Numbers don’t lie. Donald Trump won the Iowa caucus vote by 51%, compared to 21.2% for Ron DeSantis and 19.1% for Nikki Haley. About 110,000 people turned out, all Republicans (though some may have registered for that occasion only), roughly 15% of registered Iowa Republicans.
Pundits are hard at work parsing data and interviewing each other. Mainstream media touted a “landslide win”. It has been immersing us with headlines about disaffected youth, college grads who are no longer reliably Democratic, evangelicals adopting Donald Trump as their savior figure, speculation on trial dates that might — might, who can say? — affect something about the election in November.
So let’s think about that 51%.
Who was it who voted for a man who has never stopped campaigning for reelection? Barely half of a turnout comprised of demonstrably committed partisans motivated to brave sub-zero wind chills voted for their past President of the United States. The rest of that turnout was ready to vote for someone else. And they did! By definition, against Trump.
Mark Sumner said it vividly:
The question shouldn’t be why Trump scraped out a bare majority of Republican voters, but why he didn’t win bigger. …
Trump barely got half the vote in a cakewalk against opponents who couldn’t stop genuflecting in his direction and who devoted their time and money to sniping at each other. That he defeated this crew by 1% is not something to brag about. It’s a signal that even in his own party, many voters are looking for an alternative.
If Ron and Nikki were not on the ballot, of course, it’s not likely the 48+% would vote for Joe Biden. Or turn Green Party. But 51% of a solidly committed-Republican base — that is a tepid response for Trump. It may well be that individual members of the much vaunted base which office-holders and editorial writers are paying such obeisance to, those folks who are so persistently polled for portents, is, ah, more chimerical when it comes to actually casting an election ballot. That 51% is a majority only of Republicans, a fairly thin margin at that.
And importantly, that’s before the Trump insurrection trial starts. Jack Smith’s prosecution in DC could begin this summer. Donald Trump is exceedingly clever at managing visibility and as a defendant, he has more latitude to natter on than the prosecution, much more. But up until now, the merits of the case — of Trump’s activities from the election to Jan.6 in Congress — have not been the controlling news. With opening statements, they will be.
I am not arguing here that evidence at trial, or Trump’s unrestrainable criticisms of justice, or his bellicose campaign speeches from the courthouse steps, will loosen the Iowa-style support Trump enjoyed among the deeply-seated loyalists of his 51%. I am suggesting the base as a whole may be smaller and thinner, more evanescent than, say, House Republicans and reporters meeting daily deadlines believe.