Hillary and Bernie fought to a virtual stand-still, which is a good sign for Bernie, since Iowa is not really his kind of place. Sanders won the male vote overwhelmingly (50-42), and crushed it with all young voters. He stomped Clinton 84-15 among voters below 30 years of age, and won 58-37 among voters aged 30-44. Bernie might actually become President if he can actually get under-30s to the polls, because they love the guy!
-----------------------
Trump finished a disappointing second, and almost fell all the way to third because both Cruz and Rubio polled better than expected. Rubio actually performed very well in the urbanized and college areas. He won Des Moines, Ames, Davenport and Iowa City and finished second in Cedar Rapids. Cruz won Cedar Rapids.
Cruz won all age groups, but there were some interesting splits along educational lines. Cruz won only the "some college" demographic. More educated voters went for Rubio, while the least educated went for Trump.
Along ideological lines, there was a clear split. Cruz won the very conservative group, Rubio won the somewhat conservative bloc, and Trump won the moderates. Rubio and Trump got some solid support across all three groups, but Cruz's numbers were polarized. He got 44% of the very conservative voters, but only 9% of the moderates.
In terms of delegates, Cruz will get seven, while Trump and Rubio will win six each. Ben Carson will pick up two, Rand Paul 1.
Monday, February 01, 2016
Iowa Caucuses Results
Iowa Caucuses Results
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My theory on Hillary, which I've held since at least 2007, is that she's always the "unbeatable, inevitable winner" until there is any -- ANY -- other choice: "You say she's being challenged by an unknown, completely inexperienced, far-left, black community organizer from Chicago who shares the same name as Saddam Hussein? Sounds better than Hillary!" Now: "She's being challenged by a 74-year-old Vermont socialist who sounds like Jackie Mason sending back the lox at a Brooklyn deli? Hey, sounds better than Hillary!" I have always contended that if the only alternative to Hillary were a rabid junkyard dog, a majority of voters would ask, "How advanced is the case of rabies?"
ReplyDeleteIt is disheartening to see so many young people are ignorant of socialism and its effects. I'd love to send them to Venezuela on a toilet paper hunt for a couple of weeks.
Re: young folks' infatuation with socialism, I'm convinced the fall of the USSR has played a huge part in that particular generational shift. When communist Russia went belly up, America lost the yang to its yen. Us older folks grew up with daily reminders in news and other media of what happens to the populous when a large nation tries to operate under such a system. In the 1950s through the 1990s, "So what's so wrong with socialism?" was considered a ridiculous question because unless you lived under the proverbial rock, everyone already knew the answer. When the Soviet Union ceased to be the other superpower, there was no longer anything to compare and contrast to America's largely unfettered capitalism, which, while it may not be perfect, never had to put up a wall with guard towers to keep people from running away.
ReplyDeleteWell, that wall hasn't existed for 26 years now, and nobody's seeing daily reminders of toilet paper rationing in Venezuela.
Except socialism isn't necessarily communism. Communism is a form of socialism, but isn't all of socialism. Communism is an extreme version of socialism. That's what the older generation doesn't seem to grasp because of the USSR.
ReplyDeleteAnd what the younger generation doesn't grasp, either due to youthful idealism or an ignorance of history, is that all systems of economics and/or government eventually morph into extreme versions of themselves. A government given more power will only take more power. Capitalists pursuing profit will only pursue more profit. Strict democracies will inevitably oppress minorities. That's human nature.
ReplyDeleteThe notion that, "[insert system with an infinite history of failure here] isn't bad, it just hasn't yet been run by the right people who won't take it too far" is hardly new. It's also been invariably wrong throughout the course of humanity. Why? Because it's the nature of those systems that even if the right people ever existed, it turns them into the wrong people.
Look at what's happened to our own congress as it's been given more power to incentivize and regulate more and more things over the decades. Gee, they've become increasingly corrupt and bought off by special interests. Imagine that! We love to blame the special interests for paying, and we love to blame the congresspeople for accepting, but no one ever blames the creation of the conditions that has made both groups' actions so worthwhile.