politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: The Big Loss For Donald Trump: The Dog That Didn't Bark [new voters, Iowa]
Source:
AceOfSpades
URL Source: http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=361319
Published: Feb 2, 2016
Author: Ace
Post Date: 2016-02-03 08:31:44 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 8993
Comments: 59
He doesn't think New Hampshire really loved Clinton. Rather, given that Obama had won Iowa, New Hampshire voters were confronted with a dilemma: If we vote for Obama, essentially Obama is the winner of the entire primary. Back to back wins will make him nigh-unstoppable. Caddell's idea is that it wasn't that New Hampshire was really backing Clinton, so much as it was saying "Let's make sure this Obama is really acceptable, let's have a longer nomination process." He thinks that given all the talk that if Trump won Iowa (given his big lead in New Hampshire) that the nomination would be all but his caused Iowa voters, this time, to take a step back and ask: Do we really want such a short nomination process? Are we really entirely comfortable with Trump? Maybe we should keep kicking the tires on this thing a while longer and vote for Cruz (and also, the huge third-place finisher who really won everything, Marco Rubio). That's a theory. However, here's another important consideration. All along, I have been open to the idea of a Trump candidacy on the possibility that there was an X Factor lurking out there, a mass of voters -- doesn't have to be huge, just 2-3% would be plenty big -- who were disaffected from the political system but who could be induced into it by the Trump candidacy. Personally, I felt like Iowa in Caddell's theory. I was interested in this idea, while not being convinced it was actually accurate. I, too, wanted a longer nomination process to test this theory of Democrats crossing over to Trump, and long-alienated Perot/Buchanan voters rejoining the process. Trump's second place finish is not some huge setback -- except that it calls into question the size of this hypothesized block of Trump voters willing to vote for Trump but not other candidates. Trump's three big selling points are his position on immigration, his rejection of politically correct norms, and the possibility he can motivate a large block of disaffected voters back into the political process. After Iowa, I don't know how much juice this third consideration has in it. In a way, Trump's good performance with evangelicals is bad for him, because we already knew evangelicals had high voting rates -- that is, they were always already part of the political process. They were known votes. Thus, to the extent you think Trump did well with evangelicals, you have to deduct those Already Known Voters from his hypothesized pool of Non-Voters Suddenly Becoming Voters. While he probably does attract more of such voters than most -- and we can attribute a bit of the very high turnout to a few of those non-voters deciding to vote -- Trump's second-place finish suggests (though it does not prove) that Trump's X Factor might really be a rather less impressive Z Factor. Something that exists, but not in some kind of paradigm-disrupting size. I suppose this is where entrance and exit polling could provide further tenuous clues. But the big proof -- Trump rolls to a comfortable win in Iowa, powered by new voters -- did not happen. We're left with the possibility of lesser proofs, of a phenomenon of a lesser dimension. It could be that Trump remains a viable candidate, and maybe even improves along the way (as he's improved already). But in the first big test of one of the most important justifications for his candidacy, he failed to deliver these long-sought-after Missing Voters. Before getting to that, let me pass along a theory from Pat Caddell. Pat Caddell noted that New Hampshire voted for Clinton in 2008, after Obama had won Iowa.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: TooConservative, loseability factor, high disaproval (#0)
The real Trump X-factor is the large numbers who turned out to vote AGAINST Trump. In Iowa the turnout increased from the previous record of 122,000 to 182,000 in order to vote for.... anybody but Trump.
Iowa Caucus: The Anybody But Trump Vote
[.....] Trump voters turned out — but so did the anti-Trump voters. Thousands and thousands of Iowans were motivated to go to the caucuses specifically to vote for somebody other than Trump.
I’m going to take this as a little vindication, as evidence that I got something right this time around. (It’s compensation for 2012, when it seemed like I got every election prediction wrong.) I had pointed out that, while Trump has the fanatical support of one faction of voters, he also has the most negatives, the most Republican voters who hate the whole idea of him. Iowa bears that out. Trump doesn’t just motivate people to vote for him; he also motivates a lot of Republicans to vote against him and for somebody else.
The main beneficiary of this was Ted Cruz, who had put the most effort into the state and had the biggest ground game operation to get out the vote. [.....]
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul#2. To: TooConservative (#0)
I think that the loss in Iowa will make Trump a stronger candidate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't
Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
There are no Carthaginian terrorists.
President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood
#3. To: Stoner (#2)
I think that the loss in Iowa will make Trump a stronger candidate.
He missed his chance to knock out Cruz. Even though FNC had a selection of videos with Donald contradicting himself, exactly as it had for both Cruz and Rubio, Trump would have done better to be present and keep the oxygen sucked out of the room so Rubio couldn't get so much traction.
Cruz and Rubio have lived to fight another day. That is not a Trump victory.
I bet he won't skip the NH GOP debate on Saturday, even if they brought in Megyn Kelly to grill him. He probably lost 5-10 thousand votes for that. Iowa and New Hampshire voters expect to be catered to, Trump or no Trump.
There's an Iowa process and a New Hampshire process. Even a celeb like Trump can't just ignore that.
Conversely, Trump may do well later in states that aren't as "needy" as IA & NH.
#4. To: hondo68 (#1)
[.....] Trump voters turned out — but so did the anti-Trump voters. Thousands and thousands of Iowans were motivated to go to the caucuses specifically to vote for somebody other than Trump.
There can be no denying there were a significant number of the anti-Trump voters who turned out, just as there were certainly some actual new Trump voters.
For all we hear from pundits about the Iowa vote, we often don't hear a very detailed analysis of it. I'm sure the top campaigns are still poring over the details and demographics of the Iowa vote, using it to strategize further in upcoming states. This is where Trump, with his lack of top campaign help, starts to have a disadvantage. This often happens to the lone-wolf candidates. One primary result can reveal weaknesses their more savvy opponents can capitalize on, using marketing strategies, social networking and so on.
As with real-world military battles, first engagements with the enemy can tell you a lot and help you to shape your tactics (in various primaries) and your strategy (to win the nomination).
#5. To: TooConservative (#4)
"As with real-world military battles, first engagements with the enemy can tell you a lot ..."
Huckabee won the Iowa primary in 2008. Santorum won the Iowa primary in 2012. Tells me that Iowa picks losers.
#6. To: misterwhite (#5)
Huckabee won the Iowa primary in 2008. Santorum won the Iowa primary in 2012. Tells me that Iowa picks losers.
Maybe it should tell you that the roles of IA & NH as the early caucus/primary states is to narrow the field of candidates, exactly as it has done.
Now Paul and Huckabee are out after Iowa and probably two (or all three) of the Bush/Kasich/Christie trio will be out after New Hampshire.
If the job of Iowa and New Hampshire is to "pick a winner", then why do we even bother to vote in the rest of the states?
#7. To: TooConservative (#6)
"Maybe it should tell you that the roles of IA & NH as the early caucus/primary states is to narrow the field of candidates, exactly as it has done."
They have that effect, but that's not their purpose.
#8. To: misterwhite (#5)
Tells me that Iowa picks losers.
Millions of Republicans voted for McCain and Mitt. Tells me that they like voting for progressive losers, like Trump.
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul#9. To: TooConservative (#6)
"If the job of Iowa and New Hampshire is to "pick a winner", then why do we even bother to vote in the rest of the states?"
That's my point. They don't.
You're the one who said, "first engagements with the enemy can tell you a lot"
#10. To: hondo68 (#8)
I see that the open borders crowd is in a panic.
#11. To: hondo68 (#8)
"Millions of Republicans voted for McCain and Mitt."
They were the candidates. It was either vote for them or not vote at all.
And did they vote for McCain and Mitt or did they vote against Obama?
#12. To: Roscoe, tomder55 (#10)
I see that the open borders crowd is in a panic.
Nah. Neither Cruz nor Rubio actually hired any illegal aliens, at least not like Trump did.
Trump had to settle a lawsuit over really bad working conditions and wage violations for 200+ illegal immigrants who worked on the demolition of the building where Trump built Trump Tower.
DailyBeast: Trump Tower Was Built on Undocumented Immigrants’ Backs
#13. To: misterwhite, wasting votes on shitte (#11) (Edited)
It was either vote for them or not vote at all.
Guess again. You chose to waste your vote on crap, so now you're being offered another shitte sandwich, enjoy!
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul#14. To: TooConservative (#12)
"Trump had to settle a lawsuit over really bad working conditions and wage violations for 200+ illegal immigrants who worked on the demolition of the building where Trump built Trump Tower."
It was settled 17 years ago for something that happened 35 years ago. The demolition contractor hired the illegals, not Trump.
Ted Cruz was still a Canadian citizen back then and Rubio was learning English as a second language.
#15. To: misterwhite (#14)
It was settled 17 years ago for something that happened 35 years ago. The demolition contractor hired the illegals, not Trump.
The court concluded it was impossible for Trump and his top associates to be unaware of these illegals, how they were worked in 12-hour shifts, 7 days a week, underpaid or completely stiffed on pay.
You worship a deity with feet of clay.
#16. To: TooConservative (#15)
"The court concluded it was impossible for Trump and his top associates to be unaware of these illegals"
They concluded that even if Trump didn't know, he should have known. So much for due process.
More likely, they concluded that Trump had deeper pockets.
#17. To: misterwhite (#16)
They concluded that even if Trump didn't know, he should have known.
If you read that piece, you'll see that Trump told the court a ridiculous story about how he never got closer than a block away from those dirty Polish rapists because demolition sites are so extremely dangerous.
The court didn't buy it. Neither should anyone else except total Trumpkins.
#18. To: TooConservative (#17)
Oh, please. There was a completely different attitude about illegals 35 years ago. Why would Trump care? That was the responsibility of the demolition contractor.
Typical let's-sue-the-guy-with-the-money lawsuit. The judge was correct the first time when he threw it out.
#19. To: TooConservative (#0) (Edited)
My observation is that Trump has become a lazy candidate .He is relying on the force of his persona ,and silly negative personality attacks . Right or wrong ;at least when he started ,he was dealing an issue oriented campaign. As I've noted other postings ,he relies on unreliable national polling . He did not set up a professional campaign in Iowa ;and I doubt he has done so in the next early primary states. He brags about not spending money which means that he will not do the organizational steps necessary to win the multi-state primary dates . His negatives(60%) are the highest of any candidate in the race ;even worse than Evita's (52%) . He needs to seriously rethink the way he campaigns if he REALLY wants to win.
"If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
#20. To: tomder55 (#19)
He needs to seriously rethink the way he campaigns if he REALLY wants to win.
He'll drop out a month from now, ensuring Evita wins and he'll welcome all the goobermint contracts coming his way.
I believe they call that payback.
#21. To: Fred Mertz (#20)
He'll drop out a month from now, ensuring Evita wins and he'll welcome all the goobermint contracts coming his way.I believe they call that payback.
I believe you are right on . Despite the harsh things he's said about the Clintoons this campaign , odds are good that is an act ,and he is their trojan horse in this race.
"If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
#22. To: tomder55 (#21)
I didn't know until recently that P.T. Barnum was also a politician.
#23. To: tomder55 (#19)
My observation is that Trump has become a lazy candidate .He is relying on the force of his persona ,and silly negative personality attacks .
I think Trump's schtick has worn very thin. And his attention-getting gambits start to sound much more desperate and whiny. Cruz and Rubio are ready to take advantage of Trump's errors.
This is how populist campaigns always end up in America. The same is true of Sanders who will just implode after New Hampshire. Hitlery has all the Dem minority voters in her back pocket and they aren't going to support an elderly socialist like Comrade Sanders.
I think Trump has no real campaign manager or top election specialists. Trump is managing his own campaign. While a candidate may win now and then by being their own campaign manager, normally they lose by making too many errors, like Trump skipping the FNC debate in Iowa which may have cost him a win there.
#24. To: TooConservative (#15)
You worship a deity with feet of Canadian clay.
#25. To: Roscoe, TooConservative, A K A Stone, loser.com (#24)
New Donald Trump site... loser.com
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul#26. To: hondo68 (#25)
Funny pic. LOL
#27. To: hondo68 (#25)
He won seven delegates. You thought Iowa was a winner take all state? Or were you just being disingenuous?
#28. To: Roscoe (#27)
Yes, there is a difference between 1st place winning, and 2nd place losing.
The Senator from Alberta Canada won Iowa. Raffie E. Cruz.
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul#29. To: hondo68 (#28)
Mybe Trump can get one of those highschool PC trophys they give out for "trying."
#30. To: hondo68 (#28)
Yes, there is a difference between 1st place winning, and 2nd place losing.
He won 7 delegates. You didn't know that?
#31. To: Roscoe, Jeb got 1 delegate, winning (#30)
He won 7 delegates
You didn't know that Raffie Cruz won 8, making Trump a loser. The next loser Rubio, also got 7 delegates.
Losers Rand Paul and Jeb! each got one delegate.
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul#32. To: hondo68 (#31)
making Trump a loser.
Iowa isn't a winner take all state, making you a liar. Repeatedly.
#33. To: hondo68 (#1)
Yep
For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
#34. To: TooConservative (#4)
As with real-world military battles, first engagements with the enemy can tell you a lot and help you to shape your tactics (in various primaries) and your strategy (to win the nomination).
Yes "he who adapts well and makes adjustments quickly brings a better chance of victory." Musings of RLH
One thing is clear. No matter what one thinks of Trump, he has put the GOP firmly ahead in "ratings" and media coverage. The other campaigns are more engaged due to the Trump factor.
I guess the question is when he eventually drops out what happens?
For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
#35. To: TooConservative (#6)
Now Paul and Huckabee are out after Iowa and probably two (or all three) of the Bush/Kasich/Christie trio will be out after New Hampshire.
Bush? He stays in until SC.
For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
#36. To: hondo68 (#8)
Millions of Republicans voted for McCain and Mitt. Tells me that they like voting for progressive losers, like Trump.
Or they just can't stomach DemoncRATS.
For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
#37. To: redleghunter (#34)
No matter what one thinks of Trump, he has put the GOP firmly ahead in "ratings" and media coverage.
Yeah but it's like the difference between being famous and being infamous.
Trump has brought a lot of negatives to the GOP's brand as well as summoning the zombie hordes.
#38. To: misterwhite (#9)
"If the job of Iowa and New Hampshire is to "pick a winner", then why do we even bother to vote in the rest of the states?" That's my point. They don't.You're the one who said, "first engagements with the enemy can tell you a lot"
It tells you a lot about the viability of campaigns advancing.
For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
#39. To: TooConservative (#15)
You worship a deity with feet of clay.
Nice allusion to Daniel
For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
#40. To: redleghunter (#35)
Bush? He stays in until SC.
Why? Just to bash Rubio?
Bush should be bashing Trump. Trump entered the race to destroy Jeb and he did so. Jeb should at least return the favor, rather than trying to destroy his protege out of spite that he wouldn't "wait his turn" in the way the Bush party faction considers appropriate.
Jeb almost certainly cannot win. So why continue? To be a kingmaker with his remaining funds in the tens of millions? Why help Trump by destroying Rubio?
I don't expect you to have a good answer because there isn't one. And Jeb will wake up one morning in the next week and decide to drop out after the NH election and endorse Rubio. It's his only real play. If he does stay in, it would only make sense for him to do it just to spend every bit of his campaign dollars and superPAC funds defeating Trump.
#41. To: redleghunter (#39)
Nice allusion to Daniel
I didn't think anyone would notice. : )
.
.
.
Comments (42 - 59) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]