Consequences of Iowa: Trump still strong, new life for Rubio, long-term trouble for Sanders

[BlueMTexpat]

http://election.princeton.edu/2016/02/02/consequences-of-iowa-trump-still-strong-new-life-for-rubio-long-term-trouble-for-sanders/

Analysis from PEC's Sam Wang:

My preliminary take on the Iowa caucuses is that they didn’t alter the trajectory of where things are probably headed for the Democrats: Hillary Clinton is still favored. However, the Republican field could potentially narrow to a three-way race (Trump-Cruz-Rubio) sooner than I had expected, thanks to a strong showing by Marco Rubio.
...
On the Democratic side, tonight was substantively bad for Bernie Sanders. After all the talk about hordes of Sanders supporters, in the end he only achieved a near-tie: 23 delegates for Clinton, 21 delegates for Sanders. Iowa is one of the most favorable states for him because of its ethnic composition. But it is not enough to win 50% of white Democrats. To have a chance overall, he needed a big win to (a) indicate that he can get enough white support to compensate for lack of support in nonwhite demographics in other states, and (b) create press coverage to boost him in the coming weeks. Outcome (a) didn’t happen. We’ll see about (b).

One of the most notable features of the Democratic race was the age gap. In an entrance poll, Sanders led by 70% among voters aged 18-29, while Clinton led by 43% among those aged 65 and over. That is a 113-point gap. This difference surely is on the minds of both sides for the weeks and months ahead.

[RobertEarl]

1. Independents

Many independent voters went to the republican side and voted for the one of the 2 anti-establishment types Trump or Cruz. That's why the R's had many more votes this time.

If it had been just Bernie vs Hillary, Bernie would have crushed her.

[BlueMTexpat]

2. Well, it WAS "just" Bernie vs Hillary

in the Democratic caucuses because Martin dropped out. Bernie did very well, but did not "crush" Hillary by any interpretation. That, I believe, is Sam Wang's point.

Independent voters will be a factor in any primary or caucus and yes, in our two-party system, we have Republican processes and Democratic processes where if you choose to vote in the one, you can't vote in the other. So I don't see how the scenario you posit is even possible.

Any candidate who bets the farm on getting votes from Independents is always going to be taking a big risk. Some never commit until the moment they vote.

[RobertEarl]

3. Some facts

Democratic turnout in the Iowa Caucuses

2008 — 239,000
2016 — 171,000

68,000 difference

Republican turnout in the Iowa Caucuses

2008 — 119,000
2016 — 182,000

61,000 difference

Who switched? Independents. The independents decided in 2008 that the Democratic party was more interesting.

In 2016 the independents decided the republicans were more interesting.

2016 the winners in the republican race were anti-establishment. And Sanders in the Democratic race is also anti-establishment, and that's one reason Clinton did not fare well.

[RobertEarl]

4. In the GE

The independents will be the deciding factor, so any idea that a candidate not focus on independents would be foolish,

In this Iowa case it seems certain that had the independents been restricted to voting in just the Democratic race, Bernie would have obliterated Clinton.

[RobertEarl]

5. Wang is wrong

Sanders says: “Nine months ago, we came to this beautiful state. We had no political organization, we had no money, we had no name recognition, and we were taking on the most powerful political organization in the United States of America. And tonight, while the results are still not known, it looks like we are in a virtual tie.”

That history explains why Sanders emerged as the big winner of the night on the Democratic side.

Coming out of Iowa’s near-tie last night, his campaign looks stronger than ever. An uncompromising democratic socialist climbed up from single-digit Iowa poll numbers a year ago against one of the most powerful politicians in America to a draw. Even as strong a member of the media establishment as CNN’s Wolf Blitzer couldn’t call it any other way as the returns rolled in last night: “Even if he comes in slightly, slightly second, this is a huge win for Bernie Sanders.”

Just look at these actual headlines:

Des Moines Register: "Bernie Sanders finds victory in 'virtual tie' with Clinton"

Mashable: "Hillary Clinton barely won, but Bernie Sanders is the true champion"

New York Times: "In Iowa caucuses, victory extends beyond first place"

The Week: "Bernie Sanders declares 'virtual tie,' moral victory in Iowa caucuses"

The Guardian: "Iowa proved Bernie Sanders can win — and that Hillary Clinton is beatable"

Washington Post: "Marco Rubio and Bernie Sanders were the real winners in Iowa"