Will the left-leaning people of Iowa throw their lot in with a dedicated liar, or will they go with a Socialist who wants to raise taxes across the board to pay for freebies?
Will the right-leaning go with Trump or Cruz or Rubio or someone else entirely? Who is going to get the support of the Bible belt folks, those Evangelical Christians who make up a goodly proportion of Iowa's citizens?
Poor Iowa. It's a little state pretty much in the middle of the middle. It's a quiet place most of the time. Except for now. Now every single news organization that can find an airport has people on the ground. It's great for the local economy. All the hotels are packed, the restaurants are full. People who don't live there are talking about hash browns and 'hot pot' and admiring the stoicism of the locals while the outsiders shiver in their expensive coats and the regular folks stand around in shirt sleeves or a light sweater. And tomorrow, after the hoorah and excitement, the place will empty and the regular folks can go back to being regular folks. Most of whom (the majority, most likely) will heave a sigh of relief to have the party over and their place back to themselves.
The process in Iowa is interesting, too. Two different processes across the two different parties.
The Dems get together in meeting halls and school gymnasiums and other places and they talk the subject to death. Neighbor-a-neighbor, mano-a-mano, and try to convince others to 'vote' for their candidate of choice. At the end of the day that process can be manipulated because if someone in the Hilliary camp decides to defect but doesn't want to go with Berns, they can walk across the room and stand around with the three percent supporting O'Malley.
Now that's not right, because it skews the O'Malley three percent. Perhaps it bumps his numbers up to five or six percent. Of course, that extra couple of percentage points doesn't matter in the end because a candidate has to have fifteen percent of the 'vote' in order to be considered 'viable'. Then, once the votes are tallied, those low percentage folks have a choice: leave or go with one of the other candidates.
On the other side, the Republicans show up and gather 'round, probably with cake and cookies and coffee and tea and whatever. Representatives for each of the candidates will stand up and speechify - why everyone should vote for their candidate. Then they talk about it for a while and then they write their preferred candidate's name on a slip of paper and, I guess, drop it into a box. Toward the end of the evening, or after the caucus closes, the votes are counted and the winner is announced.
It sounds like an interesting place to be on caucus day, just as an observer to see how the sausage is made.
Then, eight days from now, New Hampshire voters will have their say. That is the more traditional method of going into a voting booth, all by yourself, and marking a ballot or pushing a button or pulling a lever. Of course the press will be there, too, following the candidates all over the place and disrupting the normal lives of the folks. Once that to do is over and the candidates get a sense of whether they're 'viable' after all, the field of candidates will start to thin but the press hounds will just converge more tightly around their assigned candidate.
Candidates will drop out, backing another candidate or not, depending on a variety of factors. Some will just walk away and go back home to start paying back the debt they've incurred. One or two, if they truly believe in the positions of their candidate of choice, might be encouraged to actively stump for their chosen one, or they'll at least make one or two appearances, probably for appearance sake. 'Yes, I really believe in so-and-so, they'll make a fine president.' Leaving on the table the future quid pro quo, of course.
It's going to be really interesting to see who stays and who goes because, by all sensible standards, O'Malley on the left should be gone by now. He's pulling just three percent of the vote. On the right, there are five candidates I can name who should, by all rights, be gone: Gilmore, Kasich, Fiorina, Bush and Santorum.
I name Bush instead of Rand Paul because Bush has the baggage of his family behind him. His father lied to us, 'Read my lips...' and his brother dragged us into a war that many said we should never have gotten into. Regardless of the legitimacy of the war, we did manage to further destabilize an already unstable region of the world. Not a good track record for that family name, and I doubt that Bush III would be much different in his policies than his brother or his father. I also look at Bush III and compare him to Bush II and Bush I and see a much weaker individual. Not what we need at this time.
I happen to like a lot of what Rand Paul stands for. Not all of it, but enough of it that I'd like to see him keep going for a while, and keep talking about things like auditing the Federal Reserve and fiscal conservatism.
As for Fiorina, I like her. I think she's smart bordering on brilliant in some respects. She's clear in her messaging, but it's just not going to fly for her given her baggage with her time at Hewlett-Packard, and I think she has a name recognition problem. Do I see her in Washington? Sure, as the head of the Department of Commerce or another cabinet position, but I'm sure Donald has other ideas (and probably better).
So, who's it going to be after the Iowa dust settles?
On the Right, I hope it's Trump because I like the idea of someone not tied to and bound by the Washington cartels. I also really like the fact that Trump has a broad background of managing and running things.
In the last days running up to the caucuses, Cruz really blew it. He stooped to one of the sleaziest and most misleading methods to get people out to the polls by stuffing Iowan's mailboxes with this:
Intimidating? Yeah, I would say so. And, at first glance, for an older voter who is easily confused or someone unsophisticated or less educated, it could really be fear inducing. Which is where the sleaze factor comes in. Engendering fear in order to garner votes is nothing less than disgusting.
Before this cheap stunt, I would have said that Cruz would be an acceptable alternative to Trump because of his hard-core conservatism. Now, with this, huh uh. No thanks. It's low, cheap, seedy, despicable... Pick your pejorative because this kind of ploy is not how politics should work. This is not a shining example for How To Win an Election. All it is is a low-down intimidating trick of the worst sort and it paints the entire right-of-center field in a bad way.
Now, going into New Hampshire, he will be dragging the baggage of in Iowa Secretary of State investigation. I'll say it again: despicable, and it smacks of desperation. It sure as heck isn't going to play well in other places as the election cycle draws on. I don't like it, and I imagine a lot of other people don't like it.
However, in listening to the talking heads across the networks last night, it seems as if this isn't the first time something like this has been done.
Apparently, Obama did it in 2008, and Rubio did it this time around. Maybe the locals are used to it. Nonetheless, it's still sleazy and underhand.
On the Left, I hope to heaven it's Bernie in Iowa. I do, really, because of that little indictment issue dangling over Hilliary's head. This would get a whole lot more interesting if Berns wins and she comes second, because it already looks like Berns is a shoo-in up in New Hampshire. That would leave the DNC with a problem. Keep pushing Hilliary with two early losses, despite that increasingly likely indictment (if she loses Iowa and New Hampshire, I do think the DNC is going to sacrifice her), or cut their losses and move in with someone else - Biden / Warren or Warren / Biden?
Now they might wait until after Nevada and South Carolina on February 20th, but if it looks like Comey is going to move, they might not.
Nonetheless, it's going to be an interesting day followed by an interesting month. Settle into your seats and hang onto your popcorn, folks. It's going to be an exciting ride!
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
No comments:
Post a Comment