Free Markets, Free People


Some impressions.

While Hillary declared herself the winner in Iowa, her “victory” came down to winning 6 out of 6 coin tosses (@WikiLeaks Hillary Wins ‪#‎Iowa‬ over Sanders by ‘winning’ six coin tosses in a row. Odds this can happen randomly is 1 in 64.)  And even doing that, her “win” was a statistical tie (49.8%, Mr. Sanders’s at 49.6%). Or said another way, had Sanders won a couple of the coin flips, he’d be the “winner”.  And don’t forget, Hillary enjoyed a 50 point lead in June.

Hillary’s campaign staff apparently did what they were supposed to do with their ground game.  So why the almost “miss” in Iowa?  Maybe it’s Hillary.

On the GOP side, what can you say?  Pandemonium and hilarity.  Polls out to lunch and missed the final finish by miles.  I loved John Bambeck’s dig: “So all @realDonaldTrump does is win, but runs for President of the US and loses first caucus to a Canadian. ‪#‎SeemsLegit‬

Heh.  But in reality, Iowa essentially sets up a 3 person GOP race – Cruz, Trump and Rubio.  If anything it was a test of candidate viability.  And the down ticket for the GOP has been shown to be about as viable as  … Martin O’Malley.

Trump’s second place finish (barely) leaves a lot of questions to be answered.  Why were the polls so wrong?  Was it smart for him to skip the last debate or did it end up hurting him?  And what about Sarah Palin?

First Sarah Palin endorsed Donald Trump at a time she had negative 11% favorables with the GOP. Then she missed the first event of the day following her endorsement. Then she blamed her son being involved in a domestic incident on Barack Obama’s treatment of veterans, turning off a lot of veterans in the process by suggesting those who came back from overseas were no longer able to control themselves and were not culpable for their actions.

Hmmm.  If Trump thought getting her endorsement was a coup, what does that tell you about his political acumen?

As for Cruz and Rubio, Cruz won with a record turnout.  That was supposed to be a Trump trump.  So now the chattering class is wondering, “is Trump over”?  Well, we’ll see, but my guess is not and I’d also guess we’ll see a Trump that is toned down a bit and a little more careful about what he does or says during the campaign season.  Not that it really matters.  He is what he is and he’ll likely revert to that at some point

As for Cruz, obviously it surprised the establishment GOP.  If Donald Trump weren’t the bête noire of the establishment GOP, Ted Cruz would be.  And Cruz set much lower expectations for himself (as did Marco Rubio) in Iowa.  For Cruz to win it again sends a loud and clear signal to the establishment GOP.  But it must be like a dog whistle to humans, because they never seem to hear it.

Oh, and Jeb Bush?  Pack it in buddy.  You’re done.  And yes, you too are a part of that loud and clear signal.

Finally, what does Iowa mean for the GOP in terms of any significance?  Well, other than narrowing the field to three, not much.  A reminder:

1976- Gerald Ford (lost election)
1980- Bush (lost nomination)
1984- Reagan (unopossed)
1988- Dole (lost nomination)
1992- Bush (unopossed)
1996- Dole (lost election)
2000- Bush
2004- Bush (unopossed)
2008- Huckabee (lost nomination)
2012- Santorum (lost nomination)

So the circus moves on to New Hampshire, where it is likely that Bernie Sanders will bury Hillary Clinton.  To bad it won’t be for good.  And, we’ll see if the GOP has the same outcome as in Iowa.  If so then you can really begin to question Trump’s viability and how deep his appeal reaches.



Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

27 Responses to Iowa

  • At least Cruz won without pandering to the ethanol subsidy

    • He pandered to evangelicals and generated enough soundbites to hurt himself in NH & Super Tuesday, definitely in the election. At the same time his appeal to evangelicals could be undermined in a hot minute so he will probably even lose them soon. Iowa was a murder-suicide by Cruz.

      He had run a really good campaign until Iowa. He did several thing wrong, he lost his level cool a few weeks before the caucus and did a poor imitation of Trump at the debate neither of which his public persona can support. This in addition going way too overboard appealing to evangelicals. I’m pretty convinced someone sold him he needed an absolute win upfront which may even be true and in the process take out the momentum from Trump now and Cruz later.

  • One of several headlines that SHOULD come out of this…

    “Crony Capitalist Politics As Usual Eats Big One In Iowa”

    And I simply could not be more proud of Iowa conservatives!

  • Rubio is the odds on favorite for the GOP now. Cruz actually under-performed, given his advantages. Hillary still is favored, but she’s clearly not a strong candidate, nor does she have much enthusiasm within her own party – reminds me of Romney in 2012 in that regard. Sanders could still put up a challenge. Rubio needs to prove he is a good candidate at the national level. If he does, he’s the favorite in the general election. If it’s Cruz or Trump vs. Sanders or Hillary, well, it’ll be exciting.

    • Shut up

    • No one asked for your opinion, douchebag. Shove off and stop polluting the site.

      • Ah, but you feel compelled to reply. I’m trying to offer polite, friendly opinions that may be slightly different than the kind usually offered here. But I realize that blogs have tended to segregate themselves so only like minded folk get accepted (I see similar treatment on leftist blogs when people with conservative views reply). I try to work against that.

        • No, just STFU, you moronic troll.

          • I’m certainly not trolling; as a political scientist, I think I can add a diverse perspective to the comments. And my posts have more substance than someone who bitterly tells someone who has a different opinion to “STFU” because they would prefer not to see an opinion different than their own. I think you need to open yourself to listen to different ideas, you might learn something. I certainly learn from what I read here – and that’s really the point.

          • We don’t care. No one wants your worthless opinion. Go.

          • Are you a collective entity?

          • Yeah, reader, Scott’s a troll. Long time readers know it. Scottie himself is too narcissistic and too stupid to realize it.

            But he’s admitted that he has fun irritating people here, which I consider psychologically sick. And of course, there’s his oh-so-convenient memory when we’ve schooled him on something. So, despite his pious bulls#!+ about “learning things”, he doesn’t really come here for that and I can’t tell that he’s learned anything of consequence.

            But we did teach this supposedly knowledgeable “political scientist” about the Frankfurt Group, which anyone who had looked at a history of leftist political thought ought to already know about, given their influence. That demonstrated that in reality he has a very narrow and convenient view based in leftist ideology, masquerading as an even-handed debater who considers all viewpoints.

            His main value is as a canonical example of the hubris, narcissism, stupidity, and disingenuousness of the left. He’s too stupid to realize that too, which is why he keeps feeding his ego by coming here and talking down to us. He has said many, many times that he’s going to stop, but he never does. He can’t stay away because we are one of the few right-leaning websites that would not ban him just because he’s so smug, condescending, and irritating. Whenever he gets the craving to talk down to some people on the right, he comes back.

          • Hi Billy! Alas, you have some things wrong. First, I am absolutely committed to be civil and respectful here. I realize in the past I ended up responding to name calling and attacks (such as what you provide in your post) by hitting back. I won’t do that. It only worked against the reason I’m here – to learn your perspectives, and to present perhaps a different view. I’m not sure what you “taught” me about the Frankfurt school – I’ve been reading them since grad school, and incorporated Erich Fromm into a seminar on Consumerism. I did correct the view that they were “communist” – they had a neo-Marxian neo-Freudian approach, but were anti-Communist. I certainly will not talk down to you. Believe it or not, learning your perspective by reading these posts has helped me teach better, as I can better understand where people with your point of view are coming from. Of course, you could just ban me – it’s your blog. But when I post it will be respectful and civil, regardless how you treat me.

        • “I try to work against that.”

          I guess you have changed your policy since you removed a couple of comments from your blog.

          • On my blog I like a wide array of opinions. I believe that democracy works when people embrace the idea that disagreement is good, and treat those who have other opinions with respect – people need to listen to each other. The only comments I’ll remove are those that are primarily attacks and personal insults. That actually works against the spirit of honest disagreement. I rarely learn much from those who agree with me. I learn a lot from those who have different perspectives.

          • “The only comments I’ll remove are those that are primarily attacks and personal insults”


  • Trump needs to put a sock in it – he’s looking petty with talk of Cruz ‘stealing’ the win and lawsuits over the voting.

    • He actually had a classy concession speech, I was impressed. That classiness didn’t last long, it seems.

    • This is really typical T-rump. He has a very clear pattern of immediate takes on any event, followed thereafter by a complete reversal when his narcissism kicks in. You can see it over and over, from the first debate, the Hugh Hewitt interview, to this latest stupidness following his LOSS in Iowa.

      The man…like Pres. ScamWOW…is a pathological personality.

      • Did John Wayne whine when he got decked? 🙂

        He did not…he got back up….and proceeded to make sure it wasn’t going to happen again.

        That’s what I want in a President, not sniveling about law suits.

        • Strange. When we vote for actors, we at least get Presidents who act like Presidents. We vote for “Presidential material” and we get lousy actors.

    • You think Cruz’ tactic will only be pointed out by Trump?

      • I’m pretty sure that a “tactic” involves planning.

        Is it your loopy proposition that Cruz PLANNED the CNN story…the one that CAME from the Carson camp?

        Sometimes I really wonder about you.

  • No, but it’s going to be ineffective if he looks whiney doing it.
    That’s not what his supporters want to hear from him.