 points one year ago.
Hillary lost among voters of every age group up to 65 and over; she got cleaned by an 85 percent to 14 percent margin among young voters. She lost with every income bracket except those earning over $200,000. She lost among men; she lost among women. There will be plenty of women in hell for failing to vote Hillary tonight. Voters who worried most about honesty voted for Sanders by a margin of 91 percent to 5 percent for Hillary; for which candidate cares more about people like them, they said Sanders by an 82 percent to 17 percent margin.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, Donald Trump destroyed the competition. He more than doubled the second-place finisher, Ohio Governor and black belt fruit ninja John Kasich, winning 35 percent of the vote to Kasich’s 16 percent. Senator Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), whom the establishment despises, finished a surprising third with 12 percent of the vote, despite spending well under $1 million in the state in television advertising. Cruz actually won about the same percentage as fourth-place finisher Jeb! Bush, who spent $35 million on television advertising in the state. Cruz was rightly celebratory:
Thank you New Hampshire for tonight’s result, which has left the Washington Cartel utterly terrified.
Senator Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who had all the momentum coming out of Iowa and a hearty dose of media love as well, apparently blew all of it with his debate gaffe last Saturday night: he came in a distant fifth in a state in which he needed to take silver. He admitted that New Hampshire was a massive disappointment, and vowed never to do this poorly again:
Our disappointment tonight is not on you. It’s on me. I did not do well on Saturday night. So listen to this, that will never happen again.
All of this is setting up perfectly for a final establishment meltdown in South Carolina.
In 2008, Hillary lost her campaign for the presidency by winning a majority of the white vote but losing the ethnic minority vote in a landslide. This time around, the math has almost entirely reversed: she must win ethnic minorities in order to wrest the nomination away from the Old Man Howling At The Moon. She made clear tonight that she would pander as hard as she needed to in order to accomplish that mission:
We also have to break through the barriers of bigotry. African-American parents shouldn’t have to worry that their children will be harassed, humiliated, even shot because of the color of their skin….when children anywhere in our country go to bed hungry, or are denied a quality education, or who face abuse or abandonment, that diminishes all of us. That’s why I did start my career at the Children’s Defense Fund. That’s why I went undercover in Alabama to expose racism in schools. That’s why I worked to reform juvenile justice in South Carolina. And that is why I went to Flint, Michigan, on Sunday.
She’s about five minutes away from breaking out her down home accent for a few church visits in Charleston. She’ll need them, given Sanders’ upcoming meeting with racial conflagrationist Al Sharpton and the endorsement of radical racial figure Harry Belafonte.
Meanwhile, look for Hillary to beg President Obama desperately for an endorsement. Look for him to hold off until after South Carolina.
The Republican race in South Carolina now swings heavily against the establishment. The only two candidates with a win under their belt are Cruz and Trump – and no Republican candidate has won the nomination without taking either Iowa or New Hampshire since the primary and caucus system began in 1976.
Perhaps that changes, but it’s difficult to see precisely how. Kasich has no ground game outside of New Hampshire; he’s angling for a vice presidential slot. Chris Christie has already suspended his campaign. Jeb! is sticking around – he said tonight that New Hampshire had “reset the race” — but voters dislike Jeb! more than anyone else in the field, and he’s likely to split votes with Kasich and Marco Rubio. Rubio still hopes to boost in South Carolina, but his lackluster finish in New Hampshire won’t help him one iota.
Which means South Carolina is now a two-man race: Trump vs. Cruz. That’s the establishment’s worst nightmare.
Hillary Clinton is down to her last stand in South Carolina. And the Republican establishment’s last stand may just have taken place in New Hampshire.
Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News, Editor-in-Chief of DailyWire.com, and The New York Times bestselling author, most recently, of the book,The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.
On Tuesday night, the establishment of both parties got hammered. On the Democratic side of the aisle, the most establishment candidate in American history, Hillary Rodham Clinton, got demolished by a 74-year-old loonbag socialist – she’s currently losing by more than 20 points in the state that saved her campaign in 2008, and a state she led by 56 points one year ago.
Hillary lost among voters of every age group up to 65 and over; she got cleaned by an 85 percent to 14 percent margin among young voters. She lost with every income bracket except those earning over $200,000. She lost among men; she lost among women. There will be plenty of women in hell for failing to vote Hillary tonight. Voters who worried most about honesty voted for Sanders by a margin of 91 percent to 5 percent for Hillary; for which candidate cares more about people like them, they said Sanders by an 82 percent to 17 percent margin.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, Donald Trump destroyed the competition. He more than doubled the second-place finisher, Ohio Governor and black belt fruit ninja John Kasich, winning 35 percent of the vote to Kasich’s 16 percent. Senator Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), whom the establishment despises, finished a surprising third with 12 percent of the vote, despite spending well under $1 million in the state in television advertising. Cruz actually won about the same percentage as fourth-place finisher Jeb! Bush, who spent $35 million on television advertising in the state. Cruz was rightly celebratory:
Thank you New Hampshire for tonight’s result, which has left the Washington Cartel utterly terrified.
Senator Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who had all the momentum coming out of Iowa and a hearty dose of media love as well, apparently blew all of it with his debate gaffe last Saturday night: he came in a distant fifth in a state in which he needed to take silver. He admitted that New Hampshire was a massive disappointment, and vowed never to do this poorly again:
Our disappointment tonight is not on you. It’s on me. I did not do well on Saturday night. So listen to this, that will never happen again.
All of this is setting up perfectly for a final establishment meltdown in South Carolina.
In 2008, Hillary lost her campaign for the presidency by winning a majority of the white vote but losing the ethnic minority vote in a landslide. This time around, the math has almost entirely reversed: she must win ethnic minorities in order to wrest the nomination away from the Old Man Howling At The Moon. She made clear tonight that she would pander as hard as she needed to in order to accomplish that mission:
We also have to break through the barriers of bigotry. African-American parents shouldn’t have to worry that their children will be harassed, humiliated, even shot because of the color of their skin….when children anywhere in our country go to bed hungry, or are denied a quality education, or who face abuse or abandonment, that diminishes all of us. That’s why I did start my career at the Children’s Defense Fund. That’s why I went undercover in Alabama to expose racism in schools. That’s why I worked to reform juvenile justice in South Carolina. And that is why I went to Flint, Michigan, on Sunday.
She’s about five minutes away from breaking out her down home accent for a few church visits in Charleston. She’ll need them, given Sanders’ upcoming meeting with racial conflagrationist Al Sharpton and the endorsement of radical racial figure Harry Belafonte.
Meanwhile, look for Hillary to beg President Obama desperately for an endorsement. Look for him to hold off until after South Carolina.
The Republican race in South Carolina now swings heavily against the establishment. The only two candidates with a win under their belt are Cruz and Trump – and no Republican candidate has won the nomination without taking either Iowa or New Hampshire since the primary and caucus system began in 1976.
Perhaps that changes, but it’s difficult to see precisely how. Kasich has no ground game outside of New Hampshire; he’s angling for a vice presidential slot. Chris Christie has already suspended his campaign. Jeb! is sticking around – he said tonight that New Hampshire had “reset the race” — but voters dislike Jeb! more than anyone else in the field, and he’s likely to split votes with Kasich and Marco Rubio. Rubio still hopes to boost in South Carolina, but his lackluster finish in New Hampshire won’t help him one iota.
Which means South Carolina is now a two-man race: Trump vs. Cruz. That’s the establishment’s worst nightmare.
Hillary Clinton is down to her last stand in South Carolina. And the Republican establishment’s last stand may just have taken place in New Hampshire.
Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News, Editor-in-Chief of DailyWire.com, and The New York Times bestselling author, most recently, of the book,The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.
The latest Monmouth University poll of New Hampshire shows Donald Trump continuing to lead the GOP field by a double-digit margin.
The poll, however, shows a very tight race for second place, with Jeb Bush surging 9 points since Monmouth’s last survey in January.
Trump leads the field with 30 percent support, essentially unchanged since Monmouth’s last poll in early January. Ohio Gov. John Kasich is second with 14 percent support, also unchanged since early January. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) has 13 percent support, up just one point in the last month. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has 12 percent, down just two points since the beginning of the year.
The momentum seems to be with Jeb Bush, who has surged 9 points in the last month. Bush has moved from 4 percent support in early January to 13 percent support today. He is tied with Marco Rubio for third.
Considering the poll’s 4.4 percent margin of error, New Hampshire currently has a four-way race for second. Kasich, Rubio, Bush and Cruz are all well positioned to finish runner up in Tuesday’s primary. Chris Christie is much further back with just 6 percent support, down slightly since January.
All the pundit talk about Marco Rubio having momentum going into Tuesday’s vote looks hollow against this poll. Rubio’s support level in the state is unchanged since November. The only significant change in New Hampshire since the Fall is growing support for both Bush and Ted Cruz and a collapse in support for Ben Carson.
Two notes of caution, however. The Monmouth poll was conducted before Saturday’s Republican debate, which may reshuffle the race for second and third in the state. Marco Rubio was widely acknowledged to have stumbled in the debate, while Govs. Bush, Kasich and Christie were perceived to have done well.
In addition, only 49 percent of likely Republican voters say they are certain in their vote. Almost one-third of voters, 31 percent say they have a “strong preference” in whom to support. Monmouth did a follow up survey after the Iowa caucus and found that just over half of those voters with a “strong preference” stuck with their candidate on election day.
“Volatility is the name of the game in 2016’s first primary contest, just as it was in the first caucus state last week. While Trump’s placement as the top finisher seems fairly secure at this point, the margin of victory and final order of the remaining candidates are still very much up for grabs,” Patrick Murray, director of Monmouth polling, said in a release.
Monmouth’s final poll in Iowa greatly overestimated Trump’s support and underestimated support for both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.
Almost half of likely Republican voters, 49 percent, say they have been personally contacted about supporting at least one of the Presidential hopefuls. This indicates a very active and robust ground game currently trying to turn the vote out for Tuesday’s election. This high level of retail politicking is a feature of New Hampshire’s primary.
It is also one of the reasons that the final outcome is so predictable. With so many voters making their ultimate decision in the final hours of the campaign, that “last touch” with voters can prove decisive.
Thursday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” host Joe Scarborough doubled down on the claim Republican presidential hopeful Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is the “Republican Obama.”
Scarborough pointed to the two arguments against Rubio when laying it out, explaining that Rubio was seen as an aspirational politician and that it is unclear what he represents.
“There are two arguments,” Scarborough said.” The first argument is, he is the Republican Obama and he really is. They anointed him, Time magazine anointed him the Republican savior before he threw his first pitch. And the second argument, which is a devastating argument that worked a long time ago in the state of Florida had to do with him being an empty suit. And I remember Florida Trend had just an empty suit and it asked whether a certain senator from the state of Florida was an empty suit. It was devastating.”
Later in the segment, Scarborough compared him to then-Sen. Barack Obama of 2008.
“Both of whom, the second they get to Washington, DC, decided they were running for president instead of deciding they were going to be,” he added. “Please, give me a list of accomplishments of every candidate, put it up there next to him and let’s see who the emptiest suit is. There’s not really a competition.”
Wednesday’s cover ofLa Opinión, the nation’s largest daily Spanish-language newspaper, prominently portrays donor-class favoriteSen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) with the infamous “hope and change” imagery that defined Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.
The cover of the Spanish-language paper writes: “The Republican Obama? The surge of the Latino Senator in the presidential campaign has made him a target of criticism on the subject of immigration.”
Marco Rubio and Barack Obama share many of the same policy goals, such as Obamatrade and military intervention in Libya, but their most striking similarities are on the subject of immigration. Both men support citizenship for illegal aliens, expanded refugee resettlement, more green cards, more H-1B visas, and large permanent expansions to the rate of immigration and foreign worker importation.
Marco Rubio was the co-author of the 2013 Obama-backed immigration bill. Rubio’s immigration bill was endorsed by La Raza, the AFL-CIO, SEIU, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Mark Zuckerberg, and George Soros. Rubio has not renounced his support for a single policy item outlined in the Gang of Eight bill—including his desire to triple green card issuances, double foreign worker visas, and grant citizenship to illegal immigrants.
Rubio has even borrowed much of the language of the Obama’s campaign—prompting Joe Scarborough to mock the young Senator. Following the Iowa caucus, “Morning Joe” replayed Obama’s 2008 acceptance speech celebrating his victory at the Iowa caucus and juxtaposed that with Rubio’s strikingly similar Iowa speech celebrating his campaign’s ability to inch up to third place.
“You know, I have said for a year that he is the Republican Obama,” Scarborough said. “He is the Republican Obama and he just stole the speech… In my opinion having somebody with little experience before they become president has not actually been great.”
However, there is one important distinction between Rubio and Obama. Obama represented the core views of his most ardent base, and presented a vehicle for turning his base’s dreams into reality. By contrast, the Republican base is overwhelmingly opposed to large-scale immigration, amnesty and refugee resettlement—the pillars of Rubio’s campaign. It is the GOP’s donor base, not its voter base, that supports these policies.
In that sense, Rubio is the “Obama” for Republican donors, but not the Republican Party’s actual voters. Indeed, whereas Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) lacked the Obama-esque tools to pass mass immigration for the donors in 2007, Rubio was able to bypass conservatism opposition and pass a bill with far more foreign workers through the Senate in 2013—using the affection of conservatives to neutralize opposition to a top donor class priority.
That may explain Rush Limbaugh’s prediction that, with Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)as Speaker and Marco Rubio as president, in the “first 12-to-18 months, the donor-class agenda [will be] implemented, including amnesty and whatever else they want.” Ironically, underscoring just how potent a tool Rubio can be for the donors, Rush—usually a voice of donor opposition—seemingly forgot his own warning and warmly embraced Rubio on his show. Rush’s earlier embrace of Rubio in 2013 may have helped give the Gang of Eight the boost of momentum it needed to pass the Senate.
DES MOINES (Reuters) - Texas Senator Ted Cruz was victorious in the first Republican nomination contest of the 2016 White House race, but there was another big winner in Iowa on Monday night: Florida Senator Marco Rubio and the Republican establishment.
For months, Cruz and Donald Trump’s brand of angry, scorched-earth, insurgent politics defined the race for the Republican presidential nomination, while more moderate candidates tussled with themselves to try to mount a challenge to them.
The hope among Republican party leaders has long been for a champion to emerge. And on Monday, that person was Rubio, who finished a hair behind Trump and only a few points behind Cruz.
When Rubio took the stage in a hotel ballroom after the final results were announced, he gave what amounted to a victory speech. “This is the moment they said would never happen,” the first-term senator said. “For months, they told us we had no chance.”
The fight for the nomination has unmistakably entered a new phase.
“We have a three-way race,” said Craig Robinson, the former political director of the Iowa Republican Party.
Rubio’s night shocked Iowa political observers like Robinson, who had predicted Rubio would wind up far behind Trump and Cruz, with perhaps around 15-18 percent of the vote. He finished with 23 percent.
Rubio's performance will strengthen his argument that supporters of other moderate, establishment candidates such as former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and Ohio governor John Kasich should throw their support, and their money, behind him.
Rubio could use the extra cash. His campaign committee raised just over $14 million from donors in the fourth quarter of 2015, putting him well behind Cruz, who brought in more than $20 million. To date, his campaign has raised nearly $40 million, while Cruz has raised $47 million.
Rubio’s Super PAC, which can raise unlimited funds as long as it does not coordinate directly with him, also trails the PACs supporting Cruz. It pulled in $30.5 million last year, while Cruz’s PACs raked in $42 million. Trump, a billionaire, largely self-funds his campaign.
Rubio's third place finish in Iowa means he "is the consensus establishment candidate," said Douglas Gross, a Republican strategist in Des Moines.
Rubio flew to New Hampshire on Monday evening and will likely begin making that argument to voters there ahead of the state's primary, or early nominating contest, on Feb. 10.
On the campaign trail in Iowa, Rubio railed at many of the same targets as Cruz and Trump: Islamic State, immigration and President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul, popularly known as Obamacare. But he embedded his criticism within a more optimistic, inclusive message. The American-born son of Cuban immigrants, Rubio would be the first Hispanic president.
“It’s not enough to just be angry,” Rubio told voters during last-minute campaigning in the weekend before the caucus vote. “Anger is not a plan. Anger is not solution.”
Iowans who supported Rubio at the caucuses told Reuters they responded to his positive message and viewed him as the best candidate to beat Hillary Clinton in the November election, should she be the Democratic nominee.
“I’ve been looking for someone who really will be an agent for change and I think Marco Rubio will be that guy,” said Kevin Huerkamp, 56, of Clive, Iowa.
According to election returns, Rubio swamped both Cruz and Trump in Iowa’s urban areas - Des Moines, Iowa City, Davenport -suggesting that he could prosper when the Republican race progresses to denser, more populated states such as Florida and Ohio.
(This story has been refiled to replace Rubio's name in last paragraph with Trump's)
(Additional reporting by Grant Smith, editing by Ross Colvin)
Donald Trump has overtaken Ted Cruz in the final days before Iowa's caucuses, with the fate of the race closely tied to the size of Monday evening's turnout, especially among evangelical voters and those attending for the first time, a Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register Iowa Poll shows.
The findings before the first ballots are cast in the 2016 presidential nomination race shows Trump with the support of 28 percent of likely caucus-goers, followed by 23 percent for the Texas senator and 15 percent for U.S. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida.
The billionaire real estate mogul leads Cruz among those who say they definitely plan to attend, 30 percent to 26 percent. With the less committed—those who say they'll probably attend—Trump also beats Cruz, 27 percent to 21 percent.
“Trump is leading with both the inner core of the caucus universe and the fringe—that’s what any candidate would want," said longtime Iowa pollster J. Ann Selzer, who oversaw the survey for the news organizations.
The poll's findings are based on 47 percent of those likely to attend considering themselves evangelical or born again Christians. When re-weighted as a scenario test for the higher evangelical turnout seen in 2012 entrance polls, the race is closer, with 26 percent for Trump and 25 percent for Cruz.
A Trump victory could significantly boost his chances of winning his party's nomination, while a second-place finish for Cruz would be a major setback for a candidate who has invested heavily in Iowa and enjoyed strong support from evangelical Christians who form a large part of the state’s electorate. Trump is dominating in polling in New Hampshire and South Carolina, the two states that follow Iowa in the nomination calendar.
Just two days before the first-in-the-nation caucuses, the race remains fluid, even after hundreds of campaign stops in Iowa, tens of millions of dollars of advertising and seven nationally televised debates.
More than half—55 percent—say their mind is made up, while 45 percent say they either don't have a first-choice candidate or could still be persuaded to pick someone else. In the final Iowa Poll before the 2012 Republican caucuses, 51 percent say they had their minds made up.
Trump's advantage over Cruz is a reversal of the race in the previous Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register Iowa Poll in early January, when he trailed 25 percent to 22 percent.
Under near constant attack from Trump since December, Cruz’s favorability rating has also dropped—by 11 points to 65 percent. Trump is viewed favorably by 50 percent, a four-point drop since the prior poll and the lowest of the top four candidates. Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson and Rubio are in the low 70s.
The crowded Republican field appears to be working against Cruz. If the race for the nomination eventually became a two-person race between Trump and Cruz, 53 percent of likely Republican caucus-goers would pick Cruz, while 35 percent would go with Trump.
"There's an appreciation for Cruz even among people who are voting in a different way," said Selzer, who is widely considered the state's top pollster. "For Trump, he might be able to win, in part because the field is as big as it is."
In fourth place is Carson, who is backed by 10 percent of likely Republican caucus-goers, followed by U.S. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky at 5 percent. No other candidate recorded above 3 percent.
At the time of his departure from the race in September, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker called on other candidates to also drop out, so that an establishment candidate could emerge with enough support to challenge Trump. Yet the combined support of candidates in that lane—Rubio, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Ohio Governor John Kasich and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie—is still less than Trump or Cruz.
Support for Rubio, who has emerged as the leading establishment candidate, remained flat as the caucuses near. In fact, over the four days of the survey, his support dropped the last two days.
Supporters of Trump are the most decided among the top three candidates, with 71 percent saying their mind is made up, compared to 61 percent for Cruz and 47 percent for Rubio. Trump also leads with most demographic groups measured by the poll, including those without college degrees, moderates and Catholics.
The poll's findings suggest Trump is inspiring new interest in the Republican caucuses: 40 percent of those in the survey say they'll be attending for the first time, the highest number recorded by the survey this election cycle. The last Iowa Poll before the 2012 caucuses showed 27 percent first-time caucus-goers.
Nearly one-third of Cruz’s supporters say they’d be attending for the first time, compared to half of Trump's supporters who say they'll be going for the first time, suggesting he has a greater challenge in turning out his supporters because veteran caucus-goers tend to be more reliable.
Cruz's drop from an Iowa Poll in early December—when he led the field at 31 percent—reflects a falloff in support across multiple demographic groups, including people who define themselves primarily as evangelical conservatives, where his backing dropped 12 percentage points. His support among the youngest and oldest also dropped and he lost 14 points in the Third Congressional District that includes parts of central and southwest Iowa, including the state capitol of Des Moines.
The poll suggests there could be growing Trump fatigue as well in a state he's visited often in recent months. Almost half of those likely to attend the Republican caucuses say they've become less comfortable with the idea of him winning the nomination, while 49 percent say that of his prospects of representing the U.S. to the rest of the world and 45 percent on his possibility of winning the presidency.
Likely caucus-goers are becoming more comfortable, meanwhile, with the prospects of Cruz doing those things, with roughly half saying they've moved that direction.
On candidate traits tested, Trump won on almost every question. He beats Cruz on being most feared by U.S. enemies (50 percent to 21 percent), potential to bring about needed change (37 percent to 21 percent), being a strong leader (32 percent to 23 percent), prospects for winning a general election (35 percent to 24 percent) and keeping "your family safest" (28 percent to 24 percent).
Cruz beats Trump on having the "greatest depth of knowledge and experience" (26 percent to 17 percent), as well as being respected by leaders of friendly countries (20 percent to 16 percent).
Two dramatic moves in the final weeks of the Iowa race appeared to make little difference. A plurality—46 percent—say they didn't care that Trump skipped the debate in Des Moines this week, while Iowa Governor Terry Branstad’s plea to defeat Cruz failed to sway 77 percent of likely Republican caucus-goers.
In a test of some other lines of attack that have been used against Cruz and Trump, the poll found varying strength.
Three-quarters of likely Republican caucus-goers say they're not bothered by the fact that Cruz had dual citizenship with Canada until recently, while almost two-thirds don't care that Cruz's personality is off-putting to some, including Senate colleagues from both parties.
A slim majority of 54 percent say they're bothered that Cruz failed to fully disclose up to $1 million in loans from Wall Street banks during his 2012 Senate run. Less than half—43 percent—were bothered by Cruz's position on the Renewable Fuel Standard.
Trump’s support for the use of eminent domain to take, in exchange for compensation, private property for public or private projects, was a concern for 60 percent of those polled. Nearly as many—56 percent—are bothered that in the past he supported abortion rights and said he wouldn't ban late-term abortions.
More than six in 10 aren't bothered by questions about Trump’s familiarity with the Bible, while almost two-thirds aren't bothered that some of his business have filed for bankruptcy.
With former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg considering an independent presidential bid, the poll tested his favorability ratings among likely Republican and Democratic caucus-goers.
The findings highlight some of the hurdles facing Bloomberg should he decide to enter the race. The former mayor isn't well known in the state among the most motivated voters in both parties, with 41 percent of likely Republican caucus-goers and 57 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers not knowing him well enough to share an opinion.
For those who do have an opinion, 50 percent of Republican caucus-goers have an unfavorable view, versus just 9 percent who hold a favorable opinion. Among those likely to attend the Democratic caucuses, that split was 26 percent unfavorable to 17 percent favorable.
Bloomberg was a three-term mayor of New York, twice as a Republican and finally as an independent, and is the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, parent of Bloomberg News.
The survey, conducted Jan. 26-29 by Selzer & Co. of West Des Moines, Iowa, included 602 likely Republican caucus participants and 602 likely Democratic caucus participants. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
1.Trump IOWA REP. TRUMP V CRUZ – RUBIO DEMS. SANDERS V CLINTON
-Katrina
Pierson (National Spokesperson) 15yrs ago Ted was Canadian Citizen. (1A)
-Rush On
Trump (1B)
-TRUMP
WILL NOT DO Thursday DEBATE.
a.Fox’s role via its founder Rupert Murdoch in
pus
hing an open borders agenda. The Trump campaign is a direct threat to
Murdoch’s efforts to open America’s borders. Well-concealed from virtually all
reporting on Fox’s treatment of Trump is the fact that Murdoch is the co-chair
of what is arguably one of the most powerful immigration lobbying firms in
country, the Partnership for a New American Economy (PNAE). JULIA HAHN Breitbart.
b.Megan Kelly and Moore (1C)then Bill Oreilly begs Trump (1D)
c.Fox News
and Google have invited three YouTube personalities to ask questions at the
Jan. 28 GOP debate — including a Muslim advocate who describes Donald Trump as
a bigot and who visually portrayed him as being in agreement with national
socialist Adolf Hitler.
d.Anchor
Baby Dulce Candy, the invited Latino questioner, said she was brought
from central Mexico to
the United States while a young girl. She later joined the U.S. military
and served in Iraq.
e.Pride Goeth Before the Fall: Ailes Calls Trump’s
Wife and Daughter
f.Scarborough: ‘I’d Rather Set Myself on Fire’
Than Participate in Debate With Megyn Kelly
g.Poll: More than 83 Percent Won’t Watch Fox News
Debate Sans Donald… However it turned out to be the second highest rating for
Fox prior to the debate on Fox Business.
-Iowa –
GOP Chairman Kaufmann, who wasn’t officially endorsing Trump for president
but is appearing with him on stage and introducing him, said that if Iowans
select Trump on Feb. 1, the party is fully committed to electing him president
of the United States.
-Laura
Ingram went off on National Review for trying to excommunicate Trump A
return to traditional GOP law and order practices when it comes to illegal
immigration.
a.A return to a more traditional GOP foreign
policy that would put the national interest ahead of globalism.
b.A return to a more traditional GOP trade policy
that would analyze trade deals from the perspective of the country as a whole
and not blindly support any deal — even one negotiated by President Obama.
-Shock
Poll: Ted Cruz Plummets with White Evangelicals ; Trails Donald Trump by 17
Points
-JOHN
NOLTE Breitbart National Review Goes Full-Snob: Attacks Donald Trump Voters as
Ignorant Bigots
a.After the massive belly-flop that was the
poorly thought out, very-poorly executed and way-late “Against Trump” diatribe
last week, “National Review” is apparently still so bitter that on Monday
morning another fatal decision was made — to attack everyday Americans as
stupid homophobes.
-Glenn Beck
– Tells Iowa small crowd he’d prefer Sanders of Trump
a.CEO resigns from the Blaze as it burns down.
b.Flashback John McCain worst for the country than
Obama.
-Conservative?
a.’99 pro-choice – ’15 Pro Life with reservations
on rape and incest
b.Immigration – Trump wants a wall, shutting down
remittances garnered from illegal wages, and foreign aid cuts. He wants strong
deportation policies and an end to birthright citizenship. Said we should take
some refugees but then stopped after seeing what Europe is going through and
that this maybe a Trojan horse.
c.Same-Sex Marriage. Trump says he’s
anti-same sex marriage
d.Entitlements. Unlike virtually all
the other Republican candidates, Trump has said he wouldn’t touch entitlements.
e.Religious Freedom. Trump pledges to
uphold religious freedom
f.Campaign Finance Reform. Trump is for
it, and he routinely attacks super PACs
g.Government Involvement In The Economy.
Trump himself supported Obama’s 2009 stimulus, TARP, and the 2008 auto bailout.
He said in 2009, “I think [Obama’s] doing very well. You do need stimulus and
you do have to keep the banks alive.” He’s admitted over and over to paying
elected officials to grease the skids on his deals – although, in fairness, he
says that’s just how you have to work to get business done.
h.Education. Trump opposes Common Core
i.Healthcare. In September he
told Hannity:As far as single-payer
and all — there’s so many different things you could have. Honestly, Sean, to
do, to have great health insurance. The one thing I do tell people, we’re going
to have something great. We’re going to repeal and replace Obamacare, which is
a total disaster.
j.Tax
Plan. Trump’s tax plan is
certainly conservative. He proposes lowering the top tax bracket to 25 percent,
drops the capital gains tax to 20 percent, dumps the death tax, and drops the
corporate rate to 15 percent
k.Trade. Trump
is for international tariffs, including an extraordinarily heavy tariff on
Chinese goods
l.Guns. Trump
has become progressively more pro-Second
Amendment over time. His website states: “The Second Amendment
to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms
shall not be infringed upon. Period.”
2.Bernie Sanders – Hillary
-Bernie Sanders Attacks 1%ers and Billionaire
a.However Sanders’ panel of experts was stacked
with economists tied to Soros. One prominent member advocates a “new economic
order” no longer dominated by the U.S., while another is the leading
proponent of the “shock therapy” economic doctrine of radical
economic transformation deployed at times to detriment in Eastern Europe.
-Vanity Fair did a puff piece on Hillary “She Can
Not Be Stopped”
-NYT throws in for Hillary
-Young kid says to Hillary we think you’re
dishonest (2A)
a.Chris Matthews talks about Bernie and the kids
calling Hill dishonest pos (2B)
-Clintons weren’t so bad??
a.Billwas
president he allowed Hillary to assume authority over health care reform she
count even get a vote in the democrat controlled congress cost $13million
b.Bill gave Hillary authority over selecting a
female attorney general. Both forced to withdraw then she chose janet reno
which bill described as “my worst mistake”
c.Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for
the head of the Civil Rights Commission.Lani Guanier was her selection.When a little probing led to the discovery of Ms. Guanier’s radical
views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration
d.Bill allowed Hillary to make some more
recommendations.She chose former law
partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White
House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department.Her selections went well: Hubbel went to
prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to
resign.
e.Travelgate.” Hillary wanted to award unfettered
travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson – and the White House Travel
Office refused to comply.She managed to
have them reported to the FBI and fired.This ruined their reputations, cost them their jobs, and caused a
thirty-six month investigation
f.FileGate: Hillary was allowed to recommend a
close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White
House security.When Livingstone was
investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies
and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the
president denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of
drug use in the White House.
g.“bimbo eruption” and scandal defense.Some of her more notable decisions in the
debacle were: She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit.After the Starr investigation they settled
with Ms. Jones. She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to
the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor.After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money
was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill
lying about and later admitting his affairs. Hillary’s devious game plan
resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for 'lying under oath' to a
grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives.
Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the
Starr investigation by repeating, “I do not recall,” “I have no recollection,”
and “I don’t know” a total of 56 times while under oath.
h.Hillary was forced to return an estimated
$200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen
i.Now we are exposed to the destruction of
possibly incriminating emails while Hillary was Secretary of State and the “pay
to play” schemes of the Clinton Foundation
3.Obam3.
-(CNSNews.com) - The debt of the federal
government increased by $8,314,529,850,339.07 in President Barack Obama’s first
seven years in office, according to official data published by the U.S.
Treasury.
a.That equals $70,612.91 in net federal borrowing
for each of the 117,480,000 households that the Census Bureau estimates were in
the United States as of September.
b.During President George W. Bush’s eight years in
office, the federal debt increased by $4,899,100,310,608.44, according to the
Treasury. That equaled $44,104.65 in net federal borrowing for each of the
111,079,000 households that, according to the Census Bureau, were in the
country as of Jan. 20, 2009, the day that Bush left office and Obama assumed
it.
