Someone who IS a conservative doesn’t have to convince us he is a conservative because he lives like a conservative, thinks like a conservative, and acts like a conservative.

¹⁵ Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
¹⁶ Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
¹⁷ Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
¹⁸ A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
¹⁹ Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
²⁰ Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Matt 7:15-20 (KJV)

Cross posted at www.firstchevalier.com

I’m currently in the ‘Undecided’ category on the Republican primary. In the days to come here are some questions I’d like to see answers to from the respective candidates. Following those questions are some suggestions I have for each candidate. But, before I continue there is one thing I would like to see from ALL the candidates and that is their participation on this forum. Not just them posting campaign speeches in the form of diary entries (that would be good) but their participation in responding to individual diarists here. Those responses would be very telling about how they truly think, what they really believe, and give us insight into the man behind the camera image (but it will never happen). Oh and don’t give me the ‘they’re too busy to read and post on Redstate’ line. Really? Those on here who hold down full time jobs, families, hobbies, et al aren’t? To sum up what I want initially, I’ll steal and modify a line from John F. Kennedy.

I don’t want to know what you’ll do for me. I want to know what you’ll do for my country?

Some rules about responses, gentlemen…First, Don’t give me platitudes or trite campaign answers. Conservatives can tell if it’s from the heart or if you’re mouthing what some consultant has fed you from a focus group. We’re smart like that and so are the independent voters you guys are all so worried about (don’t be or you’ll loose in my opinion). Second, these answers need to come from the candidate not some super PAC or other mouthpiece that would even present the appearance of plausible deniability, which is the tactic of someone eying a run to the center for the general election.

Now on with my questions and suggestions…

Read More →

Attending my first GOP caucus as a participant was an exciting experience.  I had some butterflies going in because I wouldn’t know anyone there and it was something new.  The experience was quite different from what I had expected.  I’d like to flesh out my overall impressions a little more fully.  For those who are old hands at caucuses, this may seem to be a pointless exercise.  I disagree.  I do think there is something to be learned from a novice.  Wearing my sociology hat, I hope to bring a play by play of the experience so new ideas can be gleaned from my observations.

I live in south Minneapolis and expected our caucus to be held in a small room with about twenty people.  Minneapolis is such a one-party area, of course Democratic, so I thought a smattering of people would come.  I was wrong.  The caucus was held in a small gym with several tables for the precincts to gather around.  Around each table were four chairs.  I presumed that meant the groups would be especially intimate.  They were, but my precinct had ten people and an observer.  Certainly appeared to b a much bigger turnout than they initially planned.

Our convener was a pleasant young guy who is active in the city party.  He had attended four years ago as a Ron Paul supporter and has been with the GOP ever since.  One other man had attended the GOP caucus previously.  Otherwise, the remaining eight of us were first-timers.  That was quite apparent when we got started.  None of us knew how the thing was supposed to be run, but we were all in good spirits about our foibles.

Before we got started, I watched as the people trickled into the room.  It was hardly a monochromatic, male dominated scene.  There were two conveners who were Somali, as well as a few Somali caucus-goers.  There were people of Middle Eastern descent.  There were a couple of African Americans.  There were East and Southern Asians too.  It wasn’t a group that could be considered stereotypical Republican at all, at least according to the media’s narrative.  About 40% of the group was female.

There wasn’t a single white male dressed in a business suit, certainly no one wore tails.  I didn’t see a Rich Uncle Moneybags’ top hat in the room.  There was not one person wearing Mr. Peanut monocles in the crowd.  Most of the people looked like they had just gotten off work and hurriedly dressed down for comfort.  What’s more, the crowd was also surprisingly young.  According to the Star Tribune editorial writers, Republicans are supposed to all be old white people with one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel.

That wasn’t the demographic I was witnessing, at all.

Many of the twenty and thirty-somethings were attired in post-Punk/former rock musician/hipster Uptown outfits.  These young people were just as heated and adamant as anyone else at the gathering.  I saw several people who I believe were gay.  In fact, I’d say at least ten percent of those attending were gay like me.  (By the way, Marilyn Carlson Nelson, none of us were attacked by roving gangs of homophobic Christian thugs as you have previously suggested)  The room had an electric charge to it as the caucus was about to convene.

Our little band of ten was unique perhaps.  We had only two people who had previously caucused with the GOP.  The other eight caucus-goers were driven by some motivation to travel to this alien space, gather with people they didn’t know, and assert themselves as part of a political party.  Some of the members of our group referred to the Republican Party as though it were an entity outside of them.  They were at a Republican caucus but not yet comfortable as identifying as Republican.  I felt a little that way myself, even though I’ve been working for conservative causes for some time.  It was rather telling.

It would be natural for me to comment on our discussions at this point, but I will refrain.  This is an examination of what group dynamic existed and not a discourse on policy.  The group was quite informed on issues and our conversations were at times heated.  Unfortunately, much of what we talked about was those things we didn’t agree on.  Little was said about what we shared ideologically.  But, it was clear this group was motivated to oust those Democrats currently in power and to replace them with someone more conservative.  That was obvious.

Since this was such an unfamiliar group who hadn’t done this before, I believe our process wasn’t as clean and straight forward as it could have been.  It was very refreshing for a group of people who were new to the process to get their views heard without censor.  Knowing we could openly discuss conservative beliefs without some leftist caterwauling was a nice change.  We voted on party platform suggestions without rancor or deep dispute.  In spite of being strangers in a strange land, it was a productive and enlightening evening.

Upon reflection, there are a couple of things the caucus experience taught me.  First, the common narrative of Republicans being old, white, male, and rich is downright absurd.  Of all the things our entire group was, that caricature certainly wasn’t present.  This is important to understand because for a political party to grow, it must be something people can identify with.  Human beings tend to congregate among those with whom they feel most comfortable.  We are usually most comfortable with others like us.  The tired, false narrative of Republicans as fat cat, cigar-chomping bosses or hayseed hick troglodytes is simply a smear job by the left and the political elite.  We were a very mixed group with one driving desire; to save our country from the policies that are hurting it.

The second thing I got from the caucus is this party is deeply fractured.  Not fractured by those supporting Santorum or Paul.  It is not split by the libertarians or social conservatives.  The Republican Party is alienated within itself.  Between the lies and mischaracterizations by the media about conservatives and the social void of a cohesive party structure in the city, Republicans are divided from each other.  Democrats have become very good at creating a socio-political cohesion of their members and allies.  Republicans, at least in the city, have not.

That is not to suggest this is anyone’s fault.  Blame isn’t what we need going forward; it is ideas.

To create socio-political cohesion, Republicans must think about a couple of things.  How do we ‘fix’ the brand name?  How do we connect our supporters together into a kind of network that supports our ideas and spreads our message?  Now, I know many party regulars at this point are ready to throw me into the lake.  They have built networks of people in their area.  They have brand identification that isn’t sullied.  That is great and I applaud those who have done so.  But, we need to build up our membership and network all over, in the city, in the country, in all suburban areas.

So, I propose two things to get started.  First, we should take advantage of newcomers to things like caucuses to revitalize membership.  We never really talked about the things the group agreed with as Republicans, or neophyte party supporters.  Part of the discussion should be those political ideas that unite us.  Starting the caucus with saying the Pledge of Allegiance was a good thing.  I found it quite heartwarming.  But, then when our group convened it was a discussion about delegates, candidates, party planks, and our differences on those things.  We never got to talk about why we were there which was ostensibly to kick out Obama and as many progressive/socialists as we can.  We never really created any social cohesion and at the end, we shook hands and drifted out into the night back to our own lives.

I understand the caucuses are not designed to be party rallies and social gatherings.  But, I believe injecting a bit of that into the mix could help create some connections.  Those connections would become networks along which human interaction would grow and thrive.  Developing rapport among one another is crucial for building relationships that will support our cause and spread our message.

I think we should also consider other kinds of activities for party members.  I don’t know enough election law to determine what these could be, but the Democrats have us all out-gunned on creating socio-political support groups.  We have groups which support conservative causes but there isn’t enough interaction or coordination.  Is there a way we could do more outreach into communities?  Can we make more forays into community events, not just as a political entity but as charitable arms identified with the party?  Republicans and conservatives believe deeply in volunteerism and helping others without using the government.  Perhaps there are ways we could openly practice that ideal more in the public eye.

I have to say I was deeply moved by the experience.  I will continue working with and in the Republican Party, hopefully making it a more vital part of the state.  My impressions of the caucuses were overall very positive.  I do like to learn from any situation I find myself in.  Perhaps my little navel-gazing exercise may have some ideas we can use as a group.  I came away from this meeting with the two impressions I had of the caucuses.  I am extremely proud to be affiliated with a group that is interesting and informed.  I found the party to be an incredibly diverse group of people with great ideas, interests, and hopes for this nation.  We just need to make sure everybody knows what we’re really like, and not what the common narrative makes us out to be.

Crossposted at Looktruenorth.com

Sorry, but we respect the intellectual works of others here at RedState. That means we don’t cut and paste entire articles from either traditional or new media sources 1) because it is copyright infringement, and 2) because we expect others to respect our rights to original material published at RedState.

Now, I am not a lawyer and I’m certainly no expert on copyright law, but my understanding of “fair use” is this: it is permissible to quote limited quantities of material from another source, preferably with a link and always with attribution. “Limited quantities” generally means three (3) paragraphs or so. The diarist is expected to analyze, comment, or otherwise amplify on the quoted material.

Material that you own and publish elsewhere should not be excerpted here, but published in full. It is acceptable to link to your personal blog in acknowledging the cross-link.

Oh, and here’s the link to the Western Gas Fields article, from the Rocket-Courier in Wyalusing, PA.

 

 

Rob Cornilles lost the special election tonight in Oregon’s First Congressional District. He lost in a special election that resulted from a disgraced Democrat resigning amid a second (at least) sexual assault scandal, after previously losing to the disgrace amid the disgrace’s mental breakdown in the 2010 election. He lost to a woman who actively covered up for a serial rapist. He lost to a woman who could not articulate her way out of a wet paper bag. A woman who, as a state legislator, admitted that she couldn’t remember ever voting against a tax increase.

Suzanne Bonamici has replaced David Wu as the Democrat Representative from Oregon’s First District, and the perennial Republican sport has commenced – the mad rush to point fingers.

Oh, the Democrats are already crowing about what this race implies for the 2012 national political scene. They’ll say that this means their message of making the wealthy pay their fair share, and protection of unfunded mandates social safety nets from the greedy GOP 1%ers and government spending to create new jobs is resonating with the voters. Oh and smearing the candidate as Tea Party is really effective too, because those scary terrorists want to ruin everyone’s life by balancing the federal budget … or something … Of course they’ll gloss over the point that they out spent the Republican by about 5-1. No, this isn’t about the onslaught of negative ads, they’ll say – which the Republican started, natch – no, this is about them helping the little guy stand up against the evil corporations.

The thing is, the Democrats are right. If the GOP continues to advance candidates who insist on ignoring their base and running to the middle to court independents, the Democrats will trounce the Republicans in November just like they did tonight in Oregon.

There are many, many tactical mistakes that this campaign made – mistakes that they repeated from their failed 2010 attempt to unseat Wu. These tactical mistakes were compounded by an overall strategy that was disjointed, uncoordinated, and fundamentally not based on sound conservative principles.

What’s so frustrating to conservatives is that this was the best shot the GOP had at this seat in almost 40 years. How could the voters in the district reward the Democrat Party of Oregon that enabled David Wu, by electing his personal friend to replace him? A competent Republican should have destroyed this particular Democrat. And by all accounts, Rob Cornilles was a competent Republican with the experience of running previously in this district.

Let’s at least try to lend some sanity to the finger pointing.

So, what went wrong?

Messaging, and National Campaign Consultants

The messaging that came from this campaign reflected an overall strategy that was disjointed, uncoordinated and poorly organized. Two examples from the final week of this campaign clearly demonstrated that the campaign staff, mostly hired from out of state, had no idea what a political calendar in Oregon looks like.

You see, in Oregon we vote exclusively by mail. That means that ballots are mailed to voters three weeks before election day. While ballot returns are usually low in the first two weeks, ramping up in the final week, typically the messaging of a campaign has gotten stale by the time ballots are mailed. That is why it is IMPERATIVE that a campaign be proactive in getting its message properly coordinated and disseminated well before ballots are mailed. Just like in 2010, none of the messaging was timed properly, because nobody at the RNC seems to realize that we’re a vote by mail only state. It’s a constant source of fascination for me that these campaigns and their nationally trained experts fail to take that into account.

The first example was Rob’s interview on The Mark Levin Show. Great interview, great idea, great exposure, horrible timing. The die was already cast, and no national buzz could possibly have helped by the time this interview ran on the Thursday before election day – 16 days after ballot drop. Rob’s staff should have lined up an interview by Mark Levin in November, with a followup at the beginning of January, not last Thursday after most voters had already tired of the campaign.

The second example was Rob’s funny spoof of Stephen Colbert:

This was a pretty good idea (film buffs may quibble, but that’s not the point). This was a whimsical, fun side of a congressional candidate that would have been used to great effect to create national buzz … if only it had been done three months prior. It was completely ineffective because it was released in the last week of the campaign when voters had grown disgusted by all the negative ads.

These messaging coordination problems were compounded by the short, off-season special election cycle during the holiday season, and an apparent lack of a dedicated social media coordinator who could have properly timed releases and created buzz for the campaign. The lack of coordination and singularity of messaging was obvious, as was the evident calendar shortage.

The Oregon Tea Party

Paradoxically, the Tea Party took it from both sides this time around, despite choosing not to be front and center in this campaign. Democrats ‘smeared’ Cornilles as a Tea Party Radical Extremist™, while mainstream Republicans blamed all sorts of campaign ills on Tea Partiers. Several local radio talk show hosts have already begun to point fingers. Actually, let’s back up. The finger pointing began in earnest several weeks ago, with unfounded accusations that the Tea Party was deliberately sitting this one out and working against Rob Cornilles. While it is true that the Oregon Tea Party did not endorse a candidate, the consensus among the membership was that this was the desired outcome by the campaign. Cornilles did not actively court Tea Party support, and in fact rejected attempts by Tea Party members who approached the campaign to try to get the two sides to see eye to eye. Many Tea Party members regarded Cornilles as too soft on too many issues – the refusal to consider repeal of Obamacare, support of public/private partnerships, a disastrous answer on a radio talk show regarding the Columbia River Crossing. Even with all of those ideological problems, though, DOZENS of Tea Party members volunteered to help him defeat the truly wretched Bonamici. Cornilles has run for this seat twice now, and each time he has failed to consolidate his base – ignoring them in favor of appealing to independents. One wonders why independents would ever get excited about voting for someone who can’t even excite his own party.

Cornilles Rejects The Conservative Label

Rob Cornilles launched his new campaign with a video that very clearly signaled that he was running away from party politics:

In subsequent talks, Cornilles was all too eager to criticize Republican Congressional Leadership and reject the conservative message in DC. This served to amplify the flawed message that the Republican base wasn’t an important consideration for the campaign. This resulted in GOP turnout that was slightly lower than the Democrats – in a district where the Ds outnumber the Rs by 12%, it is mathematically impossible to win if you don’t get your own voters to turn out.

Negative Ads, and $2.5 Million

The Democrats, according to internal estimates, spent over $2.5 Million on this campaign. Obviously they were scared after losing special elections in Nevada and New York (The Weiner Seat) a few months back. Plus, one can only imagine the DCCC reaction when Suzanne Bonamici and her mush mouth answers finally hit the airwaves. The negative onslaught by Bonamici worked to its desired goal – negative campaigning is really meant to blunt voter turnout. If the voters get the impression that they’re all the same and it’s the same old BS, then they perceive that their vote won’t count in any event. It certainly helped to dim Republican enthusiasm for this race, especially because …

Republican Money Sits On The Sidelines

Where were the RNC, the NRCC, the ORP, and all of the Super PACs that could have funneled money into this race to counter the truly reprehensible negativity from the Democrats? They should have opened up their wallets! They should be ashamed!

Well, that’s not how this type of thing works, and the out of state campaign staff should have known that. The national organizations will not pour money into a race, especially one where their candidate lags by 12 points in registration, unless they see the candidate able to move the needle. That means that the candidate must possess the ability to create their own buzz, earned media and excitement. Typically, this is done by exciting the base about a fresh new candidate that can carry the mantle – when that happens, base voters become the candidate’s evangelists, recruiting independents and undecideds for him. As has been previously noted, the base did not get excited about this candidate for a variety of reasons. Ok, so when the buzz fails to materialize, create some. But Cornilles was too passive at the beginning of the campaign and wanted to run above the fray. By the time he realized that hitting Bonamici on her ties to David Wu was having an effect, and the voters were responding to his aggressiveness, it was too late.

So when the buzz doesn’t materialize, and the needle isn’t moving, and you’re already down 12 points in registration, why would the RNC or any other national organization dedicate resources to your race?

What are the local and national implications of this race?

Rob Cornilles is a good man, a good businessman, and a good family man. He is a likeable guy. He honored the voters of Oregon by making monumental sacrifices to run for office. He is to be commended and thanked for his service to our state.

But his political career is going the way of Gordon Smith’s. There is no recovering from this trouncing. There’s another general election in just a few months, but it strains credulity to think that he’d give this race another shot, even with the new district lines making it D+6 instead of D+12. The voters will want fresh blood, especially after the savaging Rob took at the hands of Bonamici’s smear campaign.

The voters of this district are in some ways similar to voters across the nation. They want to see candidates debate on the issues, in a positive manner, with the ability to see the bright contrasts between the choices. They don’t want to see faint copies standing at separate podiums on the same stage. They don’t want to see smear merchants whose only distinction is the size of their Super PAC’s bank account. And the tactics employed in this race have grave implications for the Presidential race currently barreling towards us. The idea that you can ignore your base and run to the middle … well that idea should be taken out back and put out of its misery.

Cross posted from http://5440fight.com

Super Bowl XLII on February 3, 2008 in Glendale, Arizona saw the New York Giants defeat the New England Patriots 17-14. New England came into the game undefeated and have been since been dubbed one of the biggest busts in the history of the NFL for their inability to finish off a great season.

Fast forward 4 years and the same two teams are in the Super Bowl. On Sunday in Indianapolis, Indiana, the Giants and Patriots will fight again for the Lombardi Trophy. Once again, the Patriots find themselves the favorites and seem eager to get revenge.

Paralleling the story line of the Super Bowl rematch is the Presidential election being held this November as it was in November 2008. Like New England, the Republican party seems eager to exercise the demons of a bad result in 2008.

Superstitious Republicans are hoping for a New England win on the 5th of February which in turn may lead to a Republican win in November.

In summary, New England win=Republican win, Giants win again=Obama win again…or not, but I’ll rooting for the Patriots on Sunday just in case.

For the first time in its over 150 year history, the Presidential nominee for the Republican Party will either be a Catholic or a Mormon. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (Mormon), former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (Catholic) and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum (Catholic) are the three legitimate candidates left in the race to face President Barack Obama in November.

In a country where the religion of Commander-in-Chief matters, it is an issue that will be talked about over and over again. There is no doubt in my mind, one of the most reviewed aspects of the rest of the primaries and general election will be the candidates religious beliefs.

A victory for Romney over President Obama in November would mean that he would be the first Mormon to ascend to the office of President. A Mormon candidate has not been nominated for the office by any party, let alone one of the two major parties. For Romney and Mormons, to simply gain the nomination would be a major breakthrough for the religion on the national political stage. Of course, Romney would not be happy with making history for the Mormon faith, 1.7% of the American population.

A victory for either Santorum or Gingrich over President Obama in November would mean that our nation would have only the second Catholic President, JFK of course elected in 1960. In 2004, Bush won the Catholic vote with 52% over John Kerry (Catholic), but the party saw a drop in the number of Catholic GOP voters in the 2010 midterm elections. Roman Catholicism, the nation’s largest individual denotation at just under 24% of Americans, will play a large role in deciding the race and a Catholic nominee could bring the number back up to the 2004 number or even higher.

As observed in the early primaries, for these three candidates to be successful they have to prove the traditional values of their personal religious beliefs match those of voters no matter their beliefs.

Republicans who do not want to see either of these three men win the nomination, could always vote for Ron Paul, a Baptists.

TOWANDA – While Bradford County has experienced extensive gas drilling for a few years, what will it be like after the drilling has gone on for decades?

The three Bradford County commissioners and other local officials had a chance to get a sense of what could happen when they traveled last week to participate in a two-day conference in Lea County, N.M.

Lea County’s economy had been based for decades on natural gas production, although in the last decade its economy has diversified to include other forms of energy, such as nuclear, solar, and wind, the Bradford County commissioners said.

The conference, which was titled “Shale Gas & Conventional Gas: From Pennsylvania to New Mexico,” discussed the issues surrounding the development of shale gas using Lea County, N.M., and Bradford County, Pa., as case studies, according to the Economic Development Corporation of Lea County, which co-sponsored the conference.

Lea County’s population is about the same size as Bradford County’s, but its economy is dependent solely on energy production, Bradford County Commissioner Daryl Miller said.

The Bradford County commissioners discussed the trip at the commissioners’ meeting on Thursday, and both commissioners Doug McLinko and Mark Smith said it was worthwhile to travel to New Mexico.

McLinko said the trip reinforced for him the belief that Bradford County needs to do more to be ready to take advantage of opportunities to bring long-term jobs to the county, such as the planned Moxie Energy gas-fired electric power plant in Asylum Township. The Moxie Energy plant will bring a significant number of long-term jobs to the county, he said.

“They (Lea County officials) are very aggressive with their (economic) development (efforts)” to keep and attract long-term jobs, he said, adding that Lea County needed to broaden the base of their economy so that they were not tied to the ups and downs of the natural gas industry.

Among the measures that Lea County has taken are to purchase and lease thousands of acres of land, and Lea County is bringing infrastructure to that land, such as municipal water and electrical service, in an effort to attract industry to locate on the property, McLinko said. By controlling those thousands of acres of land, Lea County can offer attractive terms to the businesses that consider moving there, said Bradford County Economic Development Manager Lauren Hotaling, who also attended the conference.

McLinko said he does not want Bradford County to buy or lease land to attract businesses. But he said that townships, boroughs, and private property owners in Bradford County need to take steps to make sure there is land available for businesses or industry to move to, and that that land is ready with the infrastructure they need, such as municipal water and sewer, as well as any zoning provisions.

“When you get an opportunity for development, you can’t lag behind, because we are in competition with other states,” he said.

However, Hotaling said one problem with attracting businesses and industry to Bradford County is that there is a limited area in the county that has the kind of infrastructure that many large businesses are looking for, such as municipal water and municipal sewer.

And in the locations where municipal water and sewer exists or will soon exist, such as Route 6 in Wysox Township, the land is expensive to buy, she said.

There is even a lack of natural gas distribution lines in Bradford County that could supply these large businesses, she said.

Just as is the case in Bradford County, hotels in Lea County are used by workers in the energy extraction industry, namely gas and oil drilling, Hotaling said.

But Lea County has secured a use for its hotels which will buffer them against the ups and downs in gas and oil drilling. Specifically, Lea County has become a training center for Homeland Security, she said. The training has resulted in the construction of three or four additional hotels in Lea County, she said.

Hotaling also said that New Mexico’s state budget is heavily dependant on revenue from the gas and oil industry.

The gas and oil industry provides over 26 percent of New Mexico’s state funds, she said.

New Mexico has a state severance tax on gas and oil, she said. New Mexico also gets a significant amount of revenue from lease bonuses and royalties on state-owned land, she said.

Among the local officials who traveled to the conference were state Rep. Tina Pickett, Progress Authority Executive Director Tony Ventello, and Mark Madden of Penn State Cooperative Extension.

Bradford County paid the airfare to the conference for the three Bradford County commissioners, according to Bradford County Fiscal Director Joan Sanderson.

The Progress Authority paid for lodging and meals for the three Bradford County commissioners while they were in New Mexico, Hotaling said.

James Loewenstein can be reached at (570) 265-1633; or email: jloewenstein@thedailyreview.com.

Want to know why Newt Gingrich's campaign is falling apart in Florida? Here are the numbers that tell the story: The Sayfie Review conducted a survey of likely Republican voters on January 27, 2012 (the day after the CNN debate in Jacksonville), and got some interesting numbers. The poll was conducted by New Frontier Strategy, a GOP public relations firm. The "headline" results for whom voters prefer matches the trends we've seen the past few days:

Hello, I’m Marco Rubio, a Senator from Florida. Right now all eyes are focused on my home state ahead of next week’s Republican presidential primary. It’s an exciting contest and I know that passions are high. So I wanted to take a moment to explain to the rest of the country why Republicans in Florida are so excited about this primary: Because we believe our country is in big trouble...