Trumps Poor Showing in New Hampshire and Iowa
Trump’s poor showing in New Hampshire, Robert Reich.
Friends,
As I noted earlier today, the mainstream media is falling over itself in seeming awe of Trump’s “powerful” campaign.
The truth is just the opposite. Last week, he won fewer than 7 percent of registered voters in Iowa.
Trump’s success in last week’s Iowa caucuses wasn’t a “stunning show of strength.” It was a display of remarkable weakness. He got just 56,260 votes. Hello? There are 2,083,979 registered voters in Iowa. Fewer than 3 percent of Iowans voted for him.
“Why the mainstream media’s awestruck coverage of Trump’s campaign is deceptive and dangerous,” Robert Reich
AB: Other sites posted a 15% turnout. trump received 52% of the 110,000 turnout voters of ~750,000 registered. It may just be interpretation; however, trump did not run away with his numbers.
Today he won just 53 percent of the vote in New Hampshire’s Republican primary, to Nikki Haley’s 45.9 percent. A 7 percent margin is nothing for him to brag about (although he’ll brag).
For a former Republican president, his showing tonight in New Hampshire and last Monday in Iowa is pitiful.
Trump and his surrogates will undoubtedly try to spin his relatively poor showing in New Hampshire by pointing out that many of the voters were independents rather than Republicans.
To be sure, according to preliminary exit polls, around half of voters in today’s New Hampshire Republican primary identified themselves as Republicans, while 45 percent said they were independents (and 6 percent identified themselves as Democrats).
But that’s exactly the point. Even if Trump dominated Haley among Republicans, he did terribly among independents. Which portends problems for him in the general election.
Trump will of course be the Republican nominee. But he’s likely to be an extraordinarily weak candidate in the general election, given that almost half the entire U.S. electorate is independent, while only 25 percent are Republican (and 25 percent are Democrats).
Trump’s base adores him. Most of the rest of America is justifiably afraid of what he might do with a second term.
“Why the mainstream media’s awestruck coverage of Trump’s campaign is deceptive and dangerous,” Robert Reich.
Color me skeptical that the absolute turnout in a caucus is an appropriate measure? I mean aren’t caucuses different from primaries and so on? Shouldn’t we look at historical turnout in caucuses if we’re going to draw conclusions from turnout at the Iowa caucuses? I mean this is either saying 1) the win is fake because it’s a uniquely unattended caucus, or 2) the Iowa caucuses are fake in general, so whether Trump won is irrelevant. I think the argument seems to be 1), yet it doesn’t make sense unless there is lower turnout than a normal Iowa caucus.
Cervantes:
I do not believe many a caucus or a primary are overly attended by voters. The one exception being a popular candidate. Kennedy? In which case, people do turn out. The more important issue is getting them to vote for the right political party.
2016 was an example of such when voters went for anybody but trump or Clinton. Three states elected trump by doing such. New Hampshire was test of who is the most popular Repub. From what I have read, the turnout was not great.
The nation has an overwhelming issue in trump’s candidacy. Voters should not do a 2016 again and ignore the right candidate because they have a preference for someone else.
Reich never met a fact he didn’t like to abuse or a conservative he didn’t like to gaslight.
All Trump has to do is eliminate all his GOP rivals, and wait for the convention.
Since there seem to be some reluctance to just nominate him now by acclamation.
Go figure!
Of course, come November, it will all come down to the results of voting in about a half-dozen states. Iowa or NH may hope to be one of them.
Fox News via MSN – several hours ago