- Joined
- Jun 12, 2015
- Messages
- 13,927
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Affiliation
- Lutheran
- Political Affiliation
- Conservative
- Marital Status
- Married
- Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
- Yes
Trump stated that he could shoot someone on the street - and it would not cause his poll numbers to go down.
But Iowa proved a surprise, the results quite different than the polls predicted.
Cruz did better - and won.
Trump did far worse than all the polls suggested - and came in second
Rubio did FAR, FAR better - and came in third, nearly beating out Trump; second and third were very close.
Now... I admit.... Iowa has often surprised the pundents. And very few of the good people of Iowa actually participate in these things. And the winner has FAILED to go on to get the nomination every time since 1980. But I think this still significant: Trump simply "underperformed" significantly when it comes to real votes; the hype didn't seem to produce the results. But I think the biggest surprise here (to all but Trumps ego - which I'm sure will survive even if an H bomb were thrown at it) was Rubio.
I've always been amazed at how Rubio didn't seem to be doing well in the polls. Rubio shined in nearly all of the 7 debates - and then seemed to be forgotten (at least in the polls). Maybe the polls have just missed it. Rubio came in less that one percentage point under Trump!
What these early votes tend to do is perhaps not so much designate a winner - as designate the loosers. Candidates tend to drop out after the first 2 or 3 of these (two did last night alone). Indeed, besides the top three - all the rest of the crop (and it's a long list) all did single digits, most LOW single digits, some considered major contenders (and STILL with LOTS of money and major organization). If those very low performers don't do double digits in New Hampshire, I suspect more drop outs. I suspect it could quickly become a 3 man race. Who will "inherit" their supporters? I suspect all of it will go to Rubio. If he only got half of it, it would put him on top.
Your thoughts?
.
But Iowa proved a surprise, the results quite different than the polls predicted.
Cruz did better - and won.
Trump did far worse than all the polls suggested - and came in second
Rubio did FAR, FAR better - and came in third, nearly beating out Trump; second and third were very close.
Now... I admit.... Iowa has often surprised the pundents. And very few of the good people of Iowa actually participate in these things. And the winner has FAILED to go on to get the nomination every time since 1980. But I think this still significant: Trump simply "underperformed" significantly when it comes to real votes; the hype didn't seem to produce the results. But I think the biggest surprise here (to all but Trumps ego - which I'm sure will survive even if an H bomb were thrown at it) was Rubio.
I've always been amazed at how Rubio didn't seem to be doing well in the polls. Rubio shined in nearly all of the 7 debates - and then seemed to be forgotten (at least in the polls). Maybe the polls have just missed it. Rubio came in less that one percentage point under Trump!
What these early votes tend to do is perhaps not so much designate a winner - as designate the loosers. Candidates tend to drop out after the first 2 or 3 of these (two did last night alone). Indeed, besides the top three - all the rest of the crop (and it's a long list) all did single digits, most LOW single digits, some considered major contenders (and STILL with LOTS of money and major organization). If those very low performers don't do double digits in New Hampshire, I suspect more drop outs. I suspect it could quickly become a 3 man race. Who will "inherit" their supporters? I suspect all of it will go to Rubio. If he only got half of it, it would put him on top.
Your thoughts?
.
ray: