There is an anti-establishment wave sweeping across the American political landscape. This is undeniable. It has captivated both parties. On the GOP side, the establishment has been nearly decimated. Jeb Bush, the favorite for the GOP nomination when he declared his candidacy a year ago, walked away from the Iowa Republican Caucus with just 1 delegate after spending about $2, 800 per vote or about $14.1 million in ads — the most money spent by any candidate.
The performance of the other establishment Republican candidates was just as dismal — with the exception of Marco Rubio who performed better than expected gaining the same number of delegates as Trump out of the caucus. However, the GOP establishment hanging on to Rubio’s “strong third” place as some sort of victory is just desperate.
The fact of the matter is the three big anti-establishment candidates: Trump, Cruz, and Carson got collectively more than two thirds share of the vote and equivalently more than two thirds of the delegates out of the caucus. It was an awful night for the GOP establishment no matter how you cut it. Although the winner of the Iowa Republican Caucus doesn’t always go on to win the win the GOP nomination (as we saw with Huckabee in 2008 and Santorum in 2012), the very strong performance of anti-establishment candidates like Cruz and Trump represents a writing on the wall for the GOP establishment (and the GOP overall for that matter). If the polls are correct it is very likely that one of these men will wind up with the nomination. Either of these men would pose significant problems, if not an unmitigated disaster, for the GOP in the general election.
On the Democratic side, the anti-establishment wave made its presence felt as well. Like Jeb Bush, when Hillary Clinton declared her candidacy for the presidency, she became the instant favorite to win her party’s nomination. She maintained a big lead over Bernie in Iowa polls for much of last year before things started tightening up towards the end of the year. The Democratic establishment was strongly behind her leading up to the caucus as she received the overwhelming majority of their endorsements. The fact that Sanders finished with almost a virtual tie with Hillary in the Iowa Caucus is simply remarkable. Nobody a year ago would have predicted this.
However as I argued earlier that the GOP establishment shouldn’t take consolation in Rubio’s “strong third” place finish in Iowa, I would also argue that the anti-establishment forces within the Democratic party should not get too excited about Bernie’s “virtual tie” in Iowa.
The writing is also on the wall for the Sanders Revolution.
Here’s why Sanders will lose the Democratic Nomination to Hillary:
For all of Hillary’s institutional advantages and establishment support, Iowa was fertile grounds — given the demographic makeup of the state — for the Bernie Revolution to take root and catapult his campaign to a resounding victory in the caucus. The Democrats who participate in the Iowa Caucus are overwhelmingly white and progressive — mirroring the core of Sander’s base. Couple this with the fact that the Sanders campaign has morphed into a grass roots juggernaut, with more than 3 million small contributors to date — a record for any candidate in history. So considering all of that, the fact that Hillary was able to keep the Sanders in check in Iowa and eke out a small victory at the same time is the true breakout story of the night. In a virulently anti-establishment climate in politics, Hillary, who many see as the most establishment of candidates, still emerged on top.
Hillary did this by staying focused, doing her homework, and fighting tooth and nail for every single vote. This is how you win elections. I have more faith than ever in Hillary’s prospects to win the nomination and the general election. It all comes down to the arithmetic (as Bill Clinton loves to say) at the end of the day. Obama’s steely focus on the numbers played a huge role in his improbable victory over Hillary in the 2008 Democratic Primaries. Hillary certainly learned her lesson from that fight and has taken a page out of Obama’s book.
Ignore the media noise
There is a lot of noise in the media, including here on Dkos, about the closeness of the Iowa Democratic caucus results and how it portends badly for Hillary’s campaign going forward. Ignore the noise and focus on the facts and the figures.
This diary by snowman3 outlines how the delegate race for the nomination is very favorable for Hillary going forward even after the tight finish in Iowa and Bernie’s likely victory in New Hampshire. Here’s a snippet from snowman3’s diary:
Since Iowa is a favorable state to Sen Sanders, based on its demographic composition and the fact that it is a caucus that allows independents to participate, Wasserman’s model calculated that Senator Sanders needed a significant majority of pledged delegates to remain on track to getting to 1976, while Secretary Clinton needed comparatively fewer delegates from Iowa, given her anticipated strength in other states. With her projected 23 — 21 win in the pledged delegates, Secretary Clinton is 10 delegates ahead of where she needs to be at this point, according to Wasserman’s model.
This article from the NY Times, Why a ‘Virtual Tie’ in Iowa Is Better for Clinton Than Sanders, also put things into perspective:
The official tally, for now, is Hillary Clinton at 49.9 percent, and Mr. Sanders at 49.6 percent with 97 percent of precincts reporting early Tuesday morning.
But in the end, a virtual tie in Iowa is an acceptable, if not ideal, result for Mrs. Clinton and an ominous one for Mr. Sanders. He failed to win a state tailor made to his strengths.
He fares best among white voters. The electorate was 91 percent white, per the entrance polls. He does well with less affluent voters. The caucus electorate was far less affluent than the national primary electorate in 2008. He’s heavily dependent on turnout from young voters, and he had months to build a robust field operation. As the primaries quickly unfold, he won’t have that luxury.
Here’s why Hillary will win the general election:
Bernie Sanders will lose the nomination to Hillary for the same reason the Republican candidate will eventually lose to her in the general election:
It all boils down to the ARITHMETIC.
Despite what some people say, Hillary Clinton is the most electable candidate running in either party. She is definitely a progressive, but she is not a dyed in the wool ideologue. She has an approach to things that most Americans, even if they are not progressive, find workable. Americans historically do not elect candidates to the presidency who present themselves as hardened ideologues... as demonstrated with the epic defeats of Republican Barry Goldwater and Democrat George McGovern and the routine flushing of ideologues like Huckabee, Santorum etc who run for their party’s nomination.
The Republican candidates today have gone off the deep end. They’ve staked out positions that will only worsen the GOP’s inherent disadvantage in the electoral college. The white vote alone cannot save the GOP as we saw in 2008 and 20012. Republicans have learned nothing from their stinging defeat in 2012 and continue to do everything imaginable to further alienate the voting groups (women, minorities, the LGBTQ community etc) who have shunned their party.
If Hillary wins the Democratic Nomination, she will emerge as the strongest contender in the general election (even with her perceived baggage). As long as her campaign stays focused, keep an eye on the electoral arithmetic, and continue fighting for every vote; Hillary is poised to make history by becoming our first woman President.