Among Republicans. They wouldn't have been his primary opposition in winning the state in the general. I know someone from Iowa. In his patch of it (Waterloo) they are very pro-Union.
I don't like it, but there is this thing called "triage" that I think we should follow. If it comes to making the difference between Hillary and not Hillary, I would let the Iowans have their ethanol mandate.
There are far greater losses we might have taken if we had insisted on eliminating the mandate.
It isn't Iowa's ethanol mandate, it is the shitty fuel ruining engines and fuel systems in engines large and small, and especially older vehicles and small engines that we are ALL stuck with.
MY father gave up his commercial fishing because of crap fuel that left him stranded offshore--and no marina in the area carries no ethanol gasoline--can't get it, period. Places where you can it costs up to $5 a gallon--for not adding crap. Now, if people want to run that in their vehicles, well, you don't need a mandate to make that happen, only market demand. Which was what Cruz was for--more freedom, not less.
BTW, that mandate requires a specific amount of ethanol to be blended with motor fuels, regardless of how much or how little of those motor fuels are sold. It does not go into aviation fuel (ever wonder why?---because you can't just coast to the breakdown lane up there when your engine quits). But with reduced fuel consumption under the Obama economy (fewer people going to work, fewer workplaces consuming fuel) the amount in the fuel stocks was pushing the 10% 'blend wall', where auto warranties are voided. So it isn't a percentage, or even an 'up to' in the law, it is a fixed amount to be blended into whatever is sold.
My opposition to the mandate is on the basis of the engineering problems it has created, mechanical problems (some of which have been potentially life threatening for family members), and the bloody ancillary expense the rest of the nation has to endure so ethanol manufacturers get their guaranteed income.
