Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
follow
1,000 Followers
follow
0 Followers
follow
People's Pundit Locals Community
Monday, February 24, 2025
SECTIONS
logo
mobile-logo
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 630)
Uncategorized

2016 Ohio Republican Primary

66 Delegates: Winner-Take-All (March 15, 2016)

[election_2016_polls]

Polling Data

[wpdatatable id=29]

Above are the 2016 Ohio Republican Primary polls and the PPD aggregate average for the Buckeye State. The Ohio Republican primary on Tuesday March 15, 2016 is a winner-take-all contest, which awards all 66 delegates to the plurality or majority winner. All 66 of Ohio’s delegates to the Republican National Convention are allocated on the day of the Ohio Republican Primary.

[ssbp]

2016 Ohio Republican Primary 66 Delegates: Winner-Take-All (March 15, 2016) [election_2016_polls] Polling Data [wpdatatable

Politics

Obama-Guantanamo-Bay

President Barack Obama, center, is renewing his push to close Guantanamo Bay detention center, which remains a radical left position. (Photos: AP/Getty/PPD)

President Obama on Tuesday announced his long-anticipated plan to close the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, despite public opinion and bipartisan opposition on Capitol Hill. saying it undermines national security and is contrary to American values.

“For many years, it’s been clear that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay does not advance our national security,” Mr. Obama said in a news conference at the White House.

But the plan is likely to meet resistance in the Republican-controlled Congress. House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., responded to the president’s announcement and plan immediately after the White House press conference.

“After seven years, President Obama has yet to convince the American people that moving Guantanamo terrorists to our homeland is smart or safe,” Mr. Ryan said. “And he doesn’t seem interested in continuing to try.”

Mr. Ryan said the president’s proposal “fails to provide critical details required by law, including the exact cost and location of an alternate detention facility.”

“Congress has left no room for confusion,” the speaker said. “It is against the law — and it will stay against the law — to transfer terrorist detainees to American soil. We will not jeopardize our national security over a campaign promise.”

According to President Obama, the closer is not just a “radical left plan.” He claimed he had bipartisan support until unnamed forces scared lawmakers and the American people in a manner that was unwarranted. In reality, and PPD has reported on public opinion over-and-over, the proposal to close the Gitmo detention center at Guantanamo Bay has always been a radical left position.

A Gallup poll found just 29% of Americans support closing the terrorist detention camp and moving its prisoners to U.S. prisons, while 66% oppose doing so. As with the latest PPD Poll, ideology is the most predictive factor when determining a respondent’s answer, not party preference or ID.

“The closing of Guantanamo Bay remains a radical left position in America,” says PPD’s senior political analyst, Rich Baris. “The anti-Guantanamo crowd is loud, but they have been in the minority since Obama first made the issue a central campaign promise in 2008. Even a majority of Democrats oppose that idea.”

Even though Republicans are more likely than Democrats to oppose closing Guantanamo Bay, the majority of Democrats remain opposed, leaving a small fringe element on the left a tiny minority. In the latest Gallup poll, Democrats offered their lowest level of support since 2007, when the question was first posed to Americans. Now, just 41 percent of the president’s own party support him and the radical left, while 54 percent oppose them.

Similarly, while the president claimed the plan has bipartisan support, a bipartisan opposition of lawmakers blocked Obama’s first plan to close the facility when the Democrats still held the U.S. Senate.

Obama also continued to cite the facility as a “stain” and recruitment tool for Islamic terrorism. While al-Qaeda did use the facility at Gitmo as a tool, it is unanimous–even among his former heads at the CIA, National Counterterrorism Center and (two) Defense Department–that it is no longer a factor.

President Obama on Tuesday announced his long-anticipated

Economy

Consumer-Confidence-Index-Reuters

Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index. (Photo: Reuters)

The Conference Board reported on Tuesday the Consumer Confidence Index fell in February to 92.2 from a downwardly revised 97.8 in January. The gauge, which had increased moderately in January, missed the median forecast.

Economists polled by Reuters had expected the Consumer Confidence Index to fall to 97.

“Consumer confidence decreased in February, after posting a modest gain in January,” said Lynn Franco, Director of Economic Indicators at The Conference Board. “Consumers’ assessment of current conditions weakened, primarily due to a less favorable assessment of business conditions.”

Consumers’ views of present-day conditions also declined in the month of February, as the percentage saying business conditions were “good” fell from 27.7% to 26.0%. Those saying business conditions are “bad” gained from 18.8% to 19.8%. Consumers’ views of the labor market were also relatively negative. The number claiming jobs are “plentiful” fell from 23.0% to 22.1%, while those claiming jobs are “hard to get” increased to 24.2% from 23.6%.

“Consumers’ short-term outlook grew more pessimistic, with consumers expressing greater apprehension about business conditions, their personal financial situation, and to a lesser degree, labor market prospects,” Franco added. “Continued turmoil in the financial markets may be rattling consumers, but their assessment of current conditions suggests the economy will continue to expand at a moderate pace in the near-term.”

Consumers were also more negative regarding the short-term outlook than in January. The percentage expecting business conditions to improve over the next six months fell from 15.9% to 14.6%, while those expecting business conditions to worsen increased from 10.7% to 12.0%.

Meanwhile, those anticipating more jobs in the months ahead decreased from 13.4% to 12.2%, while those anticipating fewer jobs gained from 17.0% to 17.2%. The proportion of consumers expecting their incomes to increase fell from 18.6% to 17.2%, while the proportion expecting a reduction in income jumped from 10.7% to 12.5%.

The Conference Board reported on Tuesday the

Economy

Home-Prices-Home-Sales-Reuters

Home sales and home prices data and reports. (Photo: REUTERS)()

The National Association of Realtors (NAR) reported sales of existing single-family homes rose 0.4% in January to an annualized rate of 5.47 million units. The expectation was for 5.32 million units.

“The housing market has shown promising resilience in recent months, but home prices are still rising too fast because of ongoing supply constraints,” said Lawrence Yun, NAR chief economist. “Despite the global economic slowdown, the housing sector continues to recover and will likely help the U.S. economy avoid a recession.”

The West was the only region to see a decline in sales in January.

“The spring buying season is right around the corner and current supply levels aren’t even close to what’s needed to accommodate the subsequent growth in housing demand,” says Yun. “Home prices ascending near or above double-digit appreciation aren’t healthy – especially considering the fact that household income and wages are barely rising.”

Regional Breakdown

January existing-home sales in the Northeast increased 2.7% to an annual rate of 760,000, and are now 20.6% above a year ago. The median price in the Northeast was $247,500, which is 0.9% above January 2015.

In the Midwest, existing-home sales rose 4.0% to an annual rate of 1.30 million in January, and are now 18.2% above January 2015. The median price in the Midwest was $164,300, up 8.7% from a year ago.

Existing-home sales in the South were at an annual rate of 2.24 million in January (unchanged from December) and are 5.7% above January 2015. The median price in the South was $184,800, up 8.5% from a year ago.

Existing-home sales in the West decreased 4.1% to an annual rate of 1.17 million in January, but are still 8.3% higher than a year ago. The median price in the West was $309,400, which is 7.4% above January 2015.

“This legislation contains a number of initiatives that put homeownership in reach for more families, including several reforms to current Federal Housing Administration restrictions on condominium financing. Now that the House has overwhelmingly voted in support of the bill, we look forward to working with our industry partners to advance it through the Senate,” said NAR President Tom Salomone.

The National Association of Realtors (NAR) reported

Economy

pending-home-sales-sale-sign

Home for sale sign (Realtors) and potential exiting and pending home sales contract. (PHOTO: REUTERS)

Home prices in 20 major U.S. metro areas were flat in December on a non-seasonally adjusted basis, missing expectations for a 0.1% expected increase. According to the S&P/Case-Shiller home price index, which covers the nationwide data, increased 5.4% in the 12 months, more than a 5.2% increase in November but slightly expectations.

Economists polled by The Wall Street Journal expected a 5.9% increase in the 20-city index. Further, the managing director at S&P Dow Jones Indices said he expects home prices to cool over the current year.

“While home prices continue to rise, the pace is slowing a bit,” said Mr. David Blitzer.

S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Index in 20 major

Elections

Donald Trump Beat “The Geniuses”

Donald-Trump-South-Carolina-Speech

Donald Trump delivers his victory speech in Spartanburg, South Carolina on February 20, 2016. (Photo: Getty)

Media pundits, particularly in the Republican Establishment, have been pushing a strategic narrative that is flat-out false. Their argument is an attempt to downplay the frontrunner’s dominant performance in the first three voting states by cherry-picking data and disguising wishful thinking as political punditry.

But the reality is that Donald J. Trump can win an outright majority of delegates with a rather small plurality of the Republican primary vote. In fact, he can win with as little as a third of the vote. By using the results in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, our model can confidently predict that Trump would win a majority of delegates as long as he stays above 31% of the vote.

That said, even slightly less may not stop him depending on the dynamics of the field.

Because this claim was called into question by John Fund at National Review, we will explain the model and numbers in the context of his most recent analysis in an article published on Monday. To be fair, I criticized his analysis first via Twitter, which I will not only show to be inaccurate but borderline delusional.

Trump could win with less than 40% of the vote in a three-way race (39% to be exact) and with an even smaller plurality if the field remains split by four or more. I will explain a few state scenarios that are winner-take-all, winner-take-most and proportional, as well as how the rules impact the delegates. But there is another whole side to the anti-Trump argument Mr. Fund mentioned that first needs to be addressed.

Fund claim #1:

That [winner-take-all] will propel him to the nomination, they believe. But not a single state is winner-take-all until Florida (99 delegates) and Ohio (66 delegates) vote on March 15. With Jeb Bush’s dropping out, Marco Rubio probably has an advantage over Trump in his home state, as does John Kasich in Ohio. Kasich is likely to stay in the race in hopes he can use his delegates to become a power broker at the GOP convention in Cleveland in July.

Now, let’s come back down to Earth.

Even if Jeb Bush’s supporters–both donors and voters–defy statistical realities and get behind Rubio 100%, polls suggest he’ll still lose his own state to Trump by at least 20 points, roughly 40% to 22%. Since Florida is winner-take-all Mr. Trump can win with just 1 vote and we can put those 99 delegates in The Donald’s column.

In Ohio, where Mr. Fund is banking on an establishment candidate and favorite son, all 66 delegates to the Republican National Convention are also pledged on a winner-take-all basis. Trump leads in the Buckeye State by an average 5 points but again only has to win by 1 vote to take all 66 delegates. Due to the support for his positions on immigration and trade–both issues that have disproportionately hurt blue-collar, working class voters–he will.

These two blocs, which Trump carries overwhelmingly, will make up a significant number of voters in the Ohio Republican primary electorate and, indeed, across the SEC states on March 1.

“Not even native son Gov. John Kasich can stop the Donald Trump steamroller,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

Fund claim #2:

The calendar and the way the state contests are organized basically mean that in order to win a majority of delegates by the beginning of June, a single candidate would have to have won more than 45 percent of the popular vote.

That’s just not supported by the delegate math. It’s incorrect and was proven to be on Saturday when Mr. Trump made the Palmetto State winner-take-all. The Republican Establishment pundits have chosen to focus on the makeup of the anti-Trump vote and they have failed to understand the reality of his broad-based appeal. It does not at all reflect the stereotype and allows him to compete (and win) in the North, the South, the Midwest and West.

Let’s get a bit more specific.

Many of the states that award delegates proportionally–including several of the largest, delegate-rich states–award to candidates who exceed a certain share of the vote. It’s called a “delegate threshold” and many proportional states award delegates only to these candidates who exceed that mark.

While many states use 20% of the vote, which only Mr. Trump has consistently proven he can meet, others vary and all give the frontrunner an opportunity to pull away in the delegate race fairly quickly.

It’s called a “back-door” winner-take-all, which we predicted a few weeks ago in the Palmetto State and were ultimately proven correct on Saturday. Basically, Trump appeals across the board demographically speaking and it allows him to carry rural, urban and diverse suburban districts and counties. And it’s not just South Carolina, which is less favorable than those in the Northeast.

For instance, on April 19, it is very possible Mr. Trump take all but one of the 95 delegates in his own home state of New York. In the Empire State, 81 district delegates are bound to the vote in each of the state’s 27 congressional districts, each offering 3 a piece. However, if Mr. Trump wins more than 50% or he is the only candidate to receive 20% or more of the vote, he takes all 3 delegates. That’s what the outdated (and understated) polls indicate.

The remaining 15 delegates–10 base at-large delegates plus 1 bonus delegate–are allocated at a state committee meeting. If a candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, that candidate receives all 14 delegates. We fully expect Trump to do just that and, once again, force a “winner-take-most” hybrid into a winner-take all.

Nevertheless, as of now, Trump has 67 delegates and needs 1,237 delegates to win the party’s nomination by the end of the primary process. Ted Cruz has only 11, leaving 10 for Marco Rubio, 5 for John Kasich and 3 for Ben Carson. There are 30 delegates up from grabs in Nevada, where polling stinks but Trump has a large lead, and we believe he will get at the very least 12. For the sake of argument here, let’s say 79.

Of the remaining delegates, 55% (1,360 delegates) are allocated proportionally and 16% are winner-take-all. Again, the number of total delegates varies depending on our 31% to 41% of the vote model, but even if we assume Trump gets just 31% of these proportional delegates, his delegate share will be roughly 421. To be clear, we believe it is highly likely–partly because of the rules we just outlined and partly because his national polling average is higher (33%)–Trump will get more delegates than we are estimating here.

But I thought I would be generous.

Now, the winner-take-most hybrid contests–not unlike his own home state–will work against Mr. Trump because he will not get many pledges from establishment elite delegates unbound to the vote. But even if we give him zero of these, reduce his national number to 30% to account for proportional delegates, as well as half of the winner-take-all, he still takes 412 of the 618 available.

Including Florida and Ohio–as well as the 25 delegates from Connecticut, which uses an extraordinary set of rules–Trump will take 396 delegates from the winner-take-all states. Is there anyone who is going to argue he’ll not take the 42 delegates in Wisconsin after he takes Ohio, particularly considering his strength among the state’s key demographics?

Just in case you’ve lost track, Trump is already at 1308 delegates in this rather conservative scenario, more than he needs to go on to face the Democratic nominee (we believe Hillary Clinton) in November. That’s the low end of the math, but the reality for the anti-Trump establishment crowd. As I’ve just explained over-and-over, the over-simplified model is more than likely understating his total delegate count at the end of the process.

Fund wasn’t arguing that Mr. Trump wasn’t the frontrunner, just that he wasn’t inevitable. Unfortunately, for those who don’t want him to be the nominee, The Donald has history, the momentum and the data on his side.

Despite delusions coming from John Fund and

Opinion

Ted-Cruz-Sad

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz on the campaign trail in Nevada. (Photo: AP)

I don’t believe I’ve ever presumed to offer unsolicited advice on campaign strategy to a presidential candidate, especially in a public forum, but I’ve decided to make an exception today.

I am an unabashed Ted Cruz supporter and believe he is a man of character, integrity and strong principles who is as close to the ideal antidote for what ails America as we’re likely to see. But since the Iowa primary I’ve been worried. After talking to many of those who have Ted’s best interests in mind, in real life and on Twitter and Facebook, I think I have a handle on what the major concerns are, and I think the campaign must address them.

We adore Ted Cruz because he is a Bible-believing Christian and is unashamed to openly discuss this. And with his Christianity, he is held to a higher standard than the others. While the behavior we see from his political rivals is sometimes despicable, he will not be judged by the same standards. So he must continue to make any necessary adjustments to ensure his campaign is above reproach in actuality and appearance.

While Ted’s faith is one of his very admirable traits, it’s not the only one. He should consider tamping down emphasis here a bit, because some people incorrectly fear these are the only issues he cares about.

Many evangelicals, myself included, don’t necessarily think the candidate who agrees with them most theologically will be the best at statecraft. Even if you narrow the definition to Bible-believing, “born again” Christians, they still don’t vote as a unified bloc, as witnessed by Donald Trump’s strong support among the group.

Likewise, Ted is not going to draw voters away from Trump by convincing them he is more conservative. Many people don’t care about the “conservative” label. Ted’s conservatism shines through on its own; he doesn’t need to tell people how conservative he is. The people being drawn to Trump are not in awe of his conservatism but of his supposed strength and courage — two qualities Cruz actually possesses in spades.

Although Cruz has made it clear where he stands on the all-important issue of immigration, the word “amnesty” has lost its meaning and is too vulnerable to semantic manipulation and misunderstanding.

He must stop getting mired in discussions over poison pills or who lied and who favors amnesty. Ted is right in his arguments, but it is tiring for many people to listen to the arguments again and again.

His big-picture record speaks for itself, as does Rubio’s, and his current position is far more hawkish than Rubio’s and more reliable than Trump’s. What matters most is what he will do if he is elected, not whether opponents are technically for “amnesty.”

Without a doubt, Rubio and Trump are opportunistically ganging up on Cruz, both alleging that he is a “liar.” Cruz has a right to defend himself but has gotten caught up in distasteful skirmishes with both opponents, who gain every moment Cruz is off-message. People cannot keep score over who is right and wrong; they only see Cruz’s denials, which works against Cruz. It’s time to move on and rise above this with a bigger vision for his campaign.

Hard as it may be, Cruz must focus less time engaging Rubio and more challenging Trump. Not on negative personality traits as they do to him, but on the issues.
As the Cruz campaign is quick to remind, Cruz is the only person in the race to have beaten Trump. Cruz must dig deep and reclaim the smart, disciplined fiery warrior that is in his heart if he is to defeat Donald Trump.

Cruz’s greatest strength is that he is a true believer on the things that matter most, even on many vitally important issues to Trump supporters, and he has a record to prove he will act on his beliefs in the face of enormous pressure not to.

Donald Trump’s ultimate Achilles heel, despite his reputation for toughness and iconoclasm, is, as Jimmy Carter noted, that he is malleable on issues, including the very issues his devoted base is counting on him to pursue.

I’ve met Ted Cruz twice and talked to him at length on both occasions. I find him to be down to earth, personable, completely genuine and, to borrow a modern phrase I abhor, “relatable.” But this is not the person we see on TV.

Ted has been a debater and lawyer for so long that his default speech pattern in a campaign setting is too formal, modulated and cadenced. If he could show his more personal side in his public appearances I believe it would serve him very well. All he really needs to do is be himself.

I also believe Cruz should be more careful in how he characterizes his opponents’ positions. He makes statements that are substantively correct, but may be challenged as technically questionable, thus making himself further vulnerable to the charge that he’s disingenuous, when he’s not. Cruz would certainly be right in court, but the court of public opinion isn’t as fair.

For example, he has suggested a vote for Trump is a vote to end the Second Amendment or a vote for Obamacare. Trump immediately calls him a liar because Trump says he supports the Second Amendment and that he will repeal Obamacare. I think Ted would be better off saying that, if elected, Trump, based on his past statements, very well might appoint justices who do not believe the Second Amendment ensures individuals the right to own firearms. And, based on his interviews, Trump could easily replace Obamacare with a health care system every bit as socialized.

Ted Cruz has everything it takes to be an extraordinary — even historic — president and lead the nation out of its current quagmire.

He just needs to say what he’s going to do, in concrete terms, and underscore why he can be counted on more than all others to do it — because of his record, his commitment to action and his demonstrated courage in fighting establishment power brokers who will resist him.

The more Ted Cruz talks about issues the more he soars above his competition. Like no one else in modern times, he has an incomparably uplifting vision to restore America’s exceptionalism. I pray that going forward his campaign will radiate that vision.

David Limbaugh offers advice to the Cruz

Opinion

Apple CEO Tim Cook. (Photo: Reuters)

Apple CEO Tim Cook. (Photo: Reuters)

Federal investigators hold the iPhone of Syed Rizwan Farook, the terrorist who helped slaughter 14 innocents in San Bernardino, California. They want to look at its contents but can’t because the device is encrypted and Apple has refused to unlock it.

The matter ended up in federal court, where a magistrate judge ordered Apple to hack Farook’s cellphone. Apple has rejected the judge’s order, citing privacy concerns.

Apple is in the wrong. As Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance points out, the government’s case rests on centuries of law holding that “no item — not a home, not a file cabinet and not a smartphone — lies beyond the reach of a judicial search warrant.”

There exists no “right of privacy” to withhold evidence of a crime. The idea that the cellphone is a privileged communications device that must be off-limits to law enforcement is nonsense.

The court’s not telling Apple to create what one critic of the judge’s order called a “design defect,” a backdoor that puts all users in danger of being hacked by identity thieves and other creeps. It has ordered Apple to help the Federal Bureau of Investigation get into a single iPhone.

To do this, Apple must create a hacking tool, which, some fret, could get into the wrong hands. But the decrypting could be done on Apple property by Apple people — and the tool kept in Apple’s famously secure vault.

While Apple’s stance is unacceptable, it is understandable from a limited business point of view. Apple worries that if it gives U.S. law enforcement access to encrypted cellphones, countries less sensitive to civil liberties would demand the same. Places like China and Russia could grab the technology for widespread use against their citizens. China is Apple’s second biggest market after the United States.

U.S. tech companies and civil libertarians are supporting Apple’s stance. Nuala O’Connor of the Center for Democracy and Technology expressed some of the fears. Cellphones “have become effectively a part of our bodies,” she wrote. Hers has contacts, medical records, kids’ report cards, pictures and so forth.

All the more reason not to carry all that information around in one’s handbag, we might say. But even if a master key for unlocking iPhones got on the loose, the brutes would still need to possess the physical iPhone and spend perhaps years trying to get past a strong password.

Full-disclosure time. Your writer is a voracious consumer of Apple products and an investor in Apple Inc. stock. She’s not selling her shares for the following reasons:
Before the recent iPhone decryption debate, China was already demanding a backdoor to its citizens’ computers and phones. Chinese consumers know the score.

And there are American sensibilities to consider. FBI Director James Comey spoke for many when he said national policy on confronting terrorism should not be left to “corporations that sell stuff for a living.” It shouldn’t matter how cool the stuff is.

Victims of the San Bernardino attack are filing a legal brief supporting the U.S. government’s position. And for what it’s worth, Donald Trump has called for a boycott of Apple products if the company does not cooperate.

No one said that drawing a line between privacy and security is simple — and new technology keeps moving that blurred border. But Comey is right. The job of setting national security priorities has not been outsourced to Silicon Valley boardrooms. It is a matter for our federal government.

Dear Apple: Frustrating efforts to track terrorists is not a great marketing strategy. Your wisest move would be to make some noise and then help the FBI break into a terrorist’s iPhone.

Dear Apple: Frustrating efforts to track terrorists

Uncategorized

2016 Massachusetts Republican Primary

42 Delegates: Allocated Proportionately (March 1, 2016)

(Please Note: Total delegates include 10 base at-large, 27 for the 9 congressional districts, 3 party and 2 bonus.)

[election_2016_polls]

[wpdatatable id=28]

Above is the 2016 Massachusetts Republican Primary polls aggregated and averaged by People’s Pundit Daily (PPD). There are 42 delegates up for grabs in the Bay State. All 42 of Massachusetts’ delegates to the Republican National Convention are proportionally allocated to presidential contenders based on the statewide results.

A mandatory 5% threshold is required in order for a presidential contender to be allocated National Convention delegates. Further, 3 party leaders, the National Committeeman, the National Committeewoman, and the chairman of the Massachusetts’s Republican Party, will attend the convention as pledged delegates simply by virtue of their position.

[ssbp]

2016 Massachusetts Republican Primary 42 Delegates: Allocated Proportionately (March 1,

Politics

Rick-Tyler

Rick Tyler, the former communications director for the Ted Cruz campaign, was let go amid the latest allegations of dirty tricks.

Sen. Ted Cruz asked his communications director Rick Tyler to resign after posting a false report about Marco Rubio slamming the Bible, Cruz told reporters in Nevada on Monday.

“We are not a campaign that’s going to question the faith of another candidate,” Cruz said.

Tyler on Sunday began pushing a video published initially by a Pennsylvania college publication, in which Rubio appeared to tell a Cruz aide reading the Bible that there are “not many answers in it.” But the video, which was picked up by The Right Scoop, actually showed the opposite: Rubio telling the man that “all the answers are in” the Bible.

“I’ve deleted the post because I would not knowingly post a false story,” Tyler wrote Monday in a Facebook post. “But the fact remains that I did post it when I should have checked its accuracy first. I regret the mistake.”

However, Rubio, who along with Donald J. Trump has repeatedly accused Cruz of running a dishonest and even cheating campaign, continued to hammer the move, suggesting as Ben Carson did after Iowa that Cruz should fire someone.

“At some point there has to be some level of accountability,” Rubio said. “Otherwise, you’re sending the message to the people who work for you: Go out and do anything you want and if you get caught we’ll just apologize, but we’ll keep doing it.”

Later Monday, as it began to sink in that he couldn’t ignore or dismiss the story, such as the previous incidents, Cruz asked Tyler to resign. Cruz’s decision clearly caught Tyler by surprise. Just minutes prior, Tyler appeared on “Shepard Smith Reporting” on Fox News–which followed an appearance on “America’s Newsroom” earlier in the day, and he was preparing for an MSNBC appearance when he abruptly left, according to a reporter for that network.

The Cruz campaign has been plagued with allegations–and evidence–of cheating and playing dirty tricks that have clearly taken a political toll on his campaign. Rubio and Trump hammered away on the incident as further proof Cruz is a dishonest campaigner, which has now turned into a narrative since it surfaced that his team misled Iowa caucus-goers.

The Texas senator finished a disastrous third far behind Trump and narrowly behind Rubio in a state that was comprised of nearly three-quarters evangelical.

“Wow, Ted Cruz falsely suggested Marco Rubio mocked the Bible and was just forced to fire his Communications Director,” Trump tweeted Monday. “More dirty tricks!”

Tyler’s firing will leave Cruz without his top communications aide at a pivotal juncture in the Republican primary, with just one week until Super Tuesday on March 1. Cruz will need to perform strongly in the 11 states voting that day, many of which skew conservative, to have a shot at the nomination.

In fact, a PPD survey of South Carolina evangelicals conducting during the week leading up to the primary found nearly half (42%) thought Cruz cheated in the Iowa caucus and probably cost Trump the election. The incident and development also comes after a photoshopped image of Rubio shaking hands with President Barack Obama was proven to be a fake. There was also a fake Facebook page supposedly representing South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy, which claimed he changed his endorsement to Cruz.

The Cruz campaign denied being behind either.

On Monday, Sen. Ted Cruz asked his

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial

Subscribe