Cruz Sold His Soul For A Mess Of Iowa Pottage

The Biblical story (Genesis 25:32) tells the story of brothers Jacob and Esau. Esau comes into the home tent "starving" and smells Jacob's cooking (pottage) and is willing to give up his birthright in exchange for the meal.Thus in common parlance;

"A mess of pottage is something immediately attractive but of little value taken foolishly and carelessly in exchange for something more distant and perhaps less tangible but immensely more valuable."

Senator Cruz exchanged his values for the now not glittering prize of barely finishing first in "pottage"Iowa.

Cruz's first place finish has been diminished, if not tarnished by his team's,to be kind, incompetence, and to taker a broader, well documented view "lies" (CNN) "Unethical and unfair tactics" (Iowa Governor Branstad) "dirty tricks" (Dr.Carson) Misrepresentation(Iowa Secretary of State") "Fraud" (The New Yorker.)

And on it goes:

Ted Cruz, in New List of Endorsements, Includes Lawmaker Who Didn’t Endorse Him

The list of the Cruz's teams tactics which underlie the above condemnations include a "Here's your neighbors voting record" The "fail" mailer, and the Cruz team advising caucus goers that Dr.Carson had pulled out of Iowa and his supporters should switch to Cruz.

Cruz has publicly apologized to Carson (whilst blaming CNN who went apoplectic) one of a number of Cruz apologies over time (to New Yorkers/Veterans/Senate colleagues) perhaps there is something to the claim that "nobody likes Ted Cruz."

"Cruz fares worse in New Hampshire on favorability, with 61 percent saying they have a negative view of the Texas senator and 38 percent viewing him favorably." Harper Polling Of new Hampshire after Iowa caucuses 2/3/16" 

Cruz and his team put a massive win at all costs effort into Iowa. In doing so Cruz veered to an extreme Evangelically focused campaign. This has indelibly created a public image of a non-mainline person who would have a major challenge in pivoting to appeal to the broad base of the American voter.

Certainly Cruz's Iowa "personality" played badly in New Hampshire. Any idea that Cruz had of coming out of Iowa with a strong win and the wind behind him to take New Hampshire was destroyed the day after his Iowa win when the Carson news broke and his team's tactics (and the venom of his supporters on social media) came under the spotlight.

Instead, in exchange for having exactly one more delegate than Trump, whose second place finish with a small ground game and in the face of a substantial Evangelical voting pool, now looks quite positive, Cruz performed poorly in New Hampshire and it is Trump who is leading in the delegate count and has the wind at his back as the campaign heads to South Carolina.

A quick study of the voting history of the Iowa caucuses might have been instructive to Cruz. It has been shown, time and again that winning Iowa is more often than not a dead end but making a decent showing, with a positive on message campaign, can be the winning formula.

Cruz appears to have neglected this historical truth in the quest for victory at any price. The price of his team's ethic's may well be Cruz's "Esau moment"

If Christie Had Not Run For Second Term He'd Be Nominee

Guest Contributor N.M.A. Sheppard A contributor to 'The Federalist' and numerous other major publications.

For an ambitious, surging politician, Chris Christie's desire to run for a second term as Governor, and to win in a landslide, would have been irresistible – but in retrospect it may have been a defining mistake. He would be positioning himself far more viably as a presidential hopeful now if he had taken the counter-intuitive, but ultimately more shrewd decision to step down after a single, successful term.

New Jersey elections for Governor are on odd years. Christie's re-election was in November of 2013. If he hadn't run, the timing would have been perfect: a two-year intermission between standing down, in January of 2014, and the general election of 2016, a period not long enough out of circulation to be thought of as losing relevance, especially relative to Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush; yet a period long enough for him to have occupied a political medium of bi-partisan goodwill, not on the same scale, but still evocative of Rudy Giuliani in the mid 2000s after he stepped down as mayor at the end of 2001 having shown strong and competent leadership during a massive crisis, and transcending partisanship as a tough moderate from a blue state. 

Christie's single term would have encapsulated everything he needed: a first half boldly and brazenly conservative, to the extent he was contemplated as a possible Republican Vice-presidential nominee in 2012; and a second half defined by transcendent bi-partisanship, visibly summed up by a fulsome welcome of the president in the aftermath of Super Storm Sandy. 

In retrospect, he had all the necessary credentials and the compelling story he needed by the end of a single term, burnished further by a brash, no-nonsense career as a prosecutor. Given this context, in terms of risk vs reward, a second term was undoubtedly inviting, but not strictly necessary. It may well turn out to be his undoing.

Straightaway, when he chose to run for re-election, there were problems: he was criticized for spending an additional $12–25 million of state money to hold a special election for the Senate three weeks earlier, instead of simply holding the special election on the general election day, when popular mayor Cory Booker might have attracted more votes for Barbara Buono, his opponent in the Governor's race.

The Fort Lee lane closures occurred before the 2013 election; but they were motivated by it: as retribution against Fort Lee's Mayor for not endorsing Christie in the Governor's race. Media outlets began reporting on the incriminating exchanges, between Christie's aides, in January of 2014, just days after his inauguration for a second term. 

The issue has lingered: In May of this 2015, a Monmouth University poll found that 50 percent of New Jersey’s adults believed Chris Christie was personally involved in the scandal. According to a recent Business Insider poll of polls, Christie’s net favorability peaked in January 2013 – the moment he would have stepped down had he chosen not to run. 51% of Americans had a favorable opinion, and just 23% had an unfavorable opinion at that time.

During Hurricane Sandy, he projected strong leadership, and by the time of the re-election, he was able to argue that his administration had managed the recovery and overseen much of the relief effort. Not long after his re-election, however, allegations were already starting to emerge that much of the federal house aid money allocated to Hurricane Sandy victims were going to areas of New Jersey that weren’t particularly impacted by the storm. 

By March of last year, pockets of hecklers from New Jersey were starting to dog Christie on the trail in Iowa. Had he not stood for re-election, he would not be having to answer for a year and a half of impatience and disaffection.

In November of 2014 he vetoed a bill that would have banned the use of gestation crates in New Jersey. It passed both houses easily, and 9 out of 10 New Jersey voters wanted Christie to sign it. The implication was that Christie wanted to be seen as supporting the status quo on agriculture in Iowa, where the hog industry is worth $7 billion. Had he stepped down as Governor a year earlier, he would not have had to give the impression he was putting his national ambitions before his constituents.

Then there was the settlement, in March last year, with Exxon. The state Senate passed a resolution condemning the deal, which settled Exxon's liability for pollution at two refinery sites for  $225 million. The figure caused an uproar because the state's lawyers had been seeking as much as $8.9 billion at trial. If Christie had left this to a successor, he would not have taken flak for it.

Christie had already endured several credit downgrades under his watch. Nearly a year after his re-election, however, things got far worse, with a cumulative effect that has impacted severely on his image of competence. New Jersey was downgraded by Fitch, then a month later by Standard and Poor's, then again, in April last year, by Moody's. If he hadn't run for re-election, his fiscal reputation – a key factor in a presidential run - would not be severely compromised.

His high polling numbers from early 2013, the moment he would have stepped down from office had he not run for re-election, have since flipped upside-down, with polling this month showing him 27% favorable and 55% unfavorable. A Fairleigh-Dickinson Public Mind poll released had him with an approval rating of 30%.

In terms of his presidential ambitions, Christie has gained almost nothing from his second term. Rather, it has left him compromised, it has lowered his stocks, and forced him into a difficult and often unsuccessful balancing act, trying to make an impression in Iowa and New Hampshire, without giving his constituents the impression his attention is divided.

Had he not run, he could be dictating the degree of public exposure, working full time on donors and organisation, be relatively scandal free, and be positioning himself as a nominee with the vigor and effectiveness of Trump and Kasich , but with a national profile and mainstream appeal Instead, he is languishing, both as a Governor, and in early Republican presidential polling.

Kasich Coming 2nd In New Hampshire Ideal Result For Trump

Kasich has jumped to second on 17% in the latest results If that is the end result on election day it would be the best case scenario Donald Trump.

If Kasich finishes second Bush third and Cruz fourth (or fifth) going into South Carolina where Kasich would have little support, the last poll has him on 1%, the situation would seem ideal for Trump


Kasich would of course get massive media coverage. which has started already with this huge puff piece  

"The transformation of John Kasich"

 And the MSM. particularly Fox would be 24/7 "Kasich surges" as they discard "Cruz surges' and to a lesser degree "Rubio surges."

All this puffery would give Kasich some momentum going into South Carolina but  I can't see him appealing to the voters there especially if Trump comes out of New Hampshire with a solid win.

The longer Kasich stays in the race the better for Trump who can keep hammering at Cruz on his right whilst Kasich can hammer at Rubio on his left. 

At this point it doesn't seem feasible for Kasich to win the Nevada caucus and the Florida primary, but he can hold down Rubio and Bush's support which would leave Trump in a very strong position to keep rolling up pluralities in state after state.

Trump's opponents may be one state wonders, Cruz in Iowa, Kasich (2nd) in New Hampshire and possibly 1st in Ohio.

This is where Trump's nationwide poll lead, which has been discounted by pundits, may actually be the pointer to his final success as his support is broad whilst others is narrow.

Chaos Theory; Bloomberg, Sanders And Trump 3rd Parties?

UPDATE. (Bloomberg run inevitable)
"Bloomberg says he is eyeing 2016 run"

LINK

If anyone thinks the title of this article is to fanciful to be taken seriously, such people would also have said, two years ago, that Donald Trump being Republican front runner and 74 year socialist Senator from Vermont having a 30 point lead on Hillary Clinton in the upcoming New Hampshire primary would be preposterous.

Yet, here we are.

Scott McKay at 'The American Spectator' "It's Happening Just  Like I Told You" adds another layer to this wild and wonderful election. He sees an indicted Hillary Clinton leaving the race and not Sanders nor Biden becoming the nominee but Michael Bloomberg. Whether you agree with that scenario or not two things are clear. 

The scenario regarding Hillary is perfectly feasible if not imminent. He sets out why Bloomberg could spend unlimited money, and would be acceptable to the party stalwarts, because they see him as a harmless centrist unlike Sanders. And anyway, they would expect to lose and he would be expendable and allow for some new blood to contest in 2020 free from the Clinton's grip.

On the other hand Douglas Schoen writing in The Wall Street Journal "Why Mike Bloomberg Can Win" sees Hillary surviving and Bloomberg entering the fray as a self-financing third party candidate taking on the Republican wilder shores of Trump or Cruz and the tired old Democratic machine. 

This has been trial ballooned for years (going back to 2010) and with Bloomberg not getting any younger this may be his last best shot. There is a whole history of Bloomberg trial balloons including my thoughts on, what seems perfectly logical, a Bloomberg/Bush ticket.

So on the left the possibilities are;

1.Hillary quits and Bloomberg buys the Democratic nomination with an acquiescent old guard via the "Super delegates."

2. Hillary somehow holds on (they will have to pries her fingers from the nomination) and Bloomberg advises that such a scenario is morally repugnant (which it would be of course) and goes third party. In the name of "national unity" he chooses a Republican and who would be more of such a symbol than Jeb Bush, as his running mate?

3. The "progressive" youth who have invested so much with Bernie Sanders, are enraged and loudly proclaim they will not support Hillary who is so badly scandal tainted, and Sanders is forced by acclamation to run as a "Progressive." If Elizabeth Warren joined the crusade the left would be in ecstasy.

So much for the left. What could play out on the right? Clearly in this confused and confusing time nothing is too far fetched, in fact I struggle to find any scenario which could not easily eventuate.

But lets have a go as things stand now.

1. The populist insurgency of Donald Trump wins state after state and even with their utmost labors the Republican Establishment can't stop him getting the nomination.

2. The Republican Establishment's labors bear fruit and Trump is denied the nomination at the convention (or via Iowa type shenanigans earlier on) and it goes to one of (or in tandem) Bush/Kasich/Rubio. Trump's masses of supporters are enraged and walkout and Trump runs as an Independent with Sarah Palin as his running mate.

3. Senator Cruz wins the nomination and the party splits, not formally, but Establishment voices make it known they won't work for his ticket. They could even put up a spoiler third party ticket (Romney?) like the Democratic Establishment did
in 1896 against the radical William Jennings Bryan.

At this point if Sanders is the Democratic nominee a Bloomberg third party run is a near certainty.

So in summary, in November we could well see Third Party runs by Trump, Bloomberg and Sanders (and even Romney),Hillary, Sanders or Bloomberg as the Democratic nominee, Cruz or Trump or an Establishment choice as the Republican nominee.

Again, for anyone to consider any of these scenario's as "outlandish" I refer them back to the opening paragraph. 

Now, as to who would have 269/270 Electoral College votes that is an impenetrable mystery at this point, the more likely result would be that the House would have to choose the president and the Senate the vice-president. If that happened the ensuing chaos would make the election period seem like a summer picnic.

UPDATED 2/5; Donald Trump's Outstanding Poll Day; New Hampshire-

UPDATE 2/5

Trump has leads of between 17 and 21 points in New Hampshire





A flurry of polls  to 1/4/16 came out today all showing Donald Trump with substantial leads in New Hampshire-all taken post Iowa. The polls run from a Trump lead of ten points to 21 points-really polling is an inexact "art" but the lead in the aggregate is obvious;
"Some of these recent NH polls have an MOE of up to and above 6%. At what point does a poll like that become junk? They are heavily adjusting the numbers because they don't fit the turnout model."

Boston Globe/Suffolk MOE 4.4%

WBUR MOE 4.9%

UMASS MOE 4.8%

ARG MOE 5%

CNN MOE 6.8%

Note Cruz's collapse into fifth place on only 7% in new Suffolk poll as Iowa catches up to him

"Support for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) in New Hampshire has collapsed precipitously, according to a Suffolk/Boston Globe poll released Friday which showed him falling from second place to fifth place in the state.
The poll showed support for Trump at 29 percent and Rubio at 19 percent. Cruz, at 7 percent support, lagged behind not just Rubio but also Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R), who came in at 13 percent and 10 percent support, respectively.

This indicates a dramatic decrease in support for Cruz, who recently pulled off a first-place finish in the Iowa caucuses. Cruz had stood at 12 percent, tied for second with Kasich and beating Rubio at 10 percent, in a late January version of the same poll.

Most New Hampshire polling, both before and after the Iowa caucuses, suggested that Cruz and Rubio were both comfortably ahead of the remaining Republican candidates in New Hampshire and neck-and-neck with each other in the contest for second place. This poll challenges that narrative and underscores Cruz' difficulty in bringing his performance in New Hampshire in line with his Iowa victory and with nationwide polls showing him to be a clear favorite for second place.
TPM’s PollTracker average shows Rubio pulling ahead in the Granite State, beating Cruz by 15.3 percent to 12.2 percent, while Trump overshadows them both at 32 percent."

Nationwide Trump's post Iowa position shows a return to reality after the Democratic poster PPP Polling had him only four points ahead of Rubio. PPP Polling's articles shoudl come with a notice "For entertainment purposes only"

 New Reuter's five day nationwide tracking poll