The headline is clear: Donald Trump won, and he won big.
The headline is clear: Donald Trump won, and he won big. No grand theory of last night’s results that evades the voters’ resounding verdict or attempts to massage it into something more ambiguous is worthwhile. Indeed, if you tried to envision the best possible result Trump could expect given pre-caucus polling, the scenario you would concoct would look like last night’s outcome.
Trump only modestly underperformed his polling average heading into Monday night’s vote to win a majority of caucus-goers. More than that, he finished 30 points over his nearest competitor, depriving honest brokers of the opportunity to retail a narrative that Trump’s support on paper is somehow illusory.
That nearest competitor, Ron DeSantis, poses no threat to Trump anywhere else on the map. Nikki Haley does, but her late surge in the polls did not culminate in a surprise second-place finish, stealing from her some of the momentum she needs heading into a tough contest in New Hampshire. Indeed, Haley’s somewhat weaker-than-expected performance in Iowa’s suburbs confirms the pollster Ann Selzer’s observation that her support is more conditional than it looks in recent surveys — more a negative vote against her opponents than a positive affirmation of her candidacy.
And, following a dismal showing, Vivek Ramaswamy dropped out of the race and threw his support to Trump. Now, Ramaswamy’s modest support will gravitate toward Trump, boosting his totals in future primaries. For some inexplicable reason, Republican voters find Ramaswamy a compelling presence. He will make a vigorous pro-Trump surrogate on the stump.
And yet, Iowa’s results did not forecast smooth sailing for Donald Trump. If the former president is functionally the incumbent in the race, he is an exceptionally weak incumbent. The Hawkeye State is prime real estate for Trump’s movement, and he managed to win the support of only half the voters who turned out. What’s more, the turnout was weak. These were the lowest-attended caucuses since 2000, and that cannot be attributed entirely to the abominable weather. There was little drop off in rural areas where you would expect weather to complicate voters’ calculations most. The drop-off was pronounced, however, in urban counties such as Polk and Johnson counties and suburban areas such as Story and Dallas counties, which is suggestive of the tradeoff the GOP made by refashioning itself into a vehicle for Donald Trump’s all-consuming persona. The Republican Party is a Trumpier party, yes, but it’s also a smaller party.
Beyond that, Trump’s resounding victory is attributable to the vote of just 56,000 Iowans. That’s an improvement on his 2016 performance when he won just 45,000 votes and came in second place, but it’s not much of an improvement. To judge from the conciliatory and gracious tone Trump struck in his victory speech to supporters, someone has likely conveyed to Trump the difficulty he will face attempting to unify his party behind him if he emerges the party’s presidential nominee for a third consecutive cycle.
That’s born out somewhat by the exit polling in which a full 31 percent of caucus-goers said they believed Trump is unfit for the presidency if he is convicted of a crime — an unthinkable prospect which is nonetheless likely. The strategy adopted by Trump boosters like Senator Mike Lee to compel these voters to put their qualms with Trump’s candidacy aside amounts to emotional blackmail. They demand voters subordinate their sense of civic propriety, which Trump violates with abandon, to their apprehension with the fruits of Democratic governance.
It’s reasonable to expect that Republican voters will fall in line after a polarizing general-election campaign. “Get in line or get left behind,” will be the message retailed by every conservative media outlet. The strategy will work for most, but those who are not cajoled into subservience will quietly withdraw from the process. But perhaps that doesn’t matter to Republican voters. The entrance polling suggests that electability — e.g., winning the White House, the whole point of this enterprise — is not as important to Iowa’s voters as nominating an avatar representing their values in contrast to the values evinced by their political adversaries. This vote is better understood as a verdict on the shape of the GOP as a cultural venture, not who should best represent the party as a vehicle for winning elections.
But these are intellectual exercises. The results of Iowa’s caucuses are otherwise not hard to interpret. It’s Trump’s party, and most Republicans badly want to give the former president another chance to prove everyone wrong. They’ll probably get what they want, good and hard.