There’s still snow on the ground in Washington DC, but it’s sunny and warm — like a summer’s day. Establishment town is feeling happy. Hillary Clinton narrowly won the Democratic Iowa caucus; the Republicans rejected Donald Trump. A Republican friend called me on Monday morning, sounding like he’d not slept. “They beat The Donald!” he said. “We’ve got our party back!”
I think my buddy was being over-optimistic. Nearly a quarter of Iowa’s Republicans voted for Trump and 28 per cent voted for the even more conservative Ted Cruz. Hillary almost lost to a 74-year-old socialist called Bernie Sanders. Iowa revealed the scale of the revolution taking place in American politics. To stand a chance of winning in November, both parties are going to have to try to accommodate it. Thanks to Marco Rubio, the Republicans probably have the better shot. They have discovered that Trump is not unstoppable. Far from it — he will have difficulty translating poll numbers into votes. Because his national exposure was so great, and his national numbers so high, the media tended to believe his claim that he was in for a “huuuuge” victory. Yet, aside from the fact that he uses Twitter like a seasoned troll, his approach to politics proved antiquated.
Trump is a TV candidate in a digital era. The Media Research Center calculates that during one month of evening news broadcasts on NBC, CBS and ABC, Trump got 60 per cent of coverage, Cruz got 30 per cent and the Florida senator Marco Rubio just 4 per cent. That, very simply, is why he has seemed irrepressible. He was never off the telly. But, partly because of that, he wasn’t on the ground meeting the people of Iowa.
Unlike Ted Cruz, which is why Cruz won. Trump also didn’t prove popular among ideological conservatives or lifelong Republicans. He did well among those who had never caucused before and — believe it or not — self-described moderates. Perhaps this is because Trump used to be for legalised abortion or because he’s sympathetic towards President Barack Obama’s health-care reforms. Either way, the “very conservative” voters of Iowa went for Senator Ted Cruz instead — a candidate even more loathed by the party establishment.
‘Cruz victory gives hope to despised people everywhere’, joked the New Yorker. Iowa cast a majority of its votes for inexperienced, difficult candidates who revel in anarchy. The good news for Republican elites, however, is that this polarisation is mirrored among the Democrats. Both sides suffer from a similar malady. Hillary’s vote was strong among women, especially women of a certain age. But Sanders took around 84 per cent of the votes of people under 30 in a caucus dominated by self-described liberals. His astonishing performance came in spite of Hillary having a brilliant staff operation — albeit a staff that whispered to reporters that voters weren’t that keen on their product. Just as the rise of Jeremy Corbyn in Britain was fuelled by resentment towards Blairism, so Iowa can be seen as a referendum on Clintonism.
Liberals have not forgotten that Hillary voted to authorise the Iraq war. Trump reminded them of her husband’s shady sexual past; the press kept mentioning a complex email scandal that confirms suspicions that she’s dishonest. And on caucus night, Sanders supporters cried things like: “At least he doesn’t take money from Goldman Sachs!” The Hillary show has been running too long. It is kept going by the sheer will of Hillary — her determination to make it to the White House at any cost. The American people are just characters in her giant psychodrama, extras in the crowd scenes.
Masters of adaptation
The primaries are Hillary’s Star Wars: Episode VII. The force is strong with this one. She won’t back down. Most of the candidates fled Iowa after the voting was finished, to avoid an incoming snowstorm. They arrived in New Hampshire, which votes next Tuesday and where Hillary is almost certainly toast. Sanders is ahead in the polls and now has momentum.
But the Clintons are masters of adaptation, of playing the long game. Hillary has an opportunity to cry “mea culpa”, accept the fact that her base is angry and pivot to the Left. After New Hampshire comes some southern primaries, which are regarded as her firewall. On February 27, there’s South Carolina. On March 1, six southern states vote — the chance to establish an early dominance and spring back into life in the liberal north east in April.
The Hillary machine is powerful, relentless. It will grind on. But what it doesn’t have is charm. The Republicans, by contrast, have Rubio. Trump enjoys a big poll lead headed into New Hampshire, but it could melt away to nothing after his loss in Iowa. Rubio offers moderates a path through the slush.
The handsome, sunny Rubio did well in Iowa among younger voters and the well-educated; he cleaned up in urban centres, which bodes well for the later big state primaries like Ohio and Pennsylvania. If Jeb Bush bows out, Rubio’s native Florida is in also in the bag. So Rubio has the potential to do what Reagan did 30 years ago: Take the fury of grassroots conservatism, mellow it with humour and transform it into a strong electoral coalition. He has been smart enough to talk about education and health care — the pragmatic side of Republicanism — and to blend it with scathing attacks on Obama and Hillary. To borrow an old cliche, to vote for Trump or Cruz is to send a conservative message to Washington. To vote for Rubio is to send a conservative president to Washington.
If Republicans go for winnability, they will wind up with a candidate who really can beat Hillary Clinton. Again, because we’ve all been following Trump with such enthusiasm, we’ve assumed that the primary process is going to be roughest on the Republicans.
Certainly Trump could win some contests. The fight could be long and awash with bigotry. But in the long-run, hope the Republican bosses, they’ll end up with a candidate who is young, appealing — and who gets to keep Trump’s voters while neutralising his appalling reputation with the simple fact that the Republicans have nominated a Hispanic candidate. The Democrats, by contrast, will probably be stuck with Hillary: Unloved and compromised by her party’s socialism. The saga continues.
— The Telegraph Group Limited, London, 2016
