Iowa caucus cacophany

Last night's most heroic moment arrived when CNN called the GOP race with a mere 99 percent of the vote totals in. The most perplexing moment was a protracted affair; John King's repeated references to Donald Trump's splitting of the establishment vote with Marco Rubio. Other than that, all we can say about Iowa, that odd little outpost of democracy, is that white prayers and bleached faith paid off, respectively, for Ted and Bernie.

Of course Sanders was primed to declare victory no matter what. Had the vote been 60-40 or 75-25 for Hillary, Bernie would have juxtaposed the final result with his starting point of 3. The NY Times says he'll now "be able to argue that the Iowa result was a virtual tie" — which it was, even though it was also a loss. But again, no matter. Except for Martin O'Malley and Mike Huckabee's, the spin belching today from every camp will be unendurable.

Yesterday afternoon I listened to Sanders in a network interview and experienced the most peculiar sort of despair. Don't get me wrong, I like Bernie; I admire his pluck and, as a democratic socialist myself, I find his idealism quite agreeable. Yet I had known for months that what Sanders was peddling was pure fantasy (as is most idealism) — all this talk of single-payer and free college and whatnot. As president, Sanders couldn't get from A to B, let alone to legislative P, Z, or even C.

But yesterday in that interview, for some unknown reason the absolute emptiness of Bernie's assorted "We're going to do this and we're going to do that" struck me acutely and crushingly. I felt only pity for him and especially for those who believed his fantasy was real.

We've one more week of ideological inebriation in the second of two very white and unrepresentative states; then, most likely, back to political sobriety.

As for last night's Republican outcome, my emotions were those of ambivalence. I was joyful indeed at Cruz's near 28 percent, the winning plurality, yet my prayers for Trump had gone unanswered. The latter's Iowa-closing-out speech was just downright pathetic. And now whither The Donald's always-triumphant demeanor? The gloss is either gone or it's fading.

On the other hand, there's always that unendurable spin — showman that he is, conceivably Trump can convert his second-place Iowa showing into Bill Clinton's second-place New Hampshire victory. At any rate, I felt sorry for Trump as he stood at the podium last night, trying his billionaire best to act as though he hadn't been reamed by Ted's corn-fed hayseeds.

It is they, one assumes, who constitute the great, Cruz-committed, hardcore, courageously conservative multitudes who shall sweep the republic clean of sin in November? All 28 percent of them — and that percentage within a minority national party? Could it really be that the most detested man in all the detestable GOP is now the frontrunner?

Even better is this astounding observation by the Times: "The five current or former governors [including Bush, Kasich and Christie] still running won a combined 8 percent — less than what the retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson received." The youthful Floridian Wunderklutz has his work cut out for him.

The expansive circle of the Great Republican Tail-Chase has contracted. The Huck is gone, Santorum and Carson will soon follow, most of their evangelical fleas will jump to Cruz, Rubio will somehow double down on his piety, and there's Trump — there's always The Donald — for whom I'm still rooting, but I'll settle for Ted.

 

Comments

[Peter G]

It was a fascinating exercise in spin generation. The days and hours leading up to it tested the punditry sorely as they struggled to find new and different ways to say "it's all about turnout" and conceal that they didn't know anything else. And now? Well now they know that it was all about turnout and they don't know anything else. But the speculative market for speculation seems strong.

[Anne J]

I think a Ted Cruz nomination would do much more damage and be more likely to split up the republican party than a Donald Trump one would. Ted Cruz shut down the government that he now wants to lead. Does no one else see something wrong with this picture?

[Turgidson]

Ted Cruz is also easily the most contemptible figure in all of politics, on every level. I watch that smug, sanctimonious piece of shit with his greasy McCarthyesque look and nasal voice and wonder if his wife even likes being around him. He's just such a creep. There's no way a smarmy douchebag like that wins a general election. I think Bernie would even beat him like a drum.

[Turgidson]

I feel like the Dem result (now that it looks official that Hillary pulled it out) was the best possible. Hillary will have to put up with some media pearl clutching but not the "OMG SHE'S DOOMED" bullshit that we all know they were ready to fire off if she lost by even a single vote. She'll probably lose New Hampshire but then get to business cleaning up in the diverse states that follow.

The Democrats will have a vigorous primary for a while longer, their sanity will get some additional exposure, but Hillary will be in a commanding position by early March and can go about uniting the party behind her to gear up for the beatdown she'll need to put on whatever vile hairball gets coughed up by the GOP (and with Cruz's win, I doubt they settle things until late spring or summer).

A strange, kinda nerve-wracking, but ultimately productive night for the party of sanity. Onward.

[Bob]

For what Iowa is worth, which isn't much, the results are encouraging. Their support for Cruz will further discredit political evangelicals, Trump might send the Republican Queen of Mad Tea Parties back down the rabbit hole, and Bernie's commendable if unrealistic bern put real smoke on the distant horizon. Best of all the Republicans opened fire on their own feet in full auto.

[Peter G]

Just long enough too. Clinton's do not make random political speeches. What Hillary did and would have done regardless of a narrow win or loss, was set up the winning paradigm of the conflict between the heart and mind of the Democratic party. With herself cast as the mind. We all love people of good heart but we want the brains to stay in charge. And because this paradigm has absolutely nothing to do with the actual demographics that will soon show that the mind is winning over the heart all will unfold as it should.

I expect the Clinton campaign will want to bring on as many of Bernie's supporters as possible in due course so they will avoid mentioning directly his biggest problem. Which is that if you cropped out Bernie's picture and his name from shirts and signs you could not tell his rallies from those held by the GOP. They are awfully pale.

[Tom Benjamin]

At what point do we stop saying we admire Bernie and like his pluck and start saying that he is peddling bullshit and he knows he is peddling bullshit.

In the short run he is hurting the Democratic party.

[RT]

"Ted Cruz shut down the government that he now wants to lead. Does no one else see something wrong with this picture?"

It's all wrong, but there is a logic to it. Ted Cruz would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven. Exhorting the House "Freedom Caucus" to vote for a shutdown was the only leadership he's shown in Congress. Now he's trying to win the ultimate promotion so he can turn all of America (and the world) into hell.

[Neon Vincent]

"[T]he speculative market for speculation seems strong."

Speaking of which, PredictWise, which had been predicting that Rubio was the most likely nominee until a couple of weeks ago, is now even more firmly betting (literally, so pun fully intended) on a Rubio victory. Rubio was last the favorite at 33% chance to win when Trump passed him. Yesterday, Trump peaked at 52% before falling to 26%. Rubio jumped from 33% to 55% overnight.

http://predictwise.com/politics/

[Bob]

So glad I'm not the most cynical guy on the block. As I've maintained from the beginning, Bernie is trying to popularize democratic socialism, not necessarily win the candidacy. His messaging and support is invaluable to the cause. For the last 35 years we've heard almost nothing in this country but bullshit about the wonders of the "free market" and how government is the enemy. We need someone like Bernie, and he's filling the bill quite well.

[Bob]

"... are invaluable". I've been living in the South too long.

[Tom Benjamin]

I understand what you are saying, Bob. I agree that the free market blather and the government as enemy meme has to change. The problem is that Bernie's message is also fundamentally anti-government.

When he eventually loses - the nomination, the general (shudder), or because he becomes a weak and ineffectual president - nobody in his tribe will say it was because Hillary (Rubio) is a better candidate or because Bernie's policies aren't quite as popular as he thinks. It will be because the oligarchs have rigged the system.

If it is true that Congress has been bought and paid for, why should any of us bother with the political process? If it is true, it can hardly be an effective argument to make government bigger and Washington more influential in American life. Shouldn't we make a corrupt system as small and powerless as we can make it? Is it sensible to feed corruption?

Isn't Bernie making an argument for becoming a libertarian?