Politics and Religion

Examining the full history of the Iowa Caucus beginning with the first one in 1976. . . .
ed2000 31 Reviews 207 reads
posted

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

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. ;)

TwoMints190 reads

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?

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.

Register Now!