This is an obviously silly question the way it is framed from the beginning....
As Eharding noted, in general Trump did not perform well in caucuses, with the exception of Nevada and Hawaii.... One might possibly add Kentucky to the mix, as well, since it happened when the Cruz surge was starting to kick in....
My thought is that the timing of the caucuses played a roll in Alaska as well....
It was fairly early on "Super Tuesday" and while the Trumpster was playing hardball in the Southlands, where a good chunk of the delegates were at (Outside of Texas), Cruz was playing guerrilla warfare on other fronts and hoping that an evangelical surge in the South would boost his numbers and make him a real contender and turn it into a two person race.
Now what would the 15% of Alaska voters that went Rubio or 10% that voted Carson have done had the contest been held earlier?
My suspicion is that Cruz would still have won Alaska, and likely by significantly larger margins...
Why was Trump a bad fit for Alaska during the Republican primaries?
There is generally a strong "Big L" Libertarian strain that runs through the Alaskan Republican DNA...
My suspicion is that it was not just the Evangelical Christian bloc that rejected Trump, but additionally many fellow Northwesterners (Albeit Alaskans--- no offense intended
) weren't necessarily so crazy about a Presidential candidate, not only lacking in judgement and experience, but additionally using rhetoric in campaign debates regarding "seizing Iraq's Oil".... In the eyes of many Alaskans, and not just those supporting the Alaskan Independent Movement, their Oil is currently being seized by the US Government, so that probably didn't play so well in places like Barrow Alaska, and elsewhere on the North Slope.....
Poll
