Iowa Open Thread: I know you got opinions, predictions
I knew what was going to happen on Monday three days ago. My argumentation was solid and based on data. Even data-based. But now I don’t. At all. Because ‘reasons’.
But I am sure all you do and will fill me in while we wait for actual results about 26 hours from right now. Let the Games Begin! And unlike Hunger Games I am not sure the prediction odds are with anyone. You all can prove me wrong, trump me if you will. Or cruise to victory or whatever horrible pun play you like.
I thought Cruz would pull out a narrow victory in Iowa but falter in New Hampshire. But Trump doubled down on Birtherism and Golman-Sachs and there is some late breaking data that lots of Iowans were low information voters on this and are bothered. A lot.
On the other hand we have weather.. I can even see that sapping both Trump and Cruz support.
On the Dem side the rules for the Caucus make the miniscule O’Malley people potential king (or queen) makers. He needs 13% in any precinct to lock his people in and he looks to be scoring more in the 3-4% range. In a race where the margin between Clinton and Sanders is about half of that. I believe that disappointed O’Malley folk go to Sanders. Because ‘reasons’. Counter THAT argument if you dare.
I’m hoping that Sanders pulls this off and ekes out HRC. Trump is a foregone conclusion.
This result sets up Bloomberg. I think Mike B could win (against the Bern and Trumpster) NY, Fl, Ohio, Pennsylvania. That would make Texas a battle ground.
I love a circus.
Been emailing this to anyone who writes a piece on Bloomberg’s boomlet. For gaudy pictures of the old, the old new and the new new Bronx courthouses click here:
My Southern Bronx strategy to down any Bloomberg candidacy — one picture is worth a thousand words (two even better):
My art-deco style high school — opened 1941
[picture inserted here]
Picture of Bronx County Court House — opened 1939 — a ten minute walk north of Cardinal Hayes High School
Both in pristine, like new condition, today.
In 1977, in response to the national crime wave, the Bronx was forced to open a new $120 million (2016 dollars) courthouse down the hill from the old 1939 courthouse to catch the serious overflow.
In 2004, after crime wave subsided 75%, Mayor Bloomberg opened yet another new $500 million courthouse across the street from the old-new one — closing down both existing courthouses; nobody knows why.
Bloomberg pulled the same trick in Brooklyn the same year — to the tune of $750 million. Don’t have personal knowledge of Brooklyn courthouse(s) that existed already but I never observed any dilapidated structures in the Brooklyn civic center (just the other side of the Brooklyn Bridge).
[pictures here of 1977 new courthouse and 2004 new, new Bronx courthouse]
Compares poorly to the Donald who built hundreds of millions of commercially viable structures in NYC. 🙂
Bloomberg is a shortish New York billionaire Jew who has made every penny of his fortune selling data terminals to the 1% so that they could leverage their own wealth maximization at the expense of people who pay less per year for their mortgage than the rental of the Bloomberg terminal.
As perhaps the best known promoter of ‘New York values’ this side of Eliot Spitzer Bloomberg is pro-choice and to Middle America most identified with the causes of gun control and taking away your Big Gulp.
Which will go over great in both the rural and urban portions of Pennsylvannia and Ohio and probably set him up for a sweep of the Old Confederacy.
Until retired bond traders wake up from that sweet, sweet (but not soda fueled) dream.
Bloomberg’s appeal goes to zero more than ten mile from Central Park and maybe LA’s Wesfwood Galleria. Plus some census tracks in West Palm Beach.
The idea that we need a member of the Wall Street 0.01% to ride to the rescue against Trump is lunacy.. If this country is united on one thing is is that Wall Street Bankers are the problem and not the solution. And people will not be fooled by Mike’s claim that he is just some sort of publisher. He is literally of, by and for the Wall Street elite, that is who he is and what he does and whom he serves.
When he isn’t trying to take guns away from rural America and large sodas away from rural America. He’d unify the country all right.
O’Malley is a reasonable person with some principles. His folks could go to Bernie.
Iowa dems likely vote “machine” Clinton edge.
Up on the interstate by Davenport is a great pork restaurant. Try the breaded tenderloin.
NH changed the rules. We cannot declare party at the polls!
Trump don’t get all the dems going over which was my plan.
My feel is Clinton gets the “machine” in NH. Bernie gets the rest. My feel is NH is Bernie territory, if Bernie people get out the vote.
For me if Clinton is top of ticket in Nov, NH goes red.
I also see O’Malley doing better than expected.
Better than expected doesn’t get him to the 15% per precinct level he needs to score above zero in delegate count. And on the Dem side the results will be reported in percentages of delegates. Republicans at least report vote totals.
O’Malley’s reported results will be below his percentage of overall support. My prediction.
Webb – You say:
“Bloomberg is a shortish
New York billionaire Jew”
But….isn’t your boy Bern is a short NY Jew?
So really you don’t like MB because he is a self made billionaire.
I’ll say it again – If this is to be a fight between Bern and Donnie, then MB will get involved, and he stands a decent chance of getting 1/3 of the electoral votes.
Krasting your premise is that MB can take support away from Trump. When if anything he represents the things the Republican base hate more than anything. And give Trump a pass on because he is willing to embrace their nativism.
Red State Republicans are not going to vote for Bernie. Ever. And not just because he is a Brooklyn born Jew. But sure as shit that doesn’t ADD to his appeal. Who is MB’s base? How do you get to 1/3rd of anybody outside Upper Manhattan?
Self-made billionaire is neither here nor there, some I like and some I don’t. Largely on their commitment to democracy, human rights, and the environment. So I am down with Soros and Musk and okay with Gates. Bloomberg is also not alien to me. Your problem is that you think everything comes down to envy and that money is the only metric. Which is not true, not for me. I am okay being working class. I hated being homeless. Bill Gates would have given a shit, the Koch Brothers not. Or Larry Ellison. I don’t have an issue with rich people, I have an issue with rich people who say “I got mine and fuck everyone else”.
Bloomberg does not have a constituency. My opinion.
Until August Bernie shares the stage with a girl!
Webb – I answered your question above. If MB wins NY, PA,Fl and Ohio he gets 1/4 of the electoral votes.
That then begs the question of what Texas would do. Texans would hate MB. But they also hate the Bern, and Donnie is a joke. Throw in Texas and MB is the next Prez….
But you don’t explain how a gun banning New York billionaire wins PA and Ohio. They hunt there. MB has made gun control his key issue. How do you get from gun control to a win in those States.
Or do you believe that the residents of Philadelphia and Pittsburg have some deep well of affection for New York City? Where are you from? Cleveland and Columbus just crammed with Yankee and Knicks fans?
They also hunt in upstate New York. And Florida is the epicenter of Stand Your Ground. What is Bloomberg’s appeal ANYWHERE outside certain urban enclaves?
Webb – MB will not even run if HRC is the Dem nominee. I said that IF the choice is between Bern and Donnie, MB has a shot.
Tonight is therefore very important. If Bern tops HRC, and Trump runs away with it, then the MB story becomes plausible.
HRC would win NY against any Republican – no problem. Bern? Not if MB is on the ballot. If you win NY, you have a shot at the WH.
More than half of NYS population is around NYC – MB is well liked by many. Yes the folks upstate will not like him because of his strong stand on gun control. But you think those gun toters are going to vote for Donnie? They sure as hell won’t vote for the Bern.
I like MB for his stand on guns. I also agree with him that government has a role to play when it comes to feeding sugar to kids. I like his position on law and order and support for cops. He’s a strong advocate of climate change. He’s a big supporter of education. He was a very good mayor. He’s a self made billionaire who is giving all his money away.
I think there is a chance he gets some support from the left, right and middle. You don’t like him because? He’s short? Jewish? Successful in business and government?
Krasting you concede that MB might lose upstate NY on the gun issue and in so doing lose the argument for him taking Ohio and Pennsylvania and I would argue Florida as well.
And I do not see why white upstate and Pennsyl-tucky hunters would not vote for Donnie over Mike. Make the case for Mike outside Manhattan, don’t just start with “Assume 25% of the electoral vote”. There is no reason to assume that and falling back on the argument that Bloomberg might well carry New York State because 51% of the vote or more is around NYC won’t do. Particularly as you have to assume that Trump has some support in places like Staten Island and the eastern counties of Long Island. To say nothing of Queens.
Bloomberg is an authoritarian who not only wants to take away your guns (reasonably enough from his sitting point) but wants to regulate your nutritional choices by taking away your oversize sodas. Who likes this guy and why? Answer that and maybe I take this seriously.
I have been stunned by many of Krasting’s posts, but I have to admit this Bloomberg thing is one step above those posts.
I cannot imagine why anyone(even Bloomberg himself) would think such a thing possible.
I predict Madame Secretary will manage a slim and hollow win in IA. It will be the beginning of the end of her tragic rerun of the losing 2008 campaign, i.e. “I’m inevitable”. This argument actually worked for GWB in 1999 when he applied it against his GOP rivals including McCain.
Her lackluster and indecisive win will point out why she is a disaster as a candidate: It’s the efficiency. Sanders has fought his way from single digits to parity without a national finance team (Madame Secretary is rumored to have a finance/fundraising full time staff of 90+ headcount). He doesn’t have to waste time chasing maxed out super-pac bundlers, so he has more time to actually campaign and make his case to voters.
Yes I acknowledge wishful thinking on my own part (small donor democracy defeating large scale lobbyist/bundler/speaking fee financing), along with the confirmation bias etc.
Sorry Madame Secretary but I am not to embrace your brand of institutional corruption, no matter how “pragmatic” you make it sound. (see http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/01/30/clinton-system-donor-machine-2016-election/ )
I much prefer Sanders to Clinton, though I do not believe Sanders can win a national election against any of the GOP clods. But you miss the immense difference between 2016 and 2008. Clinton is running against a white guy instead of a black guy.
And from everything I have read, Sanders polls horribly with black and hispanic voters. I admit I am totally confused as to why this is so, but it seems to me that Sanders only hope of even moving the Dem party left is to win in Iowa and NH. A loss in these primaries will reduce his impact on the dialogue to nothing. As sad as that is.
But the rapid rise of Sanders—and the pointed attacks from Clinton—obscure the extent to which the overall state of the race hasn’t changed. Clinton is still the favorite for the nomination, even as her path gets a little rockier and a little more difficult. And the reason isn’t hard to understand.
Take the recent Monmouth University poll of the Democratic race. Between December and January, Clinton lost her lead with white Democrats. Indeed, it vanished, dropping 23 points. Now, she’s tied with Sanders, 43 percent to 43 percent. But she’s grown her lead with black and Latino Democrats, winning 71 percent to 21 percent for the Vermont senator, up from 61 percent in January.
This lead with black and Latino Democrats isn’t just responsible for Clinton’s margin in national polling—where she outpaces Sanders by an average of 13 points—it’s responsible for her massive lead in the South Carolina primary, where black voters predominate and where Clinton crushes Sanders with an average margin of 40 points (although there’s been little polling in the state since the new year).
Which gets to a broader, more important point. Minority voters—and black Americans in particular—are the firewall for Clinton’s candidacy and the Democratic establishment writ large. As long as Clinton holds her lead with black Democrats, she’s tough (if not impossible) to beat in delegate-rich states like New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Ohio, and Texas. Even with momentum from wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, it’s hard to see how Sanders overcomes Clinton’s massive advantage with this part of the party’s electorate . That’s not to say he won’t excel as an insurgent candidate, but that—barring a seismic shift among black Democrats, as well as Latinos—his coalition won’t overcome her coalition.”
EM – You’re stunned? I guess you don’t read much. The Bloomberg story is not mine. Just google it and you will find dozens of articles about MB.
I cannot imagine why anyone
(even Bloomberg himself) would
think such a thing possible
Once again, read up first. Bloomberg paid millions for his own poll and found he could get close to 30% in a race with HRC and Trump. So of course MB thought it was possible.
But I’ve been talking about a 3 way race between Bern, Donnie and MB. Take out HRC, and MB is a potential winner.
The Bloomberg poll:
Frank Luntz does not have a reputation as a scientific pollster. He instead runs these turn-a-dial focus group things. And he was a paid shill for Bloomberg. This VERY SAME ARTICLE reports what is more likely to be an actual scientific poll, one reported by a major news organization Reuters which instead gives a more realist (in my opinion) 9% result for MB. BK you are known for cherry-picking but this may be a record even for you.
Sanders is going to win the nomination because he has demonstrated fundraising parity with Madame Secretary and is accomplishing more with that war chest. Consider what she has managed to do (or not) with the vast funds her campaign has already expended. Ask Jeb Bush about the cost effectiveness of a defensive battle against one’s own inevitability. Ask his fundraisers how well that has worked out too. Hey ask Eric Cantor and his contributors too. Bernie can’t be chased out of the race for lack of money his contributors have a long way to go before they get maxed out. He isn’t slavishly tied to a grueling marathon of multi-thousand dollar a plate fundraisers.
And going forward that efficiency isn’t just about time spend campaigning or fundraising it matters in terms of policy too. Consider the vetting and internal group think madame secretary has to expend “nuancing” her position on something like TPP. Or Keystone. Or paid family leave. Etc. The Sanders campaign will be able to articulate detailed policy responses without as much internal process required. Or I suspect and presume (okay prefer) as much.
I believe the argument about minority preference for Mrs. Clinton ignores a basic difference between primary and general election voters. They are not the same demographic subset even between neighboring states.
The usual disclaimers about confirmation bias apply of course. In describing the reasons why Clinton is doomed I am of course articulating what I prefer to be true at least in part.
Webb – ISLM posed the question:
I cannot imagine why anyone
(even Bloomberg himself) would
think such a thing possible.
And I responded that MB’s own poll said he had a chance. How’s that cherry picking?
Consider the more reasonable Reuters poll. That gave MB 9% in a race against HRC and Trump. But, again, this all started with the unlikely assumption that Bern is the nominee. If that were the case then I think MB would take NY, and maybe has a shot.
We shall see. But it is a mute issue if HRC bests Bernie. At this point Bernie is the only thing keeping HRC from the WH.
Shorter BK: I have no rebuttal to Ohio and Penn so look over there: It’s Halley’s Comet!
Webb – You say:
Bloomberg is an authoritarian who not
only wants to take away your guns –
Actually MB is pushing for gun registration and elimination of the sale of machine guns. You sound like the NRA when you say he wants to take guns away.
Okay, you like guns. and want that with no rules. You support more AK 47 sales. Fine. But there is a hell of a lot of Americans who think that position is insane. MB, who has put guns where his mouth and money is, will be hated by the likes of you, but others will support efforts to reduce gun violence.
Then you say:
MB wants to regulate your nutritional
choices by taking away your
oversize sodas –
Ok. I get it. You’re a Libertarian. You don’t believe that government should interfere with anyone’s’ behavior. You think like Trump.
But Webb, there are 29m people in the US with diabetes. Nearly 10% of the population. A lot of this is diet. Childhood obesity has quadrupled in the last 30 years. Sugar is big part of that story.
It’s okay if you support Trump, but understand that there any many out there who believe there should be laws/rules that encourage better habits, and discourage bad habits.
Bruce Webb – Gun loving Libertarian. Go figure.
Krasting Machine Guns are already illegal.
You have proven to be the worst reader in the world yet feel free to put words and thoughts into my head. There is exactly nothing in my word that would remotely support “want that with no rules”. Not a thing. You typically just put up a strawman to light it on fire. And then did it again with “You don’t believer that government should interfere with anyone’s behavior”. As if there is no difference between banning large sodas and setting an orphanage on fire.
Krasting you actually are a smart guy and well informed in your own field. But seriously under-equiped to be engaging in battles of wits. You barely qualify for a battle of twits.
It is hard to believe that a gun control/soft drink control advocate with a Daddy Warlocks personality will do well with ordinary voters of either party. If he’s in it with Bernie and the Donald, I suppose he might throw it into the House. Isn’t that a delightful prospect?
I cannot imagine what the point of a poll is that does not concern people actually running against each other.
There is no point whatsoever to that kind of thing.
From the post:
“I knew what was going to happen on Monday three days ago. My argumentation was solid and based on data. Even data-based. But now I don’t. At all.”
Well I am feeling pretty damn good about my non-prediction prediction. Still 5% of the vote to come in on the Dem side but it remains possible that neither Clinton or Sanders ends up with a majority even though the third place guy is scoring at half a percent.
On the Republican side a three way race with 3-4 points between ‘winner’ and ‘third place’. With Mr. Winner himself in the middle.
The one prediction I might have made was about the winnowing of the field. Except I though O’Malley might do a little better and hold out until next week and it would be Santorum that dropped out and not Huck. So keeping THAT prediction to myself proved the correct move.
Sam Wang Comment from Princeton Consortium. He is stats driven.
“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. 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). http://election.princeton.edu/http://election.princeton.edu/
Well, I was wrong about O’Malley. I should have known better after Richardson. Oh, well….
So, when does Iowa actually choose who gets the delegates?
Automatic weapons are NOT illegal. Each requires a $200 tax on creation and on each transfer, and the “transferee” must have a Class III license.
“[There] any many out there who believe there should be laws/rules that encourage better habits, and discourage bad habits.”
I mean, it’s one thing when it’s behavior that impacts others — even seat belt laws and motorcycle helmet laws. (It is very traumatic to kill someone in an accident.) It’s a whole nother thing to pass laws to keep people from doing unhealthy things.
Are these adults or not?
If they are too stupid to make their own food choices, how can they possibly be smart enough to choose the people who will choose for them?
NPR’s sound bite this morning features madame secretary breathing “a big sigh of relief”. Not so fast Mrs. Clinton.
In September she was leading Sanders in IA by 24 points. Consider the resources and time invested to hold him to a tie. As I keep saying, it’s the efficiency. If Sanders continues to maintain comparable levels of support and keeps being this effective she’s doomed.
And of course if that shift from +24 to 0 over 5 months actually represents the *momentum* then… You might as well send slick willie back to his suite of offices in Manhattan. She’s toast.
I just sent $3 to Sanders!
91% of Iowa voters were white.
Michael: I guess it depends on whether you think Bernie’s finish in IA is a high water mark or future trend.
Either way I’m not sure she should feel “relief”. His supporters aren’t going anywhere. Those donors aren’t going to harass themselves into forking over additional millions to her super PAC(s).
The racial demographics of future contests aren’t going to save Hill and Bill a lot of long nights on the phone begging for money. It’s the kind of thing that wears on a campaigner and undermines the message eventually. Ask Jeb.
I did not say anything about relief. And quite frankly, the Clinton campaign is not going to have any trouble raising cash.
The problem is not that Sanders’ supporters aren’t going anywhere, it is just that Iowa and NH are his strongest chances. He is in big big trouble everywhere else.
Remarkable move to close a 24 point gap. Doubt he can close a 40 point gap with minority voters that dominate many of the important primaries.
And for the life of me, I just do not understand what minority voters dislike about Sanders or like about Clinton.
Means absolutely nothing. The image is that Iowa is some sort of middle-America right-wing haven is very wrong.
About 30% of Iowa Republicans showed up at their caucuses. So Cruz won roughly 8.5% of registered Iowa Republicans. Given that Republican registration is about 30% of the electorate, he’s currently winning about 2.5% of the total electorate, based on Iowa’s results and extrapolating nationally.
In both 2008 and 2012 Iowa’s 6 electoral votes went to Obama, so what the right-wing nut cases in Iowa think matters little.