Re: 2016 Election
 

Re: 2016 Election
 

Well, that's unfortunate.

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/c...zsolicitor.jpg

US election: Trump dealt blow by Cruz in Iowa vote - BBC News


He's much more intelligent than Trump. Just as nasty, but in a different and more electable way. His flat tax proposal, planned destruction of the first glimmerings of health care for all, and his conservative religious agenda would make for a very unpleasant presidency.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Good summary. Unfortunately, he is indeed highly electable.

Re: 2016 Election
 

And strangely, the birthers don't seem to be as interested in him as they were in Obama...

Sanders did well against Clinton, but if he wins the nomination where will those middle-ground voters go? I don't find Sanders radical, as a Brit, but this very conservative country well may.

Re: 2016 Election
 

BBC News is still reporting Cruz as a solid win and the Democrat race as a virtual tie - despite clearly showing in the stats that Cruz won by 3% and Clinton won by 3%. There's reporting for you.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Cruz won by 3%, Clinton "won" by 0.3%.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Many past winners of the Iowa caucus have failed to win the nomination.

And without a very loose interpretation of the Constitution, Ted Cruz really can't be president. Trump is actually correct about that (go figure.)

Re: 2016 Election
 

BBC is 50 + 47, there is a missing 3%

Re: 2016 Election
 

True, but the fact Trump lost to a Canadian in Iowa doesn't feed into winner narrative. I expect it's all downhill from here for Trump.

To me it looks like Rubio will be the biggest winner here, I expect the establishment to rally around him now.

Re: 2016 Election
 

In terms of delegates I don't think it really matters if it was 3% or 0.3% either way they split them fairly evenly. Just bragging rights.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Trump is running for reality TV, anyway, and doesn't have much of a ground game. He was never going to win the nomination.

Many among the GOP elite hate Cruz, so he doesn't have much of a shot, either.

I would agree that Rubio is probably the winner in the sense that he did well enough in Iowa to stay in the game -- I would guess that he can use this result to increase his fundraising. Iowa is better for encouraging the low performers to drop out than it is for choosing winners.

The Democrat caucus is so different that it is difficult to directly compare the results, but Sanders is really looking like a strong VP candidate.

Re: 2016 Election
 

As for the Dems, a slight loss for Sanders is about the equivalent of a slight win. It confirms he is electable and Clinton isn't inevitable. It probably won't be enough as he really needed a decisive victory with a big turnout of young people which didn't happen.

The other thing is the tight race, coin tosses, and I've already seen stories about voter fraud on Facebook. If the talk becomes about shenanigans with the DNC to give Clinton a win, then it isn't good for the Democrats as a whole. Particularly after the whole debate debacle.

Re: 2016 Election
 

I think the fraud thing makes good headlines but in reality you're talking about people squeezed into a room shouting over eachother while someone tries to count who is standing where. Not exactly scientific.

As they say Iowa picks corn, New Hampshire picks presdients.

Re: 2016 Election
 

I agree, but it's not a good look.

If what you say is true about NH, then Clinton is fcked, as there is no way she is beating Uncle Bernie there.

Re: 2016 Election