What did we learn from Iowa? Not much
T he sound and the fury leading up to the Iowa caucuses has subsided, so it’s time to reflect on what we have learned about the 2016 presidential race from that rather quaint electoral exercise. And the answer is, nothing that would allow us to declare any winners of the Democratic and Republican nominations.
Some things we did learn:
• Talking about supporting Donald Trump might be considerably different from actually supporting him once in a caucus setting or a voting booth. Trump was leading most polls heading into the Iowa vote, and he came out the runner-up to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, with Florida Sen. Marco Rubio nipping at his heels.
We’ve heard people say time and again that they like the bombastic Trump because he’s “not afraid to say what he really thinks,” and presumably what those people think. We find it interesting that folks would admit this, because much of what Trump says has either no acquaintance with the truth, is extremely bigoted and hateful, or both.
But perhaps some of those who talk about supporting Trump have a change of heart when coming face to face with the decision of voting for him as the potential leader of the most powerful nation on Earth.
• Cruz clearly has a very solid campaign organization. To us, the guy is about as likable as a bad case of shingles, and his views are very much the same as Trump’s, though couched in more sedate language, in most instances. Yet he made enough of a positive impression on Iowa caucus participants to post a very important victory.
• Rubio has emerged as the current favorite of those who can’t stomach Trump or Cruz. Though his stances on the issues differ very little from theirs, he’s considerably less confrontational and considerably more photogenic. And if anyone says that’s not a factor in electoral politics, we can cite scores of examples dating to the Kennedy-Nixon race of 1960.
• We’ve learned over the years that trying to make a long-term prediction based on a single caucus or primary is a fool’s errand. Remember not that long ago, when Ben Carson was seen as a legitimate contender? Now he’s an afterthough, and a punchline of countless jokes, thanks to his wacky pronouncements along the campaign trail.
Hence, we’re not comfortable making any sort of prediction about where the GOP race is headed. We do know that the next stop is New Hampshire, where Trump currently has a huge polling lead over Cruz, Rubio and Ohio Gov. John Kasich. Will Trump’s support wane? Can Cruz or Rubio build on their momentum from Iowa? Will pragmatic voters look to the comparatively moderate Kasich as a candidate who might run well in November, offering an attractive choice to independents and more conservative Democrats? At this point, anything’s possible.
• The Democratic race in Iowa ended in a near dead heat, with Hillary Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders each banking nearly 50 percent of the vote. Sanders’ performance, like Cruz’s, reflected a strong campaign organization.
He was trailing Clinton badly in the polls in Iowa just a few short months ago. Clinton can take solace in the fact she didn’t lose in Iowa.
In 2008, she finished a poor third there, trailing an upstart named Barack Obama, as well as John Edwards.
When the race moves to New Hampshire, in Sanders’ backyard, he will be the betting favorite. But coming up a few weeks after that is the primary in South Carolina, where Clinton currently has nearly double Sanders’ support in the polls. If Sanders wins in New Hampshire, as expected, he’ll need to quickly build on that momentum, or it could be just a matter of time before Clinton is setting her sights on the general election.
At the very least, there’s some action to follow now, after many long months of debates and sound bites and stump speeches repeated ad infinitum. And for that, we’re thankful.