Tuesday, February 2, 2016

Ben Carson Accuses Ted Cruz of Dirty Tricks at Iowa Caucuses


LEADERSHIP BEN CARSON

by  

Tessa BerensonFEBRUARY 1, 2016, 11:54 PM EST

E-mail 

Tweet Facebook LinkedinShare icons

Republican presidential candidate Ben CarsonBrendan Hoffman—Getty Images

The Carson camp claimed Cruz’s team spread false rumors at caucus sites that Carson had dropped out.

Ben Carson was incensed as the results of Monday night’s Iowa caucuses rolled in, accusing the winner of spreading falsehoods about him at caucus sites.

Carson’s team claimed that Cruz’s campaign deliberately sent emails to supporters to spread false rumors at caucus sites that Carson had dropped out, so his supporters would caucus for other candidates.

“That is really quite a dirty trick,” Carson said speaking to reporters at the end of the evening. “That’s the very kind of thing that irritated me enough to get into this quagmire.”

“To have campaigns come out and send emails to their caucus speakers suggesting that Dr. Carson was doing anything but moving forward after tonight is the lowest of low in American politics,” said Carson campaign manager Ed Brookover.

“This is horseshit,” Rob Taylor, Iowa state representative and Carson’s Iowa co-chair, said simply.

Members of Carson’s team furnished evidence of various precinct captains alleging misconduct by the Cruz campaign.

Ryan Rhodes, Carson’s Iowa state director, showed reporters a text on his phone from Barbara Heki, a Mike Huckabee supporter. “The Cruz speakers at our caucus announced Carson was suspending his campaign for a while after caucus. They did this before the vote. Same thing happened at another caucus. Sounds like slimy Cruzing to me,” the text read.

Jason Osborne, Carson’s deputy senior strategist, read aloud another missive, this one an email from their precinct chair in Muscatine: “The guy speaking for Ted Cruz right before the vote, he was supposed to be done, he announced that there was a story on CNN that Ben Carson was taking a break after Iowa, and then stated, ‘So you might want to rethink wasting your vote on him.’”

Cruz’s team flatly denies the allegations. “That’s absurd,” spokesperson Catherine Frazier said simply.

With additional reporting by Alex Altman

This article was originally published on Time.com.

Cruz Draws First Blood

Getty

by BEN SHAPIRO1 Feb 20163,555

On Monday, Senator Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) performed the singular feat of simultaneously proving that a Republican can win Iowa without backing the ethanol boondoggle, and toppled The God Who Does Not Bleed, Donald Trump. Meanwhile, Senator Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) finished stronger than expected, beating poll estimates by six percentage points; Trump finished more than four percent below expectations, while Cruz finished nearly four percent above expectations.

Naturally, the media rushed to declare Rubio tonight’s big winner.

That’s nonsense. Cruz, the most consistent conservative in the race, was the big winner. Bronze isn’t gold. And as Trump has tweeted:

“No one remembers who came in second.” – Walter Hagen

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 30, 2013


Cruz had to win Iowa in order to remain competitive in future states. He dealt Trump a blow that will test Trump’s mettle, and withstood The Donald’s biggest campaign haymakers in order to do it. He beat back a media assault on him that ranged from his birthplace to his Goldman Sachs connections. “Iowa has sent notice that the Republican nominee…will not be chosen by the media, by the establishment, or by the lobbyists,” Cruz said.

We can only hope that’s true going forward.

What’s more, Cruz utilized a serious ground game and data plan to pound out a victory over a candidate with significantly more media exposure. Some may say that makes Trump look strong – he didn’t utilize the same resources. But that actually just demonstrates that boots on the ground always defeat an air-only campaign. As Cruz put it in his victory speech, “Tonight is a victory for the grassroots.” And Cruz worked those grassroots.

Cruz isn’t done yet, either. Unlike Mike Huckabee in 2008 or Rick Santorum in 2012, he has the resources to run a long, grueling campaign before he even begins. His campaign has $19 million on hand, more than any other candidate. He’s running second in South Carolina already to Trump, who will take a polling hit there. He’s currently tied for second in New Hampshire, and unhampered by the four-way crab pot that is the establishment lane. Should Trump hit the skids, Cruz will be right there to pick up the pieces – as he should be, given that he’s the man who put Trump on the mat.

Rubio, meanwhile, withstood approximately $20 million in Jeb! ad spends in Iowa designed to push down his polling numbers. That demonstrates that his candidacy is not merely viable, but durable – he can take a punch. Tonight was a solid night for Rubio. But he won’t really be tested until New Hampshire, where there are other major establishment candidates expending plenty of resources. Right now, he’s running even with Cruz, Ohio Governor John Kasich, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush. He’ll have to emerge from that scrum in a major way – and he’ll have to hope that Trump plummets in the meanwhile. The early primaries don’t favor Rubio. He’s biding his time, hoping to last until Florida and Super Tuesday; it could certainly happen. But his path is rougher than many members of the media assume.

As for Trump, he’s not finished yet. How could he be? He entered the caucuses today with a 4.7 percent lead in the RealClearPolitics poll average – but in New Hampshire, he’d have to drop more than 20 percentage points to even meet the rest of the field. Even Vermont Governor Howard Dean didn’t drop that much in New Hampshire after the infamous Dean Scream of 2004. Trump is still the frontrunner in New Hampshire – so the question becomes whether either Rubio or Cruz can build on their momentum from tonight.

The fight didn’t end tonight. It began. There are three viable candidates for the Republican nomination. But the frontrunner, at least for now, is no longer Donald Trump. It’s the best-organized, best-funded, most conservative member of the field: Cruz.

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.

Read More Stories About:

2016 Presidential Race

Monday, February 1, 2016

Jerry Falwell, Jr. in Iowa: Trump Has Wendy’s, Not Caviar, on His Plane

Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

by ALEX SWOYER31 Jan 2016Washington, DC94

GOP frontrunner Donald Trump drew a huge crowd in Council Bluffs, Iowa for his first campaign rally of the day on Sunday, joined by his family and Liberty University president Jerry Falwell, Jr.

Falwell joked about Trump loving Wendy’s cheeseburgers to the huge crowd of Trump supporters.

“I’m a country boy from Virginia,” Falwell said, adding that when he joined Trump on his plane he thought, “Here’s going to be champagne and caviar.”

“He broke out Wendy’s cheeseburgers and fries,” Falwell joked.

Trump also gave out the second disbursement of the $6 million that he raised on Thursday night’s veterans fundraiser to the organization “Partners with Patriot,” which trains service dogs for disabled veterans to help them live their daily lives.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government2016 Presidential Race,Donald TrumpJr.Jerry Falwell

George Soros gives $6 million to Hillary Clinton super PAC - CNNPolitics.com

Listen To Military Veteran Talk Radio


www.cnn.com


Soros, who backed Barack Obama in 2008 and has made some of the largest gifts to liberal causes this century, cut the $6 million check to Priorities USA, her top super PAC, on December 17, dipping his feet fully into the Clinton effort as she tries to beat back a surprisingly strong challenge from Bernie Sanders.


Sanders, for his part, raised more than $20 million in January, his campaign announced Sunday. Sanders campaign says its January haul, which will not be reported on Sunday's filing, came from more than 777,000 individual contributions.
All campaigns and super PACs must file their 2015 reports with the Federal Election Commission by the end of Sunday. Some are in good shape and will hype their numbers, especially their cash-on-hand heading into the month, in order to instill donor confidence in their campaign's ability to go the distance.
Sunday is also the first chance in six months to see what how much big donors like Soros are giving to super PACs, the outside groups that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of cash to help candidates.



Priorities USA said Friday it has raised $50 million through this month, with another $42 million in pledges. Clinton's campaign also announced it had $38 million on hand as of the end of the year.
Two other groups supporting Clinton, American Bridge and Correct the Record, brought in an additional $6 million total.
And while Sanders has sworn off super PACs, a group run by National Nurses United is backing the Vermont senator regardless and has raised $2.3 million, with about half of that remaining, the group reported.
Billionaires backing Marco Rubio
The best funded group of all, as of Sunday early afternoon, is Marco Rubio's super PAC, which raised nearly $16 million in the second half of 2015 and had about $14 million on hand.
Rubio in recent months has successfully courted some of the GOP's leading financiers, and it is showing.
Several individuals gave $1 million to the group, including Norman Braman, a Rubio mentor from Florida who has now given a total of $6 million to the super PAC.
And two new billionaire donors to Rubio's circle, Paul Singer and Ken Griffin, each gave $2.5 million.
Republican super PACs
The super PACs supporting Ben Carson and Rand Paul are poor, while the outside groups supporting Chris Christie and Ted Cruz are relatively rich, new campaign finance filings show.
Carson's main super PAC, The 2016 Committee, raised $6.1 million in the second half of 2016, but spent nearly all its money and retained only $560,000 as of December 31. And Rand Paul's authorized group, America's Liberty PAC, has been beset by scandal -- its top two operatives were once indicted -- and now has poor fundraising results: it only collected $1.4 million, with only about $830,000 on hand.
Other groups are in a stronger position: John Kasich's two super PACs, brought in over $3.6 million -- much of which through smaller, five-digit checks -- and had under $2 million remaining. Christie's group, America Leads, raised $5.1 million thanks to prominent hedge-funder Steve Cohen, who sank another $2 million to the super PAC. It still had $3.3 million on hand.
Stand for Truth, a mysterious pro-Cruz super PAC that formed only recently, revealed its donors on Sunday -- nearly half of the money raised by it came from the family of Adam Ross, a close Cruz friend from Texas. It still had $2.1 million in the bank.
All three of those groups, however, have spent much of their cash on television ads over the last month, which the reports would not capture.
COMMENTS

Ted Cruz’s Iowa Mailers Are More Fraudulent Than Everyone Thinks - The New Yorker

www.newyorker.com

With the Iowa caucus fast approaching, Senator Ted Cruz is in trouble for sending out letters telling voters in the state that they’re being graded on whether they vote. CreditCredit Photograph by Brendan Hoffman / Getty

Ted Cruz’s Presidential campaign prides itself on being data-centric and on integrating insights from political science into its tactics. In 2008, academics at Yale published an influential paper showing that one of the most effective ways to get voters to the polls was “social pressure.” Researchers found that registered voters in a 2006 primary election in Michigan voted at a higher rate if they received mailers indicating that their participation in the election would be publicized. The mailer that had the biggest impact included information about the two previous elections and whether the recipient and his or her neighbors participated or not. “We intend to mail an updated chart,” the mailer warned. “You and your neighbors will all know who voted and who did not.”

Insights from the Yale study have since been adopted by several campaigns, including MoveOn, which also faced criticism when it used the tactic to turn out voters for Barack Obama’s reëlection, in 2012. Given its obsession with political science, it’s no surprise that the Cruz campaign decided to adopt the “social pressure” techniques to turn out voters in Iowa for Monday night’s caucuses. On Saturday, Twitter came alive withpictures from voters in the state who received mailers from the Cruz campaign. At the top of the mailers, in a bold red box, are the words “VOTING VIOLATION.” Below that warning is an explanation:

You are receiving this election notice because of low expected voter turnout in your area. Your individual voting history as well as your neighbors’ are public record. Their scores are published below, and many of them will see your score as well. CAUCUS ON MONDAY TO IMPROVE YOUR SCORE and please encourage your neighbors to caucus as well. A follow-up notice may be issued following Monday’s caucuses.

Below that, a chart appears with the names of the recipient of the mailing as well as his neighbors and their voting “grade” and “score.”

A further explanation appears below the chart:

Voter registration and voter history records are public records distributed by the Iowa Secretary of State and/or county election clerks. This data is not available for use for commercial purposes – use is limited by law.Scores reflect participation in recent elections. [Emphasis added.]

After seeing the mailers, Iowa’s secretary of state, Paul Pate, issued astatement condemning Cruz’s tactic:

“Today I was shown a piece of literature from the Cruz for President campaign that misrepresents the role of my office, and worse, misrepresents Iowa election law. Accusing citizens of Iowa of a “voting violation” based on Iowa Caucus participation, or lack thereof, is false representation of an official act. There is no such thing as an election violation related to frequency of voting. Any insinuation or statement to the contrary is wrong and I believe it is not in keeping in the spirit of the Iowa Caucuses.

Additionally, the Iowa Secretary of State’s Office never “grades” voters. Nor does the Secretary of State maintain records related to Iowa Caucus participation. Caucuses are organized and directed by the state political parties, not the Secretary of State, nor local elections officials. Also, the Iowa Secretary of State does not “distribute” voter records. They are available for purchase for political purposes only, under Iowa Code.”

On Saturday night, Cruz responded. “I will apologize to no one for using every tool we can to encourage Iowa voters to come out and vote,” he toldreporters during a campaign stop in Sioux City.

A voter mailing used by the Cruz campaign employs “social pressure” tactics that have been criticized by Iowa’s secretary of state.

The secretary of state was mostly concerned that Cruz’s campaign mailers appeared partially disguised to look like an official communication from the state government. Direct mailers always push these boundaries, and Iowans are bombarded with mail, and one way to get them to open something is to make it look more official. And, in Cruz’s defense, the mailer does clearly indicate that it’s “Paid for by Cruz for President.”

After looking at several mailers posted online, I was more curious about how the Cruz campaign came up with its scores. On all the mailers I saw, every voter listed had only one of three possible scores: fifty-five per cent, sixty-five per cent, or seventy-five per cent, which translate to F, D, and C grades, respectively. Iowans take voting pretty seriously. Why was it that nobody had a higher grade?

In Iowa, although voter-registration information is free and available to the public, voter history is not. That information is maintained by the secretary of state, who licenses it to campaigns, super PACs, polling firms, and any other entity that might want it. So was the Cruz campaign accurately portraying the voter histories of Iowans? Or did it simply make up the numbers?

It seems to have made them up. Dave Peterson, a political scientist at Iowa State University who is well-acquainted with the research on “social pressure” turnout techniques, received a mailer last week. The Cruz campaign pegged his voting percentage at fifty-five per cent, which seems to be the most common score that the campaign gives out. (All of the neighbors listed on Peterson’s mailer also received a score of fifty-five per cent.)

Peterson, who is actually a Hillary Clinton supporter, moved to Iowa in 2009. He told me that he has voted in three out of the last three general elections and in two out of the last three primaries.

“There are other people listed on my mailer who live in my neighborhood that are all different ages, but everyone on this sheet has the same score of fifty-five per cent,” he said. “Some are significantly younger and would have not been eligible to vote in these elections, and others are older and have voted consistently, going back years. There is no way to get to us all having the same score.” (Peterson also spoke with Mother Jones.)

If the Cruz campaign based its score on local elections, Peterson said, the number also wouldn’t make sense, based on his participation in those elections as well. A source with access to the Iowa voter file told me that he checked several other names on Cruz mailers and that the voting histories of those individuals did not match the scores that the Cruz campaign assigned them in the mailer.

A mailer template used by the Rubio campaign also seeks to mobilize voters via “social pressure.”

I e-mailed Catherine Frazier, a spokeswoman for the Cruz campaign, and asked her what the campaign’s methodology was for arriving at its voting scores and whether the scores were fraudulent. “This was a mailer designed from public information and modeled on past successful mailers used by the Iowa GOP to turn out voters, so that we can have as high of a turnout as possible on caucus day,” she said. “I’ll leave it at that.” She did not explain the methodology used, nor did she answer my question about whether the numbers were made up.

The political scientist Lynn Vavreck, the co-author of “The Gamble,” a book the Cruz campaign has publicly stated it has studied for its strategic insights, said there was a major difference between the 2008 study in Michigan and what Cruz is doing in Iowa. “In the political-science work published in the American Political Science Review,” she said, “the mailing listed the elections (three of them) in which voters’ histories were being observed—and listed whether the secretary of state recorded that the voter participated that year. So it was more transparent than the Cruz mailer, which implied that it used public records but delivered voters letter grades, which are not part of the official file.”

It’s unclear how many Iowans received the Cruz mailers. Ideally, the mailers would go to potential caucus-goers who are leaning toward the Texas senator and just need some additional incentive to participate. In at least one case, that backfired. Independent Journal Review reportedthat one Iowan who received the Cruz mailer will now caucus for Marco Rubio.

Rubio’s campaign also sent out a mailer that employs social pressure to induce participation in the caucuses, but, notably, the Rubio campaign did not mention the names of the target voter’s neighbors.

The Cruz mailers have been widely condemned by Iowans. “I just wonder how many of these went out to people who might seriously believe they committed a violation or were embarrassed that their neighbors might know about their alleged voting record,” Braddock Massey, a Rubio supporter who lives in West Des Moines and received one of the mailers, said.

Donna Holstein, who was listed on one of them, was upset to learn that she had been given a failing grade and that her neighbors might be told whether she participates in the caucus. She told me that she has voted consistently but that she can’t this time because of a disability.

“I’m crippled, so I can’t go to the caucus,” Holstein said. She was not happy about being shamed in front of her neighbors. “That’s what you call a bully,” she said about Cruz’s tactics. “I wish he would quit.”

Sign up for the daily newsletter.Sign up for the daily newsletter: the best of The New Yorker every day.

COMMENTS

Cruz Advisor: ‘It’s Between Ted Cruz And Donald Trump’


Who are you voting for?
Listen Now – BREAKING: IOWA RESULTS ARE IN….. Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Sanders and Hillary - Military Veteran Talk Radio. 

by DAN RIEHL31 Jan 2016Des Moines, IA2151
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)’s spokesman Rick Tyler was a guest on Breitbart News Sunday with host Stephen K. Bannon tonight, on the eve of tomorrow’s first-in-the-nation Iowa caucus.
“We believe it’s a two person race, it’s between Ted Cruz and Donald Trump,” said Tyler.
Tyler discussed the campaign’s effort to ensure every caucus location and every district would be fully covered by Cruz’s 12,000 plus force of Iowa volunteers.
He predicted a first or second place finish for Cruz tomorrow and believes the campaign will only get stronger as others drop out and leave the Tea Party and Evangelical lanes more wide open for them.
“Politics has always lagged behind the private sector a little bit. The marketing that goes behind this is very, very sophisticated,” he added. Tyler stressed the ground game and data as key to their anticipated success tomorrow in Iowa.
Tyler stressed the significance of Team Cruz’s Iowa effort that includes 99 county chairs, 1530 precinct captains to cover Iowa’s 1,682 precincts with speakers present at each of over 700 caucus locations. Tyler called the effort unprecedented.
Tyler said they made 27,000 phone calls from campaign headquarters yesterday and are also knocking on an average of 2,000 doors a day, as well. He also took time to discuss the campaign’s strategy beyond Iowa, in New Hampshire and also the South. Tyler said that was done to make sure people in Iowa understood that Cruz is in the race for the long haul.
Tyler also discussed the campaign’s marketing efforts to target not just likely Cruz voters, but to spend considerable time including on the phone with Trump’s supporters and Rubio’s supporters who have Cruz as a second choice.
The campaign believes some of them can be turned, resulting in their supporting Cruz when the time comes to actually caucus tomorrow. Those calls can last up to 20 minutes and are being conducted by specially trained individuals to win over more votes. “We also know what issues they care about and how to talk to them about the issues that they care about. That’s never been done before,” said Tyler.
The entire interview can be heard below.


Read More Stories About:

Trump Overtakes Cruz in Final Iowa Poll Before Caucuses

Listen Now – BREAKING: IOWA RESULTS ARE IN….. Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Sanders and Hillary -
Listen To Military Veteran Talk Radio
www.bloomberg.com
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.
COMMENTS