The voting has begun and the counting is almost finished. As the group of voters that claims to respect facts, and not the alternative kind, Iowa did shed some light on the various hypotheses being written about on this site:
1. The far left has more support than the center left. FALSE
Pete + Joe + Amy > 50% of the vote.
Bernie + Elizabeth < 50% of the vote.
2. The anti-Trump energy will bring out thousands of new voters. FALSE
The turnout Monday night looked more like 2016 than 2008.
Will we bet on a progressive candidate bringing out new voters or do we bank on a centrist candidate pulling in some swing voters or at the very least not scaring center right voters so that they are comfortable staying home on election day. That’s our choice.
Iowa suggests the better bet is a centrist.
With the lane split among multiple candidates, the nomination might be Bernie’s to lose at this pojnt if Biden can’t pull it together. Winning the nomination isn’t worth much however if we lose the general.
The progressive pair couldn’t get the majority of the vote in the most liberal / progressive event of the season. Why would anyone think a strongly progressive candidate can win the general?
Where’s the historical data to show it can be done? 1932 and FDR? Well unless folks here are hoping for another Depression, we aren’t at those conditions. We’re certainly not at those conditions among suburban voters who could vote for Pete/Joe/Amy or stay home but who would never vote for Bernie / Elizabeth and would likely vote Trump instead.
Where’s the historical data showing traditional non-voters will show up to vote?
We’re soon going to have to decide whether we want to be right on all the issues and get nothing when we lose or whether we want to win and get much of what we want on most issues.