PostHeaderIcon Iowa Values

I’m glad that is behind us. I can’t say I am not disappointed that about 25% of Iowan voters favored an avowed socialist. Another 25% voted for a renowned liar, grifter, and matriarch of a well-known criminal syndicate. Another 25% chose one or the other of two ineligible scions of Cuban nationals, who are thus not natural-born citizens. So much for so-called Iowa values… no wonder Trump graciously accepted his approx. 13% for GOP 2nd place, and quietly moved on. That leaves only 12%, many of whom likely held their nose, while voting for one of the multitude of also-ran’s.

John McCormack of the Weekly Standard, had the best analysis I have read so far, “Why Trump Lost Iowa“:

Evangelicals come through for Cruz.

Trump himself struck a gracious tone in his concession speech, calling it an honor to come in second. He reiterated his love for Iowa and joked that he still wanted to buy a farm there. The loss must have stung, but Trump denied his opponents the sight of a “Dean scream” meltdown.

Thankfully. I thought it was an uncharacteristically classy retreat. 🙂

What most analysts and pollsters got wrong is that they believed a big turnout would mean an electorate with a smaller percentage of evangelical Christians.

In 2012, 57 percent of Iowa GOP caucusgoers were evangelical Christians, but the final Des Moines Register poll that showed Trump winning indicated that only 47 percent of 2016 caucusgoers would be evangelical Christians. “When re-weighted as a scenario test for the higher evangelical turnout seen in 2012 entrance polls, the race is closer, with 26 percent for Trump and 25 percent for Cruz,” Bloomberg reported. In fact, according to the entrance poll, evangelicals made up 64 percent of the 2016 electorate.

And that pretty much explains Cruz’s victory. He won 34 percent of evangelicals, while Trump won 22 percent and Rubio won 21 percent. Among the 36 percent of caucusgoers who aren’t evangelicals, Trump took 29 percent, Rubio took 26 percent, and Cruz took 18 percent.

Rubio did best among the 21 percent of voters who identified electability as their top candidate quality, while Donald Trump cleaned up among the 14 percent who most wanted a candidate who “tells it like it is” and the 21 percent who want a candidate who can bring needed change. But Cruz romped among the 42 percent of caucusgoers said that the top quality in a candidate was that he “shares my values.”

In the end, Iowa values won after all.

They always do; but that also explains why the winner of the Iowa caucus rarely gets the nomination for the GOP. There is a lot more important to the majority of the political Right, than just Christian values. One reason, of course, is that most Republicans are more interested in winning the General election, than choosing a pious religious leader. Let’s see what the ‘Live Free or Die’ State has to say about it… 😉 â—„Daveâ–º

23 Responses to “Iowa Values”

  • Chris says:

    I’ll just remain silent and leave you to imagine the grin on my face. 😀

  • Larry Andrew says:

    That all makes sense. It probably is always that way. i wonder why the MSM never seems to understand that. I imagine Mary is also grinning. All temporary, of course.

  • brauneyz says:

    More than grinning! Doin’ a jig! 🙂

    Ted’s got a long way to go and the long(er) knives will be out for him. Right now, the GOPe is still too stunned and distracted by Jeb’s flaccid showing that they’re ripping Marco to shreds for another week or so.

    It won’t be anything close to easy, but Cruz, I believe, is built for this long haul. Whether he can convert the naysayers, present company so friggin’ included, and convince enough folks that he will respect the Constitution and restore some honor to the WH is yet to be seen.

    It is Trump, Cruz, and Rubio going forward, like it or not.

    • If a serious Constitutional scholar – especially one claiming to be an originalist – really respected the Constitution, he would happily settle for a career in the Senate, and not try to thwart the NBC clause with lawyerly obfuscation, about it now being ‘settled law’ that legislative action has overridden it. Horse pucky… â—„Daveâ–º

      • Chris says:

        Can’t get pucky from a dead horse no matter how much you beat it.

        • If you will remember, Chris, back a few years ago on the Freedom Torch forum, I promised that if Rubio, Jindal, or Cruz tried to run for POTUS, I would pitch at least as big a bitch as I had over Obama’s usurping the office, for which he was ineligible. I still have a long way to go to catch up. 😉 â—„Daveâ–º

        • Chris says:

          I would expect nothing less my friend. I myself rode that horse and to an extent still do. There is a two pronged reason for my resignation regarding the issue. One being that all the ranting in the world isn’t going to change the reality on the ground. Then there is the reality that if the most strict interpretation of NBC were to be used we would have a president Bush or Christie because as Cruz said that would also disqualify Trump as well as Rubio to.

          • I think Cruz was likely wrong. I suspect that Trump’s mom was naturalized by the time he was born. If so, Trump would have been born in NY to two US citizens. If not, then Cruz was right, and we have a whole new ball game!

            As to the efficacy of ranting about it, if more patriots stood their ground on Constitutional principles, the less tyranny we would have. If sheeple were not so Constitutionally naive, he would not have gotten this far. I don’t know how many I and other ranters may have awoken on the subject; but there must be a few.

            What would happen if all the ‘law abiding’ citizens were to refuse to apply for a permit to carry a weapon, because the 2nd Amendment assures them of their right to arm themselves at their own discretion, unconstitutional statutes be damned! There aren’t enough jails to hold us all, even if they could somehow disarm us. 😉 â—„Daveâ–º

          • As we have already discussed, even a SCOTUS ruling in his favor wouldn’t settle the matter; a board of elections ruling is certainly not dispositive, and cannot change the plain meaning of the term ‘natural-born citizen,’ as used back in 1783 by our Founders. I read somewhere recently that some Olympic board or another, had ruled that a transvestite biologically equipped as a man, who ‘identifies’ as a woman, could compete as one. That ruling didn’t change the biological reality, or what the rules used to mean when they were created. I am getting way too old for modernity… 🙂 â—„Daveâ–º

        • Chris says:

          I completely understand your viewpoint is strictly based on your interpretation of the constitution as well as your own no doubt studious review of other relevant materials such as federalist papers et al. I’ll not begrudge you your opinion as I for a large part agree. Your even right that in the view as a constitutionalist if your view is correct SCOTUS can’t change that. One thing I am content with is letting the people decide if there is an issue. It appears Iowa doesn’t take your view. It’s possible that farther along the process the citizens of other states will see it more seriously. It’s out there. (I don’t see that happening.) In that case any of the candidates in question will be denied the nomination and the argument will be vindicated. If one of them does win the nomination the argument is defeated and therefore moot.

          Dave I find it perplexing that on these same pages you advocate for the tearing down of the system post haste so we can start rebuilding again yet this particular issue you hold on to as though any deviation is certain death to the republic. I understand your reverence to the constitution but I think you have missed the possibility that were such a collapse in the system come about our constitution could be it’s most obvious victim. There are many that would like to see the same collapse to rid us of that constitution. Probably many more than would wish to leave it in as written form. That’s why I have from neutral to opposition regarding a convention of states. It’s my position that the constitution is correct and need only be adhered to despite some 20th century amendments that are detrimental because I know those won’t be addressed.

          You mentioned in another post that I was actually looking for someone to turn things around and fix what’s broken. Guilty as charged because a major collapse would be no guarantee of what would be rebuilt in it’s place. If you can show me any country that has suffered a political and/or economic collapse and come out better for it in the 20th or 21st century I will rethink my position. The intellect and honor no longer exists to rebuild what we had.

      • CT says:

        Hello Dave,

        Nice to meet you 😉
        Thanks for the links to my blog posts on the NBC crisis we are facing.

        By those none other (who claim to protect and preserve)our CHISELED IN STONE Constitution … but in reality hope to make a “living breathing Constitution” that can be changed by a WHIM with an agenda.

        To Hell with the amendment process RIGHT?
        You know that function the framers and founders put in place so that the majority had to agree AND APPROVE?

        Pesky rule of law don’t you think? LOL

        BTW try not to despair at length about the Cruz/Rubio ineligibility. There might be more going on with the voters than we see from the media perspective 😉

        • Hello, CT. Nice to meet you too. I am not sure the NBC matter is a “crisis” any longer; but for me it will always be an issue. You might enjoy an old essay of mine, “Now or Never.” 🙂

          Rule of Law? Surely you jest: “Civil Disobedience” When Hilary is in jail, then we can perhaps discuss whether this nation is ruled by laws, with equal justice for all. 😉

          I look forward to seeing how the voters actually vote. Again, thanks for joining the discussions hereabouts. â—„Daveâ–º

  • Larry Andrew says:

    I read Dave’s post on Cruz Control before I read these remarks. So, do the Cruz crazies (Mary and Chris) have any response to what seems to be factually accurate info in the Breitbart posting? Is it accurate? Is Cruz flat out lying or is he just playing the normal political sleaze game?

  • It looks like someone pulled a dirty trick to get Carson voters to think he had dropped out in order to get them to vote for Cruz:

    • Chris says:

      We don’t have to push this any more. Trump likes Cruz again today. We must be sure to check our twitter updates hourly to keep track. It’s a crock anyway. CNN reports Carson is out and it’s Cruz that pulled a dirty trick?

      • I’m a couple days behind on my news feed, so you may be right. These things always happen, and I’m not blaming a particular candidate. This may have been more about taking Trump’s lead than boosting Cruz. The establishment always seems to have something sketchy going to pull a last second removal of non-partisans. I notice the Democrats decided some of theirs with coin flips, in which Hillary just happened to win all 6.

        I hadn’t seen much coverage of the Carson incident, despite big names like Rove and O’Reilly talking about it.

      • Chris says:

        Yea, Rove and O’Reiley are the only ones still talking about it because it’s pretty much an non issue that those in the tank for Rubio blew way out of proportion. Of course CNN reported it and everybody was talking about it including Rubio but Cruz is the bad guy. Even though Carson has almost no staff left and he’s sitting in Florida two days before the NH primary He’s still in the race and never intended to leave it. Yea, OK. Anyway politics as usual. Please pass the popcorn?

Leave a Reply

Political Spectrum
Political Circle

Think Up/Down not Left/Right

Internal Links