Cruz wins, Trump loses, Hillary and Bernie virtually tie

Chalky

Well there's a surprise! Trump beaten and only one point ahead of Rubio, and Hillary beathes sigh of relief to virtually tie with Bernie.

Has the US media misread the people? Is Trump already heading for the exit? Can a Democratic Socialist really make it to the White House?

I find it strangely reassuring that Iowa wasn't a walkover for Trump and Hillary.

ICBM

Chalky said:

I find it strangely reassuring that Iowa wasn't a walkover for Trump and Hillary.

I'm not sure really. Cruz is a dangerous right-wing nutjob, but will beat Sanders in the national election if it's down to those two.

Chalky said:

Has the US media misread the people?

Possibly. They've hyped up Trump because he plays to their agenda.

Chalky said:

Is Trump already heading for the exit?

Also possibly. Maybe the Republicans have woken up to the fact that nationally he has the highest negative ratings of any candidate, and therefore won't win the Presidency.

Chalky said:

Can a Democratic Socialist really make it to the White House?

I doubt it. Not unless he's young, charismatic and either black or Hispanic, which are probably the only things that can trump (no pun intended!) being a "liberal" or a "socialist".

guitargeek62

#FeelTheBern

RaymondLin

The media hyped up Trump I think it's because he is so diversive, he brings in viewing figures from both sides so he gets a lot of media coverage because of it. Trump knows this and plays the card himself but saying more stupid things every day like he claims he never played golf with Samuel L Jackson, but he has, many times and when the person who can verify this is Bill Clinton!

hugbot

Trump saying stupid things hasn't really him. His failure in iowa is down to

A) evangelicals in the state , who went for cruz
cruz having better ground game in terms of people out knocking on doors and such
C) skipping a debate

He's still in a strong position, albeit not quite so strong since this loss takes his shine off a bit

Fretwired

I must confess that I couldn't give a shit as whoever wins ends up doing exactly the same as the previous guy as if the world's one big Hollywood blockbuster. I can guarantee 100 per cent that whoever wins with start another war.

UnclePsychosis

Republicans may have political views that I dislike but they're not completely stupid. They know fine well Trump can't win.

This happens every time, albeit normally on a smaller scale. Some nutter makes early headway but falls by the wayside because they're completely unelectable.

Heartfeltdawn

Religion, folks, religion. That the BBC doesn't mention religion in their winners and losers report is quite mental. 

In 2000, George W Bush took the win in Iowa ahead of Steve Forbes. The Bible-toting candidate won. 

2004: standing President. No nomination needed. 

In 2008 Mike Huckabee won in Iowa with 34% of the vote compared to 25% for Mitt Romney. Huckabee was the standout religious candidate having served as a pastor for over a decade.  He was trounced by John McCain for the GOP nomination. 

Consider the 2012 GOP caucus result. Rick Santorum was the standout religious candidate out of that bunch. The entrance polls for that year showed nearly 60% of GOP participants were born again or evangelical Christians. Santorum was a distant second to Mitt Romney in the overall nomination race. 

The Washington Post has an exit poll out now showing that 64% of GOP caucus participants were born again or evangelical Christian. The religious bunch were very active in campaigning against Trump. Rubio tried to bang up his religious credentials. 

For Trump, it's not a dismal failure at all. It's going with history. Iowa backs the one who waves the cross the most and the loudest and that man was Cruz. 

The real loser is Rubio. He's not as attractive to the religious crowd as Cruz and he couldn't get past Trump in a religious state. That should worry the fuck out of him. 

octatonic

I'm not sure about Rubio being a loser here.

He came third, very close to Trump.

Cruz got 27.65%

Trump got 24.31%

That is just over half the votes (52%) to those two candidates.

Rubio got 23%.

Al Jazeera commentary today discusses other Republican nominees dropping out now and supporting him.

If this is turned into a 3 horse race- Trump, Cruz & Rubio then there is only one nominee that the Republican machine can tolerate.

They hate Cruz and dislike Trump.

Sure, they aren't the one making the choice but if they can a greater percentage of non-Trump & Cruz supporters to support Rubio then he has a much stronger chance.

He only needed around 9000 more votes to win in Iowa.

If Ben Carson drops out, or Paul and Bush drop out (or all 3) then he had a very good chance.

ICBM

Heartfeltdawn said:

Religion, folks, religion. That the BBC doesn't mention religion in their winners and losers report is quite mental. 

In 2000, George W Bush took the win in Iowa ahead of Steve Forbes. The Bible-toting candidate won. 

2004: standing President. No nomination needed. 

In 2008 Mike Huckabee won in Iowa with 34% of the vote compared to 25% for Mitt Romney. Huckabee was the standout religious candidate having served as a pastor for over a decade.  He was trounced by John McCain for the GOP nomination. 

Consider the 2012 GOP caucus result. Rick Santorum was the standout religious candidate out of that bunch. The entrance polls for that year showed nearly 60% of GOP participants were born again or evangelical Christians. Santorum was a distant second to Mitt Romney in the overall nomination race. 

The Washington Post has an exit poll out now showing that 64% of GOP caucus participants were born again or evangelical Christian. The religious bunch were very active in campaigning against Trump. Rubio tried to bang up his religious credentials. 

For Trump, it's not a dismal failure at all. It's going with history. Iowa backs the one who waves the cross the most and the loudest and that man was Cruz. 

The real loser is Rubio. He's not as attractive to the religious crowd as Cruz and he couldn't get past Trump in a religious state. That should worry the fuck out of him. 

You're right.

Actually the only thing I like about Trump (other than still thinking that him getting the nomination would sink the Republicans) is that as Matt Frei said in his documantary about him, "Trump doesn't do God".

57Deluxe

I bet Trump would run Independent if fails the nomination... He has the groundswell of voters

octatonic

He's tried though and got it spectacularly wrong.

http://mashable.com/2016/01/18/donald-trump-2-corinthians/#ZdgIVW7k7gqo

UnclePsychosis

Rubio did fantastically well in Iowa. Less than 5% behind the winner in Iowa? That's great for him.

Don't believe me? Look at the bookies this morning - Rubio is now heavy favourite. He was 5/1 yesterday and today is 4/5 pretty much everywhere.

ICBM

57Deluxe said:

I bet Trump would run Independent if fails the nomination... He has the groundswell of voters

I hope so.

If he does, he'll split the right-wing vote so badly Bernie Sanders could even win.

Heartfeltdawn

In terms of not being able to beat Trump in a religious state, it is a sore defeat. He doesn't appeal enough to the religious fraternity nor does he appeal enough to the anti-immigration folk thanks to his pro-amnesty platform. So if the Bible gets you nowhere and you're seen as being too friendly to the invaders from Mexico, that's not the sort of thing that wins you votes in the Southern states.

New Hampshire is a moderate place, a true Romney Town. Religion has a place but doesn't dominate as it does in Iowa (in 2012, Rick Santorum went from first in Iowa to 4th in New Hampshire). On the face of it, you'd think New Hampshire wasn't religious enough to back Cruz and had enough brain matter to avoid a Trump victory, leaving the door open for Rubio. 

But you then flick over to the exit polls...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary-3350.html

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/new-hampshire-republican/

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-new-hampshire-presidential-republican-primary

The worry for Rubio are the polls putting him behind Kasich. if he can't win in a religious state like Iowa, can't win in a moderate state like New Hampshire, is well down in South Carolina, is in third place in Nevada and would likely to be met with scorn in Texas going by polls there where he was ranked behind Carson. The only poll I've seen with Rubio ahead was Minnesota and that was by 2 points so by no means conclusive when margin of error is taken into consideration. 

Obviously it's daft to go by opinion polls alone but if Rubio doesn't win in New Hampshire next week, then it's hard to point out somewhere that offers a clear win.  

Of the other candidates dropping out: The Florida primary isn't until March 15th and I can't see Bush dropping before then, given the long history his family has with Florida. There's no point to Rand Paul dropping out. Christie and Fiorina dropping out might give Rubio a boost but Huckabee and Santorum leaving would mean their religious voters moving to Cruz. Kasich doesn't give me the impression of being an early dropper, the sort who is along for the ride. Newt Gingrich in 2012 went on for ages, not giving any hint of dropping out until April. 

So that really leaves Carson as the loose cannon.

  

octatonic said:

Al Jazeera commentary today discusses other Republican nominees dropping out now and supporting him.

If this is turned into a 3 horse race- Trump, Cruz & Rubio then there is only one nominee that the Republican machine can tolerate.

They hate Cruz and dislike Trump.

Sure, they aren't the one making the choice but if they can a greater percentage of non-Trump & Cruz supporters to support Rubio then he has a much stronger chance.

I don't disagree that Rubio is who the GOP want as their man. The tactics they've developed over the last two decades to denounce their Democrat rivals have been used against them, clear polarization politics. Well, the GOP are offering up Rubio, a man who isn't religious enough to look bonkers, who isn't tough enough on immigrants to look capable, and who doesn't have a rugged business image like Trump. He's another soft candidate as Romney was. 

Heartfeltdawn

UnclePsychosis said:

Rubio did fantastically well in Iowa. Less than 5% behind the winner in Iowa? That's great for him.

Don't believe me? Look at the bookies this morning - Rubio is now heavy favourite. He was 5/1 yesterday and today is 4/5 pretty much everywhere.

And all of this despite having virtually no state primary polls in favour of him throughout the country. And third place despite hiring Eric Teetsel (this would be a fine example of his fag-bashing evangelical gibberish) and really trying to court the evangelical vote for some months. 

Actually let's have some more Teetsel talking about the immorality of homosexuality. 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/manhattanproject/2015/08/the-present-evil-age-and-what-you-can-do/

So there you have it. In order to look more appealing to a block of mostly white Christian voters, Marco hired a homophobe who helped to deliver a 3rd place finish. 

Rubio has to beat Cruz in New Hampshire. If he does then the bookies are on the mark.

UnclePsychosis

"a sore defeat" to come within 1% of Trump, 5% of Cruz, and become bookmakers favourite? Aye, if you say so.

The Republican Establishment hates Cruz and can't stand Trump. Rubio was forecast to come a distant third in Iowa and has massively overperformed by being within touching distance. He's in a really strong position this morning. A quick trawl of news outlets, political commentary, and bookies this morning suggests your "sore defeat" comment is massively off target.

Heartfeltdawn

UnclePsychosis said:

"a sore defeat" to come within 1% of Trump, 5% of Cruz, and become bookmakers favourite? Aye, if you say so.

The Republican Establishment hates Cruz and can't stand Trump. Rubio was forecast to come a distant third in Iowa and has massively overperformed by being within touching distance. He's in a really strong position this morning. A quick trawl of news outlets, political commentary, and bookies this morning suggests your "sore defeat" comment is massively off target.

Almost as off target as those news outlets, political commentators, and bookies who said "hung parliament" in 2015?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ec083464-aacd-11e4-81bc-00144feab7de.html#axzz3z0rVMFgR

http://www.cityam.com/213873/general-election-2015-odds-hung-parliament-just-shortened-and-its-prime-minister-ed-miliband

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32121502

News networks, bookmakers, and respected commentators can still cock it up. 

I agree with you that both Cruz and Trump are detested by the Republicans. Rubio is in a strong position with regard to the GOP hierarchy and their backing (if he is the GOP favoured man then of course you're going to see media sources saying this is a fine result for him). The fact is that he finished 3rd after courting the evangelicals, gaining a last minute surge, and with the remarkable words of Terry Branstad in his ear. Branstad is the Governor of Iowa and became the long-serving governor in US history last December. 

"• Terry Branstad: The popular Iowa Republican governor didn't endorse any of the Republican candidates. But he made it abundantly clear that he did not want Iowans to vote for Cruz due to the Texan's opposition to the Renewable Fuel Standard, a major issue for Iowa's farmers."

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/19/politics/terry-branstad-ted-cruz-defeat/

The question for the GOP is whether their traditional big donors and media outlets are now powerful enough to swing Rubio against the anti-establishment feeling. A lot of that will come down to Fox (VP Bill Sammon was in charge of the debates: his daughter is Rubio's Press Secretary). Personally I'd still be mindful of the ultimate fun: Rubio gets the nomination and Cruz-Trump join forces. 

UnclePsychosis

UK elections are notoriously difficult to call, US presidential elections are actually pretty easy. Just ask Nate Silver.

It would have been high fives all round in Camp Rubio yesterday.

Heartfeltdawn

UnclePsychosis said:

UK elections are notoriously difficult to call, US presidential elections are actually pretty easy. Just ask Nate Silver.

It would have been high fives all round in Camp Rubio yesterday.

Generally they are easy. When it's a two-party system, shocks are rare. 

But we're not in a presidential election. We're in one of the weirdest nomination races ever on both sides, one in which even Silver has admitted he's been a bit wrong about Trump and went out yesterday saying why the Iowa caucus is so hard to predict. Their primaries end up with the same factors affecting the results as our general election does: tactical voting, low turn outs, multiple candidates etc. 

It's a period where traditional media and traditional political backscratching are fighting off against some new faces and some new media. I wouldn't disagree with anyone asserting that Rubio is the man of GOP choice. I think his numbers were crap and the high fives are premature. He's a moderate candidate, a small c Conservative. I'm not convinced that he's a uniting candidate though within the Republican factions. 

hungrymark

UnclePsychosis;957607" said:

UK elections are notoriously difficult to call, US presidential elections are actually pretty easy. Just ask Nate Silver.

It would have been high fives all round in Camp Rubio yesterday.

Well somebody's got a hard-on for Rubio haven't they?