Over the past few columns I have written about the American caucus and primary systems and in both columns I said that I would likely miss the nuances of each.
This week I thought I would take on a few of those nuances considering the outcome of the Iowa caucus.
Procedurally, the Iowa caucuses unfolded pretty much as expected.
The Republicans got together and voted in different precincts, by ballot, for their preferred nominee. Iowa is a semi-closed system (voters can only vote with the party with whom they are registered but they may change their affiliation on the day of the caucus).
The outcome was unexpected.
Donald Trump's loud and celebrity-driven candidacy led many to expect a Trump victory but it was Ted Cruz who came out on top.
According to a New York Times article, Cruz "built support with evangelical and very conservative voters."
Cruz did not "win" in the traditional sense of winner takes all. He only won the most delegates which are proportioned by the number of votes for each candidate. Cruz received 27.6 per cent of the votes, Trump 24.3 per cent and Marco Rubio 23.1 per cent.
The real story from the Republican side is the third place finish by Marco Rubio.
Again, the New York Times story cited above shows the most interesting statistic of the night. They say: "Rubio's rise was driven by voters who recently made up their minds and valued electability."
In other words, those who recently chose Rubio did so because they thought that he could win in the presidential election in November. Of those who decided on Monday, 27 per cent of caucus goers chose Rubio, 21 per cent chose Cruz and only 16 per cent chose Trump. In terms of electability, 43 per cent thought Rubio is the most electable versus 25 for Trump and only 22 for Cruz.
So, the Iowa caucus potentially sets the stage for Rubio to come out triumphant if the two top candidates can't pull out a win before the national convention. His campaign is, for now, the one to watch.
In terms of the Democrats, the Iowa caucuses are really fascinating.
Procedurally, we saw the very odd tie breaking process that occurred in a number of precincts: six precincts tossed a coin to determine the outcome. And, as statistically unlikely as it is (there is only a 1/64 chance that the coins would have consistently tossed heads), Clinton won all six coin tosses. Overall, the vote was a real squeaker: Clinton 49.9 and Sanders 49.6. The contestants are now off to the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday.
I had to smile last Tuesday morning as I read through all of the commentary and came across an article in a brief that I receive from the Brookings Institute.
For regular readers of my column you will know that I often cite the television show The West Wing for its intelligent portrayal of the American political system. I was quite delighted to see John Hudak's article, After Iowa, advice from The West Wing might get Hillary to the Oval.
He reminds us that: "In the second season of the West Wing, (Jed) Bartlet had momentum coming out of Iowa (ironically, in a Sanders-esque way, losing but with momentum). The next race was, of course, the New Hampshire primary. New Hampshire was Bartlet's home state and Toby and his other advisers made an important point: Bartlet couldn't beat expectation, and spending the time and effort there might have been a waste. His performance would play poorly in the media. His advisers told him to go immediately to South Carolina."
Hudak suggested that Clinton might heed that advice. If Sanders wins or ties in New Hampshire Clinton will need to "blunt the message" that she did not do very well in the first two caucus/primaries.
But things change rapidly in politics. As of Friday morning, we know that Clinton stayed in New Hampshire. We also know that Bernie Sanders has a huge lead in the polls (60 per cent for him to 30 per cent for Clinton).
So, now the expectations are on Sanders to pull out a big victory. If he doesn't then the game changes again and Clinton will be able to demonstrate her staying power.
Ultimately, the stage is set for more interesting races to come and I'll do my best to explain the process behind the politics.
I will be watching closely on Tuesday.
