A very interesting night in Iowa. The big stories appear to me to be:
- Ted Cruz’s investment in his Iowa ground game appears to have paid off.
- A lot of people who tell pollsters that they like Donald Trump actually do show up.
- Marco Rubio did better than the polls predicted, though where that leaves him going forward remains unclear.
- Bernie translated those big rallies into a lot of caucus votes, and if he wins NH (as polls suggest he will), he has a lot of momentum.
- The Democratic race is officially, rather than just effectively, a two-person race.
As of now, a little after 11 pm, the Republican side goes Cruz (28), Trump (24), Rubio (23), with all the vote in. The Democratic side, with 90% in, is incredibly close: Clinton (49.8%), Sanders (49.5%), O’Malley (0.6%), and O’Malley has already announced that he is suspending his campaign.
The rest of the GOP field goes Carson, Paul, Bush, Kasich, Fiorina, Huckabee, Christie, Santorum. Jim Gilmore, who apparently is still technically running, is losing to “other.”
There’s a school of thought that says that, if Trump comes in second, it’s devastating to him because he talks about “winning” all the time. I don’t buy it. He didn’t try very hard, at least in terms of ground game, and he’s not an evangelical in a heavily evangelical state, yet he beat almost everyone. If he wins New Hampshire and South Carolina, I think he still looks pretty good. Iowa has a bad record of picking winners recently on the GOP side, and there’s no particular reason to think that this year is any different.
It’s always nice when you get to thank your voter by name
I have been impressed with his ability to keep it classy as the outcome became so obvious.
I was really excited that I polled even with Jim Gilmore despite never having been to Iowa.
Martin O’Malley was obviously never going to win, but he was the candidate who had the best pro-urban agenda, calling for us to fix up our crumbling mid-sized cities. I hope that the remaining two candidates will pull in at least some of that theme.
…but I think the objective analysis is that Iowa is a tie. HRC technically has a handful more delegate-equivalents than Sanders, but they are slated to get an equal amount of DNC delegates pretty much regardless of the last unreported precincts.
An interesting moment happened just after 9:30 on MSNBC’s coverage when they had the mikes open to hear an exchange between a couple of Dem caucusers. One of them let fly the F-word, which didn’t get bleeped, for which the anchors apologized profusely.
Unexpectedly, this is a virtual tie.
The real loser of the night, though, isn’t Donald Trump. It’s the anti-democratic process, especially on the Democratic side. A delegate got decided by a coin flip. There’s no way to know what the popular vote was. Troops overseas can’t vote, the sick can’t vote, parents who can’t find babysitters can’t vote, people who work at 7pm on a Monday night can’t work. It’s a disgrace, and the Democratic Party should demand better — especially for a process that has such an outsized importance on the entire nomination.
it’s only those people with plenty of time on their hands that get to participate. Everyone gets all dreamy about it, but I’ve never gone. I do vote every opportunity.
Representative Town Meeting “solves” the problem — there’s a traditional all-day election where registered voters of the precinct/ward elect their representatives, and those gluttons for punishment worry about the Moderator’s tolerance for disorder and Town Meeting Time and whether or not we should pay unpaid bills (requires 9/10ths vote), etc.
You’re a city of 60,000, not a village. And frankly you would’ve been a fine neighborhood of Boston had a few hundred votes gone the other fine. You’d make a fine city councilor so it’s nothing personal, just a pet peeve of mine.
It’s a town. That’s why we have Town Meeting it turns out. As I’m sure you know, neither population nor population density makes a locality a city or a town; the form of government determines the status.
I’m glad Brookline isn’t a part of Boston, and while I will continue to support Boston (and all of the 351), I don’t think Brookline would be as wonderful a community were it a Boston neighborhood rather than it’s own jurisdiction.
Going from Town Meeting form of government to City Council translates into less participation for that 2nd tier of politically involved residents. I think Brookline is smart to stick to its Town Meeting.
But it’s a city. Anywhere else in the world a locality of 60,000 would be considered a city and have a city form of government. Not bashing your civic involvement, but it’s another vestige of colonial rule like the Governors Council in my book.
Granted, have I lived under that form of government or interacted with it? No, but as a student of urban politics I think we would have more regional planning if we had more consolidated governments. They almost always result in better results. You don’t see anyone pining to bring back the Middlesex County Commission do you? Or the elected MDC board? Some of these ghosts need to be exorcised.
Your insistence that “it’s a city” is nonsense. There really isn’t a particularly good definition of city outside of government definition. When we’re talking demographics, all of the inner Boston metro communities are part of the same city because Brookline, like the rest of them, has a number of urban characteristics. Is Brookline “an inhabited place of greater size, population, or importance than a town or village?” It’s got more population than some, but it’s not of greater size nor importance than most MA communities. Were Brookline in the UK, it wouldn’t be a city: “Today, the UK’s official criteria for what constitutes a city remain opaque, but those put in place in 1907 remain a good rule of thumb: home to at least 300,000 residents, a distinct identity that is the centre of a wider area, and a good record of local government”. Brookline isn’t anywhere near that population, nor does it have a distinct identity that is the center of a wider area. Even if you drop the population requirement considerably, Brookline doesn’t have stature like Boston and Cambridge, or even like Quincy or Springfield.
Brookline has an urban portion, but it’s no city.
Brookline does, however, have plenty of planning and economies of scale through the MAPC (and limited benefits through Norfolk County, though many think its of poor value).
My take has always been we pay this town manager to run things and the town boards and commissions (including the selectmen) fiddle around on the margins. It’s a great place to live. Wouldn’t fold it into Boston, ever. Yet I can’t sit here and say we’ve got particularly representative local government, especially with the Hoy family’s decades-long mission to make Brookline prohibitively expensive.
…it would have made sense to at least join Suffolk County since the annexations of West Roxbury and Roslindale cut it off from the rest of Norfolk.
One more jury duty summons to Dedham and I’m going to lose it.
I actually WOULD like to establish effective county government in MA. I don’t know if that translates to bringing back the Middlesex County Commission, but I think effective and powerful (at least in comparison to today) county government is the only way we’ll accomplish the regional planning that MA so urgently needs. The fact that we did it so badly the first time around doesn’t mean that regional government can’t work.
I lived in Brookline for 11 years, and feel that I had more access to town government while I lived there than I feel here in Somerville. I’m not bashing Somerville, I love it here, I’m just saying that it feels harder to get involved in a substantive way in Somerville than it was in Brookline.
I also feel compelled to observe that whatever criteria we’re using for the Brookline/Boston questions also apply to Cambridge and Somerville. I understand that a river is a traditional boundary, but I’m not sure I see any fundamental difference why Brookline is any different from Cambridge or Somerville in that regard.
I love many aspects of our quirky reliance on so many (351) cities and towns. I’m also acutely aware of the enormous price we pay for it.
If our counties were as powerful as Marylands it’s a different question. Then we can consolidate a lot of municipal government and function at the county level. Both college roommates lived in different unincorporated communities in Baltimore County (which I’m sure you’re familiar with) and it seemed smarter than what we do. The trade off is it would be harder to do that with town meetings, unless we allow that variety of government but take away some of the powers and give them to the county.
As a former cook county resident who studied consolidation for Mayor Daley, it really seemed like it was a weaker body covering a larger area with a lot of redundant functions with City of Chicago. Indianapolis did a full consolidation that was quite successful, I suspect we could adapt the Maryland model here. As I recall we have the same number of people roughly, but they have half the municipalities partly thanks to a strong county/weak town model.
I lost after the Plan B charter for Cambridge, a strong mayor in the Curtatone/Menino would do wonders for Cambridge. I really think Plan E is so technocratic that it’s somewhat undemocratic and gives too much executive power to an unaccountable city manager, while the city council doesn’t really do all that much despite the high salaries and contentious elections. All of them are great people, I know many of them quite well, but I also think they don’t lie when they tell voters they are limited in what they can do and accomplish given how many balls are in the managers court.
I have been a Representative Town Meeting Member in Arlington (population 44,000) for more than 20 years. It is an incredible entry point into municipal civics, and generates thousands of volunteer hours in which people with extensive experience contribute to running the town.
Think of it as a municipal legislature, except that it isn’t dysfunctional. The state legislature could learn from us.
At least in NH they give towns the possibility to change to a vote (at a polling place) for all the items on the warrant. Instead of 250 (in my town then of 7000) at town meeting, roughly 1500-2000 got a say in town government.
Andover gets over a 1000 at town meeting, but with over 30,000 people that’s just silly.
Andover would be better off with representative town meeting, I think.
did an informal survey and it appears no one wants it, in particular every town official wanted to keep open town meeting. The person doing the survey (who I knew) said I was the only person they spoke to with a strong opinion the other way.
…are all in our neck of the woods: Andover, Dracut, North Andover, Tewksbury. The state gives a limited menu of options for municipal government. I believe any town under 6000 people must use open town meeting, 6000-12,000 has the option of using representative town meeting, and 12,000+ has the option of being a city. Cities can either elect their Mayor directly as a strong executive, or hire a City Manager for that role and let the Council call its presiding officer Mayor. There are a few variations within the main forms as well.
Iowa wasn’t on the radar until Carter won it in 1976. Before that, it wasn’t a blip on the pre-NH radar. And even that primary only really made headlines when incumbents did poorly (Truman, Johnson) and dropped out. The media really treats Iowa like a primary and it’s not, and that means the results are a lot less relevant and definitive than they are reported.
That was before the age of wall clock to wall clock cable news coverage.
…then it is important in proportion to the number of delegates it offers.
with a slight edge to Hillary.
They both ran strong campaigns and live to fight another day.
Congratulations to Bernie and Hillary !
Ciao all,
Fred Rich LaRiccia
How you feel about tonight depends on how much you care about process.
In the little politics world, Rubio won for coming in third when he was lagging in polls, Hillary won for not losing in tough territory.
In the bigger world? The Clinton machine barely won, if they did. Trump still came in second. If Sanders and Trump can avoid plummeting in New Hampshire, I don’t know how much it will matter. It will depend on their ability to staunch the coverage.
Clinton needed to win big, he now wins big in NH and her momentum is stalled. He really needed to beat her here to get the best story, even if he loses by a fraction of a percent as he is projected to, it’s not the same as winning. Going on to fight another day means as David predicted that this will be a two person race at least through Super Tuesday.
On the GOP side Rubio is the real winner. As I said here in the past, a close third place here and a surprise second in NH will allow him to consolidate the non fully nut bag vote. Like Santorum and Huckabee, this may be Cruz’s high water mark. He really had to move further to the religious right than he wanted to to win here.
but I’m not sure it’s the case that Clinton had to win big in Iowa. I would characterize the virtual tie more as “mildly disappointing” to the Clinton campaign, given that she was likely to lose NH no matter what her margin was in IA.
As I mentioned below, the key test for Sanders is whether he can expand his appeal beyond the states that consist of 85%+ white voters. If he can demonstrate this at some point in the next month or so, I think this really is a legitimate two-candidate race. If he can’t, he’ll win a decent chunk of the Democratic electorate but have no real chance of winning the nomination.
I agree Rubio had a good night. It’s all a matter now of whether and how quickly the Republican establishment finally comes to his side after months of staying largely on the sidelines.
The super-narrow win (with an even split in delegates) is just enough to take the edge off the inevitable stupid media “Hillary Panic Disarray!!!!” that will be coming regardless of the situation on the ground in the next states on the itinerary.
Cruz should do OK in SC, no? In addition to He’ll pull some of the Huckabee vote (he dropped out), the Carson vote (he’s plummeting), and the Santorum vote (is he still in? Amazingly, yes!).
Cruz may or may not beat Trump in SC, but I’d bet that he comes in 2nd and keeps it reasonably close. I just don’t see supporters of the marginal GOP candidates picking Trump as their second choice…
On the Democratic side, Sanders has to be commended for a very solid performance. He managed to achieve essentially a tie despite some skepticism about whether his voter enthusiasm would actually turn into votes. Given that he’ll likely win by ~20% in New Hampshire, he should have some solid momentum by the time we get to the middle of next week.
That said, it should be noted that Iowa and New Hampshire are two of the most unrepresentative electorates when it comes to the Democratic electorate. While far from conclusive (given the small numbers and that the numbers aren’t broken down demographically), it is perhaps telling that the Iowa districts with the highest population of Latino voters went stronger for Clinton. The key thing for Sanders is doing better among voters of color in upcoming contests after New Hampshire. Nevada will be especially crucial for Sanders, both because of the larger Latino population and to offset the likely Clinton win later on in South Carolina.
On the Republican side, I think it’s probably a mixed bag for the GOP establishment. On the one hand, Rubio beat the expectations game and will likely get both an important boost going into New Hampshire and get a wave of money/endorsements in the next eight days. On the other hand, three candidates with little support from the establishment (Cruz, Trump, Carson) have received a commanding 61% of the vote.
I think that little changes on the Democratic side before New Hampshire: Sanders maintains a very solid lead and end up winning by around 15%-20% next Tuesday. I think Trump will see some declines in the polls, but will still win New Hampshire. Cruz might get a slight bounce, but the establishment rallying around Rubio over the next week will get him into second place. At this point, NV and SC might end up being more interesting than NH for both parties.
I am so sick of his 9/11 ad.
He’s already put his chips on New Hampshire.
Where with his endorsements and Trump’s inevitability shield somewhat dented by Iowa, he’s probably telling himself he has a good shot to stay viable into SC.
Christie is toast in SC. He might do a bit better in Nevada, but I think the show’s over if you ain’t Trump, Cruz, Rubio, or Bush.
Rand Paul beat him
but I bet Bush performs better than Paul if they each stay in through Super Tuesday.
A bridge too far…
Christie is amazingly short on substance for someone running in the lane of the establishment. I don’t know how he got elected as Governor in New Jersey. During the Republican debates, I can’t remember one memorable policy position of Christie’s.
Aren’t you thrilled of a candidate who says he is “driven by fear” because of Mary Pat?
Scream in a closet so the kids don’t hear is a recipe for success!
And anyone who isn’t willing to put government spies in the closet to listen to the screaming just doesn’t understand the existential threat of Islamic terrorism and isn’t willing to go after the jihadis and doesn’t understand the fear that we all have after 9/11 Paris and San Bernadino and is really just afraid to MAKE THE HARD DECISIONS THAT KEEP US SAFE FROM TERRORISM AAAAUUUUGGGGGHHHH.
In conclusion, spies.
Yeah he can’t be gone soon enough.
My take away from Iowa is that a lot of Republicans are scared that Trump would actually be their nominee. Record number turnout, so you would think that Trump galvanized Republicans to come out. Just the opposite happened, Republicans came out to vote for Cruz. So as the candidates thin out, you will see a candidate (not Trump) emerge Rubio or Cruz.
Hillary escaped from headlines that she lost. She came in 3rd place behind Obama and Edwards there last time, but should have had won by a comfortable margin. But at the end of the day, that it’s not going to be the narrative (maybe only at Fox). Sanders wins Iowa, then it’s over.
n/t
Yeah, this is alternate universe stuff since HRC won Iowa (barely!), but: I still disagree strongly. After NH is NV, where Clinton has polled +20 on Sanders (a bit old, but that’s strong). Then we’ve got SC, where Clinton is up 30(!) on Sanders.
HRC gets to look inevitable coming into March 1, when 12 states give us a much better view of the race. After Super Tuesday, my bet is that it becomes clear Sanders doesn’t have a path to the presidency. Clinton’s numbers at that time in elected delegates, plus her massive cache of supahdelegates, and Sanders can only win if HRC earns herself a Hindenberg.
IMO Sander’s campaign is over after NH. Don’t see where this “momentum”, if you can call it that would put sanders over the top.
But if anything, I have to admit that I am enjoying Clinton being challenged a but in the early going
There is always the possibility, however slight, that Hillary steals a page from Mitt and goes Hindenburg. If that happens between now and Super Tuesday, the NH momentum will be meaningful. But I do think that he needs something external to change the dynamic, or for some big unforced errors by HRC.
I interpreted your comment to mean that if Sanders had won IA, it would be the first domino of a Sanders win. The thinking would be he wins IA, wins convincingly in NH, and then he has the momentum or whatevs. Which is why I responded the way I did.
I get it now. Coolio.
geesh, too early for me.
Right to Rise USA Super PAC has spent $61 million on Jeb Bush. Got 2.8% in Iowa. Polling at 8.6% in NH.
America Leads Super PAC has spent $11.5 million for Christie. Got 1.8% in Iowa, beating only Santorum & Gilmore. Polling at 6% in NH.
Billionaire money in politics continues to put a huge thumb on the scale on local & state races. But on the presidential level, it’s nice to see these millions sequestered safely away behind terrible candidates where it can’t hurt anyone.
but it does funnel a lot of cash to the printing industry for all the mailings and to local news outlets for advertising. I agree it doesn’t seem to have much impact on the big races. I am currently looking into the local race situation to see what is anecdotal and what can be generalized by data.
I wonder how much USPS revenue comes from political mailings of all kinds.
Of that, how much is POTUS related?
Of that, how much is SuperPAC related?
I read that Trump spent more on hats than campaign polling and calls
and a total of $940,000 on campaign memorabilia.
for either Clinton or Sanders to beat in the general election. All either either Clinton or Sanders will have to say is they won’t move to shut down the government or push the country into default on its debt because a court decision didn’t go the way they wanted.
Huckabee’s poor showing leading to his withdrawal. I am sure we haven’t heard the last of him, but his lack of viability is a great gift from GOP voters.
This is not schadenfreude, mind you; he’ll do fine at whatever lobbying firm or superPAC decides to hire him. But Huckabee is one of the worst people in American politics. His withdrawal is a good thing.
Is Huckabee worser than Trump? Worser than Santorum? Worser than Fiorina?
He’s worse than all three.
For those who think Rubio was the big winner over on the red side, that’s probably right on one level. The problem is that he is also the biggest loser. Anyone who still has hopes of moving forward in New Hampshire, who finished south of Rubio in Iowa, needs to take down Rubio as much as they need to build themselves up in the standings. Trump is also going to try to take down Rubio in New Hampshire, as Cruz is not really a threat in the Granite State.
Watch for everything, including the kitchen sink, to be thrown at Rubio over the next week.
I didn’t expect the first/second tier divide to be so obvious, with Cruz, Trump, and Rubio clustered in the 20s% and the rest in single digits and nobody in the teens. I expect Kasich, Bush, Christie, and possibly Paul to have better nights next Tuesday.
People, IMO, vote for a particular candidate based on their gut level feelings about the person. At the core of those feelings is how a candidate projects themselves (based on what is motivating them to aspire to a particular office).
There are ultimately two types of politicians: those that want to “be something” versus those that “want to do something.”
When you want to be something, your message is all about yourself – when you want to do something, your message is all about the voters.
I believe if you want to see those who are considered “authentic” and “concerned about me” (key factors the drive who one votes for) listen to who and what the candidate is talking about. The voters do, the experts and experts resort to talking about “platforms, planks and qualifications.”
A definition of “vision” that I find profoundly helpful is:
Here is a vision statement from a mythical NGO:
“We envision a world free of hunger, disease, and poverty”.
Here is a visionary marketing pitchfrom GE:
“We bring good things to light”.
The edit I offer for your hypothesis is that politicians with vision, in the way that I use it here, often connect more effectively to voters and the media. I suggest that too many politicians have no vision. Those are the politicians for whom the platforms, planks and qualifications have no discernible purpose or organizing paradigm.
A candidate without a vision can only pitch the candidate. I agree with you that such candidates have only limited appeal.
(I forget which OT prophet.)…”without a vision a candidate perishes.”
I think there’s a lot of desire to “do something” on the Dem side and “be something” on the GOP side. Sanders nailed it at last night’s debate when he said, “On our worst day the two of us are 100 times better than anything the other side offers.”