I won’t bother linking to any of the various analyses of the outcome of the Iowa caucuses. I have only two points to make. First, it was only remarkable in how unremarkable it was. The candidates with the strongest organizations won both sides. On the Republican side that was the most credible candidate palatable to evangelicals and on the Democratic side it was the candidate who received the most union support.
Second, a lot of money was spent but money didn’t decide the election. Maybe money kept Hillary Clinton’s head above water.
Now on to New Hampshire which I predict will be just as unremarkable as Iowa.
Here’s what I found interesting about it and its impact going ahead:
1) GOP late deciders went for Rubio. Will the establishment rally to him? And if it does, will that help or hurt?
2) Let’s see what Trump’s narrative is when it can no longer be ‘I’m number one!’ He’s not exactly a policy guy. And does he direct his fire at Cruz or Rubio? The smart move in NH would be to hammer Rubio. (I think. God knows in this strange year.)
3) HRC took the tiny minority vote in Iowa, can she keep that demo in South Carolina? If she starts to lose the black vote or Latino vote to a significant degree she’ll be in real trouble.
4) Will this weak ‘win’ hurt HRC’s fundraising? That would be the early sign that establishment Dems are turning on her. Does the Dem establishment have a fall-back plan if she appears fatally weak in a few weeks, or if she’s indicted?
On to New Hampshire.
Oh, and a side note: Mr. Obama’s numbers have been improving since mid-December. He’s still underwater but not by much. I wonder why? Is it a sort of anticipatory nostalgia where folks contrast him with the likes of Trump, HRC and Cruz?
I was just talking about this with a colleague. I suspect that Trump will be out after South Carolina.
I’m putting Clinton/Sanders down as a tie, as I’m not convinced that this caucus is accurate enough at less than one-percent differences. Not sure it matters, since its hard for me not to see Sanders as a protest vote.
its hard for me not to see Sanders as a protest vote.
There’s real excitement for him among the college students, but mostly I think “protest vote” is right. But doesn’t that say a lot about Hillary’s likely performance in the general election with respect to likely turnout?
Sanders is toast with this result, barring (unlikely) legal action over the emails. He’ll win NH, but after that they head to states that aren’t Whitopias, and blacks & Hispanics don’t seem to be excited by a Jew who has made a point of living very far away from them his entire life. (The demographics of NYC were vastly different when he grew up there.) Stick a fork in him.
I notice the market compiler at PredictWise has the following probabilities of winning the nomination as of today:
Rubio: 54% (up from 33% last week)
Trump: 26% (down from 51% last week)
Cruz: 13% (up from 7% last week)
Bush: 4% (down from 5% last week)
That seems pretty excitable for one event, but I guess the markets think Rubio is now in position to consolidate the party, and that Trump’s unconventional campaign might not have legs.
On the Democratic side:
Clinton: 82% (down from 85%)
Sanders: 18% (up from 15%)
The funny thing is, PD, that Trump’s voters actually did show up and vote for him – in a format which doesn’t favor low-infrastructure insurgency candidates. Trump would have preferred winning, certainly, but this isn’t an awful result, either.
As for Rubio & the late swing vote: I’d guess those were mostly establishment voters trying to decide on their options, eventually favoring the guy who seemed to be out front in that group.
But if Trump fades, it’s hard to see the bulk of his support going to Rubio. Rubio is the second worst candidate, after Jeb, on the issue they care about.
If it comes down to a pro-open-borders neo-con candidate versus a pro-open-borders neo-lib candidate, expect a very low turnout in November. At that point the result of the election doesn’t matter.
On the Republican side last night, the top three all got what they needed. Cruz needed a win, as he had invested the most in time & energy in Iowa. Trump needed to finish in first or second to show that his supporters do in fact turn out. And Rubio needed at least a strong third to show he was The Establishment Candidate of Chwoice. Expect El Jefe Jeb & Kasich to struggle through NH & drop.
The results seem to confirm the likelihood of a choice between Clinton and Rubio in November. In other words the establishment candidates. IMO that will provoke a revolt among disaffected Republicans and there are a lot of them.
In a year in which the fundamentals of American election dynamics favor a Republican presidential candidate the Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot. That’s a movie I’ve seen before here in Illinois.
BTW in one of the many posts on the Iowa caucuses over at OTB I predicted the outcome: Clinton and Cruz.
I don’t recall whether I’ve predicted the outcome of the New Hampshire primary but I think it will be Sanders and Trump. Republicans will be Trump, Rubio, Cruz (in that order). Kasich and Christie will get low single digits.
If Trump doesn’t come in first in New Hampshire I think he’s likely to exit the race then and there even though he has the resources to stick it out to the bitter end.
If Trump is your guy because of his immigration position and his ability to get things done, are you really going to settle for a Senator who has not worked at a lemonade stand or lead a Cub Scout Pack on an overnight camping trip?
If you are looking for an anti-establishment candidate, is the guy whose wife works at Goldman Sachs really your guy?
If you are looking for a candidate who will be able to lead the most powerful country in the world, is one of the Senators who could not lead just 100 people really your guy?
If you are mad as hell and are not going to take it anymore, which one of these clowns are you willing to “take it from some more”?
It is a game of Three Card Monte. Every good little American must play, or the country will fall apart. The voters keep picking the card with the bent corner, and they keep losing. It is a rigged game, but the reason that a confidence game works is that the mark (idiot) refuses to accept it is rigged. Then, they try to sell the game to everybody they know.
Sen. Obama was selected to be president before the 2004 Democratic Convention. His speech was the beginning of this campaign. Sen. Ted Kennedy was one of the people who selected him, but there were probably a lot of donors who intended to benefit.
If Senators Cruz, Rubio, Sanders, or Paul become president, which one will be able to get anything done that has not been pre-ordained? The USS America does not turn on a dime. Much of President Obama’s “fundamental transformation” will be undone, or more likely, it will be transformed into something totally different with the same original name.
(An example would be Obamacare with most healthcare provisions abandoned or reversed and employment regulations added as “healthcare” provisions. Eventually, insurance could be abandoned, but building codes could be included.)
The best that can happen is to begin the turning process, but that takes somebody who knows how to lead. Being in charge is not the same as leading. One advantage of serving in the military (at least the Marine Corps) is that it teaches the value of leadership. Great leaders are not born. They are made, and they are usually forged through adversity. During peacetime, the military induces adversity in its training programs, but in the Marine Corps, the lowest Private is given simple tasks that develop leadership characteristics and traits.
Except for the few who did not start sucking at the government teat, none of these men or women could take four years to actually serve their country, but after dealing with criminals as a Deputy Sheriff and fighting in the first Gulf War and Somalia as a Marine, I am the wothless sack of sh*t because I refuse to select which f*ckstick is going to bend me over and shove his/her fist up my a$$ while lecturing me on some bullsh*t that is only applicable to people who get fists shoved up their a$$.
Trump would at least be interesting, but if you want somebody to really get things done, Nicki Minaj is your girl. She has a bigger set of balls than Sen. Cruz or Sen. Rubio, and she definitely has a bigger swinging d*ck than Hillary or Sen. Sanders.
Think Pink 2016.
Bush was the establishment candidate. Rubio is the poor man’s version of this, an ambitious and greedy little guy who has climbed into a position of power but doesn’t in any way exude the stupid essence of the establishment. He’s a young version of Hillary Clinton, with a different set of problems. The GOP is going to go with the Rove playbook if they have him as a nominee. Let’s see how well that has aged.
Ellipses: You can’t argue with the market, it alway adjusts to be right.
I think the apparent emergence of a three-way race is what jumped Rubio’s odds; that’s the kind of dynamic that allowed Romney to win the nomination last time. The people voting for Rubio told the exit pollers that the most important reason for their vote was ability to win the general election (Cruz: thinks like me; Trump: agent of change). Trump underperforming his polls hurts his ability to be perceived as an agent of change.
Trump underperforming his polls hurts his ability to be perceived as an agent of change.
While not a Trump supporter, I was surprised at his showing in Iowa. Personally, I thought he would fall flat on his face. Having no visible ground game, missing the last GOP debate with great fanfare, I thought he ran a highly feasible chance of hosting a big public fissile. Basically Trump was gambling, counting on the largess of his personality, as depicted by the monumental crowds gathered at his rallies. Getting people out to vote apparently was not part of his strategy. However, people came anyway — self-motivated — which indicates to me that he has more going for him than many think.
And, while second place was not good for his ego, it did demonstrate he is a definite player in this election cycle.
In the meantime Hillary’s fate was determined by a coin toss – some 4 to 6 times. If I were Bernie I would want to see if those coins were legitimate, or were the ones having the same face on each side!
Nicki Minaj eh? Is that a betting offer? I’ll give you large odds……
Other than that I don’t think we know squat yet. In particular, will Obama go for short term legacy and let Hillary skate, or let her be indicted. And will Trump make a mid-course correction to clean up the goon factor.
If I were a betting man……oh, that’s right, I am. I suspect Obama has no respect for law, and is much too narcissistic, and so blocks Loretta Lynch, and Trump can’t help himself, being much too narcissistic himself.
That’s a Clinton vs Rubio final.
In other predictions, Hawks and Tampa in a rematch, having taken out Dallas and Washington, respectively.
Ellipses: You can’t argue with the market, it alway adjusts to be right.
Uh, no, the market eventually settles on the correct answer, often after its face has been shoved in it repeatedly. The market (and such luminaries as Paul Krugman) thought ENRON was fucking gold until they found out it wasn’t. A lot of people lost a lot of money on that. The “market” decided it was garbage only after it was determined to be a big non-steaming turd. (That is, by the time the market figured out it was a turd it had already gone cold.)
So those “market” based arguments only tell you where people THINK things are going. That may or may not prove correct, or even useful.
IMO that will provoke a revolt among disaffected Republicans and there are a lot of them.
There are a fair number of them, but fewer than you would suppose, maybe a third? A good chunk of the rest should be upset, but they’re holding onto their belief that the Republicans are on their side out of a combination of habit and an inability to imagine the future without that party. Hell, I know people who are very conservative across the board that thought that Paul would make a great Speaker for them (they’ve been confused by his behavior as Speaker), and that Rubio is a young genius, despite all evidence to the contrary.
But Hell, I’ve got friends who are Libertarian Party members who are surprised to find out that their party is as open border a party as can exist. Mainly it proves that people don’t pay much attention, or can’t pay much attention, for whatever reasons.
I thought, and still think, Trump can break through to win, but we’re probably a few years away from a maximal breakdown in the system, so maybe he can’t.
Jan, one of Trumps top aides also happens to be an old Iowa hand, so Trump’s people knew a bit about how the caucus works. They didn’t have a ground game, but they did know who to contact, and massively leveraged their social media outlets to get voters out to the caucus sites. They really did quite well to be running such an unconventional game. And as has been pointed out elsewhere, Iowa republicans rarely pick the eventual nominee. The question now becomes can Trump either peal off support of the evangelicals for Cruz or bring in enough new voters to swamp that support. The Establishment vote is going to go to Rubio unless a miracle happens in NH, so that’s out. But Trump probably now has to snuff out Cruz to secure the nomination.
The most interesting scenario, in terms of pure circus, would be if Trump and Cruz both manage to hang in to the convention, and it’s a three way split, meaning a brokered convention. Then we can see El Jefe Jeb rise again!
TB, you magnificent bastard, I read your comment! It was beautiful. I especially liked the following:
Except for the few who did not start sucking at the government teat, none of these men or women could take four years to actually serve their country, but after dealing with criminals as a Deputy Sheriff and fighting in the first Gulf War and Somalia as a Marine, I am the wothless sack of sh*t because I refuse to select which f*ckstick is going to bend me over and shove his/her fist up my a$$ while lecturing me on some bullsh*t that is only applicable to people who get fists shoved up their a$$.
Tell you what, I’ll be sorely tempted to vote for Trump if he makes it to the general election ballot, because he pisses the right people off. But if he doesn’t, I’ll go write in your girl’s name. As you say, she’s got more balls than the rest!
Excuse me, that should be Paul Ryan a few comments up as Speaker.
@Icepick
I just like her because she has a certain vibe to her, but I cannot really explain it. It has a street feel, but she is not from the “hood”. I would take J. Lo, Beyonce, Britney Spears, among others, but I do not know if they meet the qualifications.
If Trump is the Republican nominee, I will definitely drag my carcass to the voting booth.
If one wants to change the status quo, electing Nicki Minaj, Britney Spears, or Donald Trump would certainly change things. How? Who knows. It would be different, and it might get really strange.
Hunter S. Thompson said, “When the going gets strange, the strange turn pro.” Boys and girls, it got strange some time back, and it is about to get a lot stranger. You all really want a professional driving the bus through strangeland, and Donald Trump or Sen. Sanders are the closest official candidates. The problem with them is that they are not strange enough.
I just like her because she has a certain vibe to her, but I cannot really explain it. It has a street feel, but she is not from the “hoodâ€. I would take J. Lo, Beyonce, Britney Spears, among others, but I do not know if they meet the qualifications.
Oh, I understand where you’re coming from. I have just reached a point where I desperate to voice my complete disapproval of the whole process, and voting for someone like Minaj or the rest will be construed as a “joke” vote, whatever it’s intent.
But I don’t think I’ll show up and vote “Blank” like I’ve intended. A guy at the chess club had an irrefutable argument against it when I brought up the topic. He said, “Okay, you go hand in a blank ballot and I’ll stay home and jerk off. At least I’ll have something to show for my efforts.”
He’s got a point.
…
As for professional strange-ohs: I’m not sure Hunter S. Thompson could compete with some of the people we either have in office now or have had in office recently. Anthony Weiner for one. Ted Cruz for another. If half the stories about Cruz’s upbringing and college years are true (and I imagine that at least half of them are), he’s pretty much a professional sociopath. I mean by talent, inclination, and devotion to his craft. Asking people in his carpool what their IQs are so he can determine whether or not they’re worth making small-talk with?
Cruz is a professional creep-show. I’m not sure he has any positions or philosophies that he actually believes in, other than that Ted Cruz should be in charge.
If it comes down to Cruz versus Sanders, I may drag my ass to the polls to vote for Bernie. Cruz is like Hillary, but smarter. That’s a scary proposition.