2024 USA Election: Wishin' and Hopin'

[Fitzcarraldo]

An alternative view that argues Trump's victory in Iowa was not decisive. Crunches the numbers, worth watching

It was as decisive as it could be in Iowa.

[KnightHawk 2.0]

It was as decisive as it could be in Iowa.

Agree it was.

[Luke Warm]

Trump will certainly win the nomination no matter what, but Iowa was a pretty weak showing. If Biden only got 50% of the primary vote, with the remainder going to Marianne Williamson and (whatshisname from North Dakota) everyone would be freaking out right now. Plus turnout was very low. And Iowa is supposedly a Trump stronghold.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Trump will certainly win the nomination no matter what, but Iowa was a pretty weak showing. If Biden only got 50% of the primary vote, with the remainder going to Marianne Williamson and (whatshisname from North Dakota) everyone would be freaking out right now. Plus turnout was very low. And Iowa is supposedly a Trump stronghold.

Not true. It was the biggest margin of victory ever:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-i...in-of-victory/

[Stavros]

Not true. It was the biggest margin of victory ever:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-i...in-of-victory/

We appear to have two different assessments of the result.

[Fitzcarraldo]

We appear to have two different assessments of the result.

One is based on historical data.

[filghy2]

Trump will certainly win the nomination no matter what, but Iowa was a pretty weak showing. If Biden only got 50% of the primary vote, with the remainder going to Marianne Williamson and (whatshisname from North Dakota) everyone would be freaking out right now. Plus turnout was very low. And Iowa is supposedly a Trump stronghold.

That seems like a weak analogy given Trump is not the incumbent and his two main opponents are far more substantial than those two non-entities. If he'd got 51% against Asa Hutchinson and Doug Burgum you might have a point.

For comparison, Biden received 51.6% of the votes in Democrat primaries last time, and generally less than this in the earlier contests before most of his opponents dropped out. In South Carolina, which started his comeback, be got 49%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Result...tial_primaries

The low turnout argument for discounting the Iowa result relies on some very heroic assumptions. The obvious cause was very cold weather, so you have to assume that this mainly affected non-Trump supporters but not Trump supporters. You also have to assume the national polls showing Trump with a commanding lead among Republicans are totally wrong.

[Luke Warm]

For all practical purposes, Trump is an incumbent. He’s the presumed nominee, so to have soft support - 50% have a different 1st choice- is a bad sign. If Biden only gets 50% in a primary, as an incumbent, that’s equally bad.

The weather has nothing to do with anything. It’s cold in Iowa every winter. The issue is voter enthusiasm, weather is just a convenient excuse. Motivated voters would wait in line for 6 hours to vote (and in some places, they do). Enthusiasm is high among MAGA but that’s only 30% of voters. The voter base gets larger every year, as our population grows. But Republican turnout was lower in Iowa this year than it was in 2022, 2020 and 2016.

For comparison, Biden received 51.6% of the votes in Democrat primaries last time, and generally less than this in the earlier contests before most of his opponents dropped out.

Biden was not the incumbent, and few people expected him to win the nomination. Biden was not the presumptive nominee in 2020. Trump is the presumptive nominee this year, and always has been.

We may be talking past each other here, since it seems like you are arguing against points I’m not making. IMO Trump is 100% definitely the nominee, but at this early point in the process, his support looks weak among non-MAGA Republicans and Independents. Since national elections are won by extremely small margins, that’s a bad sign for Trump.

. You also have to assume the national polls showing Trump with a commanding lead among Republicans are totally wrong.

I don’t understand your comment. I have been saying that Trump will be the Republican nominee for basically forever. DeSantis and the other jokers never even had a chance, right from the beginning it was a doomed mission.

[filghy2]

I think you are assuming incorrectly that all my comments were directed at you, rather than other posters. It's a discussion, not a duologue.

The problem is that it's hard to find a benchmark for comparison because no defeated President has ever run again. It's true that it's not like a normal open primary, but nor is is like a normal incumbency situation because incumbents rarely have any significant internal opposition. As far as I can recall, the last time this happened was in 1980 when Ted Kennedy ran against Jimmy Carter.

[filghy2]

Biden was not the incumbent, and few people expected him to win the nomination.

Hardly. Biden was the most favoured nominee in virtually all polls, except for the period when he did badly in the early primaries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...tial_primaries