Cruz Catapults to Top in Iowa in New Poll, Leapfrogging Trump

[ABX]

Ted Cruz catapulted to frontrunner status in Iowa on Saturday night with a new poll showing the Texas senator with 31 percent of the GOP support in the state, 10 points ahead of Donald Trump's 21 percent.

In the new Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics poll, Cruz, considered the new evangelical favorite, leapfrogged the candidate he has continually avoided to cross paths with throughout the campaign.

The poll, conducted by longtime, respected Iowa pollster Ann Selzer, is seen as a bellwether for the state of the race. Voters in Iowa will get the first chance at picking the Republican nominee at the caucuses in less than two months on February 1.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/cruz-catapults-top-iowa-new-poll-leapfrogging-trump-n479046

[Longiron]

 


http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/19/must-watch-liberty-university-president-jerry-falwell-jr-overwhelmingly-advocates-for-candidate-donald-trump/

[musiclady]

Good.  May the catapult continue.

[aligncare]

Which is why Trump began sharpening his attacks on Cruz. He said so in the debate. Cruz is leading in Iowa and represents the greatest threat to him.

[GAJohnnie]

Article is from 12-15-2015

[aligncare]

Article is from 12-15-2015

I'm sorry, I made the mistake of not reading the article. However, I believe Cruz is leading in most polls currently.

[GAJohnnie]

Oh yes, no doubt Cruz is leading.

[katzenjammer]

Cruz may have "Catapulted" in mid-December, but today it is Don Trump, holding a small lead:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_caucus-3194.html

[truth_seeker]

Good.  May the catapult continue.

He can follow in the path of Rev. Huckabee, the 2008 Iowa GOP winner (but not eventual nominee) and Father Santorum 2012 Iowa GOP winner (but not eventual nominee).

FWIW Iowa can hardly be proved meaningful in a national sense, since it voted for Gore in 2000, Obama in 2008 and 2012.

So the logical conclusion I draw is that Iowa is not meaningful for who the nominee is, and it is not meaningful for winning the national election.

[libertybele]

Which is why Trump began sharpening his attacks on Cruz. He said so in the debate. Cruz is leading in Iowa and represents the greatest threat to him.

Well, apparently Kasich is on Trump's coattails in New Hampshire. 

[alicewonders]

He can follow in the path of Rev. Huckabee, the 2008 Iowa GOP winner (but not eventual nominee) and Father Santorum 2012 Iowa GOP winner (but not eventual nominee).

FWIW Iowa can hardly be proved meaningful in a national sense, since it voted for Gore in 2000, Obama in 2008 and 2012.

So the logical conclusion I draw is that Iowa is not meaningful for who the nominee is, and it is not meaningful for winning the national election.

Iowa gives the winner some momentum - what they make of that momentum is up to them.  It does seem that Iowa goes for the candidate that invokes religion the most, so obviously, that is not a good bellwether as to who will eventually win. 

Good to see Trump fighting so hard for it though and good to see Cruz fighting back.  This is why they call it a race.

 

[Right_in_Virginia]

I'm sorry, I made the mistake of not reading the article. However, I believe Cruz is leading in most polls currently.

I love you, Align---but what should I care what you believe?   Have you updated polls?

Thanks.

[aligncare]

I love you, Align---but what should I care what you believe?   Have you updated polls?

Thanks.

I meant in Iowa. Is that your question?

[Longiron]

         

http://therightscoop.com/stupid-iowa-governor-tells-iowans-not-to-support-ted-cruz/

[truth_seeker]

Iowa gives the winner some momentum - what they make of that momentum is up to them.  It does seem that Iowa goes for the candidate that invokes religion the most, so obviously, that is not a good bellwether as to who will eventually win. 

Good to see Trump fighting so hard for it though and good to see Cruz fighting back.  This is why they call it a race.

 

Based on what I wrote, a wise person could say the GOP should entirely change the system, move away from Iowa first etc.

And the track record for New Hampshire as an indicator is not much better.

Why? Well the GOP has lost the popular national vote 5 of the last 6 times, for openers. Those results would indicate there is nothing to lose, by change.

Why not start in a two large GOP states, first one conservative and then the next more moderate? Nothing to lose (but money it would take).