Rand at 4% in new Monmouth Poll

[supermario21]

So does this help Rand make the debate?

Also, Ted is taking the parts of Rand's FP that people generically like and spicing it up with some more bluster and bombing to make himself look "strong."

 

[RDM]

"..stealing Rand's foreign policy."

I dont believe carpet bombing was ever part of Rand's FP.

I didn't think arming our enemies was also part of Rand Paul's Foreign Policy.

- Ted Cruz, member of The Senate Armed Services Committee, voted YES on the markup of the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which included a provision that would authorize the Department of Defense to train and equip Syrian forces.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...obamas-policy-in-syria-could-be-gas-on-a-fire

 

[squirl22]

I dont believe carpet bombing was ever part of Rand's FP.

Nice to see someone else mentioning this about Cruz...and there are a lot of Ron's supporters now supporting Cruz instead of Rand, does make one wonder what they really believe.

 

[LatinsforPaul]

Just when are we to expect the Rand surge, then? lol

February 1, when it counts.

 

[CPUd]

I'm just amazed he surged by stealing Rand Paul's foreign policy. Rand always placed himself as more interventionist then Ron Paul but less interventionist then a neocon. In the debate Ted Lose superimposed himself into the Rand Paul and Marco Rubio argument and basically started talking over Rand Paul and said he is more interventionist then Rand Paul but less interventionist then Marco Rubio who had just called Rand an isolationist. He really stole Rand Paul's foreign policy, and double downed Marco Rubio's attack on Rand that he is a isolationist.

Cruz is gaining ground because he panders to church people, especially around the time Carson was getting negative press for 2 weeks.

 

[WTLaw]

Cruz has been very good about saying a whole lot of different things on foreign policy, very loudly, so that everyone right now is hoping he stands with them (IE Conservative Israel First types think he is one of them, Neocons like him alright, and noninterventionists maintain some hope that he has their foreign policy)...

Of course, it is impossible to be all those things. Rand tried to do that in a much more nuanced way, but got thrashed by Judas Raimondo. Cruz will find in time people will catch up to his FP. Now, I think it might be too late for Rand, but hell, he might as well stick around and fight. He has Kentucky on lockdown, no reason not to. Santorum was nowhere this time last time too. Rand never had a shot going wire to wire anyway. Top dog is a bad place to be early. I will stand with Rand to the end, he is closer to my politics than even his father.

 

[PCKY]

So the CNN poll with rand at 1% was bullshit?

They polled no one under 50. For that demographic it was accurate, but that is not the only demographic that votes. ORC was very unprofessional in my opinion to publish that poll without the caveat.

 

[PCKY]

"..stealing Rand's foreign policy."

I dont believe carpet bombing was ever part of Rand's FP.

We need an angel to point out in print the differences between Rand's FP and Cruz's. He did this once before and Paul called him out on it. He said something to the effect of "get your own ideas and stop mischaracterizing mine".
Someone also needs to get Cruz on the record with details about how he plans to eliminate ISIS.

 

[PCKY]

Cruz has been very good about saying a whole lot of different things on foreign policy, very loudly, so that everyone right now is hoping he stands with them (IE Conservative Israel First types think he is one of them, Neocons like him alright, and noninterventionists maintain some hope that he has their foreign policy)...

Of course, it is impossible to be all those things. Rand tried to do that in a much more nuanced way, but got thrashed by Judas Raimondo. Cruz will find in time people will catch up to his FP. Now, I think it might be too late for Rand, but hell, he might as well stick around and fight. He has Kentucky on lockdown, no reason not to. Santorum was nowhere this time last time too. Rand never had a shot going wire to wire anyway. Top dog is a bad place to be early. I will stand with Rand to the end, he is closer to my politics than even his father.

Amen!

 

[PCKY]

Nice to see someone else mentioning this about Cruz...and there are a lot of Ron's supporters now supporting Cruz instead of Rand, does make one wonder what they really believe.

I could see Ron sweeping the state of Iowa mid-January. Let Ron have a go picking apart Cruz's FP and see how many of his former supporters stay with Cruz.

 

[dillo]

Cruz needs to drop out for rand to get a polling surge. If anything we should hope trump takes down Cruz.

 

[WTLaw]

Cruz needs to drop out for rand to get a polling surge. If anything we should hope trump takes down Cruz.

Then we have to worry about Trump again. I am hoping Cruz has a mistress. But barring that, we'd need it to be someone weaker taking down Cruz...Fiorino, or maybe Rubio...or Huckabee. Or maybe just an incredible gaff.

 

[squirl22]

I could see Ron sweeping the state of Iowa mid-January. Let Ron have a go picking apart Cruz's FP and see how many of his former supporters stay with Cruz.

You are right. that's a great idea; too bad his campaign doesn't seem to have any.

 

[supermario21]

I just keep saying it..a large amount of Ron's supporters never bought the foreign policy message. They may have bought it to some degree, but not even close to what Rand prescribes. Think about it, Ron was really the only non-interventionist of any kind. Everyone else was an extreme warhawk. You had Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney. Hell Romney was probably the next lowest-interventionist after Ron... The fact that Ron didn't have a Ted Cruz against him who would pick and choose some planks and mix it with traditional bellicosity was an advantage for him.

 

[statist slayer]

I just keep saying it..a large amount of Ron's supporters never bought the foreign policy message. They may have bought it to some degree, but not even close to what Rand prescribes. Think about it, Ron was really the only non-interventionist of any kind. Everyone else was an extreme warhawk. You had Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney. Hell Romney was probably the next lowest-interventionist after Ron... The fact that Ron didn't have a Ted Cruz against him who would pick and choose some planks and mix it with traditional bellicosity was an advantage for him.

I think Cruz's growing popularity is due less to the substance of his foreign policy and more to the forceful and slick delivery of it. He's helped along by talk radio, which can pick and choose areas of agreement with him. Changes in polling have everything to do with media coverage. This is why his repeated insistence that he will inherit the Trumpkins now seems to be working so well -- as soon as he got a bump from his CNBC debate performance, the media drove home the "second choice to Trump" narrative that he had been whispering in their ear. Even if he wins Iowa, though, I doubt he can best Trump in New Hampshire and Rubio in the long delegate game.

 

[rich34]

At some point, someone will have to remark on how Cruz has no chance in a General Election.
A recent poll on RCP even had him losing to Bernie Sanders by 10 points(!!!)

But I guess Republicans just want a self-destruct button this cycle instead of meaningful change.

I agree totally. The problem is fox news is literally telling their sheeple err people that polls are actually showing him beating Hillary Clinton. At least when he was being interviewed the other day the anchor said this without showing or quoting the actual poll that says this as he's sitting there all narcissist as the man he is nodding his head agreeing saying the same shirt when both he and them knows it's a Damn lie. Well I take that back I'd say the anchor knew it was a lie, but Cruz being the narcissist he is likely truly believes he'll beat Hillary when in reality that man would get trounced worse than what both McCain and Romney did against Obama.. and that's bad....

 

[rich34]

Cruz is gaining ground because he panders to church people, especially around the time Carson was getting negative press for 2 weeks.

Bingo.. And after having watched the last two republican nominating process very thoroughly I honestly believe in Iowa the social conservatives not only control the largest voting bloc on caucus night, but I also believe that this same group literally controls the polls in Iowa by voting as a bloc in the polls . Of course I believe their leaders tell them who to throw their support behind and when, thus giving them a stronger psychological affect on election night because everybody wants to vote "for a winner.." I know some may think this is a little far fetched but Iowa imo seems to be the worst state when it comes to candidates getting to be the flavor of the month for said amount of time and it always seems to be a candidate that is of the social wing of the party. He'll just look at what they did for santorum.

I also think that many are counting Bush out of this way to early. I think the social cons are going to throw their support behind Bush at the last second just as they did Santorum. The Bush connections in the party are very strong and for whatever reason it always seems to be them that will simply "fall in line" when told to do so.

 

[derek4ever]

I think it's good news to see Cruz leading in IA! Reason: Cruz and Trump will start duking it out and break their non-agression pact. And the negative ads could end up shifting those voters to turn to another option. Iowa saw this happen in 04 when Dean and Gephardt were duking it out and really went nasty. Iowan voters got turned off by all the negative campaigning from both sides. Who ended up winning Iowa? Kerry did. Iowa marked the end of Dean as a front-runner and the end of Gephardt's bid. If we include the fact that Carson is in a free for all here, this scenario could end up being very favorable for Rand. And don't forget that we still have less than 2 months to go. In politics, a month seems like eternity and anything can happen!

 

[eleganz]

I think it's good news to see Cruz leading in IA! Reason: Cruz and Trump will start duking it out and break their non-agression pact. And the negative ads could end up shifting those voters to turn to another option. Iowa saw this happen in 04 when Dean and Gephardt were duking it out and really went nasty. Iowan voters got turned off by all the negative campaigning from both sides. Who ended up winning Iowa? Kerry did. Iowa marked the end of Dean as a front-runner and the end of Gephardt's bid. If we include the fact that Carson is in a free for all here, this scenario could end up being very favorable for Rand. And don't forget that we still have less than 2 months to go. In politics, a month seems like eternity and anything can happen!

Right.

Cruz rising earlier the better. The longer he stayed second place, the worse the chances are for us. Peaking two months before caucus day is too early for a candidate as fickle as Cruz. Tea partiers may love him but regular GOP voters don't and he isn't electable and the media will beat him over the head with inelectability.

 

[Jonderdonk]

Then we have to worry about Trump again. I am hoping Cruz has a mistress. But barring that, we'd need it to be someone weaker taking down Cruz...Fiorino, or maybe Rubio...or Huckabee. Or maybe just an incredible gaff.

He was SO CLOSE to a Rick Perry "Oops" moment.