So the votersÂ in Iowa, the small percentage who actually voted, have made their judgment!
It is true that more Iowans participated in the caucuses than ever before, but still less than a quarter of eligible people voted.
But what they have wrought is stunning beyond belief!
Donald Trump got his comeuppance, and it will be interesting to see his public reaction and behavior during this week before the New Hampshire Primary.
Ted Cruz may have won, but he will be bitterly opposed by mainstream Republicans, who are likely to converge around Marco Rubio after New Hampshire, with only John Kasich seen as a possible challenger to Kasich for the mainstream, depending on what happens next week!
Hillary Clinton barely survived, and Bernie Sanders now has a direct challenge to her in New Hampshire, which he is favored to win easily, but the question is whether he can survive beyond that as a viable Democratic candidate.
The odds of Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton as the party nominees, which this blogger predicted on December 31 on here, seems more likely than ever, with Ohio as the crucial battleground, and the reason why this blogger believes John Kasich and Sherrod Brown will be the Vice Presidential choices of the nominees this summer!
I think Bernie will win New Hampshire. The demographics in other states after that look to be more in Hillary’s favor.
I’m not too sure the Iowa Republican presidential caucuses have rewritten the script for that party’s presidential nomination as an overall defeat for Donald Trump.
Since the caucuses of Iowa began in 1976, few of the non-incumbent Republican presidential nominees won Iowa. The last to do it was George W. Bush in 2000. (Side note: Bush’s father beat Ronald Reagan in that state prior to Reagan winning the party nom in 1980. The party’s biggest 2016 loser of the Iowa caucus was not Donald Trump but Jeb Bush who did not even reap 5 percent.)
New Hampshire is a better sign of a possible bellwether with regard for which of the two earliest states does a better job of signaling who will eventually win the GOPâ€™s presidential nomination. John McCain winning there in 2000 panicked the George W. Bush campaign that they resorted to racially sliming McCain for their partyâ€™s next state, South Carolina. After McCain lost Iowa in 2008 to Mike Huckabee, he won the New Hampshire primary and left Huckabee looking rather marginalized. And as close as Iowa was in 2012, Mitt Romney didnâ€™t need to break a sweat over that stateâ€™s caucus because he and his campaign knew that, between the two states, New Hampshire was the place to strikeâ€”and he did. (He carried it immediately as the stateâ€™s polls closed.)
The 2016 Republican presidential nomination may very well be won, once again, by means of a bellwether-type signal by the one who finishes there in first place. This may mean that Ronald would bet on Marco Rubio. That may be turn out to be the case. But, if Donald Trump wins there â€¦ well, to reiterate, we are likely going to know who the 2016 Republican presidential nominee will be thanks to the outcome of who carries the primary in New Hampshire.
Now let us consider one final thing. If this is supposedly a year for insurgents, or perhaps better phrased as anti-establishment candidates, to win one or both of the Republican and Democratic presidential nominations, what would this actually reveal about the partiesâ€™ caucus and primary voters if they end up nominating the Establishmentâ€™s Preferred Candidates?
D, you are correct about New Hampshire being more reliable and telling on who wins the Presidential nominations, than Iowa.
I expect Rubio to win in NH, and to be the nominee, but we shall see.
I more realize even more about the score.
Iowa first participated in 1976.
Every Republican and Democratic presidential candidate, incumbents and non-incumbents, won between Iowa and New Hampshire with exception of a 1992 Bill Clinton. (Mitigating factors: Iowa went for native son Tom Harkin. New Hampshire, in which Clinton finished second, went for Paul Tsongas of neighboring Massachusetts. Tsongas died in 1997.)
On the Republican side, when there has been a split outcome of one winner in Iowa and a different winner in New Hampshire, there has been a 2-to-1 advantage that the winner in New Hampshire went on to win the party’s presidential nomination.
â€¢ IOWA: 1996 Bob Dole; 2000 George W. Bush.
â€¢ NEW HAMPSHIRE: 1980 Ronald Reagan; 1988 George Bush; 2008 John McCain; 2012 Mitt Romney.
1976 to 2012 are ten election cycles. All those listed above were the non-incumbents’ victories between Iowa and New Hampshire. (I’m not counting incumbents. 2016 is not an incumbent year.) So, two Iowa winners went on to win their party’s nomination. Four New Hampshire winners went on to win their party’s nomination. That is a 2-to-1 advantage with New Hampshire. (And with the rightful criticism and assessment of Republican Iowa caucus voters not lately reflecting what tends to play out during the rest of the primary seasonâ€¦that gives New Hampshire an even more advantageous, sorta-bellwether, position.)
It is highly likely the winner of the Republican caucus in 2016 Iowa, Ted Cruz, won’t end up his party’s nominee. (I don’t assume it. I just believe he doesn’t translate throughout the nation of caucus and primary states which are still on the schedule. Cruz will play like a 2008 Mike Huckabee and/or a 2012 Rick Santorum in a best-case-scenario outcome. He’s good for less than ten states; if he can muster that many.)
I predict the 2016 Republican presidential nomination will be won by the candidate who wins in New Hampshire.
I find it hard to believe that Donald Trump, if he wins New Hampshire, will be the nominee.
I just think Rubio will be the nominee, and if not, John Kasich, who would be the most electable of all Republican candidates!