Thread: How to Understand Donald Trump’s Defeat in Iowa

How to Understand Donald Trump’s Defeat in Iowa

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn FEB. 1, 2016

For months, mainstream Republicans have hoped that Donald Trump’s support was a mirage — a combination of high name recognition, unsustainable news media coverage and support from irregular voters who might not show up in a primary.

Tonight, there’s reason to believe their hopes just might be well founded. Despite leading each of the last 10 Iowa polls, by an average of seven percentage points, Donald Trump was defeated by Ted Cruz, who currently leads, 28 percent to 24 percent, with 97 percent of precincts reporting in the Iowa caucuses. Marco Rubio is in a strong third place with 23 percent of the vote.

In the end, Mr. Trump came closer to taking third than to winning.

The result doesn’t necessarily leave us much closer to knowing who the eventual nominee will be. It probably signals the beginning of a protracted, three-way fight for the nomination. But the loss raises the possibility that Mr. Trump’s strength is at least partly an illusion; he may not be quite as strong as he looks.

Mr. Trump’s defeat won’t necessarily derail his campaign, as some have speculated. He leads by a wide margin in polling in New Hampshire, so he’ll have a strong opportunity to rebound.

Mr. Trump’s voters also appeared to turn out in large numbers. Many speculated that he might fail to turn out his supporters, but the turnout in Iowa was higher than most analysts had forecast, with 167,000 votes counted as of now — swamping the 122,000 votes from 2012.

Yet Mr. Trump still fell short. He lost among voters who decided over the last month by a wide margin, and he took third place among voters who had previously participated in the caucuses. Mr. Trump fared especially poorly among voters who decided over the last week — since his decision not to participate in the final presidential debate before the caucuses.

Cruz’s Narrow Path to the Nomination

For Mr. Cruz, the victory gives him a chance to forge a narrow but real path to the nomination. His strengths include strong support from self-described “very conservative” voters; perhaps the best organization in the race; and a strong fund-raising apparatus. He could fare relatively well in South Carolina in a few weeks, and across the South on Super Tuesday.

But his path to the nomination is still not an easy one. He will face full-throated opposition from many prominent Republicans, as was the case here in Iowa. And Mr. Cruz’s narrow victory was not especially impressive. It depended almost exclusively on strength among “very conservative” voters, who are vastly overrepresented in the Iowa caucuses. There was no primary state where “very conservative” voters represented a larger share of the electorate in 2012 than they did in Iowa.

He won just 19 percent among “somewhat conservative” voters and a mere 9 percent of the “moderate” vote.

Mr. Cruz’s victory may bestow enough momentum to attract less conservative voters. But recent primary contests offer reason to be cautious about his prospects. Candidates like Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum never succeeded in broadening their appeal beyond their natural bases after winning Iowa, and Mr. Cruz will probably fall short of the nomination if he also cannot do so.

Rubio’s Big Night

Making it even harder for Mr. Cruz to broaden his appeal is Mr. Rubio. He finished in a strong third place, beating pre-election polls and nearly beating Mr. Trump for second in a state where Mr. Cruz’s base is at its strongest.

Whether Mr. Rubio’s showing will be enough to change the race in New Hampshire is hard to say — there isn’t much precedent for a logjam like the one we have in New Hampshire. Four mainstream conservative candidates — John Kasich, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush and Mr. Rubio — have all been clustered near 10 percent of the vote in New Hampshire surveys.

If Mr. Rubio’s performance in Iowa bestows enough media coverage and credibility for him to break the deadlock, it would be a crucial turning point in the race. A strong Rubio showing in New Hampshire could push several mainstream candidates out, freeing up endorsements and fund-raising dollars that have sat on the sidelines. It would also allow him to consolidate the voters who have supported the mainstream candidates.

It would bring about a true three-way race heading into South Carolina.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/up...iowa.html?_r=0

Around here, I noticed that the Republican voters ( I am independent) who identify with really strong religious values support Cruz. But they can't see very pragmatically. The same people turned against Romney in 2008----who actually had excellent odds against Barack Obama, since Obama was an unknown quantity at the time. They are more willing to go down with the ship, than make a practical choice. So I hope we don't have a repeat of 2008.

Moved to General discussion. The topic is political not immigration.

Originally Posted by Captainron

Around here, I noticed that the Republican voters ( I am independent) who identify with really strong religious values support Cruz. But they can't see very pragmatically. The same people turned against Romney in 2008----who actually had excellent odds against Barack Obama, since Obama was an unknown quantity at the time. They are more willing to go down with the ship, than make a practical choice. So I hope we don't have a repeat of 2008.

I'm a registered Republican voter. I will accept Cruz or Trump ..... either is fine with me. The picture of who can and can't win should become clear to me when we have the primary in NC. Right now, as things stand, I will go with whichever one of the two (Trump or Cruz) has the best shot of winning the Republican primaries. While I understand what you're saying, you have to win the nomination to have a chance at the presidency.

Leaving Iowa, Cruz, Trump, and Rubio all received 5 delegates. It is very concerning to me that Rubio finished so close to Cruz and Trump. I don't expect Cruz to win New Hampshire. I just hope he finishes in the top 3. As for Trump, who knows .... he's a hard one to predict. IMO, New Hampshire could turn into a disaster for us if Rubio sneaks in for the win.

Trump was the front-runner. Trump was leading in the polls. Trump had the biggest crowds. Trump won all the debates he was in and after not being at the last one, he spiked up 5 and 7 points to take a clear lead in Iowa. Turn-out broke all records. For our causes of immigration and trade, Trump made them the top issues of the 2016 election. Yet, Republicans voted 28% for Cruz and 23% for Marco, who both support legalization for illegal aliens, neither want to deport illegal aliens, and both who voted at least once for the TPP, combined that's 51%.

Add in the other non-Trump candidates, who also oppose our issues, and you have an overwhelming majority of the Republican Party that either opposes protecting our trade and removing illegal aliens from our midst or is indifferent to the problems and votes on values or personality.

It was crucial to our cause that Trump win the Iowa Caucus. Trump needed to be able to prove with a win in Iowa that his issues matter to Republicans enough to give him the mandate to win the primary and move on to winning the General Election so he can implement them. Iowans with the help of Steve King, Mark Levin, and Rush Limbaugh just proved they don't and handed the nomination to Marco Rubio. Trump is running on issues and when those issues don't produce a win, it means they didn't matter.

Some will say Iowa is different. Yes, Iowa is different and in most elections, Iowa wouldn't matter. This time Iowa did. The whole dialogue will change now and our issues won't even be in the conversation.

And the person most responsible for that outcome is Steve King.

Steve King lied about Donald Trump.

Steve King also lied about Ben Carson.

Dirty doesn't even begin to describe Steve King. We wonder why after a decade of incredible efforts, and for some organizations even longer than that, we still have immigration and trade policies that are bankrupting our nation. The answer is very simple, the oldest scheme in the book, wolves in sheep's clothing, foxes guarding the hen house.

Can Trump overcome that? If he can, he'll be the most remarkable candidate in the history of Presidential elections.

Judy wrote:

Yet, Republicans voted 28% for Cruz and 23% for Marco, who both support legalization for illegal aliens, neither want to deport illegal aliens, and both who voted at least once for the TPP, combined that's 51%.

Not true, Ted Cruz does not support the legalization of illegal aliens. Furthermore, Cruz does want to deport illegals ...... just not exactly in the same way as Trump. On the TPP, Cruz voted against it when it mattered. We need to be truthful when it comes to the facts, especially on amnesty.

The good folks of Iowa have shown their preference. No use in whining and making excuses over it. I suspect Trump will beat Cruz in Iowa (more moderate voters). If he doesn't, then it will become obvious that his campaign is mostly show and no content. Suck it up buttercup and let's move on to New Hampshire.

The real concern here (IMO), is Rubio. We can't afford for him to build more momentum going into the third stop (South Carolina).

The real concern here (IMO), is Rubio. We can't afford for him to build more momentum going into the third stop (South Carolina).

There's nothing we can do to stop that.

Originally Posted by Judy

There's nothing we can do to stop that.

Maybe not but we can hope he (Rubio) gets some of the wind knocked out of his sails in New Hampshire.

New Hampshire won't matter. The only threat to Rubio was Trump. I think Trump needed Iowa to make that stick.

Originally Posted by Judy

New Hampshire won't matter. The only threat to Rubio was Trump. I think Trump needed Iowa to make that stick.

Keep telling yourself Cruz is no threat if you like, however, please respect my right to disagree. The fact of the matter is, I only want this to be a two person race with Rubio excluded.