The numbers are in for New Hampshire. I think I can now offer my slightly more informed opinions. One factor to consider is that 12.4% of the voter was split among candidates who had either dropped out after Iowa or dropped out today. That alone beats everyone lower than second place. John Kasich was second with 16% but was below 2% in Iowa. It’s a common tactic for contenders to skip Iowa if they think they can win, place or show in New Hampshire. There are now 6 candidates who have at least gotten at least 9% in one primary who are still in it. Jim Gilmore has no chance, but I guess he has nothing better to do.
Let’s get to Donald Trump. First, if you look at the demographics that some used to praise Trump, he was even between Republicans in Independents. This is slightly worse than the Republican field at large in the state. We can probably assume that if anyone chose not to vote in the Democratic primary because Bernie Snders already had a huge lead, that it hurt Trump rather than helped him. Trump also out-performed among people with no college and people with less than full high school education.
Trump has yet to disprove the theory that he has a support ceiling of about 40%. As more candidates suspend their campaigns, any wins more than single digits could be a thing of the past. He also has about 1/3 of the delegates, which will not be enough if other candidates officially support Trump’s eventual single opponent.
Right now, the only other serious competition is Ted Cruz, who places 1st in Iowa and 3rd in New Hampshire. The third player will either be Jeb or Rubio, but Rubio over-performed in Iowa and under-performed in NH. That bad performance kept Jeb from losing his donors and he’ll have plenty of money to burn off trying to win other contests.
Ben Carson got 3 delegates in Iowa and it looks like his high point. He may have truly felt cheated by the dropping out rumors, but focusing on it only highlighted that he went home for suits on the day of the caucuses. He also left New Hampshire on the night of the primary and skipped his own party. He barely spends any money, so he can stay in the race for a while, but it’s over.
John Kasich is another matter. He is now just ahead of Bush in the delegate count. He’s also the only one besides Trump and Cruz to place first or second in a contest so far. He has the potential to be the last establishment candidate if Jeb or Marco Rubio’s fundamental flaws take them down. He’s actually poised to get more big donor money.
As for the Democrats, Hillary Clinton is beating Sanders in the delegate count, relying on the same super delegate scheme that got Barack Obama the nomination over her in 2008.
For years, the owner of the rights to “Good Morning to You” has been demanding royalties to anyone who publicly performs “Happy Birthday”. The melody is the same, and historically rights are attached to note progression over song lyrics. A court has overturned that action and moved “Happy Birthday” into the public domain.
If you suddenly hear that birthday song on TV in the future, you’ll know why.
I’ve decided to stop being horrified by Donald Trump’s persistence and focus more on his daily foibles rather than a litany of reasons why it will be the end of the Republic to vote for him.
Trump lost Iowa. He may not have expected to win in the end, but he tried to win it and failed. He has a much better chance in New Hampshire, as his meager 30% beats the rest of the field which is effectively split 4-5 ways. Rubio has to beat Jeb. Cruz needs Carson out of the race and Trump needs to break 30% within a few more primaries.
In other words, the people are speaking. Trump has no magical powers, but has simply cornered the market on the most outrageous talking points. Every election season, there’s going to be one of those guys. Newt Gingrich seemed to fill that role in 2012. I may have my preferences in the contest, but at least all of them seem to be getting a shot.
This election year is the year of the insider outsider. In 1992, there was a true outsider in H. Ross Perot. He was outside either party, outside the political campaign system and possibly outside of his mind. He won 19% of the popular vote and 0 Electors. John Edwards actually got more Electors when someone wrote his name instead of John Kerry’s in 2004. This time, both parties have at least one outsider running for a party nomination.
It seems like the Democrats are a party of socialists, but Bernie Sanders has never actually joined. He has been an Independent for years, but votes with the Democrats except in extreme cases. It may also be why he isn’t afraid for his future as a Democrats, like so many others are who chose not to fight against Hillary Clinton. Such a binary choice has left Democrats who don’t like Clinton to only have Sanders as an option.
The Republicans are a different story. When this race began, there were a number of “Tea Party” Republicans who didn’t always mesh with the party on economic or policy issues. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul were the most outspoken Senators when it came to Obama’s budgets. Paul is out, and former outsider candidates like Marco Rubio and Chris Christie are considered RINOs. Bush and Kasich were always in the Republican mainstream.
That leaves Carly Fiorina, whose political experience was working for John McCain and running for the Senate in 2010. Ben Carson, who rose to fame when he criticized Barack Obama to his face at the National Prayer Breakfast. Then there’s Donald Trump, who not only hasn’t run for political office, he has eschewed most of the traditional actions of other politicians. He has certainly given the 11th Commandment a thrashing.
The problem with Trump as an outsider is that he can’t win without using the same tools as other politicians. Ted Cruz ate his lunch in Iowa because he had consultants and a ground campaign. I suspect that New Hampshire will put an end to any realistic aspirations of Ben Carson and most Christian support will go to Cruz. That could very well win him South Carolina.
I’ve made no secret that I don’t like Donald Trump. Everything he’s done during his campaign have only confirmed my opinions. He’s insulted candidates who get to close to him in the polls. He’s attacked Iowans who didn’t support him enough, he called a room full of New Hampshire residents biased campaign donors. He blames Ted Cruz for cheating and lowering his vote count when the polls say otherwise. This is all bad news for the general election.
Trump’s lousy attitude makes me much more likely to choose any other port in a storm from the GOP field. Of the 3 governors left, I’d pick Jeb. At least he talks a good game. I could vote for Cruz and hold my nose and vote for Rubio. I could also stay home while Trump runs against Hillary.
In 2012, Mitt Romney got 1 million fewer votes than George W. Bush got 8 years earlier. Creating a schism helps when you want to win a primary, but Republican and Democrat votes aren’t fungible. The great majority of Hillary Clinton supporters in 2008 still pulled the lever for Barack Obama rather than going to the Republican side. Trump is not going to back fill his ranks with Democrats if he loses the Republicans (as evil and establishment they may be) who he seems to be running to destroy.
I still expect him to be the next Ross Perot, except he doesn’t have to buy the air time.
Most of the Republican debates have been Trump vs. everyone else. Even though Ted Cruz was the winner in Iowa, tonight was very much everyone else vs. Marco Rubio. The biggest fight of the night was actually Christie at Rubio.
The Democrats had Hillary vs. Bernie in a state where Bernie has a good chance of winning. They are now facing off directly, with no O’Malley buzzing around. Hillary got just under 50% in Iowa. Can she break 50% in South Carolina?
I suspect that regardless of what happens in New Hampshire, Cruz has a good chance of winning SC. Even though Carson is more evangelical, the religious right in that state likes to win and Cruz is their non-Trump choice.
When over a billion dollars are poured into an election where just over 100 million people vote, there is certainly some money being spent to sway those voting decisions. Now consider the fact that 2/3 of those voters won’t switch from one party to another in a matter of weeks, a lot of money is going into changing a relatively small number of votes.
Fox Business’ John Stossel had a segment about the use of analytics to target the individuals who are most likely to get you elected. It should be no surprise that Ted Cruz used this data collection to get a win in Iowa this week. There were ham-handed tactics like voter reports where you (and others) see how often you actually voted instead of staying home. At the same time, there were people on the ground who knocked on doors, but only the ones a phone app told them were good prospects to vote for Cruz.
2012 was a big year for analytics. It was how the Obama campaign knew who didn’t early vote and therefore who to call and contact incessantly until they did. The Romney campaign purchased products and data based on analytics, then chose either not to use them or use them badly. The ORCA scandal was not a fluke, it was the culmination of a campaign that spent money on technology and tactics they didn’t trust and never bothered to understand.
I’ve written extensively about the logistical advantages the Democrats have. Population density is the top indicator of party preference. They can literally drive a bus through an urban area and fill it in 10 minutes with voters en route to a polling place. Republicans have to work with larger ground to cover. Some guy with his own jet isn’t going to fix that.
The GOP presidential field has narrowed to a group of serious candidates and a few who have no chance but haven’t dropped out yet. Cruz, Trump, Rubio and Carson had some showing in Iowa. Bush will still have access to money, John Kasich and Chris Christie may do well in New Hampshire. Jim Gilmore and Carly Fiorina have no chance, even though Carly is fighting to get in the next debate.
Donald Trump is the perpetual motion machine of campaigning. His burn rate is low and he could cut himself a check any time he needs to. Either Rubio or Bush will make it in the next month, they basically fill the same slot. Carson can do well with Christians, but he has little else going for him. There’s only one slot that Kasich, Christie, and Fiorina have to fight to win. Then there’s Ted Cruz.
With Rand Paul out of the race, Ted Cruz is the last veteran Tea Party politician with credibility left. Rubio has morphed into an establishment candidate and Donald Trump is more representative of a Tea Party rally speaker from 2009. Cruz has tried to fight for limited government in the Senate, which is a weak position for a single individual against a large majority who like the deal making as is. Cruz is also a social conservative.
Back when I looked at the field, I liked Scott Walker the best. He’s a Tea Party governor who used his office to break the public union stranglehold over city and state budgets. He also stood up for social values in office. I like governors for president, and he was the most effective of the bunch. It seems the people who answer polls did not agree. Walker dropped out, urged the party to fight against the Trump surge and ended up over $1 million in campaign debt.
I’m not sure I count myself as a Cruz supporter, but he seems to be the Senate version of a Scott Walker. The most negative thing about him right now is that his campaign might have been too aggressive in winning the Iowa caucuses. First of all, let’s look at the polling before the caucus.
Business executive Trump leads with 31% while Cruz has 24%, giving Trump a larger margin over the Texas senator than he had a week ago. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has 17% and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson has 8%.
The day before the caucus, Cruz was at 24% and was at 28% after. However, Carson was actually lower before the caucus. The more interesting numbers are Trump falling 7% below expectations and Rubio rising 6%. Given that data, the Microsoft conspiracy, where the Rubio donor and caucus app creator fudged the results, is more plausible.
I’d rather see underhanded tactics behind the scenes than Donald Trump on stage eviscerating someone who may be the nominee and end up getting that repeated in a DNC campaign ad. From what I’ve seen, if the Cruz campaign is dirty, it is just dirty enough to win. Clean campaigns (see John McCain) lose, especially against dirty Democrats. We’re not talking about ballot box stuffing or the South Carolina incident from 2000. If floating a rumor about a candidate who has no chance is as bad as it gets, I have no problem.
There are two scenarios involving the Cruz campaign, Ben Carson and CNN.
Donald Trump may be running and unconventional campaign, but Ben Carson is running a weird campaign. Before Monday, he was mostly being mocked as low-key to the point of unconsciousness with frequent gaps in his knowledge of government and world politics. I have no problem believing scenario #1 because going back to Florida for suits and up to DC for breakfast is not standard campaign practice.
If scenario #2 is true, the Cruz campaign managed to pull off a tactic with some deniability by scenario #1 being so possible. Honestly, would the absence of that “rumor” have changed the order of winners? Did that many Carson supporters totally give up because of something a Cruz supporter told them?
When it comes to most local (or Congressional) elections, the will of the people is directly expressed. smearing an opponent can easily backfire and voters have a low tolerance for dirty tricks. A presidential election won’t work that way. Two party machines are trying to control the will of over 100 million people and they take it seriously. If Trump and Carson can get rolled by one Ted Cruz state campaign, they have no chance against the DNC.
The fundamental rule still applies. Negative campaign ads work. They worked even when John McCain tried to be above it all and wouldn’t do the same stuff the Democrats did. Negative ads worked when Mitt Romney redefined his media strategy to the point where hardly any ads aired. The people of this country do not rise up against “unfair” opponents, no matter how much we’d want them to.
Political campaigns are like military campaigns. It’s war. Save the morality for peace time.
First of all, nothing that happened in Iowa last night was statistically significant. In the case of Hillary Clinton, literally a couple of coin flips could have given the victory to Bernie Sanders. Cruz, Trump and Rubio were at or near the margin of polling error. Given that, there are realities of the campaigns that have been revealed. Ted Cruz won Iowa. He spent a lot of money. He had a huge organization. His campaign also played a little fast and loose with the viability of the Carson campaign. These are all things that happen in campaigns.
Donald Trump lost. This is important because of all the apologists out in force today can’t accept that he lost. Those excuses are grim solace for a few reasons.
For the Democrats, Hillary Clinton tied Bernie Sanders for all intents and purposes. Chances are she will lose New Hampshire decisively. She does, however, have good prospects in big southern states like South Carolina. For the next month, it will be a real fight and Hillary will have to try to beat Sanders rather than sit and wait to be nominated. However, O’Malley dropped out. If his votes went to Sanders last night, Hillary would be singing a much sadder tune.
If there are 3 tickets out of Iowa, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump and Marco Rubio have them in near equal measure. Ben Carson has a ticket stub with 10% of the caucus vote. Projections are that Cruz won.
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are locked in a battle for first, and O’Malley is out. I suspect the half dozen Republicans below 2% are either going to drop out or be very broke very fast.
On to New Hampshire.