Here’s the link to my piece in today’s American Thinker. She’s losing the white working class, and with it the Midwest in the general. But she’s doubling down on issues these voters dislike intensely, and her close bond with Obama makes it worse. All the ingredients for a blow out in November are coming together.
It looks as though Rubio has decided on a 3-2-1 strategy, settling for third in Iowa, and hoping for second place in New Hampshire and a win in South Carolina. It makes sense for him. He was the only one with an outside shot at Iowa, other than Trump and Cruz. The stakes are very high, because this year Iowa may be the key to the nomination. A big Cruz win could very well propel him to a second victory in New Hampshire (the schwerpunkt) which in turn would make him the prohibitive favorite. If Trump wins in Iowa, he can credibly say that he can win anywhere. Follow up wins in New Hampshire and South Carolina would make him all but unstoppable.
So now it’s game on, one on one, may the best man win. Academic types bemoan the way we choose our Presidents, but Iowa, this year, is as good a place as any to sort out this field. These voters are as well informed as any, and committed to their civic duty. A lot of them take the time to see the candidates in person, a great way to evaluate them. Iowa is part of the American Midlands, which traditionally decides our national elections.
And then there’s ethanol. Trump has shown Iowa voters a first hand example of his “art of the deal.” He’ll feed taxpayer money to the ethanol industry in exchange for votes. A pretty simple, straightforward deal. In terms of their own economic self interest, it’s a good deal for Iowans.
As for the rest of us, tough. That’s politics, baby. You can’t make a deal without breaking some eggs. Idealism is for suckers. Ask any New Yorker.