If you read the news this morning, you know the outcome: Clinton and Sanders are effectively tied in Iowa, and the vote was split more evenly than expected among the Republicans, with Cruz, Trump, and Rubio on top with 28%, 24%, and 23% respectively. (I find it hard to say “Cruz won” when he took barely more than a quarter of the vote, so I won’t — though, to be sure, he got a greater share of the vote than, for instance, the Republican primary winner in the 2010 Illinois GOP governor’s race, Bill Brady, who took 20.26% because the field was large and evenly split.)
[ADDED:
Did Rubio “win” the Iowa caucus? Did Clinton “win” for the Democrats? No, and no. The more I read, the more I’m convinced that the terminology of “winning the caucus” makes no sense when there is nothing that’s won. Cruz got a somewhat larger number of delegates than his competitors. Sanders and Clinton got virtually the same number. Each candidate hopes to gain more media coverage and more donors as a result of their results, and hopes to persuade New Hampshire and South Carolina voters that their finishes in Iowa mean that they’re viable, credible, strong candidates — or, in the case of the Republicans, that those who finished in lower places are undeserving of the voters’ support as non-viable candidates.
But to yammer on about who won is meaningless. It’s like talking about who “won” the fist inning of a baseball game, or the first quarter of a football game, or the first period of a hockey game.]
Three comments:
First, on the Democratic side, I share in both the Republicans’ glee that Sanders is doing well, since, after all, in the event, however unlikely, that he’s the nominee, the Republican candidate should be able to easily skate to victory, and also the dismay of many who recognize that, in the end, it is a Bad Thing for so many Americans to take Sanders’ pledge of unlimited Free Stuff paid for by billionaires as a realistic public policy. It’s the same impulse as that which is leading to more calls for a “minimum income”, in a fantasy world in which the federal government has enough cash to give living allowances to every man, woman, and child.
At the same time, well, a Sanders victory would solve the issue of Clinton’s private server a lot more tidily than otherwise may be the case. At this point, there seems to be a genuine likelihood that (1) Clinton, through her use of her private server, put national security at risk, (2) that various rationalizations that information that was labelled “classified” really wasn’t in any practical sense of the term, are increasingly difficult to claim, (3) that the Department of Justice will simply choose to close the case without taking further action, and (4) that the resulting repercussions, of Clinton being declared to effectively have immunity, will do grave damage to our political system.
Second, on the Republican side, I fundamentally think that 28/24/23 are effectively too close to declare conclusions to be drawn, in isolation, about the direction of the contest. I’m glad that Cruz decided to oppose continued ethanol subsidies and upend the conventional wisdom that the only path to the presidency is to maintain them. I’m glad that Rubio gained so much ground over prior polling — even though I distrust him on immigration, I nonetheless think he’s the best choice Republicans have, and I hope that other Republicans drop out (sorry, Chris Christie!) to grow his support.
Third, well, have I ever told you how much I dislike our primary/caucus system? The very fact that Iowans and New Hampshirites take it as their birthright that they should be able to meet as many candidates as they wish in small group settings and question them directly, while the rest of us can only hope for, perhaps, a rally in some stadium — and that, only if we live in a battleground state — really p***es me off. How effective is our democracy if I, living in Illinois, have no chance of casting a meaningful vote in either the primary election (because the field’s been winnowed down) or the general election (because it’s so blue that Republican candidates don’t even make an effort to campaign)?
In 2012, the GOP nomination contest was effectively decided by May 2; in 2008, in March — though Obama and Clinton continued to fight until June. Kerry likewise secured the nomination in 2004 in March, and George W. Bush in March of 2000. In each case, the list of states which had yet to vote, and whose voters therefore were denied a meaningful primary election, is long. It further seems to me that back four years ago, there were proposals being circulated — regional primaries, or rotating early primaries — but that pundits and reformers have pretty much given up this time around.
So there we are. If you support a candidate, your vote doesn’t count nearly as much as your willingness to open up your pocketbook, or maybe your ability to scoot over to an early-primary state as a volunteer.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In