Iowa was a real learning experience. So, what did we learn? First, that the electorate on both sides of the isle is not happy with the establishment parties. And, having the support of the in-place "establishment" turns out not to be a campaign asset in 2016.
Worse on the Republican side, the two leading candidates who received more than 50% of a record caucus turnout - Cruz and Trump - far outpaced the "establishment" candidates - Governors Bush, Kasich, Christie, and Huckabee. Other governors who had already withdrawn - Perry, Walker, Jindal, and Patacki - add to the notion that running for President from the position of Governor of a state did not resonate with the Republican electorate. Instead, the Tea Party outsider conservatism seem to be the thematic that works in 2016. But for Fiorina, Cruz, Trump, and Carson all stand on that spot, more or less, and accounted for more than 60% of the votes cast. Marco Rubio, who had a very good night and created some real momentum in coming in a close third place to Trumps second place finish, has strong Tea Party roots but has taken some more moderate positions in the past, notably on immigration policy. He did reverse course, but Cruz has hammered him on immigration as a supporter of "amnesty" without stop during the course of the campaign. Add the Rubio votes to the total, and the Tea Party conservative road is paved in electoral gold. At least 85% of the Iowa votes cast in the Republican race voted the ultra-conservative line! The Democratic Party is a different story.
Second, we learned that Democrats are not especially delighted with the "establishment" either. Hillary felt the "Bern" last night as Bernie Sanders came from a 40% polling deficit to wrestle the Clinton campaign into a virtual tie in Iowa. Although Hillary comes away with an extremely narrow win - the closest primary caucus outcome in Iowa history - and more delegate votes (thanks to pledged "Super Delegates"), this outcome is not good Clinton news. Sanders, an outsider running as a "Democratic Socialist" in the Democratic Primary, has captured the liberal wing of the party along with many progressives. The Iowa youth vote was especially skewered toward Bernie by a 85/15 split in favor of Sanders - quite the capture - and includes many younger women, the very group that Hillary hoped to attract as the first woman to become a major party presidential nominee. And, now it's on to New Hampshire where Bernie is expected to carry the state by a wide margin. If Clinton can close the new Hampshire gap as Sanders closed the Iowa gap, her campaign will recover some of its shine. If not, it will be game on in the southern primaries.
Third, we learned that the "dark money" of the Super Pacs" may not have the influence that was expected. The Bush campaign - and others - spent an ocean of cash on mail and TV/Radio with little apparent impact on the outcome in Iowa. Perhaps the Super Pacs, with their emphasis on media persuasion, will have greater impact on the "primary" states rather than those with a caucus system in place. Time will tell.
Fourth, we learned that the more contentious the race, the greater number of candidates and divergence of views, and the more vigorous the campaigns are, the greater the stimulus for a high turnout. The Iowa caucus turnout - on both sides - was the largest on record. Is that a function of the number of candidates in the contest on both sides? Is it related to more TV ads, mail, and personal visits during the contest? Is it more about the strident nature of the campaign rhetoric? The electoral jury is still out on this one. Still, new records were set. Perhaps it is a function of the anger, frustration, and disappointment that a majority of voters presently feel about the performance of their government. And, maybe it is also related to the very historically low positive polling numbers for congress.
And, fifth, we learned that there exists a large divide in the Iowa electorate. The right-wing, conservative, and evangelical segment of the electorate is a far policy cry from the young, liberal, progressive, and 47% self-identified "socialists" voters on the opposite side of the street. Now, THAT is a battleground.
On to New Hampshire.
No comments:
Post a Comment