Tonight = America wins, the permanent political class does not, and that is good! To restore Constitutional government the status quo has got to go; the Iowa caucus proves many Americans feel the same. The top three candidates, fueled by our independent, grassroots tea party movement, take 70% of the vote in this unique Iowa caucus. Now this healthy, hearty competition moves to NH, SC and beyond. Those of us proud to be on Team Trump thank Iowa supporters and look forward to forging ahead to make America great again with the candidate proving a record of success and strength that is so needed. The tangible Commonsense Conservative solutions requiring a doer, not a talker, will restore American exceptionalism. Onward and upward, America!
KICK OUT THE CORRUPT ELITE AND THE MEDIA THEY OWN WHO HAVE BRAINWASHED WEAK MINDED FOLK AND WHO ARE RUINING THE USA.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said he was “honored” with his second place finish in the Iowa caucuses and vowed that he will win the nomination and beat “whoever the hell” the Democrats nominate in a speech in Iowa on Monday night.(WELL IT SURE SEEMS MORE AND MORE LIKELY!!)
Trump said, “[O]n June 16th, when we started this journey, there were 17 candidates. I was told by everybody, ‘Do not go to Iowa. You could never finish even in the top ten.’ And I said, ‘But I have friends in Iowa. I know a lot of people in Iowa. I think they’ll really like me. Let’s give it a shot.’ They said, ‘Don’t do it.’ I said, ‘I have to do it.’ And, we finished second, and I want to tell you something, I’m just honored, I’m really honored.”
Trump then congratulated all the other candidates, mentioning Iowa’s winner Texas Senator
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)97% and former Arkansas Mike Huckabee, who suspended his campaign, by name.After thanking his staff and family, Trump stated, “We have a poll, we’re 28 points ahead, okay? New Hampshire. We love New Hampshire. We love South Carolina. And we’re leaving tonight, and tomorrow afternoon, we’ll be in New Hampshire, and that’ll be something special. It’s going to be a great week, and we’re going to be up here next week. And I think we’re going to be proclaiming victory, I hope.” He added, “I don’t know who’s going to win between Bernie and Hillary. I don’t know what’s going to happen with Hillary, she’s got other problems, maybe bigger than the problems she’s got, in terms of nominations, but we’ve had so many different indications, and polls that we beat her, and we beat her easily. And we will go on to get the Republican nomination, and we will go on to easily beat Hillary, or Bernie, or whoever the hell they throw up there.”
Trump concluded, “Iowa, we love you. We thank you. You’re special. We will be back many, many times. In fact, I think I might come here and buy a farm, I love it.”
THIS GUY IS A WINNER.
“Our immigration policy has been anti-American, decade after decade, and the voters need to know that 2016 might be our last chance to elect a president who can reduce this tide of illegals crossing our borders,” Schlafly writes in a column set to run tomorrow, an exclusive copy of which was given to Breitbart News.
Schlalfy’s op-ed heavily cites
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)80%, thought leader for the nation-state philosophy. The conservative heroine writes: “Our nation’s sovereignty depends on control of both immigration and trade, and that’s why Senator Sessions urges voters to choose a candidate who promises to kill the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal with nearly a dozen Asian nations.”Phyllis Schlalfy has previously expressed her support for Donald Trump’s candidacy. Schlafly told Breitbart News that Trump “is the only hope to defeat the Kingmakers.”
“He represents everything the grassroots want,” Schlafly explained, specifically highlighting Trump’s America-first platform on immigration and trade.
On Saturday, Donald Trump’s campaign told Breitbart News exclusively that his presidency is the only way to stop the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Though the transformative global pact has received little media coverage, and virtually no attention in the corporate media debates, the Obama Administration is set to sign it on February 4th in New Zealand. Due to Fast Track, Congress will not be able to filibuster or amend the agreement.
The Chamber of Commerce has predicted that Congressional approval of the “implementing legislation” will occur after the election; the Chamber of Commerce President, Tom Donohue, has also said that he expects Hillary Clinton to support the TPP if she is elected, underscoring Trump’s point that his victory would be a necessary step to preventing the United States from joining the TPP and its concomitant governance body.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)79% has endorsed the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement on multiple occasions, going so far as to describe Obama’s trade agenda as the “second pillar” of a President Rubio’s foreign policy strategy. Rubio’s campaign has also refused to provide any evidence to suggest he read the bill before providing the 60th vote to Fast Track it. Schlafly has said the media is “protecting” Rubio, and she said earlier that Rubio should be “eliminate[d] from serious consideration” for the race for pushing amnesty in Spanish while trying to convince voters otherwise in English. The icon has alsodescribed Rubio’s immigration agenda as “anti-American” and “dangerous.”Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)97% co-authored an op-ed with Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)56% in the Wall Street Journal in favor of Obamatrade as well. However, unlike Rubio, Cruz reversed his vote on Fast-Track and said he would oppose TPP “in its current form .” Cruz said that he changed his position on the matter because of specific concerns regarding the deal’s changes to U.S. immigration law and provisions regarding the export-import bank.It seems that the delegates selection is a proportional system which means that the Iowa primary was pretty much a non-event with the front runners getting more or less the same number of delegates. Bernie and Hillary will share the number of delegates, while there will not be much difference between Cruz (7), Trump (6) and Rubio (6). The real surprise was the strong performance by Rubio.
Mike, I think the poll you refer to is a national poll and will not reflect individual counties.
Marco Rubio’s last minute surge in Iowa has a lot in common with John Kerry’s last minute surge to victory in Iowa in 2004. Like Rubio, Kerry was an early frontrunner. Like Rubio, Kerry underperformed all fall as an anti-establishment candidate (Howard Dean) came from nowhere to dominate the field. Like Rubio, Kerry benefitted in the closing weeks from a nasty battle between the two Iowa frontrunners (Dean and Richard Gephardt). Like Rubio, Kerry counterpunched in those final weeks by stressing his electability. Among the Iowans who called electability “crucial” to their vote, Kerry beat Dean by 16 points. Among the Iowans who said they cared most about which candidate could “win in November,” Rubio beat Trump by 18.
For party insiders, Kerry’s success proved that Democratic voters had come to their senses; that Dean’s moment had come and gone. But that wasn’t right. Kerry had beaten Dean not by challenging the Vermont governor’s anti-war message but by pledging to more effectively sell it. In October, Kerry voted against a bill to fund the Iraq war he had once voted to authorize and “began to sound more and more like an antiwar candidate.” One poll found that 13 percent of Iowa voters considered Kerry the candidate best described as having “opposed the war.” As Dean’s pollster would later lament, Kerry was “liberally borrowing our message.”
The campaign coverage you need from the staff of ?The AtlanticThis year, Rubio did something similar. He surged by borrowing Trump’s message while pledging to more effectively package it. In the final weeks before Iowa, Rubio grew markedly more anti-immigration. Having previously warned against using terrorism as a pretext to restrict legal immigration, the Florida senator in mid-January declared that because of the rise of ISIS, “the entire system of legal immigration must now be reexamined for security first and foremost.” He also followed Trump’s lead on trade, suggesting that he might oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement he had once praised.
Rubio echoed Trump when it came to the rights of Muslims, too. Asked in a January debate about Trump’s call for banning Muslim immigration, Rubio praised the billionaire for having “tapped in to some of that anger that’s out there about this whole issue because this president has consistently underestimated the threat of ISIS.” Then, after talking about how awful ISIS is, Rubio declared that, “When I’m president. If we do not know who you are, and we do not know why you are coming when I am president, you are not getting into the United States of America.” The listener who didn’t already know Rubio’s position might well have thought he supports Trump’s plan. When asked about Trump’s call for closing mosques, Rubio did Trump one better, declaring that, “It’s not about closing down mosques. It’s about closing down any place—whether it’s a cafe, a diner, an Internet site—any place where radicals are being inspired.”
Rubio also began hinting that President Obama was a kind of traitor. “Barack Obama,” he warned darkly, “has deliberately weakened America.” He wants to “cut [America] down to size.” And having once pitched himself as a bridge between the GOP and the changing face of twenty-first century America, Rubioinstead began appealing to “all of us who feel out of place in our own country.”
Comparatively, Rubio remains the “moderate” in the GOP race, just as Kerry was among the Democrats in 2004. But Trump has redefined what “moderate” means. In 2008 and 2012, Mitt Romney and John McCain never had to praise a rival for suggesting a religious litmus test for entering the country. During their presidential bids, Romney and McCain both shifted right on illegal immigration. But they didn’t backpedal on their support for legal immigration. And they never implied that Obama trying to sabotage a country he didn’t really love.
Trump may have lost in Iowa but Trumpism won. The fact that the moderate in the GOP race is now peddling a version of The Donald’s message testifies to how profound his effect has been. And it’s not likely to dissipate anytime soon.
