Iowhynot? – Caucuses Reax – Open Thread and Twitter-List – Updated
Featured Image by Gage Skidmore
CK MacLeod
WordPresser: Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001.
Features
Hot Posts
A Message From Devcat
Devcat is watching over, but if you notice any problems contact the editors and Devcat will be notified and deployed immediately.
Recent Comments
on TrumpedFinally the peeps of China have seen enough of it. Their new adopted plan: LET IT ROT.
on He Got Away With ItI can't argue, except to say that he is what America - and in particular American men - aspire to be…on TrumpedIf I HAVE to buy another car, that Ford Maverick actually looks pretty good to me, at least if Honda…
on TrumpedHey, I queued this up to the right spot, just for you:
on TrumpedYes, even the those hateful people who accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being a White Suprem…- on TrumpedSo you think hate deserves a platform. Good to know.
- on TrumpedThanks for conceding the point.
Comics
-
November 7, 2024
-
The End of the Political Parade
November 6, 2024
-
No Matter which Candidates You Bet on, You’ll Get a Shock or Two
November 5, 2024
-
November 4, 2024
Shouldn’t it be cauci? For the plural.Report
Had the same question! Jinx! That means you can’t comment again ever, it’s been nice knowing you. Unless I release you. I forget how that works though.Report
I think you buy me a Coke. Where is Encrusted Hollywood Exec when we need her.Report
Having had this conversation several times (and likely having initiated it at least once), I know that the term’s origin is likely, though not distinctively, Algonquian, and therefore wouldn’t need to obey either Greek or Latin plural forms, bit more properly, the English plural suffix.
That I travel in circles where this topic has come up several times should automatically disqualify me from running for any office that might involve a caucus or caucuses.Report
But in the SouthWest we could call them Caucti!Report
In the South Pacific they call them optimists.Report
Given the nature of the proceedings I propose we go with cocci.Report
This America! Speak Latin!Report
Trumpes Eunt Domus.Report
What’s all this then?
Trumps they are a home…?Report
Took him to mean “Trumpies go home!”… but wrong case, no need for verb, no? Hey, it’s a live thread… help an OG out…Report
It’s from Monty Python’s Life of Brian. Brian is caught misspelling Romans Go Home on the walls of the Coliseum. He writes (if memory serves) the people known as Romanes, they go the house.Report
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbI-fDzUJXIReport
Tho come to think of it, I believe that’s one of those facts that I learn and immediately forget – or remove from R.A.M. – every four years. This time, though, I think it might stick! Know hope!Report
Sadly it seems to be “caucuses.”Report
With 0% of precincts reporting Bush and Clinton are leading. This is a significant development that demands heavy graphics, exit polls and on the ground interviews.Report
BAH GAWD BLITZER, IS THAT ROMNEY’S MUSIC?!Report
You know, I think that had Romney waited until 2016…
Ah, well.Report
It’s not too late*!!!! Romney Trump 2016!!!
*It is too late.Report
We are, though, closer to the possibility of a brokered convention than it’s ever been in our lifetimes. If Trump, Cruz, and Rubio continue to fight pitched battles, with the rest of the field getting the remaining 10 to 15 percent of the vote in each contest, nobody’s going to close to the delegate count one normally has to make the convention pro forma.Report
Are the republicans doing proportional representation this time, or is it winner take all?Report
mostly proportional until after Super Tuesday, (with a few winner take all that are district by district), and then mostly winner take all, but with more proportional than usual (which is to say, any).Report
Rubio at 20%+
Oh dear, someone get to North’s house and remove all the sharp objects and liquor.Report
Yeah I’m pretty glum about it. Trump lost Iowa and Rubio did well. I expected Trump to loose and Rubio to do okay but I had still hoped. This reinforces my initial instincts that Rubio is going to be the eventual nominee.Report
Is there some reason you particularly dislike Rubio, even relative to other Republicans, or is it that you think he’s the biggest threat to a Democrat in the general election?Report
I’ll jump in because I don’t think we disagree:
(1) Rubio has the best chance of beating either Democrat in the general.
(2) There is almost nothing distinguishing Rubio from Cruz in actual potential policies they’d champion.
(3) Everybody hates Cruz already. Nobody hates Rubio yet.
So yeah, he’s a perfect storm of dread.Report
El Muneco is basically correct. Rubio is by far the largest threat in the general (arguably the only serious one) and Rubio is extremely conservative and I despise his purported policies.Report
I think Rubio is packaged similarly to Clinton, so that may be a repulsion on that side.
Cruz may be jerkish, but he has anti-fed cred for shuttin’ down the precious.
If those two considerations carry enough weight Rubio will lag.Report
Cruz’s core problem is that ~90% of people who have met him seem to hate his guts. This isn’t necessarily a problem with voters, who don’t spend that much time around candidates even in places like Iowa and New Hampshire, but endorsers and major fundraisers are another matter.Report
In the end I don’t know if ‘gut hate’ in those circles plays a net positive or negative to voters.Report
http://giphy.com/gifs/hug-daughter-ted-cruz-l2JI9hJjzH1VjJxS0Report
The same could be said of Mitt Romney.
Why do the Republicans keep choosing downright incompetents at the art of politicking?
Nixon — he was the exact opposite… and he worked really hard to make it so (not a natural at much of anything, let alone kissing babies).Report
Yes but as the other establishment candidates wither the establishment will unit behind Rubio. Christie and Kasich will run out of money. This Iowa result suggests Rubio will do well in New Hampshire and if he does that’ll cut them off at the ankles. Bush has the dough to endure but if it’s just him and Rubio in the race at some point the party elders will sit Bush down and tell him it’s not happening.
Cruz has chops and oomph, sure, but I doubt he can win with the whole establishment united behind Rubio. Especially if they keep propping up Trump and hammering Cruz like they have to split the insurgent vote.
Look I -want- Rubio to not be the nominee very much but my pessimism and sense of reality tells me this won’t be an easy election as much as I’d love it to be one.Report
The establishment forming behind Rubio may just form a backlash. That and he hasn’t really done much to ping the radar.
I would hope there is no inclination to have another Bush in office, it’s crazy he’s done as well as he has.Report
You and hope and I can pray but I don’t think so.Report
Ugh! I can’t believe that douchelord Cruz might win this thing.Report
Someone had to succeed President Santorum!Report
True that. I’m now wondering if Rubio will pull into second.
Man, I really hate Cruz.Report
Goodness I really hope not but it’s possible. *sigh*Report
I’m gonna have to tweak my views of Iowa republicans by about 28%.Report
Apparently the window for making Wire references to the Democratic field has closed. I’ve officially lost interest in that party’s primaries.Report
Okay, trying this again:
Here’s what strikes me as odd.
A few weeks back, Trump seemed to signal that he knew he wasn’t going to win Iowa. Well, less of a signal. More of a “neg”.
That’s something that he could have run with. “I knew I wasn’t going to win Iowa. Now watch what happens in New Hampshire! You aren’t going to even begin to believe South Carolina!”Report
Also! The numbers I am seeing tell me that while Hillary may have gotten more votes, Bernie got more delegates.
This gives Bernie ground to declare victory.
Ain’t that some stuff?Report
It’s not even remotely enough. There’ll be no unease in the Democratic establishment over a result Bernie can spin as a win if you tilt your head and squint enough. Iowa is one of his demographically privileged states; if his best is an arguable win he’s not going to even scratch the paint in most of the country.Report
This was supposed to be a coronation.
One of Hillary’s delegates? She won due to a coin flip.
(But the numbers have updated and Clinton is ahead again.)
Edit:
President Nixon says it better than I:
A .003 percent lead with a cabinet post and the full backing of the Democratic National Committee is an abomination.— Richard M. Nixon (@dick_nixon) February 2, 2016 Report
I weep not a single tear for lost coronations. Hillary does best when she’s harried; I hope Bernie keeps her on her toes up to the convention even if I doubt he will be able to.Report
Hillary wanted a horserace this time. She learned from the last time, when the Dems got oodles of free press and a ton of happier voters.
Sanders is practically the ideal candidate for Hillary to test herself against… and that’s probably why he’s running too.
I called this kabuki from the start.Report
I don’t believe in that kind of conspiracy thing. Bernie is for real. He is also, however, likely a very good phenomena and certainly an excellent fellow to race against- I like Bernie.Report
Oh, I don’t really think Hillary and Bernie are conspiring together… I think this is rather more a marrying of different disparate interest groups, guided primarily by Hillary’s “friends in the party.”
Give Bernie a bit of encouragement, discourage Warren (by far a tougher candidate for Hillary to beat), push out Russ Feingold… small moves, deft moves, and clever to boot.
I do think that Bernie knows he can’t win, and went into this knowing that, and has a bit of an ideological mission. Which is fine, it lets Hillary run left, at least for a little while.Report
On your last paragraph, at least, I think you’re more right than not.Report
Perhaps so.
I’ve seen a number of people out there, however, who have been spinning this tie as a definitive victory for Hillary.
As an argument that Hillary was inevitable and remains inevitable, that’s one thing. As an argument that Hillary will win in the general…Report
I would liken it to a Sanders touchdown that took too much time off the clock, but in a game that was hopeless anyway. They needed a quick 90-yard pass, but they grinded it out and got the 7. They’re happy about it, but the outcome of the game is in less doubt than it was before the drive because they needed a miracle.
All of that being said, with all things considered, whose campaign HQ would you rather have been at last night? Hillary’s or Bernie’s? There’s really no question. In a very real sense, Bernie won no matter what the final count reads.Report
Brother Ethan Gatch put it thusly:
Personally, I prefer to make that last part one word rather than two but otherwise I agree wholeheartedly.Report
On last night’s X-Files, Scully bowdlerized it as “bat-poop crazy”.
Which on the one hand felt wrong, and on the other hand felt perfect.Report
I’m guessing he doesn’t read 538. They’ve been saying Bernie will be strong in Iowa and especially NH for months.Report
Anyone who’s trying to claim that Uncle Bernie is a stronger shot in the general needs to show their work- a lot. And I say this as a person who likes Bernie plenty but god(ess?) damn it the Democrats (and I’d argue the country) badly need to win the Presidency for at least four more years just to roadblock on things like the ACA and Iran until the those policies bear fruit and/or the GOP pulls their collective heads out of their asses on the subjects and actually starts talking like sane people again.Report
The polls are currently showing Bernie doing better than Hillary in most of the head-to-head matchups. Those aren’t the best polls, but they’re the only evidence anyone has got regarding the relative strength of the two candidates.
– Clinton-Trump is 44-41, whereas Sanders-Trump is 47-41
– Clinton-Cruz is 45-47, whereas Sanders-Cruz is 45-42
– Clinton-Rubio is 44-47, whereas Sanders-Rubio is 43-44
So Clinton is +3, -2, and -3 against the Republican candidates, while Sanders is +6, +3, and -1.
Considering that this election involves a lot of voters who are motivated by anger at the “establishment”, it makes some sense that Sanders would be doing better in head-to-heads.Report
Well this is impressive spin.Report
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-needs-more-than-the-tie-he-got-in-iowa/
Make your case, Saul me lad, that Bernie’s gonna win; I’m open minded.Report
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/02/02/hillary_clinton_won_the_iowa_caucus_says_state_democratic_party.html
Sanders made a very impressive turnout for a 70 plus guy who just recently joined the Democratic Party. Clinton’s victory was not even close to a margin of error and according to Vox decided by a coin-toss three times. This gives Sanders room to close his gaps among minority voters and he has a plenty big war chest to do so. This is all with the DNC doing everything they can to give HRC the smoothest sail possible.Report
Yes yes and good for Uncle Bernie but there’s still no path to victory here. Lot’s of time to make up his gap with minority and moderate voters? He’s had months and months to do so and hasn’t managed it so far. It’s not like closing the gap with moderates would hurt him with his current base would it? Look even Slate knows the score:
He’ll still be able to rebound next week in New Hampshire, but even a blowout win there will leave him still searching for a path to the nomination that runs through less friendly Southern terrain.Report
Which suggests that the same non-interventionist foreign policy and economic populism that Trump has played on the right plays just as strongly on the left. I knew it existed, I just didn’t think it would be this pronounced. The establishments in both parties, OTOH, I think they didn’t even suspect that it existed.Report
That’s certainly a good point and I hope to hell that HRC pays some fishing attention and tacks more dovish on FP. That alone would make a Bernie run worth its weight in gold.Report
Nobody cares about foreign policy and nobody votes on foreign policy unless Americans are dying overseas.Report
Generally correct, my hope for her to tack dovish is mainly principled: I think it’s better policy than her current positions; and politically I don’t think tacking dovish would cost her much.Report
I think friendliness to Wall Street and Davos and TPP are bigger problems for HRC.
Everyone except economists seem to realize that not everyone is helped by globalization. The free traders have not thought of any solutions except charter schools which take public goods and turn them into private and for-profit things. Charter Schools smack of corruption to many liberals.Report
Nobody cares about foreign policy and nobody votes on foreign policy unless Americans are dying overseas.
American’s vote to get us into wars when we’re not, and get us outa wars once we’re in em.
Also, unlike North I have no illusions Hillary will tack dovish. I think she’ll get us in at least one war, maybe two. The Hawk is her totem.Report
Don’t get me wrong Stillwater; I don’t think she’ll tack dovish: I agree she’s hawkish by inclination and it’s my second strongest reservation about her*. I said I HOPE that Bernie can FORCE her to make dovish promises.
*The email brouhaha is my first strongest.Report
Ah, yes, there’s that. And that down ticket pols might consider their own electability after supporting something disastrous.
Alsotoo, when I say Hillary might get us into two wars I mean one of her own choosing. The NSC requires new presidents to escalate/create at least one opportunity to use our “Defense” capabilities as condition of the Presidency. My worry is she’ll do more than the bare minimum.Report
You and I are on the same page with our aprehension on the matter. I hope her wariness of the electorate ad her party both of which are still pretty war weary will keep her ambitions to a minimum.Report
“Madame President, we need to talk about your flair”Report
Also the voters want you to work on those TCP reports over the weekend. Mmmm that’d be great.Report
Which wars? Her strong support for Obama’s deal with Iran has quieted a lot of my worries about her. If she backs that, she’s not going to be looking for an Iranian war.Report
I don’t think economic populism was ever in doubt. The big differences would seemingly be in solutions and who to blame. Trump is pushing Herrenvolk Democracy according to some folks.
I think the Democrats who like Sanders want a significant reduction in how much money Wall Street and finance vacuum up in the economy. They also want less triangulating and neo-liberalism as solutions. No charter schools run by private companies, no disruption by tech overlords who think they know better.
IMO a lot of Sanders supporters acknowledge that he is weak on foreign policy even if they find HRC too hawkish. The thing that the neo-liberals need to shred is easy passes for Wall Street. But neo-liberals can’t seemingly do this because they abhor even the slightest anti-globalization policy and are too addicted to that sweet lucre.
Democrats like Sanders because he flies economy class and in the middle seat. People who like Trump seem to like his over the top wealth.Report
What happened to my comment? Why did it get eaten?Report
Wrong thread?Report
Chris Christie got admin rights?Report
Well, it’s certainly not cat that got admin rights.
Cat getting admin rights tends to set server farms on fire.Report
Fire is more a Stannis thing than a Stoneheart thing.Report
https://ordinary-times.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/stannis.jpgReport
K,
we weren’t talking about “Mr. Would Rather Watch Porn than Finish the Damn Books…”
(cat’s an acronym).Report
It looks like Cruz’s mailers made no difference (at least had no downside), but his campaign may have spun Ben Carson’ brief (though inexplicable) trip home to Cruz’s advantage.Report
I’m seriously looking for something to back this assertion up, but this is a guy from the Warshington Post rather than, say, from WierdNutDaily.Report
Roll Call?
Report
Are you ready for the next Clinton Conspiracy Theory?
Report
Bernie wouldn’t be the first New Englander to be accused of cheating, then, months later, get screwed on a coin toss.Report
The big winner last night was clearly Rubio , in my view. He goes from also-ran to both Trump and Cruzer’s biggest threat. He’s now the “Our Guy” candidate for the old guard and insiders as well as traditional mainstream conservatives who can breathe easier knowing that neither a lunatic nor a self-deluded narcissist has a clear path to the title. Plus, he’s a pretty damn good public speaker who seems to be getting better as the campaign rolls along.
Trump: I viewed his post-election speech last night as a portent of doom, but I can’t quite figure out why. That he’s only “good” when his support comes cheap and easy? Seems to me he’s got to do more to earn the support of voters rather than rely on being the outsider with a limited range of “bold and fresh” ideas. I’m still surprised he hasn’t expanded his platform at this point, and I’m surprised he hasn’t gotten pounded for it.
Cruz is hideous. With that outa the way, I don’t see his victory there as a real boost to his campaign given the amount of energy he expended. I look at it more the other way: given the effort and focus on Iowa his victory is more like “meeting expectations” rather than exceeding them. And the upcoming Rubio surge is gonna take away his support more than Trumpers.
All in all, I’m inclined to think Rubio is finally (or will be after NH) where lots of us thought he’d be much sooner: the establishment candidate with a lot of popular appeal. I don’t see how Trump can compete with him over the long haul unless he really ups his game on every level: energy, rhetoric, policy, ground-game….Report
I think Rubio had the best night, but I think a lot of people are underestimating how good a night it was for Cruz. He spent a lot of time in Iowa, and it lined up well with his peeps, but now he can afford to place third in New Hampshire and regroup in the South where he should also do well. And while he did invest a lot in Iowa, unlike Huckabee and Santorum (who more or less planned to leverage an Iowa victory into a national campaign) he’s got a national campaign up and running.
The betting markets have him at under ten percent and Rubio over fifty. That’s crazy. I think their chances are in the same ballpark.Report
He’s a clever politician, no doubt. (I mean, he overcame the handicap of being personally repulsive to garner 28% support, which is evidence of real genius…) I still don’t see a path for him to get there, and even less so now, what with Rubio having Found Jesus in Iowa. His political strength is neither appeal nor pure force of character, but rather a form of political ju-jitsu in which he only succeeds by playing off of other candidates strengths. Which requires, by my thinking, that his strengths will leave him perpetually in second place at best. Sure, there’s a chance that his last move leverages him past the front runner to take the title, but odds-wise it seems to me very unlikely. (I could be biased. Have I mentioned how I feel about him personally?)Report
Even? No, and you know I would LOVE for you to be right Will, I don’t think their odds are even remotely even. Rubio has a ton of growth potential, every centrist lane candidate that calls it quits will power him up, and I’d assume that if Rubio does well in NH (which why the heck wouldn’t he?) then the pressure on the other centrist candidates to throw in the towel will start to mount. Cruz is going to contend hard, I grant, but with the whole establishment against him? I’m doubtful. Also Trump is this wild card- how logn does he stay in the game? Isn’t he soaking up Cruz’s oxygen?
Jeb! remains a factor, he could remain in the race a long time locking down establishment loyalists and add-bombing Rubio but again how long will he do it if the establishment starts telling him to knock it off?Report
The calendar and the field seem almost perfectly stacked against Rubio. The rest of his lane won’t be cleared by NH, making it unlikely that he wins there. After that is Nevada, which I tentatively believe he will win, and South Carolina, where I expect him to lose. The SEC primary doesn’t play to his strengths. Especially if I’m wrong about Nevada, the “But Rubio hasn’t actually won anything” is going to dog him for quite some time before it gets to the states where he can win. By which time, Cruz may be in really good shape.
That’s not what I’m predicting, mind you, because I’m not predicting anything specifically. If today’s narrative were that it’s Cruz’s to lose, I’d be painting the Rubio-friendly scenario. It’s… really tough to see what’s going to happen.Report
Jeb placed behind Carson by a large margin and barely ahead of Fiorina and Christie. If he were rational he’d drag up after NH, but the Grift Is Strong in campaign managers so he may hang around until the money is literally
transferred to his homies bank accountsgone, which will hurt Rubio and help Cruzer. I think hell be subject to tremendous pressure to pack it in.ReportAgreedReport
We can all agree that for Bush to have any chance at all he has to massively up his game, so at lest he’s not subject to the tyranny of low expectations.Report
At some point, somebody is going to sit him down and remind him that while there is no bridge he cannot burn for himself, his son is the Land Commissioner of Texas and potentially has a bright future in national politics. Potentially.Report
Stillwater hit the nail on the head upthread. Bush will get that talk but only once the grifters err consultants, have cleaned out the bank accounts and credit lines of Right to Rise.Report
The Conservative organs are already saying Rubio just needs to place in NH, second or even third. So he’s fine there. He’s in no danger at all of running out of money, his campaign has been moderate in their burn rate and one thing the establishment can definitly do is make sure he stays in the dough. He’ll win by beating Cruz with suburban moderate Republicans in the high population centers. Unless there’s some kind of Cruz blowout Rubio will simply pack in the delegates until he wins. Rubio either will land a knockout punch and win or win a gruelling attrition battle. Either way he’ll win.Report
The good news for Rubio is that he has had an arse-ton of negative ads against him in Iowa and elsewhere*, and he came out of it looking quite good both in terms of his placement and still having good approval numbers within the party. Even better, he turned everything around in just 2-3 weeks. Before that, he was halfway skipping Iowa with hopes of making his mark in New Hampshire. At some point they made the determination that Iowa was more urgent, and that gambit paid off in a big way.
I think this is quite possible, but not pre-ordained. He has been planning for a Long Primary, but the ground is slippery in those and at some point Cruz (or even Trump) may start looking prohibitive.
* – To date, I’ve seen only one presidential political ad this year. It was an anti-Rubio one.Report
Rubio should still be worried about the rise/flame-out cycle so common in the last few Republican primaries.
He’s benefiting from the way Cruz and Trump suck all the media oxygen out of the room, because it means he can rise higher in the polls before the spotlight turns on him.
Thing is — he’s not a natural second choice for either Cruz or Trump voters. Given they have a majority of the voters between them, that is not a good place to be. Especially as he’s going to be seen as the ‘establishment’ candidate in a decidedly non-establishment year.
I’m not saying he can’t do it — like I said, the longer Cruz and Trump suck up all the attention, the more solid a foundation he can build — but the man hasn’t been in the spotlight yet, and a lot of the GOP’s “Great Hopes” have floundered at that point.Report
So you’re imagining a scenario where Cruz exits and Trump gets that wing to himself? Or vice versa? Problematic; neither have any incentive to quit (and Trump will never quit as long as Jeb! is in the race. Hmmm maybe Rubio has a reason to want Jeb to stay in).Report
You’re getting ahead of me. I’m thinking more that Rubio breaks into the spotlight and then…pulls a Carson. Or like any 2012 nominee but Romney. The base gets a look at him — a real look, as opposed to “Yeah, that guy’s running and I haven’t heard much bad about him [because no one is saying much about him] he seems good!” and then recoils in horror because of, well, whatever.
Insufficient xenophobia. Too short. Licks lips like lizard. It’s not always rational.
I think Trump’s supporters are, by and large, not going to be attracted to Rubio in any case. Cruz’s might, but I’m not sure that’ll hold up under scrutiny.
So that’s my basic point — we can all say “Rubio’s in third and rising!” and be very correct. But the thing is, everyone’s watching Cruz and Trump. What will happen if Rubio gets that spotlight shined on him?
There’s plenty of things the primary voters might be deeply unhappy with, once it’s played up.Report
Maybe, but Rubio has been in the crosshairs before. Jeb has been throwing everything he couldfind, imagine or fabricate at Rubio for months and he’s held his own and then some in the debates.Report
Yeah, I don’t see Rubio having a “Egyptian pyramids are granaries” lala moment. On the contrary. He seems gaining in smoothosity: not stumbling and deflecting direct hits. Personally, I think the more he’s positively rewarded for being the Establishment guy, the better he’s gonna be at the politics. That strikes me as his comfort zone.Report
True enough, but I still can’t shake the feeling that no one is really paying attention to anyone but Trump, and now Cruz and Trump. (Well, Carson too — but he’s flamed out already).
I literally can’t remember a dang thing Jeb did, really, over this primary. He’s been such a non-issue, despite spending god knows how much money.
And I watch debate and participate online and stuff, and I’d still have to go research everyone but….Cruz and Trump…to remind me of anything about them.
Like Rubio — the thing I remember most about him for this primary season was an attack on his shoes — by either Trump or Cruz.
Perhaps I’m a huge outlier, but that’s what I mean by Trump sucking all the air out of the room. Rubio’s close third might bring him up into the big leagues now, but prior to last night — how much coverage did he really get? How much did people see of him?
It’s not really a problem unique to Republicans — Sanders has struggled against it the whole time himself, with Clinton taking up most of the air.Report
You’re not in Iowa.Report
That’s quite true.
Doesn’t mean I’m wrong. It’s not like Iowa caucus goers have been very predictive about GOP winners, right?
As I said, that’s just my feeling, which is that Rubio has been underlooked — which is both good and bad — so far. I don’t know if that will continue, especially now that he’s taking on the Great GOP Hope For Sanity role against roughly 60% of the GOP’s base.Report
Scroll up in the convo and you’ll see I’ve actually been arguing the Cruz angle more than the Rubio one. I think there are good arguments to be made for each candidate.
The second-choice breakdowns don’t happen as logically as we often assume. Rubio and Cruz have been picking up one another’s supporters throughout the campaign and each is high on the list of the other’s second choice.
Long story short, somebody has to win this thing. I can come up with reasons for why it can’t be Trump, Cruz, or Rubio… but it’s going to have to be one of them. I think the betting markets are too high on Rubio, but I think he has as good or better a chance than either of the other two. There’s no Romneyesque “natural winner” to overcome this time around.
(The main area of disagreement I have with you remains the notion that Rubio is some question mark in the shadows. He has been out of the shadows for at least a month, there has been a ton of energy devoted to taking him down, and whether the polls indicated it or not he has been treated like a top-tier candidate by the other candidates.)
(On a related note, Rush is now speaking positively about him. That’s new!)Report
Rubio hasn’t held the spotlight. That’s sort of the issue I’m getting at.
Look, you remember 2012. Every candidate was really popular, until they got on top? Happened to Carson this go-around too. How can you be sure that won’t happen to Rubio if he gets more time in the limelight?Report
I’m not sure it won’t. That was a huge thing early on, but has become less so with time because he has been getting a lot of negative attention. R2R carpetbombed the Iowa airwaves, and elsewhere. Cruz has been taking shots and really ramped it up over the past week. Trump has taken shots. Kasich’s people took a shot. Talk radio has taken shots. His views on immigration came up in the most unflattering way possible in the last debate, and was brought up in previous debates (in one of which he was Target #1), and he’s still standing.
So while I’m not-at-all sure it won’t happen, there is quite a bit of reason to believe that the obvious liabilities have already played out. There may be some as-yet unfound non-obvious liabilities, but that’s an unknown unknown at this point.Report
I’m pretty much content to wait and see. The GOP bloodletting is likely to get more intense anyways. More knives in the back for Cruz now, and Trump will be..Trump, immune to normal political rules but subject to his own weird ones. Maybe he’ll flame out now. Maybe he’ll get stronger. I have no idea.
Rubio…might get to stay in the background, or he might have the whole establishment alternate between supporting him and stabbing Cruz.
The results of which are entirely unpredictable.
The one thing I’m sure of is that more than half the GOP primary voters really like a guy who is incredibly toxic in the general election AND fully outside the control of the GOP establishment. From the perspective of whomever wins the primary, that is Not A Good Thing.Report
“Wait and see” is the only reasonable course at this point. The only things I am predicting is barring something completely unforseen we will have a three or four person person race that’s going to include Trump, Cruz, and Rubio (maybe one other player of significance).
Beyond that, it can go a number of ways. I’m somewhat down on Trump’s chances in the overall, I’m way more bullish on Cruz than the betting markets, and somewhat more bearish on Rubio (and Trump). But I’m guessing.Report
I’m hesitant to bet against Trump because he placed second, with no real ground team, after about 6 months of everyone saying “THIS IS WHAT KILLS TRUMP” and it never happening.
On him, I’m waiting until he’s been staked, decapitated, and buried at a crossroads.Report
I’ve come to the conclusion that nothing in particular is going to kill him (the way envisioned). Assuming he falls short, it’s mostly going to be a matter of him just not going to get the votes that he needs to win a majority of delegates, and he won’t be able to convert a plurality of delegates into a majority of delegates the way another candidate might.
Right now I have him sketched at a 1-in-5 chance of getting the nod.Report
Agreed. Not the way envisioned. I could see enthusiasm flag if he doesn’t add a few more notes to the Trumpet, tho.Report
Raise your expectations to “probable” and you’ll be where I’m at.Report
In both 2008 and 2012, the GOP flirted with loony after loony until it finally settled on someone relatively sane. If the pattern holds, and I see no reason to expect otherwise, despite being told (or maybe because I keep getting told) by so many half-smart pundits that This Time It’s Different!!!! Rubio is the most likely last sane man left standing.Report
I just assumed Iowa was Cruz’s to lose. That doesn’t take away from his huge ground game and focused political campaign, but I don’t see him taking the state as all that miraculous.
I agree with @stillwater: this was a great night for Rubio, and I really dislike Rubio. If he can get some of the other “establishment” candidates to get out (I’m looking at you Jeb), Rubio could start winning some of these states.
I am also amazed by how Trump failed in Iowa. I know he wasn’t supposed to win in Iowa anyway, and the very fact that he got the support he did says something about his potency, but the fact he has not adapted to the changes in the campaign in shocking. Big rallies and pleasantries are nice, but he should know that it will take more than that to actually win the nomination. EDIT (I say he “should know,” but maybe he really thought he was going to coast into a win in the primaries without a ground game or a plan. I know CK mentioned last night that the polls are complete mirages at this point, so I think Trump is in for big trouble now that he doesn’t appear unstoppable and inevitable).Report
I agree about Cruz: contrary to the pundit CW, I don’t think he overperformed in Iowa given the effort expended compared to T and R. The only measure they base that judgment on is pre-election polls, which had Trump up. But even considering that I’m not sure I agree about Trump. He basically wrote the state off as a loss a long time ago and refrained from expending any but the barest of energy there, and given that I’d be inclined to say he overperformed. The fact that the pre-election polls had him in front suggests to me that he lost because he had no ground game, not that voters turned on him.Report
Cruz was very well positioned in Iowa, but it was far from clear that he would win it becuase it wasn’t clear that Trump was going to fall. The last minute polls suggested a Trump win. His victory hear means that he can afford a mediocre showing in New Hampshire, then on to South Carolina. It’s not a surprise, but it’s a big deal that he accomplished what he set out to do *and* that Trump couldn’t get much space between him and Rubio.Report
Trump: I viewed his post-election speech last night as a portent of doom, but I can’t quite figure out why. That he’s only “good” when his support comes cheap and easy? Seems to me he’s got to do more to earn the support of voters rather than rely on being the outsider with a limited range of “bold and fresh” ideas. I’m still surprised he hasn’t expanded his platform at this point, and I’m surprised he hasn’t gotten pounded for it.
Trump had absolutely zero ground game, didn’t do internal polling (“why do we have to do internal polling when the networks do it for us?”), and came in second anyway. In the state that gave Pat Robertson 25% in 1988.
If Trump figures out “okay, maybe I *DO* need a ground game…”Report
Yeah, my thought as well: as a conditional. IF he can get a real ground game with Trumpeters knocking on doors and networking with local local political power structures and all the rest, he’s in good shape. From what I’ve gathered, tho, he doesn’t have a management team to do those things. Yet, anyway.Report
We’ll see in New Hampshire. If Trump doesn’t win there he’s done like Christmas dinner.Report
To be followed by “New Hampshire doesn’t mean anything, though. It’s South Carolina where the rubber meets the road.”
“South Carolina stopped picking winners in 2012. Super Tuesday is what counts.”Report
Yeah, for sure. But if I were in Trump’s camp I’d be very concerned about the ground game. It’s one thing for folks to support him in polls, another for them to support him at polls.Report
The good news for Trump is that ground game matters less in other states than it does in Iowa.
The bad news is that he needs his people motivated, and they were motivated by his being a winner.
The good news is that he has a pretty nice cushion in New Hampshire, and a “Comeback winner!” narrative waiting for him after New Hampshire.Report
Well I just said if he doesn’t win he’s done… the corollary being that if he does win he is not done. I wish Trump well Jay, I’d delight in his success in the primary, but I like to think of myself as a realist.Report
Well I just said if he doesn’t win he’s done… the corollary being that if he does win he is not done
No. The corollary is “If he’s not done, he won.” The truth of “If he does win he is not done” is independent of that of your initial statement.Report
I sit corrected.Report
Candidates are done when their fundraising dries up and/or the media stops paying them any attention. The former doesn’t apply; we’ll have to wait and see what happens with the latter.Report
Mmm true, done as a plausible contender for the nod; not done as in out of the race. I imagine he’ll stay in the race as long as he finds it fun. Oh and he will not drop out until after Bush has. You can bank on that.Report
My thoughts:
Wow, that was a tight Clinton/Sanders race. On the one hand, good on Bernie for fighting hard — and he should win New Hampshire easily. On the other hand, Iowa and New Hampshire are about as friendly a ground as Bernie’s going to get, and he can’t claim he won both (which would have been a nice boost). On the gripping hand, it all seemed pretty friendly on the Democratic side.
On the GOP side — Trump came in second, with basically ground game. That’s..impressive, actually. Being Trump, pretty sure he’s going to be able to spin losing pretty easily. He’s spun being bankrupt into being a successful businessmen, so coming in second in Iowa shouldn’t be hard. Cruz won, quite handily — he got his money’s worth and his heavy investment in Iowa paid off. And Rubio at three, huh?
So…pretty sure the knives are going to come out for Cruz even harder. Then there’s the fact that Trump + Cruz equals well over half the vote. That does not seem like happy time for Rubio, because looking at the county results — Rubio was not the first or second choice of a lot of people. I wonder if he’s going to follow the Carson trajectory (pop up into the spotlight, get burnt to the ground because he doesn’t meet the purity tests) — the familiar trajectory of everyone not named “Romney” in 2012?
I can’t see either Trump or Cruz supporters really liking the cut of Rubio’s jib, you know? And between them, they have more than half the GOP base sewn up.
Also, I wonder how long Jeb will continue to pretend to be in this race?Report
The difference between Rubio and the Not-Romney candidates of 2012 is that the Not-Romney candidates were all jokes, has-beens, never-weres, or some combo of all three. It is possible, though, that Rubio is like Romney himself in 2008 – will do well enough to get noticed, but not good enough to win. (and I’ll say again, that’s the best case scenario for Rubio. Clinton won’t get beaten out for the white house this year, but she will be the most vulnerable incumbent since Poppy Bush in 2020)Report
From your lips to God(ess?)’s ears. If the election fairy appeared and said “I’ll guarantee a Dem president in 2016 but they’ll be guaranteed to lose in 2020.” I’d take that deal in a heartbeat.Report
Yeah, I think Romney ’08 looms rather large at this point. There are some differences, to be clear, but it’s a significant cncern for the Rubio camp. Until the completeness of Jeb’s collapse became evident, and Trump’s staying power, I was saying that while everyone was looking at ’12 it was actually ’08 that was the most analogous. Jeb as McCain, Cruz as Huckabee, Trump as Rudy, and Rubio as Mitt.
It still could come to pass with some cast changes.Report
It could, but I wouldn’t bet the bank on it.
Because in the end, Trump and Cruz are holding steady at over half the voters, right?
And let’s be blunt — what they’re selling is NOT what Rubio can sell half as well.
They’re anti-establishment, Rubio..isn’t. They’re both pretty xenophobic. Rubio is still fighting his heresy on immigration. He might be able to fake it, but will the voters actually buy it when it gets highlighted?
That’s what I mean when I say Rubio is really benefiting from Trump and Cruz sucking all the air out, because right now the base isn’t scrutinizing Rubio. He can coast on casual impressions and name recognition.
Now maybe he can sell himself once the light’s on him. Maybe he can’t. He doesn’t seem a great fit for the primary zeitgeist, and given said zeitgeist is eating up a majority of the voters that’s not a plus in his column.
And yes, I’m aware that he’s a second choice for a lot of Cruz voters — but given how little he has in common with Cruz, how much of that is solid? And how much would evaporate upon deeper inspection?
Which is why Rubio’s probably pretty content to build up as much as he can in the shadows of Trump and Cruz. It ain’t winning, but he’s not pulling a Carson either.
And I do agree — he has a lot in common with Mitt in 2012. Except for one thing — in 2012, the GOP base wasn’t furious that someone exactly like Mitt had lost 4 years early. Being a lot like Mitt Romney is probably not the best thing to be right now, as a GOP candidate.Report
I think you misread what my comment was stating, and the comment I was responding to.
We’re talking about Romney ’08, not Romney ’12.Report
Well religiously Rubio is pretty much solidly acceptable so you could expect Cruz’s evangalitical support to transfer to him easily.Report
Agreed. His speech last night was laden with Evangelically Appealing buzz words. He’s working on it!Report
I’m not so sanguine. In terms of impressions, Rubio/Cruz do have both a Kennedy/Nixon vibe and the Establishment/Anti thing going on, but in terms of substance they’re basically the same.
Rubio is also a natural second choice for evangelicals, since he can talk the talk while all Trump knows about religion is how many Corinthians fit in one cup. If he can ignite culture war rhetoric while either downplaying immigration – or just nakedly flip-flopping since that doesn’t appear to be a negative anymore – he can be the Christopher Nolan candidate to Cruz’s Tim Burton version.Report
Morat20,
They’re anti-establishment, Rubio..isn’t.
From where I sit – and of course I’m sorta spit-balling here – Rubio is establishment and presents (solidly!) as establishment. Trump is anti-establishment and presents as anti. And while Cruz presents as anti-establishment, he’s actually establishment all the way down. At this point, tho, he pretty much has to play the anti-establishment card (even if it weren’t good politics for him) since he’s not gonna get any of the big figures within the party to endorse or support him. But the reason for that isn’t because he rejects the GOP orthodoxy, it’s because he’s a free-lancer who puts his own interests above the party (in part because he takes all the Cleek driven talking points wink-wink seriously while he’s advancing his own ambitions). (Plus, he’s hideous. Yrrrch.)Report
While this is fun, it amounts to trying to figure out who’s going to win the World Series based on Opening Day.Report
Oh, it’s actually worse. Because lots of people are trying to, effectively, predict the winner of the World series based on internal scrimmages of teams that haven’t even picked a lineup yet and who are about to cut most of the players on the field.Report
Cubs win!!Report