This Old Neon Forum

politic

Iowa has come and gone, and now people are talking about a three-way race between Cruz, Trump and Rubio, the top 3 on the Republican side. Democratic side nearly tied, with Hillary barely edging out Sanders.

While I'm glad to see Trump didn't win Iowa, I don't like Cruz either. Trump's a grand-stander, but Cruz comes off as a malicious true-believer type to me.

Hardly any independent voters like Trump, and hardly anyone in general likes Cruz (including the establishment), so I probably shouldn't be worried just yet. Don't like the feeling of either one getting within miles of the White House, though.

Niahak wrote:Iowa has come and gone, and now people are talking about a three-way race between Cruz, Trump and Rubio, the top 3 on the Republican side. Democratic side nearly tied, with Hillary barely edging out Sanders.

While I'm glad to see Trump didn't win Iowa, I don't like Cruz either. Trump's a grand-stander, but Cruz comes off as a malicious true-believer type to me.

Hardly any independent voters like Trump, and hardly anyone in general likes Cruz (including the establishment), so I probably shouldn't be worried just yet. Don't like the feeling of either one getting within miles of the White House, though.

I agree with you on Cruz. And he only amped up the lunacy in the days leading up to the Iowa caucus with some rhetoric about washing America with Jesus's blood or some crap. I get the sense that the Republican side is in such a mess that their best shot is throwing Cruz and Trump under the bus to groom Rubio into a legitimate candidate for 2020.

Interesting to see Sanders basically lock horns with Clinton in Iowa. I don't know if anyone thought that support was really going to pan out. Anyway, it seems like Iowa has been fairly inconclusive (which it should be, really, since it's just one state).

Kong Wen wrote:

Niahak wrote:Iowa has come and gone, and now people are talking about a three-way race between Cruz, Trump and Rubio, the top 3 on the Republican side. Democratic side nearly tied, with Hillary barely edging out Sanders.

While I'm glad to see Trump didn't win Iowa, I don't like Cruz either. Trump's a grand-stander, but Cruz comes off as a malicious true-believer type to me.

Hardly any independent voters like Trump, and hardly anyone in general likes Cruz (including the establishment), so I probably shouldn't be worried just yet. Don't like the feeling of either one getting within miles of the White House, though.

I agree with you on Cruz. And he only amped up the lunacy in the days leading up to the Iowa caucus with some rhetoric about washing America with Jesus's blood or some crap. I get the sense that the Republican side is in such a mess that their best shot is throwing Cruz and Trump under the bus to groom Rubio into a legitimate candidate for 2020.

Interesting to see Sanders basically lock horns with Clinton in Iowa. I don't know if anyone thought that support was really going to pan out. Anyway, it seems like Iowa has been fairly inconclusive (which it should be, really, since it's just one state).

The way the media was hyping up Iowa it was as if this was the end all, do all, decision point.

The Shoemaker wrote:

Kong Wen wrote:

Niahak wrote:Iowa has come and gone, and now people are talking about a three-way race between Cruz, Trump and Rubio, the top 3 on the Republican side. Democratic side nearly tied, with Hillary barely edging out Sanders.

While I'm glad to see Trump didn't win Iowa, I don't like Cruz either. Trump's a grand-stander, but Cruz comes off as a malicious true-believer type to me.

Hardly any independent voters like Trump, and hardly anyone in general likes Cruz (including the establishment), so I probably shouldn't be worried just yet. Don't like the feeling of either one getting within miles of the White House, though.

I agree with you on Cruz. And he only amped up the lunacy in the days leading up to the Iowa caucus with some rhetoric about washing America with Jesus's blood or some crap. I get the sense that the Republican side is in such a mess that their best shot is throwing Cruz and Trump under the bus to groom Rubio into a legitimate candidate for 2020.


Interesting to see Sanders basically lock horns with Clinton in Iowa. I don't know if anyone thought that support was really going to pan out. Anyway, it seems like Iowa has been fairly inconclusive (which it should be, really, since it's just one state).

The way the media was hyping up Iowa it was as if this was the end all, do all, decision point.

It's important but more from a momentum setting (or squashing) perspective. Also speaks to overall viability of a campaign in a way that polls can't do as effectively.

So far, it looks like I'm voting Libertarian again.

evildevil97 wrote:So far, it looks like I'm voting Libertarian again.

Me, too.

I think Iowa could have made a big difference if Sanders had somehow decisively won it.

Given it was kinda a split vote, I think Clinton will have little difficulty winning the primaries now. Sanders will win New Hampshire but his campaign will be completely blunted once the primaries go to the other states. He needed some kind of really decisive win in order to make people doubt Clinton. At the moment the race is "competitive" but not really. Clinton has major advantages.

On the Republican side I was not surprised that Cruz won Iowa because Iowa has more of the evangelical vote to win. His victory there is hollow and doesn't matter much, but he's still overall the second place candidate in polls. He could rise to first if more Repubs drop out and he's seen as having a serious chance. I think Cruz is less of a disaster than Trump but not by much. Even Republicans hate him because he's a gigantic douchebag and is terrible at working with other people. Some Democrats think that somebody like Trump or Cruz would be more favorable nominees than Rubio since they would hypothetically be easier to defeat in a general election. I feel that this sort of thinking is disastrous as even giving either of those two the chance to win would be a big mistake. I'd rather see somebody like Kasich, Christie or Paul win the nomination.

edit-Just learned that Paul dropped out. bummer.

Jordan wrote:I think Iowa could have made a big difference if Sanders had somehow decisively won it.

Given it was kinda a split vote, I think Clinton will have little difficulty winning the primaries now. Sanders will win New Hampshire but his campaign will be completely blunted once the primaries go to the other states. He needed some kind of really decisive win in order to make people doubt Clinton. At the moment the race is "competitive" but not really. Clinton has major advantages.

I don't know, I think the fact that Sanders put up any kind of numbers at all is pretty decisive. Clinton was supposed to steamroll this thing as recently as a couple weeks ago. Now Sanders and his supporters show up in Iowa and basically match her numbers. She's not a lock anymore. She has to prove herself. And Sanders isn't a joke anymore. People all across the country who may have been on the fence now have a legitimate choice. I think that's the big difference that Iowa will have made.

I think Sanders still has a name recognition problem. A lot of people still don't know who he is. I also think Sanders had a lot of advantages in Iowa and New Hampshire which he doesn't have elsewhere (except maybe South Carolina*). Demographically those states favored him and those states also probably have higher turnouts. Being the first states to vote is important because it makes the people more politically aware that they have a big role to play, and so it increases voter participation (imo). That's beneficial to Sanders because he benefits the most from more people, especially younger people, coming out to vote. He's stated repeatedly that he is reliant on high voter turnout. People go crazy talking about politics in Iowa around this time and the effect showed. Demographically the states are advantageous because there are less minorities and New Hampshire is also in Vermont's backyard.

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I feel like this is being spun too much by liberal outlets who want a good story. Whether Sanders is going to be competitive or not is not going to be decided in New Hampshire and Iowa. He desperately needs to get his name out more and close the gap elsewhere.

*-The importance of minority voters in SC is overstated. Barack Obama capitalized on them big time in the last election, but I think that was exceptional. Additionally, I think Sanders can make big inroads with the black community and his campaign has been competent at doing so.