For the Record: When is winning actually winning?
When is winning really winning?
That’s the big question now that all eyes are on New Hampshire. Everyone’s trying to dissect what the Iowa results mean for the candidates left standing. And, not surprisingly, it’s a convoluted mess.
WHERE WINNERS LOSE AND LOSERS WIN
In a word, this stage of the nomination process is all about expectations. It doesn’t necessarily matter if you come in first or second in the early states, but whether you were expected to come in first or second. That’s why the bar is so much higher for Bernie Sanders to perform well in New Hampshire, for example. Polls have him running away with the win there, and if he wins by only, say, 2 percentage points, that may actually be a loss because he didn’t beat the spread. And his campaign could quickly lose momentum, because after New Hampshire, the focus moves to the South, where Hillary Clinton has commanding leads in many states.
WHAT MATTERS MOST IN NEW HAMPSHIRE?
The Democratic stakes are fairly clear-cut: Sanders has to wipe the floor with Clinton to keep the contest alive. But don’t expect much to be settled among Republicans in New Hampshire. Donald Trump is still ahead in polls there, but even if Ted Cruz performs well (polls before Iowa put him in a comfortable second), the battle for frontrunner likely will continue into South Carolina. More interesting for Republicans may be the contest for third. Marco Rubio did much better than expected in Iowa, but his establishment rivals John Kasich and Chris Christie have been working New Hampshire hard for months. Kasich and Christie need strong showings to stay alive, and if Rubio beats them, he’ll pretty much be the establishment heir apparent.
WHEN NOT CAMPAIGNING HELPS
A few weeks ago, pundits were basically like, WTF, Marco Rubio? He wasn’t campaigning much in Iowa, preferring to use infomercials and social media to spread his message instead of visiting tiny towns and eating buttered corn on a stick. In a populist state like Iowa, conventional wisdom went, Rubio needed a ground game, and since he didn’t have one, was he even really trying to win the nomination? But in Bizarro Political World, apparently, going the less personal route was a winner. The big question: Will that work in New Hampshire, too? Rubio's fashionable boots have been there far less than his establishment rivals' sensible loafers.
GET YOUR BETS IN EARLY
Las Vegas oddsmaker Jimmy Vaccaro released his list of likelihoods for president and vice president last week (*for entertainment purposes only, you understand), and the results were … interesting. Trump was at the top of the GOP heap for president, with Cruz and Rubio tied for second. Rubio had the best odds of becoming VP, though. Hillary Clinton had a lock on the Democratic presidential nomination, with Joe Biden (who bowed out months ago) more likely than Sanders to win. And on the VP side? Bill Clinton. Really. With any luck, Vaccaro will update the odds before New Hampshire, so we can make our friendly wagers. Loser gets to wear the other team’s colors, a la the “congratulatory” speech John McCain was forced to make Monday on the Senate floor.
MORE FROM THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL
- 3 reasons why all of those polls were so wrong in Iowa – hint: anger and underestimation were factors (Paste BN)
- A last-minute scramble to report caucus results amid record turnout brought chaos, consternation and other C words (Des Moines Register)
- Clinton officially wins Iowa after hours of calling it a tie. Her “well, duh” reaction: Winning is better than losing! (Paste BN On Politics)
WHEN YOU CAUCUS NEAR GROUNDHOG DAY
Like the blizzard Phil the weatherman never predicted, Iowa’s unexpected results may have opened up a time warp, forcing us to vote, poll and analyze the results in each state until you people get it right. Which makes this clip from “Groundhog Day” oh so very apropos.