Posted on 01/04/2016 7:38:08 AM PST by conservativejoy
Just four weeks from today, Iowans will cast the first official votes of the 2016 presidential election. And what was once a very crowded GOP field, with 17 people officially declaring their candidacies, is really down to only three potential scenarios.
Let's assess the impact of each on the race going forward should it become a reality.
Scenario #1-Ted Cruz Wins Convincingly
And by convincingly, I mean with 35% or more, which only two Republicans have ever scored in Iowa's history (George W. Bush 2000 and Bob Dole 1988). With the combined strengths of his existing structure and the vocal support of Congressman Steve King and key activist Bob Vander Plaats, Cruz has assembled the most impressive organization the state has ever seen.
Impact-Because of the existing resources and national presence his campaign has built in preparation for the long haul, Cruz would instantly become the favorite for the nomination.
This scenario would also wound Donald Trump. If you're the far-and-away national polling frontrunner for six months, but then lose the first real vote, it more than punctures one’s aura of invincibility. Especially if Trump were to react to such a defeat with a meltdown that makes Howard Dean’s scream look like the Gettysburg Address.
Every candidate that has won at least two of the first three early states has always gone on to be the nominee, and in this scenario we're talking about the prospect of Trump winning all three.
Scenario #2-Donald Trump Wins a Close One
For Trump to win Iowa, he's probably going to need Cruz to finish below 30%, because that's Trump's likely caucus max if you do the math.
For example, if turnout remains around the state record of 125,000 voters, that would put evangelical turnout at 58% (the average of the past two caucuses). That's 72,500 voters, of which polls currently show Trump getting roughly 20%—or 14,500 votes. That's only 12% of the total caucus electorate, which means for Trump to get to 30% he's going to need to clean up in other demos, which when combined make up less than half of the total turnout.
This is why new voters and record turnout are vital to Trump's chances in Iowa, and why his polling is much more dominant in New Hampshire by comparison. The granite state is a primary, which is more convenient than a caucus, and it's also an open primary that anyone can vote in regardless of party affiliation.
However, even if Trump's campaign is successful at bringing in new voters-and so far there has been no uptick in GOP registrations this cycle-his task is still formidable.
Let's say turnout in Iowa on February 1st reaches a new record of 150,000 voters, which would be a massive 20% increase. That probably won't happen, but for the sake of argument let's just say that it does. And then let's say Trump receives a monstrous 70% of those 25,000 new voters. That probably won't happen, either, but for the sake of argument let's just say that it does.
That gives Trump 17,500 votes. To get to 30% overall, Trump would still need another 27,500 voters. In other words, even with the greatest new voter turnout machine the state (and maybe the GOP itself) has ever seen, Trump would still need to receive more votes from the traditional caucus electorate than Dole received in his 1996 caucus victory in order to win.
Impact-If Trump wins Iowa, then he may be unstoppable the rest of the way. A win here would cement his frontrunner status in New Hampshire, and organizationally he may actually be strongest in South Carolina. Every candidate that has won at least two of the first three early states has always gone on to be the nominee, and in this scenario we're talking about the prospect of Trump winning all three.
Probably the only thing that would stop Trump would be for the race to come down to a two-man battle between Cruz and himself before the March 1st Super Tuesday in the South, where Cruz is strongest.
Rubio needs to knock Christie out in Iowa, otherwise his chances of emerging post-New Hampshire as the clear establishment choice could be mortally wounded.
Scenario #3-A Mad Scramble for Third Place
Cruz and Trump are the only two candidates who could win Iowa outright, but there are several potential third place finishers, and third place matters in Iowa. Historically, Republicans have never nominated someone who didn’t finish in Iowa's top three (McCain was three-tenths of a percentage point behind Thompson for third in 2008, which is a virtual tie).
Currently, Marco Rubio has third place in Iowa all to himself at 11.6 percent in the Real Clear Politics polling average. However, he has no real organizational anchor in the state. He's entrenched neither in the business community nor the churches, which is where the strongest organizations in the caucuses are located.
Ben Carson, though cratering nationally, still has a decent organization on the ground in Iowa. Consequently, if he can regain any of his footing following his recent campaign shakeup, it's possible he could still finish third.
The only chance for someone to be a last-minute insurgent in Iowa is Chris Christie, who is the favorite of the Governor Terry Branstad-led Iowa GOP establishment. With their backing, Christie could have the organizational infrastructure it takes to out-perform his current polling in the state-and probably at the expense of Rubio.
Impact: Not all third places are created equal. For instance, suppose Rubio finishes third in Iowa but captures 10% of the vote. Way behind Cruz-Trump. Meanwhile, Christie is right on his heels at 8-9%. Now throw in Christie's rise in New Hampshire and you could make an argument he comes out of Iowa the stronger candidate between the two.
That would be a devastating outcome for Rubio, as would a fourth place finish in the state, which is certainly possible. Rubio is in this position because of self-inflicted errors. First, he's simply been out-worked in Iowa. Second, he decided to rehash his Gang of Eight membership with Cruz rather than first consolidating the establishment/moderate vote. Now he's fighting a two-front war, and Napoleon can tell you those rarely end well.
Rubio needs to knock Christie out in Iowa, otherwise his chances of emerging post-New Hampshire as the clear establishment choice could be mortally wounded.
Finally, Carson finishing third would be a throw away. He has zero chance nationally of being the nominee. So the best he can do is end up with the most expensive third place campaign in the history of the Iowa Caucuses.
Steve Deace has endorsed Ted Cruz for president.
Steve Deace is carrying Cruz’s water in Iowa so I’d expect a rosy scenario here. And suspiciously, I just read the same drivel on Red State comparing Trump to Howard Dean which seems to be the new mantra of the establishment. Isn’t that something that Mr. Conservative Steve Deace is spouting the same exact words as Leon Wolf, a known establishment Trump hater at Red State? It’s not possible that Cruz and Deace are really part of the establishment is it?
What’s to stop IA from voting for Ben Carson ???
Rubio and Fiorina could siphon of a few votes too...
Jebbie could get 5% or so..
Rand Paul is still in the race...
Huckabee could take some too...
the rest might get 1% or so theres about 10 of them...
I think Trump should get the most votes but it could be Cruz..
at this point its anyones guess...
I think Trumps funding and praising of the Clintons shows him to be the one who is part of the establishment. He did change, though. He did it to fool people.
All of these-—pro-Cruz and pro-Trump-—pieces on IA miss the crucial delegate count, which is that the winner will get 10-15, the loser will get 8-10, and the others will get a couple. So all these articles are focused only on the “metaphysical” and symbolic “what if,” namely what if Cruz wins. . . will it dent Trump’s “inevitability”? Of course, that only works IF Trump has a fragile ego who would be shocked and crushed by a Cruz victory in IA. It doesn’t work if Trump is, in fact, in it for the long haul and reels off 4-5 successive victories.
Cruz’ people and Trump’s people will be immovable at the caucuses. Carson’s people may also be immovable,a nd Carson will remain good for 10%. Fiorina may hold her 5% or so because her voters know they are floating her for VP. She doesn’t need delegates, just a showing. The Christie, Kasich and John Ellis Bush people (<5%) are going to be pressured at the caucuses by the Rubio people to join up with Rubio as the only way to stop the Trump/Cruz train. I expect Cruz, Trump, Rubio, Carson, Fiorina, and asterisks for John Ellis Bush, Kasich and Christie. The handful Huck/Santorum supporters will go with either Cruz or their original candidate, again for VP visibility or just plain stubbornness.
Yes, I suppose it’s possible that Cruz is GOPe...and that all those GOPe guys who hate him are actually his best friends. Of course it’s also POSSIBLE that Hillary Clinton didn’t know it was illegal to transmit classified information on unsecured emails.
Possible, but highly improbable.
Mm math :)
It’s all turnout. Trump has the populist fervor, but it may turn out that Cruz has huge groundwork that goes unnoticed until the day after the election.
Either way, I see both candidates killing Hillary in the election. I think Trump my take NY state from Hillary and thus flip the electoral to over 310-330.
I just hope Bernie gets pissed and runs third party. The DNC would have to take him out to have any of their down-ballot candidates win.
“What’s to stop IA from voting for Ben Carson ???”
Ben Carson is done. He has revealed that he is not made of the right stuff to be President.
And that’s what the caucus/primary/(series of debates) system is supposed to do.
I think it’s a foregone conclusion Cruz will win in Iowa...
Trump will finish second...which because it’s a caucus is a strong showing...
caucuses take a LOT of early ground game and I don’t think Trump was on top of it as well as people think...
If I know Trump, he will take a second place finish and learn from it and move on...rather than pull a Dean...
Calling Iowans stupid was not his finest moment
Yes. Agreed.
#4 Trump wins big.
Steve Deace, as annoying as he is, has the actual facts right in this case, even if not the conclusions.
Cruz has a formidable ground game and has always had under-reported support in Iowa. Trump is close behind, but with even more enthusiastic casual support. Carson also has always had under-reported support.
Neither Jeb! nor Rubio have a ground game, and aren’t favorites of the Iowa GOP establishment. And that Iowa GOP establishment would like to resurrect Christie.
I am hoping this will not happen. Fortunately, I don't think it's likely. Iowa is simply irrelevant to Christie's strategy. No one is going to dismiss Christie over Iowa, and Christie is not going to give up over a state that is so different from his appeal, not when he's hoping to see Cruz and/or Trump self-destruct, and he's hoping to see Jeb and/or Rubio give up after an irredeemable failure. Christie is not on the spot, so a low level of support doesn't harm him the way that it would harm Jeb or Rubio. Christie's strategy is to be the white knight who rescues the GOP establishment after their top two choices crash and burn. It's not a bad strategy, but it requires staying in the race.
Especially if Trump were to react to such a defeat with a meltdown that makes Howard Dean's scream look like the Gettysburg Address . . . Let's say turnout in Iowa on February 1st reaches a new record of 150,000 voters . . . Trump receives a monstrous 70% of those 25,000 new voters. That probably won't happen, either, but for the sake of argument let's just say that it does.
A Trump meltdown is extremely unlikely. He will have people coaching him through how to handle the results, regardless of what is happening, and his instincts are generally pretty good. He'll handle it well, even if Cruz beats him convincingly.
Also, I think Trump getting 70% of "new" voters is likely an underestimate. Ignoring "new" voters who are simply the people who would have voted without Trump and are essentially keeping the Iowa caucus demographic stable, Trump gets nearly 100% of the genuinely new voters. The real question is how many new voters he can bring in, and I don't think anyone outside the Trump campaign knows (and perhaps not even inside his campaign). I wish I could say that anger at Washington will bring in new Cruz voters, but it won't. The Cruz voters are productive Americans, and not enough of them have the time for the caucus process. Cruz needs the traditional caucus voters and a traditional ground game to bring in his traditional share of those voters.
Republican voters in Iowa have sided with their party's eventual nominees only half the time in the six competitive races since 1976, according to caucus records. Democratic voters in that state, on the other hand, have fared much better, supporting all but a couple of the eventual nominees since 1972.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.