Wow, talk about defying all the polls and expectations! That is what Sen. Cruz did on Monday in Iowa with the Caucuses. Despite the incessant drumbeat for Trump, Trump, Trump, Cruz came out victorious, followed by Trump, an a VERY close third by Sen. Marco Rubio. Dr. Ben Carson came in fourth at 9%, and it went downhill from there. Gov. Mike Huckabee has (finally) suspended his campaign. Perhaps others will follow, but at this point, Huckabee is the only one.
I don’t want to let this caucus win by Sen. Cruz over Donald Trump pass without highlighting that, once again, the MEDIA and POLLING were dead wrong. Dead wrong. Even with the air time Trump was given, presumably because he was the frontrunner, Sen. Cruz took Iowa. And that Rubio was SO close to Trump speaks volumes, too.
Along those lines, the close third place finish for Rubio was right from his playbook according to this National Review article:
[…] According to multiple Rubio allies recently briefed on campaign strategy, the senator’s team has settled on an unconventional path to winning the GOP primary contest. The strategy, dubbed “3-2-1” by some who have been briefed on it, forecasts a sequence in which Rubio takes third place in Iowa on February 1, finishes second in New Hampshire on February 9, and wins South Carolina on February 20. From there, Rubio would be well-positioned in the long haul to win a plurality of voters, and ultimately a majority of delegates, in a three-way contest against Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.
This planning represents a concession from Rubio’s brain trust that Cruz and Trump will take the top two spots in Iowa – most likely in that order – and that Trump will win New Hampshire.
More boldly, it assumes that a Rubio victory will be possible in South Carolina even if he doesn’t win either of the first two states.
This would not be unprecedented; Newt Gingrich in 2012 won South Carolina after finishing fourth in Iowa and fifth in New Hampshire. But many GOP officials and rival campaign representatives believe that Cruz and Trump victories in the first two contests would generate a head-to-head battle for the nomination, depriving their also-ran opponents of political oxygen heading into South Carolina. […] (Click here to read the rest.)
Well, so far so good, but I imagine the win in Iowa might just give the Cruz campaign some wind at his back as he moves into the next contest, the New Hampshire Primary. As for Trump, I don’t know if this second-place finish will dampen their enthusiasm any, but hey – at least they can no longer claim he is the frontrunner, can they?
There was someone else who dropped out after last night’s event. Gov. Martin O’Malley has also suspended his campaign. I bet O’Malley never thought a septuegenarian who has lived off the taxpayer dime for DECADES now, with blessedly few legislative accomplishments, and who is a blatant Socialist would do better than O’Malley did, especially with the young people. I never thought so either, and I am thoroughly disturbed by the direction this country and the Democratic Party has taken. Never mind that Bernie Sanders has somehow managed to convince all these young people that someone who has been in office for YEARS now is an “outsider.” Yet, he has.
The Socialism part has me thoroughly disconcerted. I literally woke up in the middle of the night last night to see if Clinton pulled out a win or not over this Socialist. Still too close to call, they keep saying, and that just freaks me out. Greg Gutfeld is none too thrilled about it either, as he speaks eloquently about the dangers of Socialism in the video below:
And there you have it. It is a failure of our Educational system that so many people do not understand the perils of Socialism. Heck, you don’t even have to look at last century to see how bad it is. As Gutfeld noted, look at Venezuela, Argentina, Cuba, Greece, and I would add, Puerto Rico. Socialism SAVAGES countries and the people who love there. It does not promote job growth unless it is in the Government, and it reduces people DOWN, not support them in growing UP. Those would be the GOOD things about it. The realities are far worse.
David Harsanyi from The Federalist has something to say about the “too-close-to-call” contest in Iowa between Clinton and Sanders:
[…] Put it this way: Last night, 25 percent of the GOP voted for celebrity populist who gained unparalleled coverage from the media for a half a year. Half of Democrats voted for a once-obscure elderly socialist senator from Vermont who bases his campaign on conspiracy theories and juvenile zero-sum economic theories that were all the rage in the early 1900s. (And the other half went to a candidate that sounds increasingly like him.)
Like him or not, Cruz’s positions, as conservative as they are, are within the philosophical frontiers of the Reagan Right. Maybe you think them antiquated, but they are hardly “radical” — as in representing some extreme section of a political party or movement. Cruz’s ideas would be recognizable to any Republican in 1984 or 1994. But would any Clinton-era Democrat in 1996 embrace the economic positions of Sanders (or Hillary, for that matter)? How about 2008?
It’s amusing to watch people maintain that Sanders isn’t a genuine socialist because he hasn’t laid out a Five Year Plan or called for the means of production to be transferred to the state. (Last night, for example, CNN’s Van Jones continually referred to Sanders as a “progressive” — which tells us something about socialism and progressivism.) Socialists are always “democratic” when they have no choice. The fun part comes later. So Sanders might inject a measure of nationalism into his brand of socialism. He may fuse his old-fashioned redistributionism and class-warfare with some contemporary political flourishes. He may believe in incrementalism — just as Marx did. But Sanders does not believe a free market should determine how goods and services are distributed. […] (Click here to read the rest.)
And all of that scares the crap out of me, especially since Clinton is listing farther and farther Left to keep up with the Sanderites. I truly worry about this country.
But for right now, I am happy that Cruz won and that Rubio did so well. That is good news indeed.
That’s what I think. How about you? This is an Open Thread.