Hawkeye Thoughts

There is talk that because Trump did not win Iowa that he is now toast.  He failed the expectations game and his support will now desert him.  I am doubtful.  Unlike a primary, a caucus requires a much greater commitment.  Stopping by your local polling station to pull a lever is a lot easier than attending a caucus.  There are efforts by other participants to win you to their candidate while you try to woo them to yours.  Since one is committing the evening to the event rather than just swinging by the polling station, a ground organization is far more important in Iowa.  Had Iowa been a primary, Trump likely would have won.  The big test will be how he does in the New Hampshire Primary.  If he doesn't win this one, then his support may ebb.

Though Rubio looks to be on the rise, he has the huge issue of his Gang of Eight fiasco.  In a year when an outsider like Trump was able to rocket to the top on the issue of immigration, it would be folly to nominate a Senator who attempted to foist amnesty on the voters.  Immigration is the Republicans' trump card and Rubio cannot play it.  This duplicates how Romney could not press Obama on Obamacare thanks to his passage of Romneycare in Massachusetts.  I like Rubio but this is the wrong year for his run.  He's young and has plenty of time to come back in later years, hopefully after atoning for his Amnesty foolishness.

 

Hillary is in big trouble.  Her two tenths of one percent victory is really a tie.  Bernie, who has been largely ignored by the media, somehow closed a double-digit gap thanks to a message that resonated with the base.  The base loves the farthest left candidate and Hillary can't credibly go there thanks to her history.  She voted for Bush's Iraq invasion, she lobbied Obama to stay in Iraq, for a greater commitment in Syria, and was the top cheerleader for the Libyan adventure.  She is comparatively a hawk in a party dominated by doves.  The party doesn't want Bernie - which is why he gets as little coverage as he does and why there are so few debates - and will probably enlist Biden or Warren if Hillary doesn't turn things around quickly.

 

Bernie is a true believer.  Most Democrats deliver the same lines that Bernie does but, once safely in office, they sidle up to the fat cats on Wall Street and enjoy the sweet life.  Bernie will attempt the socialist ideals he espouses, ruining that sweet life for all Washington elites.  When no one thought he had a chance, he was treated as the crazy uncle.  Now that he has gained traction, the long knives will come out.

 

Carson peaked too soon and is unlikely to recapture it.  He is unlikely to break the top 5 in New Hampshire.  He would have been more suited to the campaigning styles of earlier eras.  The 24 hour news cycle rewards larger than life personalities while overlooking the quietly humble.  The former is more entertaining but the latter is better suited to the presidency.

 

Kasich, Jeb, and Christie need a good showing to keep the money rolling.  I doubt Christie is going much beyond New Hampshire as many are still annoyed with his embracing Obama only days before the 2012 election.  Efforts were made to enlist him in 2012 but now he isn't wanted.  He missed his window.  Jeb wants to stay in the field and hope to benefit from the winnowing.  Short of some serious disasters for the top tier candidates, I don't see a route for his recovery, and for that I am thankful.

What a Differnce Party-Affiliation Makes

It appears that the media is going through Ben Carson's biography Gifted Hands (1990) with a fine toothcomb in order to demonstrate that he is not qualified for the Presidency.  So far, there have been stories about his informal invitation to attend West Point, his self-reported but unconfirmable (by the media) violent youth, his meeting of General Westmoreland, and even his claim that he ushered some white students into a lab to protect them from a riot in the wake of Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination.  All of these take place in the mid to late 60s.  I suspect more such attacks will commence when the reporters read the chapters that cover the 70s and 80s.  This is fine.  Past writings are fair game and a politician should be made to clarify or defend such writings.

 

Of course, Ben Carson is not the first black man to run for president who had a biography in his past.  Indeed, Barack Obama had two biographies: Dreams from My Father (1995) and The Audacity of Hope (2006).  Between these two books, Obama admits drunk driving, regular use of marijuana in his teens, use of cocaine, a communist mentor, a political kickoff at the home of a former terrorist, and admiration for a reverend who 'damned' America in a sermon.  Oddly, the media was mostly disinterested in these biographies and the revelations therein.  Yes, he had to answer for Reverend Wright in a speech where he placed Wright's comments in historical context.  After that, the matter was dropped by the media.  Interestingly, Hillary Clinton grabbed hold of it in a later debate and said that Wright's anti-American sermon immediately in the wake of 9/11 was intolerable.  Further, she pointed out that we don't chose our family but we do chose our church.  John McCain gave Obama a pass on Reverend Wright and went on to lose the election.

 

A Democratic candidate admitted crimes and associations with communists and terrorists and the media shrugged.  Nothing to see here.  A Republican candidate - at worst - boasts of events in his youth and is branded a liar!  No double-standard at all.

Sanders vs. Carson?

Politico has an interesting graphic that shows how much each candidate has raised and, more interesting, what percentage was from low dollar donations (under $200); that would be voters rather than big dollar donors.  Based purely on dollars generated, Hillary is the big winner:

Candidate	Millions of  $
Clinton	29.9
Sanders	26.2
Carson	20.8
Bush	13.4
Cruz	12.2
Walker	7.4
Fiorina	6.8
Rubio	5.8
Kasich	4.4
Christie	4.2

Only the top 10 are listed but Clinton is the big winner with Sanders very close and Carson as the dominant Republican.  Keep in mind that the Republican field is much larger and the money is spread among more candidates.  Though the Democrats look to be the big money draws, the entire field only collected $58.1 million while the Republican field collected $85.3 million.  But here is where it gets interesting.  When considering the source of that money, it is revealing to see how much enthusiasm is coming from the voters vs. the big donors:

 

Candidate	% Small Donation
Sanders	77%
Trump	71%
Carson	60%
Huckabee	59%
Paul	51%
Fiorina	48%
Cruz	43%
Webb	42%
Walker	36%
Rubio	21%

 

Again, only the top 10 are listed but Sanders is clearly supported by the base.  Only 17% of Hillary's money came from small donations.  And she smashes JEB, who only saw 7% of his from small donations.  These under $200 donations are from Ma & Pa Kettle, the average voter.  One more graphic to show dollars from small donors:

  

Candidate	Millions of $
Sanders	20.2
Carson	12.5
Cruz	5.2
Clinton	5.1
Fiorina	3.3
Trump	2.8
Walker	2.7
Paul	1.3
Rubio	1.2
Bush	0.9

 

Sanders has raised four times what Hillary has from the base voter while Carson has collected more than double his nearest competitor.  Trump is a special case since he has not sought, and does not need, donations and has them anyway; he has utterly trounced JEB in small donations, who does have a fundraising machine.

 

Obviously, the election is more than a year away and the first votes aren't cast until February.  However, it is clear which candidates are generating enthusiasm from the voters and which are not.  If the current pattern holds (which it won't), we might be looking at Sanders vs. Carson.  I can hardly wait to accuse every Democrat I meet of being a racist for opposing a black man.