In the most recent Iowa GOP Poll, Jeb Bush polled at 6%. But the poll's margin of error is plus or minus 5.5%. That means Bush may be as high as 11.5%, or as low as .5%, which could be rounded off to zero. Isn't that incredible for the "inevitable" $120 million dollar man, who now may be at zero percent in Iowa, and not doing much better (only 8%) in New Hampshire? Do you think it would help if Bush ran some Spanish language ads calling himself a Conservative?

The secondary story in all this is that Scott Walker may also be at statistically zero in the polls in Iowa

Walker went next, as in early August he attempted to battle with Trump in Iowa. Trump crushed him, ripped him apart, and seemingly took all of his supporters in Iowa and New Hampshire. Back in February, when Trump wasn’t even registering in the NBC-Marist polling, Walker stood at 15 percent in New Hampshire. That slipped to 12 percent in July. Now he’s at just 4 percent. Meanwhile, Trump—who wasn’t included in their February poll, but registered at 21 percent in July—now stands at 28 percent. Between July and now, Walker has lost 8 percent in the Granite State while Trump has picked up 7 percent. The same phenomenon happened in Iowa. While Trump wasn’t included in the February polling, Walker stood at 15 percent. In July, Walker registered at 19 percent—whereas Trump was at 17 percent—but now Walker is at just 5 percent to Trump’s 29 percent.

 As a state bordering Wisconsin, Walker had the clear home state advantage. Now, conceivably, he could be at zero (or, as low as -.5%, if negative poll ratings were possible), because all of his multiple positions on illegal aliens and birthright citizenship.

And none of the other politicians who are "conservatives" have done well -- not Rand Paul, not Mike Huckabee, not Rick Perry. Trump and Ben Carson are at 51% in Iowa when combined.

Voters are sick of politicians who promise one thing and fail to deliver. That's why outsiders are most attractive. The danger of outsiders, of course, is that they have no past legislative history. And when their history of statements leans towards Democrats, like Trump, or Carson, it makes choosing a constitutional conservative difficult.

The one politician with a conservative history, of course, is Ted Cruz. He's far from perfect on all issues, (such as voting for the Iran enabling legislation and the initial version of Obamatrade), but he has not been just reliable on a wide range of issues but a leader on many of them, like the fight against Obamacare, against funding Obamacare's amnesty, against abortion funding, and many other issues.

But my sense is that Cruz is not going to rise until Donald Trump falls. And Cruz won't attack Trump because he doesn't want to alienate his supporters. It will be interesting to see if the Bush/Walker/Rubio/Chamber of Commerce/Club for Growth blitzkrieg expected this month damages Trump. If it does, Cruz will be the primary beneficiary; if not, incredible as it may sound, we could have a Trunp nominee.

This article was written by Ed Straker, senior writer of NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.