Post-Iowa POTUS Poll

[Trapper John]

Trumps deliberate absence from the debate last week was a subtle support move to Rubio. It allowed Cruz to talk, but his Conservatism will not be appreciated outside of Midwestern or Evangelical Caucuses.


Trump-Rubio

Interesting analysis! Trump-Rubio works for me!

[CAARNG 68W]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

Interesting analysis! Trump-Rubio works for me!

Thanks Trapper.


There's just a feeling I have about those two men

[craigepo]

I am thinking that Rubio is set up very well for the long haul. Iowa, with this caucus system, sends delegates per votes received. Essentially, Iowa didn't pick a "winner" but instead will send a bunch of candidates home and significantly narrow the field.

It seems like this could become a 3-person race, Trump, Cruz, Rubio. Trump and Cruz could both be viewed as "anti-establishment", whereas Rubio would be a more establishment type guy. (I would have to opine that if Rubio is the "establishment" guy, conservatives are doing really well).

If you narrow this field to these three, the debates take on a whole new flavor. Trump's non-specific babble about "I'll make America great again" will have to become much more refined, or he will get trounced. Love them or hate them, Rubio and Cruz are solid debaters with good grasps of the issues.

If Trump and Cruz appeal only to non-establishment types, Rubio wins the primary. And, if people start to think that he is the only one who can beat the democrat, Rubio could pick up some serious steam.

A stupid thought---we have not seen the last of Carly Fiorina. She is fantastic at beating up on Hillary Clinton. Also, if a guy beats up on Hillary, he is a bully. If a female does it, it's all fair. Don't be surprised if you see her a bunch even if she drops out. Also, she would make a hell of a cabinet choice.

Like others, I'll vote for any Republican.

Second mental wonder/wander---Are 1/2 of Iowa's democrats actually socialist?

[Penn]

Cruz is not electable. If he is the Republican nominee, look for a Democrat in the White House. I base that opinion on conversations I hear in the business, clients, purveyors, and young staff people 19-25yrs old. All of them would rather see Trump, or Rubio.

And mind you, I am located in the dead center, of two dominate Republican counties in the country, Bucks Co, Pa and Hunterdon Country, NJ Thsy don't like Cruz.

[SF-TX]

Originally Posted by (1VB)compforce

Ummm... Cruz is a First Term Senator as well (2013 - Present)... And 5 years as Attorney General (Texas) before that.

He was Solicitor General, not Attorney General. It is an appointed position, not an elected position. He was appointed by Attorney General Greg Abbott, now the governor of Texas.

The Solicitor General is the state's chief litigator in the U.S. Supreme Court and the Texas Supreme Court. In addition, as a member of the Attorney General's executive leadership team, the Solicitor General serves as a top legal advisor to the Attorney General and advises other agency lawyers and state officials on complex constitutional and other legal matters.

Source

[(1VB)compforce]

Originally Posted by SF-TX

He was Solicitor General, not Attorney General. It is an appointed position, not an elected position. He was appointed by Attorney General Greg Abbott, now the governor of Texas.

My mistake... Had AG on the brain when I was typing. It's been corrected.

[MR2]

Remember that the Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina caucus favors the grassroots/outside candidates (Cruz/Trump) while all the other caucus favors the 'establishment' candidates (Rubio).

IMO, there is a 50-50 shot between Cruz/Trump and Rubio securing the required number of delegates in time for Cleveland (RNC).

OTOH, no Republican has won the White House recently w/o winning Iowa.

My Vegas money is on Cruz for the WH. My pick will be around the South Carolina caucus.


Planning on running as a National Delegate to the National Convention for my state. gofundme to follow...

[akv]

Originally Posted by Craigpo

If Trump and Cruz appeal only to non-establishment types, Rubio wins the primary. And, if people start to think that he is the only one who can beat the democrat, Rubio could pick up some serious steam.

My $.02, a Rubio/Kasich ticket is the best chance for the GOP in 2016. A good balance of eloquence and experience, and strong in the key states of Ohio and FL.

[spherojon]

Sen. Cruz is a natural born citizen? I thought he was born in Canada and therefore not eligible for the Office of the presidency.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by spherojon

Sen. Cruz is a natural born citizen? I thought he was born in Canada and therefore not eligible for the Office of the presidency.

YGTBSM.

TR

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by spherojon

Sen. Cruz is a natural born citizen? I thought he was born in Canada and therefore not eligible for the Office of the presidency.

He is natural born by descent, of an American mother.
Some reading for you.

[(1VB)compforce]

Originally Posted by Badger52

He is natural born by descent, of an American mother.
Some reading for you.

Actually, the article you cited specifically says that a person cannot be natural born by descent from the mother unless the father is deceased. (Clarification, this is not from the Constitution, but from the VA citizenship law penned by Thomas Jefferson)

Further food for thought:

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that "the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents" was left to Congress "in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." (U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898); Rogers v. Bellei (1971); Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015), Justice Thomas, concurring.)

"Maternal citizenship afforded no benefit" Rogers v. Bellei (1971).

"Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress."

"It is evident that Congress felt itself possessed of the power to grant citizenship to the foreign born and at the same time to impose qualifications and conditions for that citizenship."

(U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898); Rogers v. Bellei (1971); Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015), Justice Thomas, concurring.)

"We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the 'natural born' citizen is eligible to be president. (Article II, Section 1)"

Schneider v. Rusk (1964)

The above quotes were from an article by Ann Coulter (http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2016-01-13.html), but which I independently confirmed as being accurate from the cited cases. I'll leave it to the lawyers to figure out, but the limited case law available seems on the surface to support the idea that he is naturalized by act of Congress, not natural born. eta: I am NOT a lawyer, but do find the law rather fascinating and worked in my father's law office researching case law.

I don't think Cruz will lose the question about citizenship. I do however think that Trump was exactly right when he said that there is a lawsuit coming if Cruz wins the Primary. There are already a couple that were filed, but were thrown out for lack of standing. What happens if Cruz wins the Primary and starts campaigning for the General and gets hit with this suit in say... August? Now his attention is divided. He's forced to defend himself with a hostile media. Meanwhile the Dem candidate continues to focus on the election. I think there is a real danger there. I have to agree (once again) with Trump who said during the debate that Cruz should go get a preemptive finding from the courts to avoid the situation.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by (1VB)compforce

I don't think Cruz will lose the question about citizenship. I do however think that Trump was exactly right when he said that there is a lawsuit coming if Cruz wins the Primary. There are already a couple that were filed, but were thrown out for lack of standing. What happens if Cruz wins the Primary and starts campaigning for the General and gets hit with this suit in say... August? Now his attention is divided. He's forced to defend himself with a hostile media. Meanwhile the Dem candidate continues to focus on the election. I think there is a real danger there. I have to agree (once again) with Trump who said during the debate that Cruz should go get a preemptive finding from the courts to avoid the situation.

Happen to agree with you & agreed with Trump the very first time he said it, as in, "get it done now, son."

Thanks for the additional citings. I don't think there would be a problem eventually, even as it comes down to determinations on an individual basis but he really needs to get that out of the way. I'd rather see the media covering a criminal indictment of a former SECSTATE.

[abc_123]

The biggest winnner was Rubio. He kept himself in the race. Cruz did what he needed to do. Trump did not have to win. Remember that he went from not having a chance, to not having a ground game so won't do well, to front-runner. He came in second while doing all the things that all those in the know thought were going to be disasterous. Including skipping the debate and picking a fight with the leading 'conservative' tv. news outlet. I do think a case could be made that skipping the debate was a tactical mistake for Trump in Iowa. He came in second, so that's a logical conclusion. I didn't think it was going to hurt him, but maybe it did. However, nationally, in states that actually decide elections (not Iowa), i'm still not convinced it isn't a positive.

The BLUF for me is that that Iowa is not necessarily a predictor of the eventual nominee. The main reslut is that Iowa gives the bottom dwellers a reason to exit the race. . Cruz the politician, won against someone who by conventional wisdom at the beginning of the race had no experience and no chance... needing to outspend him to do it. Even thought the Fox Talking heads are making this to be a huge deal, I don't see it that way.

Totally without basis... In my gut I can't see young people turning out for Repub nominee Cruz like they would for Trump in the General. Possibly women too. Possibly the angriest of "anti-establishment" voters. (Trump is totally outside... Cruz is still part of the do-nothing congress). I don't see a Cruz headlined ticket being a good thing for the Repubs.

[Mills]

Has everyone caught that Ted has been the only one to stand up and declare the inclusion of Women into the Draft AND combat arms positions to be lunacy?

Just Saying............