All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 2, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:29
February 2, 2016, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, okay, okay.
I may have overstated it.
Maybe ethanol is not dead.
I'm just telling you what happened last night and yesterday in Iowa.
Nobody's ever done this.
Nobody has gone into Iowa and talked about ending the ethanol subsidy and lived the next political day to talk about it.
And Cruz did.
That's all I'm saying.
The important thing is what has been demonstrated to be possible.
This is the great thing about this.
All of these things somebody says you can't do.
Rush, come on, we're never really going to be able to talk about small government.
Too many people get benefits in the government.
Too many people live off of it.
You're never going to give it up.
Even many in the Republican establishment now, a lot of the so-called neocons for years have been saying, you know, we've lost the argument over small government limbo.
You better realize it.
What the people want, they tell me, these establishment times, they want a smart, energetic, engaged executive.
That's how they talk, meaning president, administering and directing a large government in a very, very intelligent, smart way.
And I've always reacted to this.
Well, then don't call yourself conservative.
The conservatives don't believe in acknowledging the existence of big government as a new normal, and that's it.
And Cruz goes in there, has the governor of Iowa running around telling everybody to vote against him, and he wins, and he's the only candidate in the state who went out and proposed the end of the ethanol subsidy and wins the thing that nobody has ever done that before.
Now, I know it was an overstatement to say ethanol is dead.
But just it's a demonstration of what's possible here.
And that, if I may circle back, to me has always been the value of Trump, is to demonstrate that the conventional wisdom of how we have to go about attacking the Democrats or not attacking them and not being critical.
Trump has blown that to smithereens in a whole host of ways.
And I've got more thoughts on that in just a second.
Greetings and welcome back, by the way.
Rush Limbaugh here at the EIB network.
And telephone numbers 800-282-2882, if you want to be on the program.
And if you want to send an email, I check them.
I don't read them verbatim.
I summarize them, but I do check them now and then.
It's lrushbow at EIBnet.com.
Let's look at New Hampshire.
New Hampshire's next.
Iowa is in everybody's rearview mirror.
No offense, Iowa.
New Hampshire is next.
One week from today.
The New Hampshire primary, one week from today.
The real clear politics, rolling average there, has Trump way out in front of Cruz and Kasich.
Those are the closest competitors in New Hampshire by nearly 22 points.
The real clear politics rolling average in Iowa had Trump up four, but there were 13 polls that had Trump winning yesterday by four.
And they all missed it.
Now, the real clear politics is a website, and they average a bunch of major polls.
And that average now has Cruz and Kasich trailing Trump by 22 points.
Trump's lead, aside from a couple of outliers, Trump's lead in New Hampshire has not been in single digits since October.
Stated another way, Trump has had a double-digit lead in the rolling average of polls in New Hampshire since October.
So what's going to happen?
The four-point lead that Trump had ended up being a three-point defeat, right?
So you call it a swing of seven.
Good way, fair way of looking at this.
They had him winning by four.
He loses by three.
So it's a swing of seven.
So let's say, okay, is it 22 and a 22-point lead?
Does that make it 15 or 16 in reality?
Well, I don't know.
I don't know.
Some people are going to try to analyze it this way.
But is Trump going to blow?
Can what happened in Iowa result in Trump blowing a 22-point lead?
Can a 22-point lead become a one-two or three-point loss next to you say not very likely.
Well, I'm here to tell you that as we sit here, do not be shocked and surprised if later in the week you're watching TV, don't care which network, a bunch of mainstream drive-by analysts tell you that it's going to happen.
The anti-Trump fervor, the hatred, the dislike, however you want to describe it, is so profound.
And this is not news to you, but it's so profound, so deep in the Republican establishment.
Don't forget these people have believed, hoped, dreamed, whatever, but Trump was going to implode back in August.
And then he was going to implode at the end of August.
He's going to implode Labor Day.
He was going to implode on the opening day of the NFL.
He's going to implode on September 3rd.
He's going to implode Halloween.
He didn't implode, didn't do anything.
It just grew and grew and grew.
They've been hoping and praying.
They've been at their wit's end.
They've been, what can we do?
All these people have hung in this race with the belief that Trump's going to blow this somehow or that people are going to wake up and realize that Trump's not who he says he is and they're going to abandon him.
Something's going to happen.
Well, I'm here to tell you that people are going to take this result last night and say that's what it means.
They are going to say something along the lines of this.
Hey, look, Trump was all hype from the get-go.
Trump is nothing but win-win-win.
Going to win so much, going to get tired of winning.
You're going to ask me to lose some.
And I'm going to say, I don't know how to lose.
I'm Donald Trump.
Win-win-win-win-win.
Okay.
Pedal to the metal.
Rubber hits the road.
Didn't win.
They're going to say that lets all the air out of the balloon.
And it's going to come plunging back down to earth.
And people in New Hampshire, everybody wants to be with a winner.
The people who are giving Trump this 22-point lead are going to look what happened in Iowa.
This guy's a phony.
That wasn't.
Oh, my God.
I can't hang around with a loser.
And they're going to leave Trump.
This is what I've, it's already being stated by some people out there.
I don't remember.
I can't remember the names.
I was up late last night watching as much of the stuff as I could because I knew, I knew that this result last night was going to create its own new set of narratives that consists of things nobody knows what they're talking about, just like we had to deal with prior to yesterday.
So there's that theory.
The other theory is that Trump can't handle personal rejection and he's going to blow it.
He's going to go out there and he's going to start insulting people that he thinks are responsible for his loss and he's going to embarrass himself.
There's any number of scenarios where Trump now doesn't win a single primary, Mr. Snerdley.
And if you look in the right places on the web and you search a lot of people, you'll find it already.
And oh, yeah, there's all kinds of gloating out there.
Now, the candidates are not gloating.
Cruz isn't gloating.
And Rubio isn't gloating.
No, no, no, it's the establishment types.
You might have some of the Jeb consultants out there gloating.
I think they think they've got a new breath of life.
What did I say?
Jeb spent $25,000 a vote.
Is that right?
That's off the top of my head.
I could be wrong about it.
Maybe it's $2,400 a vote.
I forget which.
Whatever.
So let's stay in New Hampshire for just a second here, folks.
Trump's double-digit lead, 22 points over Cruz and Kasich.
Rubio is not in the top three in New Hampshire.
If there is a commensurate fade for Trump in New Hampshire, like there was in Iowa, it might make that 22, 23-point lead a 15 or 16-point lead.
I mean, if things are commensurate, which they probably won't be.
I mean, just because something happened in Iowa does not mean the identical thing is going to happen in New Hampshire.
If it did, it would mean Cruz would win.
And don't forget, there's all kinds of other things here.
You could say, well, hey, Reagan didn't win Iowa, went on to win two landslides.
The retort people have, yeah, well, Cruz isn't there, or Trump isn't a Reagan.
But it still happened.
Reagan, he didn't do the last debate.
He didn't do a debate in Iowa either, for whatever reasons.
Went on to lose Iowa, won New Hampshire, ran table practically, but won the nomination and won the presidency in a landslide.
But people always find points of time in history where they think are indicators of the present.
So New Hampshire, like Snerdley just said, how in the world do you lose a 22-point lead?
Can't, not in a week.
Can't lose a 22-point lead.
The only way, Mr. Snerdley, you can lose a 22-point lead in a week is if you've never really had it.
And that is what the anti-Trump people are counting on.
That the polling data on Trump is like everything else with Trump in their minds, hype and spin, not real.
Many people hoping that.
Now, after New Hampshire comes South Carolina, and as you go further, Trump's leads get bigger.
In South Carolina, his lead is almost as big as it is in New Hampshire.
So now, what would be the best thing to happen in your mind?
Should some of these guys that we know aren't going anywhere get out?
Should Christie get out?
Should Kasich get out?
Should Jeb Bush get out?
I was going to say Rand Paul, but Rand Paul might show halfway decent in New Hampshire.
Should they get out?
Should their voters be free to coalesce around somebody else?
Because these people divvying up the vote this way is not helpful.
It's not helping answer any questions.
It's not furthering the decision.
Other people want them to stay in because the more establishment people that are in there to split the establishment support this time around is what they want.
People are sick and tired of 10,000 conservatives in the race with one moderate rhino, and the 10,000 conservatives split the conservative vote and end up losing to the one rhino.
Well, now it's possible that you could have a majority of people still in a race be rhino moderates who will split their money and support, water it down, thereby focusing more votes and support for the conservative candidates in the race.
So theories can go either way on what do you think ought to happen with people in the race.
I think, I don't know if you're going to have a lot of mass exodus prior to New Hampshire because so many people like Christie, Kasich, Rand Paul, any number.
New Hampshire was their firewall.
New Hampshire was where they were going to make their mark.
They knew they were never going to do anything in Iowa.
Which, by the way, is what Trump is saying.
Hey, I wasn't even supposed to go.
My advisors, my sport, don't go to Iowa.
Iowa is just not your place.
He said, I got to go.
I got to go to Iowa.
I love people.
Iowa love people.
People in Iowa love me.
I got to go.
I got to go.
No, Mr. Trump, you really is not your place.
Sacrifice it.
Spend your time and money elsewhere.
Don't go to Iowa.
But I had to go to Iowa.
So he's trying to construct the scenario that he spends as little time there as any canon.
It's hardly any money and still finished second.
Major achievement.
Who else could have done what I did?
I go into a place that I have no business being.
Nobody told me to go to Iowa.
I insist on going to Iowa because I love the people of Iowa, but everybody with a smart said, don't go, don't go.
So I didn't spend much time there.
I didn't spend a lot of time, and I still finish in second place.
As far as I'm concerned, it's a grand slam victory.
That's how Trump's playing it.
So it's fascinating stuff to watch here, folks.
And you, Huckabee's gotten out, but yeah, yeah, Huckabee's gotten out.
True.
I was going to say something in politic.
He wasn't in it.
Well, well, okay.
Okay, Huckabee wasn't in it.
Fine, we'll leave that as it is.
What you mean is he was never going to be a contender.
How do you explain Santorum winning four years ago and getting whatever he got last?
How do you explain that?
All right.
Well, who worked the state?
Right, but what happened to him this time?
If he worked the state four years ago, okay, so Cruz did the full grassly, came in and worked.
All right, see, that's why you think Santorum went from winning it to last place.
That's not, well, yeah, electability.
There's a lot of factors in it.
But at the top, you've got to throw in what Cruz did.
Cruz had the organization.
This is why.
Even the establishment types who hate Cruz and hate Trump, they're all hailing Cruz's victory because of the way he did it, because what Cruz's victory represents to them is the survivability of politics as a business, as they've always known it.
What really scared them about Trump was that Trump was going to totally change the way politics is done, the way candidates win.
The establishment guys, oh, no, we can't have that.
They want it to be the same way it's always been: retail.
You got to go in there.
You got to shake hands, kiss babies, you've got to have a ground game.
You've got to have hundreds of volunteers making phone calls, getting out of the vote, got to do all that.
They were scared to death Trump was going to win without any organization of any kind like that.
Cruz wins with the best organization like that of anybody in the state, and the establishment, even though they hate him, giant sighs of relief because they think Cruz's victory affirms their way of doing business.
We will be back.
Do not go away.
Now, one more possibility here, folks, about Iowa and the polling data.
What if the polls were right?
What if Trump did have, remember, the last poll was taken like five days before?
What if the last poll was right?
What if at the time the poll was taken, Trump was going to win by four points?
And then Trump went on the Sunday shows.
And that's when he started talking what he was saying about health care.
And Cruz wanting people to die in the streets now.
He's got to save people, help people.
Can't let them die in the streets like Cruz once, like got a big heart and so forth.
Cruz doesn't.
It starts sounding just like Obama talking about health care.
And what if they had taken a poll after the Sunday shows?
Wonder what that poll would have shown.
And then this whole business with the endorsement from Bob Vanderplatz back on December 10th, president of the family leader, popular evangelical leader in Iowa.
He endorsed Huckabee.
He endorsed Santorum in the previous caucuses, and they both won.
And back in January, late January, Trump skewered Vanderplatz on Twitter, calling him a phony and a bad guy because he endorsed Cruz.
You know, these are things that Iowans notice.
And I think there was a cumulative effect of things that Iowans noticed.
I really don't think it has much to do with the debate at all.
Back to the phone, Cindy in Asheville, North Carolina.
Welcome.
Great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Hey, Rush, how are you doing?
I'm just fine.
I've been to Asheville before.
I just want you to know that.
I'm sorry?
I've been to Asheville before.
Oh, poor you.
It's a horrible place.
Very liberal.
I know it is.
I just been there for a day.
I'm not going to stay in Asheville.
I actually live in an area called Spring Creek.
But let's get to the point.
I love you.
I have listened to you.
And I have 34 years ago, I met Ronald Reagan, and I became a Republican.
And that was in Bowling Green, Kentucky.
And I had a business in Bowling Green, Kentucky.
I played you.
I was one of the first rushrooms back then.
Years ago.
And I love you.
And I do not agree with you now.
I am a Southern girl, and I will tell you, Trump did not attack Cruz enough, as far as I'm concerned.
I think, and I'm going to tell you this.
Somebody called yesterday, and they said they would never vote for Donald Trump.
I will never vote for Ted Cruz.
You can't afford to lose me.
I am the voter that this party does not need to lose.
Donald Trump has gave me the energy and the heart to go on in this party when everyone else left it.
I love him.
I love him.
And I'm proud of it.
I'm proud of being a listener of yours for so many years, just like I'm proud of being a voter for Donald Trump.
But I think Ted Cruz, he is, he's creepy.
The man is creepy.
I mean, I don't need a guy that's going to beat a Jesus fish to get my vote.
You don't need a guy that's going to beat a Jesus fisherman?
Yes, or carry a cross on his back.
I don't need that to vote for Donald Trump.
Donald Trump did not pander to the people of Iowa.
I mean, I think he's the first guy I ever saw in Iowa that didn't wear a pair of blue jeans.
I mean, he didn't.
I don't either.
Well, I mean, I just, I love Donald Trump.
But, you know, with Ted Cruz, Ted Cruz for 15 months has been running for the president.
And, you know, I mean, I look at Ted Cruz, and I mean, that mailer he put out, that was like Henrik Himmler.
I mean, that mail.
Hold up.
Time is dwindling here, and I need to ask you some questions, Cindy.
You want Trump to win, right?
Oh, yes, I love him.
I will go to Trump.
Okay, well, you've got to.
Wait a minute.
You've got to understand that there are a lot of athletes, as yesterday showed, there are a lot of Republicans, Reaganites like you who like Cruz.
If you're going to, I don't care if you.
Only Trump.
Cindy, hang on.
Okay.
I've got to hold you through the break here.
Okay.
But you've got to understand a conversation is two people talking.
Okay?
Okay, back for another stab at it here with Cindy in Asheville, North Carolina.
I just want to run a couple of ideas by you here.
I know you've said you don't like Cruz because you think you've got a creepy.
It's a revival hour when you watch him.
Yes.
Okay, I got that.
Now, you want Trump to win.
Yes.
You've got to realize that Trump is competing in an arena of majority conservatives who make up the Republican base, like you, Reagan-inspired type conservatives.
Now, it's understanded, understood by everybody in a primary that candidates are going to go after everybody.
There's a way you do it, though.
I think Mr. Trump's mistake in going after Cruz, not that he did it, but it's not going to be helpful to go after fellow Republicans in the same way liberal Democrats or establishment Republicans go after him when this is a campaign that's anti-establishment from top to bottom.
I agree with that, but I think he needs to go back.
Mr. Trump does, and look at the 15 months.
You know, I think you need to do the timeline.
I think he needs to attack Cruz, and I think you need to attack.
I mean, he's warning here to the South.
It's a lot of people.
But what's more hot?
It's not going to help to say that Cruz is Canadian.
It's not going to help to say that Cruz doesn't have a big.
But that was the nature of the attack.
Well, I think that he needs to attack him on the fact, and this bothers people.
It bothers people the way Mr. Cruz has ran his election.
It bothered me last night with the fact with Mr. Carson, how they told people that Mr. Carson was out.
You know, he wasn't running.
I mean, that's dirty.
Now, that's what liberals do, Rush.
Yeah, I saw that.
Mr. Trump did not attack enough.
He didn't.
And he didn't pander to the islands.
He did not pander to them.
And you know that.
He wouldn't have done it.
Okay, so there we have it.
Put it out there, Cindy.
We'll have people talk about it.
You think Trump wimped out when it comes to criticizing Cruz?
He didn't hit him hard enough.
And obviously, Cindy thinks Cruz got away with too much revivalism.
There was too much Christianity going on out there.
And Trump should have hit that.
That's not what she's saying?
Well, that's what—look, non-Christians think that Christians come off as creepy.
Or people, look at people who don't wear it on their sleeves think that those who do are creepy.
Yeah, the fish comment and the cross on the back and what have you comment that she made.
My only point is: I know these guys are going to go after each other.
It's the name of the game.
The Democrats do the same thing in their primaries, but they have unique ways of doing it.
I just think that if you're going to go after Cruz, it isn't going to help you to try to convince people that he's not qualified because he's Canadian, even if you're trying to be funny with it, and then say that he wants his comfortable, okay, with people dying in the street because they don't have health care.
Those are the things that raise red flags for people who are supporting Trump, who think he's an outsider running against the establishment.
And when he ends up sounding like a member of the establishment, that's all I'm saying.
When he ends up sounding like a member of the establishment, some people in his group are going to have red flags raised.
Let me there's another criticism of Trump going on out there, or not criticism, per se, pardon the snibbles, is an observation.
A lot of people believe that what Trump is doing is bringing a bunch of new people into the political process.
And I have never thought that's what's happening here.
But a lot of others do.
I mean, people friendly to this program.
This is not an argument among people who I don't think get it.
There's the legitimate points of view on a lot of people out there who are friends of this program.
Some of them think that part of the Trump phenomenon, and the establishment was worried about this.
They were worried that what Trump was doing was revolutionary in so many ways that they couldn't control it.
And one of those ways was he was energizing people that had not been in politics, sort of like a miniature tea party all over again.
That people that hadn't been in politics were all of a sudden being brought into it.
And they were rabid.
Oh my God, you couldn't stop them no matter what you did and no matter what Trump said and no matter what anybody else said, they were going to love Trump.
They were going to vote Trump.
But they were new to the process.
So went the theory.
And I don't think that's at all what has been going on.
In fact, I never even considered that.
What I thought was happening was that, you know, things don't happen in a vacuum.
You've got to put things in the context.
The context here is that for any number of years, specifically seven, which are at the forefront of people's minds right now, for seven years, the Republican Party, which has been given two landslide wins in midterm elections in 2010 and 2014, has been doing nothing.
They have not been stopping.
They've been not even trying to stop.
They haven't been opposing Barack Obama.
In fact, it's worse.
In many instances, they have been helping.
They have been agreeing.
They have been facilitating what Obama wants to do under whatever stupid reasoning they came up with.
And you've heard it all.
Well, we can't be seen criticizing the first African-American president.
We're considered us racist.
We can't be seen to criticize Obama.
The independents don't like that.
The independents, they want to see every sketch get along.
They want to see cooperation.
They want to see bipartisanship.
They want to see Washington work.
We can't do that if we criticize Obama.
Whatever reason, they weren't stopping Obama criticizing.
They were making no effort, despite promising they would during campaigns.
Well, here comes Trump.
And I think what Trump did was energize a bunch of people I call the frustrated, capital T, capital F. The frustrated who have been dying to express their outrage at practically everything.
Their outrage at Obama, their outrage at the Democrats, their outrage at Washington, their anger at the Republican established for not stopping it.
No Republicans have been doing this other than Cruz.
And to a certain extent, Rubio, the rest of the Republican field has been one version of rhino moderate after him.
There have been occasional hits on Hillary Clinton during debates, but during the real world of day-to-day life, no Republican was stepping up to stop any of this stuff, particularly in Washington, outside of Ted Cruz, who was openly standing up and opposing his own establishment on the floor of the Senate.
And in the midst of all this, Trump announces.
So I thought what was happening was that people already engaged, already ticked off beyond anybody's ability to comprehend it, finally found a vessel for their rage and anger and actually liked what they were hearing.
And they wanted Trump to succeed and still do.
They want Trump to go kill.
But now a couple of three things have been said that are causing some of those people to be a little concerned about Trump and what his ultimate politics are.
I mean, I don't think you can conclude anything else watching Cruz or Trump talk about health care and the way it was easily, it was incorrect, but it was easily said to be in support of single payer.
He didn't say he supported single payer, but he got close enough to it that critics could make it look like he.
He said it.
But the point is this, folks.
And I think this is something that the advisors in the Trump campaign might want to consider.
The anger was already there before Mr. Trump announced.
The anger, the outrage, and all factors.
The Democrats, Obama, the Republican establishment, the Washington establishment, the Washington cartel, whatever you want to call it.
Standard ordinary everyday politics as usual, people were already angry.
This is what the GOP establishment has never understood.
If they have understood it, they have not taken it seriously, and they've mocked it and laughed at it and chalked it up just a bunch of Tea Party kooks.
But the anger, the opposition, the frustration was real.
And it's been out there for seven years.
It's been simmering.
It's been effervescing for seven years.
And it has not had any avenue or opportunity for expression other than posting comments on blogs or calling or listening to radio talk shows.
But within the political arena, there hasn't been anywhere to go because nobody has been reflecting that anger outside of Ted Cruz.
I mean, Scott Walker did.
Some of them did, but it was very, very few.
And Trump comes along and he is not at all attached, thought to be attached in any way to the place and the system and the structure that everybody's already angry about.
So he's been great at exploiting or taking advantage of that anger.
But if you look, you know, there was another quite telling thing, and I fully expect Mr. Snerdley, who is in a disagreeable frame of mind today, to continue to disagree with me.
But look at the Fox debate where Trump didn't show.
What was the conventional wisdom?
The ratings are going to plummet, right?
I mean, even the Fox people thought so.
And they still got 13 million people.
Now, it wasn't the 25 and then the 24, but it wasn't 3 or 4 million either.
13 million people still tuned in to watch that debate because they're ticked off.
So the reasons for Trump's success are still there to be embraced and incorporated if others want to try to grab onto it.
I don't think, and this is not by any means a criticism of Mr. Trump.
I don't think anybody could have gone from zero to the phenomenal lead he did if the anger wasn't already there.
So if there are any false impressions that the establishment people have been cowering in fear have been operating under, it's that Trump has brought in a whole bunch of new people.
I don't think that's the case here.
Now, in Iowa, there was a record Republican turnout, and there was a, as it turned out, a decent amount of new registration.
But Trump didn't win there.
So the point is that there is anger and energy throughout the Republican side.
It exists whether somebody takes advantage of it or exploits it or not.
This has been the point all along that the establishment has not got.
And if they do get it, they lampoon it.
Don't take it seriously or chalk it up to conspiratorial fruitcakes or what have you.
And they're going to make the same, if, if, if the way I see them analyzing what happened to Trump yesterday, they're making the mistake of falling back into their security zone where they think, ah, this Trump stuff's just been an anomaly.
We're still running the show here.
It's still our game.
And we can take Cruz out anytime we want.
Don't discount that as something being plotted in the deep, dark crevices of the Republican underground, wherever these guys meet.
I got to take a brief time out.
We'll be back.
We've got much more straight ahead, folks.
Don't go away.
Okay, we are back.
Great to have you here, Rush Limbaugh with talent on loan from God.
And here's Dan in Warrington, Oregon.
Great to have you, sir.
Hi.
Good morning, Dittos from Oregon, Rush.
Thank you very much.
Great to have you here, sir.
Yeah, I'd like to bring up a point, and it is a chance, a second one later.
I am a real Trump follower, and I noticed one of his very latest tweets is that he doesn't feel people are really appreciating the fact that he's self-funding.
And I do agree with that.
I don't believe people can even comprehend what that really entails as far as costs, including running that plane around all over the place.
I used to work on 757 myself.
Up.
Yeah, he's leased the plane back to the campaign.
Which is fun.
What I did was I immediately sent a tiny little contribution.
I believe that it's a good thing to do.
Okay.
Dan, thank you.
I appreciate the call.
I really do.
Here's the tweet.
Trump was tweetless for 13 hours last night, and then he tweeted up a storm.
And the tweet that old Dan here is talking about is this.
I don't believe I have been given any credit by the voters for self-funding my campaign.
The only one.
I'll keep doing it, but not worth it.
Followed by an exclamation point, not worth it.
Okay.
Wait, not worth it.
I'm going to keep doing it.
not worth it interesting I don't know, folks.
And the next tweet after that said, I don't believe I've been given any credit by the voters for self-funding my campaign.
The only one.
I'll keep doing it, but not worth it.
The next tweet was, I'll be talking about my wonderful experience in Iowa and the simultaneous unfair treatment by the media later in New Hampshire.
Big crowd.
Next tweet.
The media has not covered my long shot great finish in Iowa fairly.
Brought in record voters.
Got second highest vote total in history.
Next tweet.
Because I was told I could not do well in Iowa, I spent very little there.
A fraction of cruise and Rubio.
Came in a strong second.
Great honor.
Next tweet.
My experience in Iowa was a great one.
I started out with all the experts saying I couldn't do well there and ended up in second place.
Nice.
The first tweet, Warranton, or Dan and Warranton are sending a little money here because Trump tweeted, I don't believe I've been given any credit by the voters for self-funding my campaign.
I'm the only one.
I'll keep doing it, but not worth it.
Well, you know, people do talk about the need to reform campaigns, all the money being spent, donations, campaign finance reform.
And he is spending his own money.
It's the not worth it.
I'm tossing around here in my deep, dark crevices in my cranial cavity here, trying to figure that out.
No, no, I know what he's saying.
He's saying he thought that it would be a big plus that he was funding his own campaign.
And the media hasn't given him any credit like he thinks they would give other people credit if they were doing it.
So it hasn't been worth it, but he's going to keep doing it because it's the right thing to do.
That's how I interpret it.
▲
Export Selection