Memories

 

          

***********************************************************

Palin's Endorsement Saved Trump's Campaign For New Hampshire

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."

Trump as it turned out clung to second place by 1.3 points over Rubio so the reality is Trump has Palin to thank, not for the win but for saving his campaign but for his placing second and having only one less caucus vote than Cruz.

The Washington Post gives confirmation from an unimpeachable source-the Cruz camp;

"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."

This net 6 point positive differential is exactly the same as Rasmussen found in an analysis prior to the vote;

"RASMUSSEN;"Net 6% of Iowa voters say Palin's endorsement helps Trump"

For Iowa Republicans conservative voters particular, a Palin endorsement is a plus" 59% of Republicans, hold a favorable view of Palin This includes 25% with a Very Favorable view"

Net 11% of conservative Iowa voters believe Palin's endorsement of Trump will help him."

 
And, putting the lie to the MSM meme that Palin 

is "unpopular"Rasmussen 

further found "Fifty-nine percent (59%) of 

Republican voters say former 

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin shares the values 

of most GOP voters 

throughout the nation.

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.

The effect of Palin's endorsement amongst Iowa women was immediate and dramatic;a 20% increase and amongst Tea Party Supporters a striking 33% increase

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.

After Palin's endorsement there were over 10,000 articles across the media 99% of which were negative to hateful. Only, in a round about way, did Nicolle Wallace and Rasmussen get it right as did the Washington Post after the election.

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.

 
If Trump soldiers on to the nomination the power of Palin with the great mass of ordinary folks across America, despite the most vicious efforts of a rabid media and Establishment (whose force Trump has now experienced) must surely commend her as running mate.

****

 

Roger Stone‏@RogerJStoneJr

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

Iowa; Lessons Learned,The Making Of Candidate Trump

In the height of the battle it is very difficult to see things which, when the smoke has cleared, are obvious. For the Trump team, and supporters this is very much the case.

Among the "Seven things we learned from Iowa" there are points particularly pertinent to the Trump campaign, specifically;

In a "retail politics" state/environment there is no substitute for being on the ground, with a large and dedicated support team and volunteer personnel for a long period of time.

Crowd size means nothing as does campaign "sensations/diversions" like the flap over Cruz's "fail 
letters."

Polls/schmolls. Pundits/columnists are not worth anything.

You have to spend money on advertising. Don't skip debates.

Given that the Trump campaign team were deficient in all these areas the fact that Trump finished second and is only one delegate behind Cruz is a tribute to his sheer force of personality which got him into second place.

I believe Trump correct in going against the advice he skip Iowa as clearly Rubio would have gotten away from him. The Giuliani campaign disaster of sitting back in Florida and skipping Iowa shows Trump was right. It is now clear that, despite the polls, Trump had a very uphill challenge in Iowa and did remarkably well under the circumstances and in the teeth of a massively biased media.

Trump is no stranger to adversity and possesses a sharp mind and is a quick learner. Iowa will have given him many insights into campaigning at which, compared to all the other candidates, he has been a novice.We will see a different Trump in New Hampshire.

Trump's dignified concession speech in Iowa was a pointer, I believe to a forthcoming image of a sharply issues focused candidate. The early campaign attacks have worked in removing Bush, Fiorina, Walker, Perry, Jindal from contention now it is time to deal with Cruz and Rubio on the issues. Let the marketing team deal with them, vehemently and with much money behind it, on the air.

Iowa is an unusual state and few GOP winners have gone on to the nomination. If Trump had taken the full blown Evangelical route that Cruz did he may have won the state and subsequently have been seen as such a narrow focused candidate his appeal, like that of Huckabee and Santorum, would have been a negative for most other states.

Trump could head the wisdom of Bob Dylan "there is no success like failure" review the lessons from Iowa and commence his winning campaign in New Hampshire.

Seven Things We Learned From The Iowa Results Which Never Need Learning Again

I admit that the new paradigm has been obvious for some time now but the old clung so tenaciously, or rather emotively that I had not quite shaken it off  completely yet. I Lampooned the now hapless Nate Silver for his "Endorsement Chart" which shows the "importance of the "hidden primary" wherein the party Establishment's endorsements magically determine the winner.

As you can see Jeb Bush should be way out in front in the polls and Iowa with such a winning hand. Of course endorsements mean next to nothing now except for very rare circumstances.

This is now just silly but Silver continues with it as some sort of talisman or something.

So we have learned;

1.Endorsements mean next to nothing

2. Nate Silver who lucked in with the two Obama elections is now utterly exploded. His predictions are just so much mumbo jumbo wrapped up in charts and graphs and equations.

3. Polling companies might as well check the entrails of goats. The "Gold Standard" Selzer poll in Iowa was dross. Every other poll especially PPP (Dem) poll was way off. Only the last minute Emerson College poll came very close. But they are the exception poll after poll-the U.K and Kentucky for example were absolute disasters. As for nationwide polls-they are utterly useless in coming anywhere near to predicting state results. All that can be said is that, sometimes, polls nearest to the election day have a chance, just a chance, of being right.

4. Pundits. What can you say? It is now absolutely clear that all political columns should labeled, as with fortune tellers "For entertainment purposes only." Let me be absolutely clear no pundit knows any more how things will turn out than you do. In the old days pundits could pontificate from on high and have some effect on the political scene but the internet has destroyed that forever.

All "pundits" do now is to confirm ones prejudices or give someone to rail at when one's side is doing badly. As a vent for social happiness or frustration they serve a purpose but there is nothing elevated above that admittedly useful function. But to take what any pundit says as having any real value outside those parameters is to give them, however polished their prose of clever their graphs and charts (Philip Bump being a prime example) more than their due. In due course they will disappear as their newspapers fold anyway.

5. Campaign sensations end up as just that and have little or no discernible effect on an election. If Ted Cruz's "fail mailer" and pseudo newspaper had no effect on the outcome then nothing will in future (with the possible exception of a candidate being indicted. All these sort of things turn out to be media beat ups/page click fodder and distractions. At the end of the day the voters consider a whole range of issues that matter to them and disregard these peripheral things.

6. Crowd size means nothing. Donald Trump had massive crows, I can't recall any crowd for Rubio yet he finished just 1.2 points behind Trump. In 2008 candidate Obama drew one million to an event in St.Louis and still managed to lose Missouri despite a huge nationwide landslide. All crowd size shows is that America is a big country with a large population.

7. Fundamentals are called that for a reason. If for example as state like Iowa has a long tradition of retail campaigning and a substantial fundamentalist voting block then that is what works. All the mass crowds and media attention won't overturn attention to those basic elements as Trump found out. The fact that he did as well as he did showed a super human effort and special qualities can bring a good result but not a winning one.