I'm given to understand that Tea Party 'issues' have slipped down the agenda. They were always judgemental christian social issues fillign a vacuum of a disorientated party anyway. They aren't felt to be as relevant today, albeit they still represent an influential wing. Someone like Ben Carson working the christian radio shows early was successful in raising a lot of money pluging into them, but as things like immigration and ISIS have moved to prominence, areas like gay marriage, and abortion are losing ground. Many of the prominent Tea Party leaders have also been seen to be bonkers! (something that was apparent to normal people within half a minute of listening to them for the first time)
A quick spin of last nights - (well whatever it was) - summarised as follows from social media volume and comment
The best debate yet (universal agreement) and largely put down to the absence of Trump trolling it
Carson = the big loser. Nothing to say. He can't win the nomination by being serene and calm. No substance there (trending would indicate Cruz benefits)
Cruz = small loser. Became a bit prickly, and wasn't always that convincing
Rubio = small winner, stumbled on a flip flop question about immigration, but all candidates had their bad moments. Otherwise convincing
Bush = big winner. Had his best debate but sense that it's too late prevails
Kelly = very big winner, universally regarded as the star of the show. Some saying Trump did well to duck her
Trump = No one knows? Allowed veterans to take centre stage rather than himself. Doubtless he'll be crawling through the ratings to justify things
Sense exists that a lot of Iowan voters haven't decided and only give it serious thought over the weekend but otherwise give reflex answers to half baked polls. In truth, they have had five different leaders of the poll in the last 6 months. There's clearly a lot of 'noise' in these polls, and bookies should perhaps be wary of pricing markets up based exclusively on them
In correction to something I wrote earlier, I'm now given to understand that Republican caucus's normally involve a secret ballot (though not exclusively). It's the Democrat caucus that conducts visible counts. I thought they both did visible counts. One suspects this is more likely to favour Trump, albeit he still isn't likely to have an army of articulate ground troops working the meetings for him
Also having suggested that Democrats can participate in a Republican causcus previously, I now understand you have to be registered as a party supporter, but this is really easy which is why perhaps people say you can. You just turn up on the day basically and say you've changed mind, then having participated in it and seen how dire it is, you change your mind back again a week later
