Endorsements
are usually worth a bucket of warm saliva-Palin said as much when
asked about her endorsement of Donald Trump "I don't think
endorsements mean all that much she advised "reflecting on the
Iowa result.
Hers was, however an exception. If she hadn't endorsed Trump he would have finished behind Rubio (who he finished only 1.3 points ahead of) and his campaign would be in serious jeopardy. I don't think she cost him a vote and if she gave him 1% (Rasmussen showed her endorsement was a net positive) that 1% may just have made the difference between going to NH in a good position and being written off by all the media with no momentum at all going into the crucial next primary.
Commentator
Michael JN Thompson wrote "It is clear that Palin saved
Trump from losing by double digits in Iowa. He wouldn't have broke
20% that's for sure. In
terms of the Governor’s impact, Trump won West Iowa, the region
where the Governor has been the strongest and where Steve King’s
congressional district in Iowa is located."
Just after Palin endorsed Trump Nicolle Wallace in The New York Times summed it up in one sentence "(Donald Trump) Should he come out on top in Iowa, he has her to thank."
"There
were signs that the right was not united behind Cruz. Former
vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin, a tea party and evangelical
heroine, endorsed
Trump at
a splashy rally in Ames.The nightly surveys conducted by the Cruz
campaign showed that Palin was a boon for Trump — 67 percent of
Iowa Republicans had heard of her endorsement, and of them, 19
percent were more likely to support Trump. Only 13 percent were less
likely to."
The effect of Palin's endorsement was dramatically illustrated, by of all people the "Morning Joe" consultant who produced a graph of the effect of her endorsement on the betting markets. The rise from Trump being behind to a sharp increase ahead is dramatic-and these are people who put their own money on the line.
These two graphs from Real Clear Politics show the aggregate "Poll of Polls" results for the various candidates. On January 19th the date of Palin's speech in Iowa Trump and Cruz were within one point of each other. On January 26th when the full effect of the endorsement was felt Trump had a near six point lead.
That
Trump lost by only three
points can
be considered remarkable. He hardly used Palin on the ground to
supplement what turned out to be a weak get out the vote effort (she
campaigned for him in Tulsa which in retrospect seem a wasted
effort) and her election day efforts were mostly tied up with
national media rather than the retail campaigning at which she is so
adept.
I reviewed what went wrong with Trump's campaign "Lessons learned" but not using Palin to full advantage can certainly be added to the list.
I reviewed what went wrong with Trump's campaign "Lessons learned" but not using Palin to full advantage can certainly be added to the list.
Apart from the Post there is not a word of acknowledgement of Palins' contribution just continued denigration. That the Trump team might ignore the media onslaught and use Palin to the fullest extent possible in South Carolina (whose Governor, Nikki Haley owed her election to Palin and is now supporting Rubio) seems good advice.
That Trump is still a credible force in New Hampshire, rather than limping in after a distant third finish in Iowa, should reinforce the debt his team owes to Palin****and hopefully concentrates their minds about the vital role of good old fashion meet the folks retail campaigning.
****
Hmm @realDonaldTrump got 15,000 more votes than Iowa winner Rick Santorum and 500 more than Iowa winner Mike Huckabee #YUGE
*******************************************************************************
Support the growth of this site so a strong conservative Trump/Palin voice can counter the liberal media establishment
See the project information at;
gofundme.com/cmh2jmwc