Good show yesterday, Charlie, and this is a good column. It's good to see you recognize that the Iowa results were not that good for Trump. Those who really understand the political game know that a former President running for re-election and getting only 51% of the hardcore party vote is a major red flag. James Carville got it right aw…
Good show yesterday, Charlie, and this is a good column. It's good to see you recognize that the Iowa results were not that good for Trump. Those who really understand the political game know that a former President running for re-election and getting only 51% of the hardcore party vote is a major red flag. James Carville got it right away; he's a straight shooter on such things.
So many in the people in the media portrayed it as a big Trump win ... in no small part because they can't seem to see much beyond the top line numbers and a big win keeps the Trump story going ...and Trump coverage gets good ratings. Imagine though if Biden went into South Carolina and he was facing off against several primary challengers. Biden gets 51% of the vote, beating his nearest rival by 30 points. What would the media narrative be? It would be that Biden had a disastrous night...that his, barely, majority share of the Democratic vote reflects a big problem among his party going into the general election. Yet that is exactly what happened with Trump and the media narrative is that Trump did very well, i.e. that he has the Republican Party in his pocket. Clearly, he does not...at least not the Republican electorate, a large percentage of which desperately wants to vote for someone else.
In 2020, about 8% of Republican-leaning voters crossed over to vote for Biden, while only 5% of Ds crossed over to vote for Trump. That difference won Biden enough swing states to win the election. Iowa demonstrates with flashing red lights that the crossover or defection rate this time might well be substantially more than 8%. That is a big story.
Exactly. If Biden had the exact same primary results that Trump had in Iowa the media narrative would be that he's done. So now Carville is more bearish on Trump and thinks this really shows some major weaknesses? That would be a good sign, he's been one of the more pessimistic commentators.
Good show yesterday, Charlie, and this is a good column. It's good to see you recognize that the Iowa results were not that good for Trump. Those who really understand the political game know that a former President running for re-election and getting only 51% of the hardcore party vote is a major red flag. James Carville got it right away; he's a straight shooter on such things.
So many in the people in the media portrayed it as a big Trump win ... in no small part because they can't seem to see much beyond the top line numbers and a big win keeps the Trump story going ...and Trump coverage gets good ratings. Imagine though if Biden went into South Carolina and he was facing off against several primary challengers. Biden gets 51% of the vote, beating his nearest rival by 30 points. What would the media narrative be? It would be that Biden had a disastrous night...that his, barely, majority share of the Democratic vote reflects a big problem among his party going into the general election. Yet that is exactly what happened with Trump and the media narrative is that Trump did very well, i.e. that he has the Republican Party in his pocket. Clearly, he does not...at least not the Republican electorate, a large percentage of which desperately wants to vote for someone else.
In 2020, about 8% of Republican-leaning voters crossed over to vote for Biden, while only 5% of Ds crossed over to vote for Trump. That difference won Biden enough swing states to win the election. Iowa demonstrates with flashing red lights that the crossover or defection rate this time might well be substantially more than 8%. That is a big story.
Exactly. If Biden had the exact same primary results that Trump had in Iowa the media narrative would be that he's done. So now Carville is more bearish on Trump and thinks this really shows some major weaknesses? That would be a good sign, he's been one of the more pessimistic commentators.