Trumps Third Win in a Row Unleashes Flurry of Panic Among the Media & Pundits

In the aftermath of Donald Trump's third primary victory in a row, and the realization that the billionaire Republican candidate might have a clear path to the general election, the Anti-Trump factions came out in full force on Wednesday throwing everything in sight at the perennial front-runner.  And the attacks came from all sides of the political spectrum---including a former Republican candidate, 2012 loser to Barack Obama, Mitt Romney.

In what has to be described as a "well-scripted" plot by the folks at Fox News, (a cable news outlet that brags about being "fair and balanced"), Neil Cavuto took a call from Romney, who suggested there's a bombshell in Trump's yet to be released tax returns.  It didn't take long for the social media to light up the internet, (followed closely by the cable nets) as the early afternoon show of "Your World with Neil Cavuto" supplied ample ammunition for the anti-Trump factions, hell bent on derailing the overwhelming Trump-Train.  Cavuto insisted the powers at Fox had reached out to the Trump campaign for a response to Romney's bombshell accusation, leaving this writer to wonder/surmise that the entire episode was pre-planned and scripted.

Trump responded on Twitter shortly after Romney's "phone conversation" with a flurry of Tweets and Re-Tweets:

"Mitt Romney,who totally blew an election that should have been won and whose tax returns made him look like a fool, is now playing tough guy" 

@MittRomney hates to see Trump's success when he was so pathetic.... 

Romney is a pawn of the Establishment and has no individual thought process. He is jealous of Trump!" 

Romney should have been a tough guy with Obama. He cowered and lost. BADLY! He's not relevant!"     

When Mitt Romney asked me for my endorsement last time around, he was so awkward and goofy that we all should have known he could not win!

One response from a facebook commenter at Hot Air, (a former "conservative" website that basically purged its following by switching to the FB commenting format, causing a mass exodus/migration to HotGas.net), summed up Romney's bitterness brilliantly:

"Dear Mitt,
I have good reason to believe that Candy Crowley has your balls dangling from her rear-view mirror."

The Crowley comment refers to a Romney/Obama debate where Romney allowed Crowley to dictate what/how Obama described a terrorist attack, leaving Romney standing in front of a nationally televised audience completely dumb-founded.

It was during Romney's Presidential bid that then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stood on the floor of the Senate and announced Romney had not paid his taxes in over ten years.  While there was no proof of the accusation, "Dirty Harry" was fully protected from any legal backlash because of a legislative rule.......

A few years later, when Reid was confronted in an interview, the retiring Senator boasted about his source-less fabrication, claiming he had no regrets, and included the now infamous statement: "Romney didn't win, did he?"

Romney's now "source-less" over-the-phone interview with Cavuto leaves this writer to surmise the gutter politics, (usually expected from the liberal left), of this campaign season is only beginning---and it will be coming from both the left and the right in any attempt to stop Trump's freight train to the nomination.

Addendum:  Trump's surge in this election is also worrying the folks in China. Via a Drudge Headline, Bill Gertz at the Free Beacon reported China is extremely concerned about Trump's impending campaign run, calling it "a warning": 

"China warned the United States on Wednesday not to adopt punitive currency policies that could disrupt U.S.-China relations after Donald Trump’s win in the Nevada caucus. 

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying told reporters in Beijing that “we are following with interest the U.S. presidential election.”

The Chinese Ministry should be "following with interest".  Disrupting their current currency manipulation, (screwing American interest for the past decade), may have to come to a Trumpian end.  

Neither Harry Reid or Mitt Romney could be reached for an intelligent comment.

"Winning, Winning, Winning" --- Donald Trump Takes Third in a Row

Donald Trump won the GOP Nevada Caucus last night, cracking the 40% barrier and leaving his next two competitors wondering what they'll do next.  Trump picked up 12 more delegates finishing with 45.9% of the Caucus vote.  Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz came in a distant second with 23.9% and 21.4% respectively.

With another record turnout in the Silver State, Trump struck gold, as he also bested his opponents among both Latinos and Evangelicals, as entrance polling again indicated the electorate prefers an outsider:

"A new high in desire for an outsider candidate vaulted Donald Trump to a sweeping victory in the Nevada Republican caucuses, completing a three-contest hat trick for the New York billionaire – first New Hampshire, then South Carolina, now Nevada. 

Six in 10 caucus-goers in entrance poll results said they were looking for someone from outside the political establishment, compared with about half in previous contests. And a smashing 71 percent of them voted for Trump, a record for his populist campaign among outsider voters. 

Six in 10 also described themselves as angry at the way the federal government is working, compared with four in 10 in the previous three states to hold nominating contests this year. Trump won half of these angry voters in Nevada, slightly more than previously. That said, he also easily won voters who were dissatisfied rather than angry – a sign of his broad strength in the state."  link

With the SEC Primaries, (aka, Super Tuesday) coming in just 6-days, (March 1st), and over a thousand delegates up for grabs, Trump's momentum could very well sweep the southern states, leaving him well on his way to the GOP Nomination.

GOP PRIMARY SCHEDULE AND RESULTS

UPDATE:  This post can't be complete without a photo of the "disgruntled elite" pundits thrown in:

What Goes Around......Comes Around, Mr. President

In this brave new world, where everything is archived, it sure is nice that the good folks at MRC managed to produce this dandy quote.  And, because of Justice Scalia's untimely death, (leaving a far left president salavitating over the prospect of appointing a Supreme Court justice that will certainly jeopardize the balance of the court), statements like this one comes in handy.

Mr. Obama's short tenure in the Senate, (when the Democrats were in the majority), left us, (conservatives), in a rare case where we agree with the President's "disagreement".  And, it's nice to know Mr. Obama had some "company" sharing his brilliant opinion.

Straight from the then Majority Leader's mouth, Mr. Harry-rubber-stamp Reid also supports our President's view, along with several other Democrats who insisted it just wasn't a priority to appoint a justice in the final year of George W. Bush's term.  Not to leave anyone, (important), out of the conversation, let's not forget this gem from our current Vice President:

“If the president goes the way of Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over,” ~ Joe Biden

And, of course, it wouldn't be fair to leave out our dear Mr. Schumer's opinion on this subject:

"We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances," Schumer, a New York Democrat, said in prepared remarks to the American Constitution Society, a liberal legal organization. 

Schumer cited ideological reasons for the delay. 

"They must prove by actions, not words, that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not," Schumer said at the time.

Now how could anyone argue against this thinking from such great minds?

The 2016 Republican South Carolina Primary---Trump Wins

As others have said, this is the day where Republican campaigns will be "defined"...........or come to an end.

Final RCP polling averages before this crucial contest leaves Donald Trump in a comfortable lead at 31.8%, with Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio in a virtual tie for second place, (Rubio--18.8% & Cruz---18.6%).  In the "race" for third place, Jeb Bush is at 10.7%, followed by Kasich, 9.0% and Carson, 6.8%.

I will keep this thread open through out the day to add updates on this primary, along with any breaking news stories that develop.

Links to Primary Results:

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/02/live_coverage_of_south_carolina_primary_and_nevada.html

Live Results Coming In Here and Here

Update:  Media calls Trump Winner shortly after polls close.

Update:  Breaking News: Bush Suspends Campaign! Karl Rove on suicide watch.

Final Results, (via NYT's Link)

Donald J. Trump	239,851	32.5%	50
Marco Rubio	165,881	22.5	—
Ted Cruz	164,790	22.3	—
Jeb Bush	57,863	7.8	—
John Kasich	56,206	7.6	—
Ben Carson	53,326	7.2

Meanwhile, over at Hot Air:

Zsa Zsa Abhor · Chief Executive Officer at Self-Employed
Here's me, stopping by cuz I'm loyal like that. Can't stay too long, though. There's a thing at hotgas.net and I'm supposed to bring the potato salad....cool party, though.


[Comment deleted, user banned — Ed]  

Rovin • 30 minutes ago

Breaking News! Hot Gas out-performing polling expectations----Hot Air: Open Thread--41 comments, Allahpundit Elite Thread--20 comments

HotGas: 717 Comments and counting!  (now over 1300)

Update 2:  ANALYSIS: Donald Trump Takes Ownership of Republican Party

Please feel free to leave a comment in the new Disqus system at the bottom of each post.

Antonin Scalia 1936-2016

Justice Antonin Scalia, the patriarch of conservative jurisprudence, was found dead on Saturday at a resort in West Texas. Speculation is that he died of heart failure. He was 79.

Appointed to the Supreme Court in 1986 by President Reagan, and unanimously confirmed by the Senate, while becoming the first Italian-American Justice, Scalia spent nearly thirty years on the bench advocating for originalism in constitutional interpretation.  His concurrences, as well as his dissents were often found to be scathing rebukes to the Courts over-reach of the Founder’s intent.

Just hours after the report of Scalia's death, a political fire-storm erupted as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that the Senate had no plans to entertain any nominations from the current President:

"Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Saturday that the Senate should wait until a new president is elected to confirm a replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia, whose sudden death Saturday shook Washington and threatened to reshape the 2016 presidential race. 

Democrats said that with 11 months left in President Obama’s tenure, the Senate has enough time — and indeed an obligation — to confirm a replacement. Sen. Harry Reid, the top Democrat in the chamber, said it would be “shameful” to put off a replacement that long."  link

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley disagreed:

“The fact of the matter is that it’s been standard practice over the last nearly 80 years that Supreme Court nominees are not nominated and confirmed during a presidential election year,” Mr. Grassley said. “Given the huge divide in the country, and the fact that this president, above all others, has made no bones about his goal to use the courts to circumvent Congress and push through his own agenda, it only makes sense that we defer to the American people who will elect a new president to select the next Supreme Court justice.”

However, Democrat Chuck Schumer went on a Sunday morning news show to insist Republicans do not resort to obstructionism:

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is criticizing Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell for saying the Senate should not move forward with a Supreme Court nominee during President Obama's remaining months in office. 

"You know, the kind of obstructionism that Mitch McConnell's talking about, he's harkening back to his old days. You know, he recently he said, 'Well, I want regular order,' " Schumer said on ABC's "This Week." link

Of course, the ever-hypocritical Mr. Schumer didn't think his party was "obstructing" anything in George Bush's final year in office:

"Second, for the rest of this President’s term and if there is another Republican elected with the same selection criteria let me say this: 

We should reverse the presumption of confirmation. The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts; or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito. 

Given the track record of this President and the experience of obfuscation at the hearings, with respect to the Supreme Court, at least: I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee EXCEPT in extraordinary circumstances." link

And, Schumer's "recommendation" came 18 months before the end of Bush's term.  So, Mr. Schumer, (apparently), has no problem with throwing the Supreme Court "out of balance", as long as it swings to the left---(we get it Chucky)---but here's a little Constitutional lesson for you and your liberal cohorts:

"The Constitution gives the Senate the right to "advice and consent" for Supreme Court nominees. The Senate members can choose if and when to vote on the nomination. The nominee needs 50 votes to pass, but must garner the support of at least 60 members. Otherwise, the opponents can force a filibuster, in which one or more senators can speak for as long as they choose and delay the vote indefinitely."  link

No where in the Constitution does it say, "the Senate must confirm" any nominated candidate for the Supreme Court. The Senate members can choose if and when to vote on the nomination.  Mr. Obama and the Democrats seem to be under the illusion that this nation needs to swing to the left, (which is exactly what an Obama nominee will do), yet both the 2010 & 2014 shellackings by the Republican Party proves this is not the case.  Democrats, (specifically the liberal progressives), can whine all they want about this process, but as we, (Republicans), have learned expeditiously---elections do have consequences.

I believe Justice Scalia would concur.  

Pandering to the Minorities---A Democratic Dilemma

Democrats and the Democratic Party have been pandering to Blacks and minorities for over 40 years, promising they would all have better lives---as long as they voted for the Democrat.  No one's certain how the Democrats became "the guardians of minorities", given their history of preventing Blacks from achieving even their basic civil rights, most notably the right to vote.

Some where along the line, (in the late 70's), they discovered an ever growing voting block was there for the picking.  All they had to do is promise a basket full of goodies, (every time an election came around), and presto, the votes came pouring in.  It never seemed to matter that the Black community was let down time and again by the Democrat's rhetorical pandering.  Once the votes were in, they just disappeared---until the next election came around.

But the two Democratic candidates running for the White House have a conflicting dilemma in this election cycle; both want to expand immigration and provide amnesty for more than 11 million illegal immigrants already here.  And, both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have no problem with shipping in over 100,000 Syrians to become permanent residents.  All will be provided with the Federal Government safety net, (free health care, free education, and a welfare package guaranteed to keep them right where the Democrats want them---fully dependent on the government, living right around the poverty level, and a lifetime of searching for any job above the minimum wage.

Attention, Black Voters: Does this lifestyle sound familiar for a majority of your peers?

To make matter far worse for the Black Communities, the influx of foreign and illegal immigrants pouring over the southern border, have made the African-American jobs market virtually non-existent.  And, if the Democrats have their way, it, [black unemployment], will get far worse with their proposed policies of total amnesty and virtual open borders. 

But Bernie and Hillary don't care.  All they want is your vote.  They could care less if you find a better job, advance beyond the poverty level, (or heaven forbid you become self-sufficient and not dependent on some form of government assistance).  Hell, that might make you into a Republican Capitalist.  Or worse, you could run for a political office and run the government, instead of being a dependent of it.

But make no mistake, Bernie and Hillary, (just like the generations of Democrats before them), will promise you "it's your turn" for a better life.

Did anyone listening to the Debate the other night hear either of these candidates mention how they were going to improve the JOBS market for minorities and Blacks?  No, they never mention HOW.  It's always "we're going to do it better........this time----trust us".

Further, if you did find a "real job", (paying above the poverty level), do you think Bernie's across the board tax increases are going to help your paychecks?

Both Bernie and Hillary want to expand the Federal Government by over 40%, implementing MORE TAXES, while turning this country into a socialist state.  All the while, they will tell you the plan is to take more from the rich to give to the poor, making all of us "more equal".  The only problem is, they could take 70% from the "rich", and it wouldn't make a dent in the Federal Government's over-bloated bureaucracy, while "the poor" would get more of the same---very little or nothing.  That leaves only one last constituency to hit up---the working middle class, who are already being taxed beyond their means.  

But don't expect these two Democrats to admit the middle class will also have to pay their "fair share".  They will lie to you and say "we're only going after the rich".  It's the same thing they've been saying for over forty years, while the poor keep buying the "new and improved" snake-oil time and again, and the middle class gets the shaft---the rinse and repeat rhetoric of the progressive left, your Democratic Party.  

Trump Wins in New Hampshire---Convincingly

As the polls predicted, Donald Trump won the New Hampshire Primary last night in convincing fashion, garnering over 35% in a field of eight Republican candidates.  Second place went to Ohio governor John Kasich with 15.9%, followed by Iowa winner Ted Cruz at 11.6%, and Jeb Bush at 11.1% in fourth place.  Falling down the ladder a bit, Florida Senator Marco Rubio finished in a disappointing 5th place with 10.6%.  The remaining candidates finished in single digits: Chris Christie 7.5%, Carly Fiorina 4.2%, and bringing up the rear was Dr. Ben Carson collecting only 2.3% of the vote.

On the Democratic side, as predicted, self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders blasted Hillary Clinton out of the water with a whopping 60% of the vote to Clinton's 39%.  Terms like painful, crushing, and angry were employed in describing how far Clinton has fallen from the once "inevitable" distinction she held just six months earlier.  In a state where both Bill and Hillary won in previous primaries, the Granite State was not too kind to Mrs. Clinton, where Sanders garnered 70% of the youth vote.  In what's being called "a sharp rebuke to establishment politics that will likely set off warning bells among the Democratic elite", it should be noted that a much similar rebuke is also coming from the Republican side of the coin.

Here comes the canned establishment Media spin----

The ink wasn't even dry in publishing the results of the NH primary before the Media began spinning their deceitful web of obfuscations and prognostications, but Hillary's formidable fire-wall appears to becoming a worn-out picket fence that may not hold back the anger from an electorate overwhelmingly rejecting the status quo establishment both the Media and the pundits will battle going into South Carolina and beyond.

With 79% of Democratic women ages 18-29 supporting Sanders over Clinton in New Hampshire, Clinton's expectation of the Black and Latino vote might become a wash.

In the Republican race, even Fox News failed, (again), to provide Iowa winner Ted Cruz with any ink, but seemed to hold out hope for Bush or Rubio, the establishment Media's final pair, both who have yet to win a primary. Historically, no Republican candidate has gone on to win the Presidential nomination that didn't win in either Iowa or New Hampshire---a fact the pundits/journalist at Fox conveniently forgot to mention.  

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, though, is staying behind -- returning to his home state after a disappointing sixth-place finish with a mere 8 percent of the vote. He told supporters he planned to make a decision Wednesday on the way forward with the viability of his campaign now in serious doubt.

The rest head to the Palmetto State, each facing a unique challenge: Trump aims to hold his front-runner status after cementing it in New Hampshire on the heels of his Iowa loss. Kasich, while getting a big boost out of Tuesday’s contest, will look to demonstrate he can play beyond New Hampshire. And as Cruz and Bush look to build on their performance, Rubio is vowing to improve after a rocky debate seemingly disrupted his momentum. 

"That will never happen again," Rubio told supporters Tuesday, referring to his Saturday debate performance.

On twitter, Patrick Frey at Patterico was the first to mockingly repeat Rubio's repetitive nature.  

Patterico ‏@Patterico 7h7 hours ago

Patterico Retweeted Marco Rubio

And let me also say: listen to this, that will never happen again.

FollowMarco RubioVerified account‏@marcorubio

"Our disappointment tonight is not on you. It's on me. I did not do well on Saturday night. So listen to this, that will never happen again."

Meanwhile, earth to journalist----DONALD TRUMP WON! And he may even sweep through South Carolina with another victory in his "Make America Great Again" hat.

Updates to follow........

Splashed Across the Drudge Report Headlines

The link leads you to this WND Exclusive:

WND EXCLUSIVE
SCHLAFLY UNLOADS ON RUBIO: 'HE BETRAYED US ALL'
Conservative icon calls media favorite 'lackey for the establishment'

In the story, Schlafly doesn't make any bones about how disappointed she is with Rubio:

“When Marco Rubio ran for the Senate in Florida, I think I was the first one to endorse him,” said Phyllis Schlafly. “I made a trip down to Florida in 2009 just for the purpose of helping him.” 

But Schlafly, a legendary conservative activist, author and WND columnist, now says she is bitterly disappointed by Rubio’s record. 

“Once he got elected, he betrayed us all,” she told WND. “He said he was against amnesty and against the establishment. And once he got in, right away, he became an agent of the establishment. And now, of course, he’s big for amnesty and letting all the illegal immigrants in. He betrayed us a number of times on that issue.”

One thing is clear, Rubio won't change.  Which means we, the people must do the "changing".  The full-throated push for Rubio became apparent when he finished third in Iowa and the Establishment Media treated him as if he'd won the Caucus, bypassing the story of an historic Hispanic Ted Cruz victory.  

But once again, the Media believes they alone are the gate-keepers of the White House, and we, the sheep, must follow them blindly into the den of wolves---by voting for their hand-picked candidate.  

There's really only two choices left on this ticket---Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. Any other choice, (especially Rubio), leaves us right back where we were in 2008 & 2012 with a McCain/Romney ticket.  Read the Schlafly story in its entirety if you have any doubts that Rubio is anything other than the Establishment's pick.

Cruzin' to a Victory in Iowa UPDATE: Mainstream Media Glosses Over Historic Latino Win

Ted Cruz pulled out a simi-surprising victory in Iowa last night, upsetting Donald Trump's plans to sweep the first two primaries in the Republican nomination process.  With a record turnout of reportedly 180,000 Republicans, (that the media claimed would favor Trump), Cruz simply "out-organized" the rest of the field as Iowans embraced an anti-establishment outsider.  With several cards stacked against him, (Iowa Republican Governor Branstad calling for his defeat, the media and his fellow candidates questioning his eligibility, and telling Iowans they could live without government subsidies), the man who un-apologetically thanks God for his accomplishments, promises to restore the Constitution and defend the religious liberties afforded to all Americans, the Cruz-Crew defied all of these odds.

"Iowa has sent notice that the Republican nominee and the next president of the United States will not be chosen by the media, will not be chosen by the Washington establishment, will not be chosen by the lobbyists, but will be chosen by the most incredible, powerful force — where all sovereignty resides in our nation — by we the people, the American people," Cruz declared.

The rejection of the Republican Establishment candidates left a clear message that Americans are indeed sick and tired of a status quo Washington Cartel deciding who will represent them in the White House.  60% of the total vote went to non-establishment candidates.

(Sidenote:  A quick scan of google with "Cruz Wins Iowa" shows much of the media emphasizing a Trump's loss)

Ted Cruz finished ahead of Trump 28% to 24%, while Marco Rubio came in just one point behind Trump at 23%.  Official results can be found here.

On the other side of the isle, Hillary Clinton found herself in a dog-fight against self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders.  As of midnight, (Iowa time), neither state officials or the media could make the call for a winner.

Although CNN forced themselves to report Clinton claimed the victory, it's hard to understand how a 30 point lead over Sanders just 90 days ago, justifies a "victorious" claim.  Cruz took a stab at the two Democratic contenders during his victory speech, stating "one candidate who is a socialist, and the other who pretends she's not".

With the momentum clearly in Ted Cruz's corner, (and reportedly $19 million still in his war-chest), the race for the White House finds the Establishment Media---and the power-brokers in Washington---scratching their collective heads as the race moves to New Hampshire, where the latest RCP polling has Trump up on Cruz by 18-25 points, and Sanders has a commanding lead over Clinton by 21-30 points.

(Sidenote 2: Two candidates called it quits last night.  Former Governor Mike Huckabee on the Republican side, and former Governor Martin O’Malley on the Democrat's side.  Overall, the "governors" did not fair well last night where Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and John Kasich – all finished below 3 percent.)

Update:  Since the American Media can't/won't report what happened last night, I guess we'll have to depend on an over-seas publication:

“Do not think that just because the high profile rebels didn’t win that Iowa wasn’t the scene of a rebellion. Last night, tectonic plates shifted in American politics: quietly, subtly. But the ground still moved. 

On the Democrat side, Hillary Clinton was taken to a “virtual tie” by a 74-year old socialist. On the Republican side, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz – two halves of the same anti-establishment revolt – polled over 50 per cent in a Republican caucus with a historic turnout. And even Marco Rubio, whose name will dominate media coverage the days to come, represents a rebellion of his own. The squares are fighting back against the whacko-birds.”

Three cheers for the squares.

Update: Terry Schilling at the Daily Caller pointed out how the Mainstream Media basically passed over what should have been the Headline of the night, the fact that a Hispanic-American had won a primary for the first time in American history.

"Ted Cruz is the first Hispanic-American to ever win the Iowa Caucus. And not only that, he is the first Hispanic-American to win any presidential primary – for any party – ever. And it was the religious right that pushed him to victory. 

51 percent of Iowa caucus-goers – some of the whitest voters in the country – voted for Latino candidates. Cruz received 28 percent of the vote, while Marco Rubio placed third with 23 percent."

Throw in Ben Carson's 9% and that means Republican minority candidates received 60% of the Iowa vote.  So much for the pathetic narrative that Republicans are racist.  Instead, the media focused most of their attention on three white people---Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, and Hillary.

2016 Iowa Caucus

Let the games, (Caucuses) begin.  The Media has spoken, (both liberal, and not so liberal, ie Fox News Crew), and, the political pundits have all had their say. Even Tom Brokaw says, "don't underestimate the power of social media", and we shall indeed see how this power is displayed in the days ahead. 

But, for now, today in Iowa, it's up to the People.

Off and on today, yours truly will be live-blogging the "final" words of the media and the pundits, and, at the end of the day, reporting the results of this first primary stop for the Politicians---

The top three Republican contenders are Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio.  Dr. Ben Carson is not far behind these three, but the rest of the field is in single digits, including the disappointing campaign of Jeb Bush, who's only managing a 2% margin.

On the other side of the isle, the Democrats will decide between Hillary and Bernie in a closely contested race.  It was only a few months ago that Mrs. Clinton maintained a healthy lead over Sanders.  That has all changed.

From the Media and the Pundits:

The National Review, (who wrote a scathing anti-Trump "editorial" by the entire writing staff---now deemed "Editors"---is post today that a Trump win in Iowa really doesn't mean that much, with a most lede-ing title:


"Why the Iowa Caucus (Probably) Won’t Alter the Fundamentals of the GOP Race"

CNN's morning headline:  "Donald Trump defies political gravity"

From the Twitters-phere:

The Daily Caller ‏@DailyCaller 1h1 hour ago
On The Collision Course With Ted Cruz And Marco Rubio In Iowa http://trib.al/7nf5THq

Bloomberg Politics ‏@bpolitics 1h1 hour ago
The choice for Iowa Republicans: Trump's strength or Cruz's purity http://bloom.bg/1PsKUOc

Much more to come.................

Shocking statement from MSNBC's Chris Matthews: "One of greatest campaign slogans I've heard in years"----Make America Great Again.

Narrative of the Day, working up & repeated often this morning: "It's only one state in a long process".