Trump Dominates Iowa, Ramaswamy Drops Out
No big surprises from the dumbest recurring contest in American politics.
AP (“Trump notches a commanding win in the Iowa caucuses as DeSantis edges Haley for second place“):
Former President Donald Trump scored a record-setting win in the Iowa caucuses on Monday with his rivals languishing far behind, a victory that affirmed his grip on the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.
In what was the lowest-turnout caucus in a quarter-century, participants endured life-threatening cold and dangerous driving conditions to meet in hundreds of schools, churches and community centers across the state. But those who ventured out delivered a roughly 30-point win for Trump that smashed the record for a contested Iowa Republican caucus with a margin of victory exceeding Bob Dole’s nearly 13-percentage-point victory in 1988.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis finished a distant second, just ahead of former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley.
The results left Trump with a tighter grip on the GOP nomination, though it could take several more months for anyone to formally become the party’s standard bearer. The magnitude of Trump’s victory, however, posed significant questions for both DeSantis and Haley. Neither candidate appeared poised to exit the race, though they leave Iowa struggling to claim making much progress in trying to become Trump’s strongest challenger.
Having repeatedly vowed vengeance against his political opponents in recent months, Trump offered a message of unity in his victory speech.
“We want to come together, whether it’s Republican or Democrat or liberal or conservative,” he said. “We’re going to come together. It’s going to happen soon.”
The GOP contest moves swiftly to New Hampshire, which will hold the first-in-the-nation primary on Jan. 23. A shrinking field will compete there after conservative entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy suspended his campaign after a disappointing fourth place finish and endorsed Trump.
AP (“Most Trump supporters in Iowa caucuses say they knew they’d support him all along, AP VoteCast shows“):
In some ways, Iowa’s Republican caucuses were practically over before they began, with Donald Trump cultivating a deep network of support over three presidential runs.
About 7 in 10 Iowans who caucused for Trump on Monday night said they have known all along that they would support a man who has remade the Republican Party through his “Make America Great Again” political movement. Trump was carried to victory by the majority of caucusgoers who say they back it, a sign of his growing influence in a state that denied him a victory eight years ago.
His chief challengers — Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy — tried to carve out their own coalitions. But none could match the demographic edges enjoyed by Trump in this year’s first presidential contest, according to the findings from AP VoteCast. Ramaswamy said he is suspending his campaign after a disappointing finish in the caucuses.
Trump performed strongly in small town and rural communities, where about 6 in 10 caucusgoers said they live. He won with white evangelical Christians, who are nearly half of the caucusgoers. He excelled among those without a college degree.
CNN (“Iowa entrance poll: Most GOP caucusgoers don’t accept Biden’s 2020 win, say a conviction wouldn’t make Trump unfit for office“):
Most Iowa GOP caucusgoers refuse to accept President Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory and say they would view former President Donald Trump, whom CNN projected will win the caucuses Monday night, as fit for office even if convicted of a crime, according to CNN’s entrance poll for the Iowa Republican presidential caucuses.
Trump’s victory highlights his strength among key groups that form the bulk of the GOP electorate, according to the entrance poll. Roughly half of Iowa caucusgoers described themselves as “very conservative,” and nearly half identified as part of the MAGA movement, referring to the “Make America Great Again” slogan popularized by Trump in 2016. Broad majorities in both of those groups broke for Trump, as did the lion’s share of White evangelicals and those age 65 and older.
The results also highlight the stark educational divide that has become a defining feature of the GOP electorate. While Trump held a commanding lead among Iowa caucusgoers without college degrees, college graduates were more closely divided among Trump, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.
Entrance polls are a valuable tool to help understand caucusgoers’ demographic profile and political views. Like all surveys, however, entrance polls are estimates, not precise measurements of the electorate. That’s particularly true for the preliminary set of entrance poll numbers, which haven’t yet been weighted to match the final results of the caucus. But the results provide a glimpse of the type of voters turning out to participate in the first contest of the 2024 campaign.
The results of the entrance poll mark a shift in the Republican electoral landscape from the 2016 Iowa caucuses, when White evangelicals and very conservative votes broke in favor of Texas Sen. Ted Cruz over Trump. (Cruz went on to win the state that year but lost the nomination to Trump.)
Trump’s strength with the Iowa electorate is also evident in caucusgoers’ response to his previous election loss and the criminal charges he faces. About two-thirds said they do not believe that Biden’s victory over Trump more than three years ago was legitimate. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election. More than 6 in 10 said that they would consider Trump fit for the presidency if he were to be convicted of a crime, with only about one-third saying they wouldn’t see him as fit in that circumstance.
Among the minority of caucusgoers who said Trump would be unfit for the presidency if convicted, about half backed Haley on Monday, with about one-third supporting DeSantis.
Trump’s support in Iowa has been locked in for some time, the entrance poll suggests, while his rivals have seen more recent gains. About 80% of Trump’s supporters said they made their decision to back him prior to this month. By contrast, a majority of Haley’s supporters said they made their decision sometime in January, as did roughly half of DeSantis’ backers.
Asked which of four personal qualities mattered most to them in a candidate, about 4 in 10 caucusgoers said they wanted to see a candidate who shared their values and about 3 in 10 that they wanted someone would fight for people like them, with fewer looking for a candidate who had the right temperament or could defeat Biden. While voters’ decision-making processes are too complicated to be described by a single question, the divide in responses highlights the very different appeals that Trump, DeSantis and Haley offer to their respective supporters.
Roughly half of Trump supporters said they were looking for a candidate who would fight for people like them, with about one-third prioritizing a candidate who shared their values, and few attributing their decision to Trump’s temperament or perceived electability. A wide majority of DeSantis supporters, by contrast, said they most wanted to see a candidate who shared their values. And Haley supporters were more divided: about 37% said they prioritized temperament, 27% a candidate who shared their values, and 24% someone who could defeat Biden, with few looking for a fighter on their behalf.
Pretty much, if not every, Iowa Caucus iteration since 2004 has produced at least one OTB post about how stupid caucusing and, in particular, starting the official campaign season with a caucus in lily-white Iowa is as a way of gauging national popular support. Steven Taylor’s “The Absurdity of Iowa” filled that duty for this cycle.
The absurdity is further magnified by having a quasi-incumbent in the race, particularly one who’s dominated the polls from the outset. Record-setting cold further exacerbates the situation in that, if you know your favorite candidate will, at best, finish a distant second it’s going to be really hard to get motivated to risk your life to participate.
That’s a long way of saying that I don’t think these results tell us anything we didn’t already know about the viability of Nikki Haley vis-a-vis Ron DeSantis. But they certainly re-emphasize that Trump’s taking the Republican nomination for a third straight cycle is all but inevitable.
Indeed, despite a relative dearth of polling, the night wound up damn close to the RealClearPolitics projection:
You won’t have Vivek to kick around and stuff in a locker anymore.
Mother Jones Magazine wins the headlines:Florida Man Facing 91 Criminal Counts Wins Iowa Caucuses
Even up to the last minute, I thought maybe the polls were off and people would come to their senses. But no, the Republican Party looked at a 79 y/o man who:
-instigated an insurrection
-was found to have raped a woman
-has been indicted on 91 counts
-has responded to (3) not by proclaiming his innocence, but by claiming to be above the law, to the point where he could murder someone with impunity
-promised to be a dictator
And, with multiple options who are actual conservatives said, “yes, more please!” Pathetic.
The people I blame most are the other GOP members. They could have voted him out of office in January 2021. Or could have expelled him from the party. They chose cowardice.
@Hal_10000:
Why would you think that? I had no doubt the cult would come through and give him a huge victory.
Why is AP showing an 8 year old, 2016 headshot of Trump? Also, can both DeSantis and Haley triumphantly say they over performed?
So many meaningless questions!
@Hal_10000:
For Trump to have lost the caucus, the polls would have had to be off to a historic degree–the worst polling error in any primary or caucus in decades, possibly ever.
For perspective, probably the biggest polling error ever in a presidential primary was the 2016 Michigan Democratic one, where a 21-point lead by Hillary in RCP translated to a 1.5-point victory for Bernie. For Trump to have lost Iowa last night, RCP would have had to be off by more than 30 points.
And despite the hit the polling industry has taken to its reputation in recent years, polling for the Iowa caucus has generally been somewhat accurate; last night was no exception. Even the mess of the 2020 Democratic caucus was fairly close to RCP’s estimate (Sanders led by 3.7, he ended up winning the popular vote by 3.4, though Buttigieg got the most delegates). There was a modest polling miss last night, and it was Haley coming out in third place rather than second. That level of error is well in line with past errors for the Iowa caucus.
@Kylopod: It’s not just him winning, it’s that he won by as much as he did. But I read a bunch of the polling data beforehand, and…it’s bad. Trump’s devotees are not only the majority, but they’re firmly fixed in their opinion of the man and they’re intent on voting for him no matter what.
I read @Hal_10000‘s comment less as a “I thought maybe he would actually lose” and more as a “I hoped he wouldn’t be as supported as the polls said.” Which, to be honest, was where I was at until reading the articles about how committed the crazies were to showing up to the caucus.
None of this, of course, bodes well for the presidential election. Republicanism has been gaining ground as a “brand identity” since the ’80s (at least), and Trumpian Republicanism as an even more fervent subset of that identity is going to ensure we end up with him on the ballot. Republicans/The Brand will embrace him just like they did in 2020.
@ptfe:
This is why I believe only a sustained, long term campaign of negative advertising by the Democrats can work. Never mind what Biden has accomplished, just focusing on beating up on Trump and the Republicans for their failures, both real and imagined. Starting now.
FWIW turnout was down 40% from 2020, maybe it was the weather, or maybe it was Trump’s appeal is shrinking and only the most devoted cultists will actually turn out.
@Scott: Haley’s and DeSantis’s comments were more delusional than the standard early process rhetoric we get from candidates at this stage.
Maybe it’s my famous rose colored classes [\sarcasm] but I don’t see why this is seen as such an astounding win for him. He’s essentially an incumbent. Getting lest than 70-80% in a place like Iowa shows him as weaker than I expected. A month or two many were saying he would win BY 50% and now his people have morphed that into GETTING 50%.
Of course he is going to win the Primary. Years ago it was rejiggered to make sure someone with an early lead would quickly become inevitable. But the fact that he barely cleared 50% in Iowa gives me hope.
Unsurprising news from Iowa. /shrugs
We have some kind of thing from the post office that sends us scanned images of what we can expect in the mail each day. We have, no joke, SEVEN pieces of pro Nikki Haley direct mail arriving today…
Weather next Tuesday is supposed to be fairly decent (for NH in late January, that is). I still think turnout will be low.
@Jen: I haven’t gotten that yet, since Virginia’s primary isnt’ until March 5. But I was getting constant spam texts from her and only her until a few days ago.
Meh. I was hoping, as distinct from expecting, Haley would do better against DeUseless, causing him to follow Ramawhatshisname out. But it sounds like his donors. or lack thereof, will push him out soon anyway. But, on a positive note, as Betty Cracker observed at LGM, this distant second will keep him out of FL a few weeks longer.
@MarkedMan:
“We’re at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia.”
In some ways, news and political media have covered Trump as if he’s the incumbent. That said, if Biden had only gotten 51% of the vote (? — not sure what to call it in the context of a caucus), there would be many articles today about how that lack of support was a sign of his weakness.
Then again, if DeSantis wasn’t there, I assume most of his 20% would (and ultimately will) go to Trump (and he’d be above 75%). This gets to the challenge that Haley is facing–no one is interested in buying what she’s selling right now.
@James Joyner: I think I’d toss my phone out the window, or at least shut it off were I to get that many texts! The mail (aka recycling delivered via post) is bad enough…
@Jen: I’ve had to type STOP so many times lately to get the texts to, well, stop. Of course, they are all asking for money.
@Mikey:
I was watching an NFL playoff game, and did not even have a schlep through a bad weather alternative. I hear tell they like football in Iowa.
@Kylopod:
Man you ain’t kidding. Nothing like your final action in a primary being trying to explain away the bully wedgieing you in in front of the class as “I love this guy giving me the wedgie.”
Vivek in response to Trump’s Truth post:
So weird how these people thing Democrats are the cucks and beta males.
In truth, Iowa is only important to the media and chattering class as it is the first real information they have to chatter about. It isn’t representative because it isn’t DEI enough, but because it is heavy with people who know where their food comes from compared to states with dense urbanistas. People who feel the cost of diesel early and hard. People who know EVs aren’t the future for anything but tooling around the urban cores.
I guess the weather kept all those Democrats, freed from having to caucus for their candidate, who were encouraged to caucus with Republicans and vote Haley, home.
Nearly half of Iowa caucus voters reject Donald Trump!
@JKB: Thank you for the confirmation that the mere existence of minorities is sufficient for you to complain about DEI.
To point out the obvious:
Total Iowa population: 3.2M
Total voter registration: 2.1M
Total Republican registration: .72M (34.5%)
Total Trump caucus voters: .06M (about 8.3% of registered Republicans, 3% of total voters registered)
A rather outsized impact on the political discourse, wouldn’t you say?
@Hal_10000:
Trump has insisted over and over that he was exonerated of rape. He was merely found liable for sexual assault. No biggie.
@Scott:
The Los Angeles COUNTY in which I live:
9.83M people.
6.14M eligible voters
5.79M registered voters
3.05M Democrats (52%)
0.99M Republicans (17%)
1.75M Others (31%)
No f**king way Iowa should be in any position of leadership in this country.
@MarkedMan:
That was exactly my reaction. Biden is hitting very high numbers in primary polling, 70, 80 percent. Why is Trump barely getting half the vote? In Iowa which, famously, is known for corn, pigs and morons.
@JKB: “it is heavy with people who know where their food comes from compared to states with dense urbanistas”
Yeah. And in the past, they thought Pat Robertson, Past Buchanan and Rick Santorum should be president of the US.
If I need a reminder that corn grows in dirt, dense urbanista that I am, I’ll be sure to ask one of them. If I want to know anything about politics or history, I’ll go somewhere where people actually are educated.
@Michael Reynolds: Can’t resist:
Donald Trump,,,what a prince of a man! He said that it would be okay if people died on the road in Iowa after voting for him; they’d have done the right thing,
http://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-new-slogan-sums-him-up-perfectly?ref=home?ref=home
@EddieInCA:
I’d argue that it isn’t in a leadership position. Iowa is like the first pancake: messed up, flawed, and thrown out. The only people that Iowa’s results matter to are the people of Iowa, and news outlets addicted to trying to make fetch happen.
@gVOR10:
Unfortunately, he is certain to endorse Trump when he leaves. I bet he’ll also do what he can to give Haley the shiv on the way out.
@Jen:
It creates or perpetuates a narrative. It’s a joke, and, again, shows the lack of seriousness in the current American project.
There is a time in our past where the morality of the current GOP frontrunner would be an issue. Those days are long gone.
@Matt Bernius:
I believe the sooner Trump wraps up the nomination the better from a news and political media coverage perspective. As long as any of Trump’s GOP opponents is even theoretically viable, the talking heads can stick with their preferred horse race coverage playbook and we will continue to see them trying to treat Trump like a typical candidate using typical story framing.
But, if the others drop out and Trump secures the nomination before Super Tuesday, news people and pundits are going to have to fill their column inches and air time with something other than delegate counts. This opens the door to covering Trump’s legal proceedings not in the context of their impact on him politically, but on him legally. This is a better outcome.
The caucus, particularly in bad weather, really only draws out the most committed of the Republican base, and that group has half wanting someone other than Trump.
Well, 49%.
I expect they will fall in line, and vote for him in the general, but I also expect that this does not bode well for Trump with the mushy middle — the swing voters, independents, and lightly committed partisans.
@Kylopod: I find it hard to accept that 7.7% of people would vote for Vivek Ramaswamy. He oozes faux tech-bro charm and genuine tech-investor contempt.
He’s like a less fun Elon Musk.
The most punchable face in the primaries.
@Kylopod: I find it hard to accept that 7.7% of people would vote for Vivek Ramaswamy. He oozes faux tech-bro charm and genuine tech-investor contempt.
He’s like a less fun Elon Musk.
The most punchable face in the primaries.
Some of Trump’s most rabid fans still think the Democrats cheated in Iowa, apparently because Nikki Haley won one county by one vote.
http://www.rawstory.com/msn-uk/trumps-conspiracy-theories/
@CSK: Oh, FFS. There is no hope for these clowns.
I am seriously considering another news/information detox. I can’t handle the stupidity.
@JKB:
California is well aware that it is the #1 state for agriculture production, and that there are more Republicans in Los Angeles County alone than there are in the entire state of Iowa.
Braindead MAGA dolts merely think California isn’t representative, because it doesn’t hate blacks and gays enough and doesn’t bash Latin immigrants enough –despite being an actual border state, unlike Iowa.
Playing to a tiny, unrepsentative minority fake-Christian, welfare queen Iowa bigots is one reason why the out-of-touch Republican Party keeps losing elections.
Playing to excessively-online weirdos who don’t know normie Americans don’t share the fringe right’s dumb obsession with acronyms like DEI and CRT is one reason why Ron DeStupid badly lost his last election, last night.
@JKB:
It isn’t representative because it definitionally isn’t representative. Words have meaning and all of that.
And I always love the “our food comes there” argument (so to speak) because somehow that never applies to the state with the largest agricultural output in the US, which is California.
@Matt Bernius:
Poor Vivek. All that time sucking the orange man’s shriveled peen, only to have Trump stab him in the front at the finish line. And the pathetic, grasping little sellout is still simping for Ole Massa’s approval. Total emasculation.
Love to see Vivek Ramalamadingdong and Nimarata Nikki Randhawa Haley finding out the magic R only works for whyte guys. What happened with the polling and punditry with Haley in second place, up 4-5 points on Loser #2, gaining momentum blah blah blah? As useless and irrelevant as the “Biden is losing to Trump!!11!!” polls and punditry.
And quasi-incumbent Republican cult leader Trump managing to win only 51% of an electorate designed for his toxic brand of hatred, extremism, and desire to bang his own daughter? Not good. Except for Democrats, and everyone else worried about the fate of Western democracy.
@Steven L. Taylor:
A few years ago, in February, I was in the Bay Area for work, and my co-worker invited me to join him in a visit to his aunt and uncle’s place in Vallejo. His aunt had a wonderful garden, the highlight of which was a lemon tree that was busting with beautiful, ripe lemons.
In February.
Try that, Iowa!
Josh Marshall agrees that the result was underwhelming for Trump:
@Gustopher:
He exudes smugness. “Smug” isn’t an adjective I’d even apply to Trump. As I’ve said before, I believe Trump’s narcissism and braggadocio spring from deep insecurity and self-loathing, and in an odd way that almost makes him relatable–to some people. Vivek is the sort of guy who thinks he’s smarter than you and wants you to know it, even when everything he’s saying is asinine.
So what’s the appeal? It’s pretty simple. He says the things the MAGA crowd wants to hear. His smug arrogance isn’t directed at them, it’s directed at all those hoity-toity elites who believe climate change is real and that Ukraine deserves to be protected against Russia’s aggression. They don’t mind that he fits many of the stereotypical behaviors they associate with liberals who look down on them, as long as he’s aiming it at a different target.
Also, it’s part of something we’ve seen many times before, which is the way they gravitate toward minorities who reassure them they’ve got nothing to feel guilty about. I should be clear here–I don’t in any way subscribe to the notion that anyone should feel guilty for being white (or any other race or background). Trying to be aware of one’s privilege isn’t the same as feeling guilty for it. But the fear of people trying to make them feel guilty as white folks is a big motivating factor, and I’d be lying if I said there aren’t people on the left side of the aisle contributing to that narrative.
That’s why the right is always searching for black and brown best friends, just so they can prove they aren’t racist. But there are limits to this strategy, especially for someone as unlikable as Vivek.
@Michael Reynolds: @Scott:
According to my brother, who lived there for several years, the hive mind is characteristic of Iowans.
@CSK:
This is the “actually, it’s ephebophilia” of politics.
@Hal_10000:
Yes indeed. Good comparison.
@EddieInCA:
Sometimes, sometimes not. While Iowa is frequently an example of how not to become the Republican nominee, the caucuses did give a boost to Carter, Obama, and Bill Clinton, all of whom were considered long-shots. Iowa gave each of them credibility–and this is important–because the state is small, they were able to do so on a shoestring.
Would any of them have succeeded if they’d had to start in, say, California? Texas? Or New York? Those are big states and expensive media markets. I’m not so sure that shifting to “representative” states first is going to solve all of our problems; in fact, it would likely have the effect of reinforcing the importance of money in the system, and will eliminate the chance that a lesser-known candidate can find his or her way to being visible.
Maybe that’s what people want.
@Jen:
Can one still win high profile elections on a shoestring? How much did DeSantis and Haley just spend/waste?
It’s a long way from 2024 to 2008, to say nothing of 1992 and 1978. Obama and Clinton were raising lots and money in the run up to the primaries; they were not the initial favorites but “long-shot” seems imprecise, maybe. National polling had Obama, a popular and well-known sitting senator, within striking distance of Hillary by Spring of 2007.
@DK:
That’s a good question, and thankfully not one I’m in a position to answer anymore (I am so glad I exited politics when I did).
Haley and DeSantis are not in a comparable position. They are running against a person who has extremely high name ID and has held the job before. That’s not exactly the open race that Obama found himself in, despite running against Hillary Clinton–they were both sitting US Senators at the time, so I agree, “long shot” is imprecise.
I think an unknown candidate could succeed in carving out a path, shall we say “economically,” rather than “on a shoestring,” by leveraging less costly media markets in Iowa and, to a lesser extent, New Hampshire (Boston’s media market is not cheap, but less costly than LA’s or New York’s).
This isn’t a hill I’m willing to die on, I’m just typically suspect of any “this will solve things!” ideas in politics. Solutions in elections always seem to have a way of killing something else.
MSNBC entrance polling shows 66% of Caucus goers think the election of 2020 was stolen. Ok, that’s bad. But, breaking it down:
Big Lie believers broke for Trump 68%.
Big Lie rejectors broke for anyone but Trump — he gets 10%.
https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/two-thirds-of-iowa-gop-caucus-goers-say-biden-not-legitimate-2020-winner-201971781694?playlist=mmlsnnd_3096433-nnd
3:29 into the video
10% is barely above Vivek Ramaswamy. What this suggests to me is that Trump is basically toxic to everyone who believes the election of 2020 was legitimate.
People might choose the less toxic in November if they really hate Biden, and there’s that weird 10% who were ok with the guy who keeps whining about it being unfair that he lost a free and fair election, but I think this puts a upper limit on Trump’s support. Especially if legitimacy of the 2020 election becomes a major talking point, which it will because Trump cannot shut up about it.
@Gustopher: I would agree that there is a definite limit on Trump’s support, but that fact may not matter depending on how many Democrats stay home/vote third party because Biden is too old/not progressive enough/too progressives/too liberal/not liberal enough/unable to reach out to the moderates/whatever.