Tuesday, February 02, 2016

Iowa results ambiguous for 2016 presidential race; will partisanship and ideology rule over pragmatism?

As of this writing, Hillary Clinton barely squeaked out a “win” over Bernie Sanders, and Ted Cruz stunned Donald Trump, and Marco Rubio (probably more moderate than the first two) finished almost tied with Trump.

Cruz bragged that the next president will not be chosen by the media, the Washington establishment, and lobbyists.  But at least his comments stayed away from sounding discriminatory (finally). Maybe he’s learning.  I hope so.  Cruz probably is the favorite to win the nomination.

In Iowa, the Democratic Party caucus process is a little more complicated than the GOP’s, but both take considerable time from voters.  Some people host caucuses in their homes.  The rules have changed several times in recent years, but it appears that in both parties the delegates are bound on the first ballot in a proportional manner, so there is no “winner take all”, and declaring a “winner” is not that critical.

Still, strategists are wondering if Trump’s tactic last week as "The Man Who Wasn’t There" (the 2001 Coen Brothers black and white comedy movie, complete with UFO’s) backfired after all, despite Cruz having appeared to be on the defensive.

I believe a race between two extremes (Sanders v. either Trump or Cruz) is not good for the country.  Except for immigration, Trump is more “liberal” on social issues than Cruz, as he had LGBT candidates on his “Apprentice” series and had no problem with it. Hillary’s email scandal is probably a sideshow (she probably had reason to believe that “working from home” would be OK when she did it) and her actual proposals are much more pragmatic and doable.  (If this is wrong, and she gets into real legal trouble, the Democrats are left with a far left candidate, not good.) The best matchup for the nation would be Hillary Clinton v. Marco Rubio.

 Fox News has the results here.

Picture is from Minnesota (2011).

No comments: