Let's imagine that there is a number of journalists, commentators and the like hired to cover stories. Their employers hired them for their skills, and those employers don't want them to just set on their butts, or plant themselves on a bar-stool some place. There's nothing much to cover so they are sent to an Iowa corn field, in the middle of winter. Now, journalists and commentators need to do what they are paid for, so what do you end up getting? Perhaps what it means that there is only three inches of snow in the field they are covering, several miles outside of Des Moines vs. the five inches being reported in a field outside of Dubuque? Or, commentary and reporting regarding the change in temperature, especially if it is a sudden unexpected change, or in the opposite direction predicted by the National Weather Bureau. In other words you get something manufactured out of very little, or nothing, really.

My point is, it is much the same as the reporting and commentaries about last night's Iowa caucus's. It  may be quite fun reading the spin going both ways on the same results, but what a waste of time. A lot of people are being paid to say something that will catch your eye, and hopefully keep you engaged long enough to read the story, but much of what they have to say it based on little or no substance at all.

.....so I'm not surprised he won in Iowa. I don't think Trump had any where close to that kind of grass roots organization. The problem for Trump, has the inevitability calling card he likes to wave around been punctured for good. We shall see how he does in New Hampshire.

-- Modified on 2/2/2016 12:33:19 PM

Trump will win NH and SC and Iowa will be what it is, a corn field in the middle of nowhere, forgotten. Look at past GOP winners....gone and vanished.

A caucus state vs non-caucus. Heavily conservative religious vs. less so and more Libertarian.

IMO, when Trump stated,  President Trump  won't do anything about abortion, he lost  
Iowa.
   From corn field to corn field across vast and desolate plains, Iowa caucus  voters  were told by their  priests, preachers and choir directors, gather your flock, support  God, vote for Ayatollah Cruz.

  Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan also lost in the Iowa caucuses.
   
  What I find surprising about the Iowa votes,  with nowhere near the organization as the Hillary machine, Bernie Sanders virtually tied the old crazy lady, destroying her  inevitability.
   
   
 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3297715/Hillary-Clinton-squirms-awkwardly-stage-30-minutes-Black-Lives-Matter-protesters-shut-speech-intended-boost-support-black-community.html
   

I read an analysis by someone, a few days ago, that was arguing that if Sanders won Iowa, or came in a strong 2nd, and won New Hampshire, that he could roll into South Carolina with the momentum that Obama had, after doing the same thing in 2008. He fail to consider one thing. Sanders is no Obama. He's neither black, nor young, nor Christian!  

In addition to the need for a strong "ground game", Iowa is also well known for their strong evangelical, conservative base, which is right up Cruz's alley, and not so much Trump's.

Rubio's showing was quite impressive; the Republican establishment may have their poster child.

As previously mentioned, the New Hampshire primary (with the state's strong independent tilt) should be quite interesting.

His problem is that he had to sell out his religiousness to win in Iowa. That level of piety doesn't play well in many other states.
To me it was a bit grotesque. No different then the last two guys. It also proves to the nation that we don't need those billions wasted on ethanol subsidies anymore.  

 
Trump didn't even set up a ground game for Iowa because he believed he didn't have much of a shot early on. Some of the areas didn't even get a Trump Representative.  So he finishes Second gets 1 less delegate.  

As someone else keeps pointing out, I do harbor some believe that he really doesn't want it that bad. Certainly not as bad as Cruz and Rubio. Though that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Should we really want someone to lead the country that is hell bent on doing so?

The Republican winner has gone on to become the nominee a mere 50% of the time and that’s not counting the unopposed incumbents. And 75% of the time the Iowa winner became the Republican nominee in that cycle or eventually in a later cycle, so maybe you’re looking forward to Cruz in 2024?

Another interesting factoid is that no one has become the Republican nominee without winning either Iowa or New Hampshire

Trump had a 4.7 lead over Cruz, in the polls, the day before the Iowa caucus. He has a 22.2 point lead over him in New Hampshire, and 16.3 lead in South Carolina. That may be too steep a climb with so little time left.

you and I are on the same page with your 2 posts here. On the surface, that kinda scares me a little.

It irrational to believe that. How do you know how he'll govern? You don't run a multi billion dollar company without being pragmatic.  

Please share with us. What exactly did Hillary do well? What did she accomplish? What shows us she'll be a good leader?

She's pretty good at obfuscating. Maybe even outstanding at it. She's an a pretty fair liar. She's well known for being vindictive. Does that make for a good leader? It's easy to see why Obama beat her. She's brutal.

hey bud, what's your net worth? nuf 'said!

I think he's just reading Cruz the riot attack, and getting the word out in NH what Cruz did, so as to have everyone on the lookout for any further shenanigans from him, there.