It appears like former president Donald Trump is about to pull off a historic upset in the Iowa caucuses. With 48% of the vote, Trump leads former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley with 20% and Florida governor Ron DeSantis with 16% in the latest survey from top Iowa pollster Ann Selzer.
If Monday night’s results are consistent with the polls, Trump will have received more Republican caucus votes than any non-incumbent candidate in Iowa history.
But that’s not all that would matter if he wins. His winning margin and the identity of the runner-up may take precedence in the near run.
The next election in New Hampshire is in just ten days, so the expectations of voters and the extent to which candidates live up to them in Iowa are crucial.
At first glance, expectations could appear to be an arbitrary metric concocted by a group of media analysts. No, they aren’t. One can readily quantify expectations. It concerns the correlation between a candidate’s performance in the polls and their actual vote total.
According to the most recent poll done by the University of New Hampshire for AWN, the race in the Granite State is close between Trump and Haley. If you take into account the supporters of former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who withdrew from the race last week, and their second choice, the race remains knotted.
A candidate’s performance in Iowa relative to their final polling and New Hampshire polls (such as the one I just described) are the two variables that have historically been the best predictors of New Hampshire primary results at this stage.
I know this sounds strange, but trust me, it all makes perfect sense. A deluge of positive press follows an individual who surpasses expectations. When a person fails to meet expectations, the reverse occurs.
Think back to 2000 and George W. Bush, who had the best non-incumbent result in the Iowa GOP caucuses (41%). His victory versus Steve Forbes was meaningless since the margin was much smaller than anticipated.
John McCain, who was leading in New Hampshire and skipped Iowa, would go on to defeat Bush in the state’s primary by a huge majority.
Patrick Buchanan came dangerously close to surprising Bob Dole in the 2004 Iowa Republican caucuses. When it came to Iowa, Buchanan had one of the biggest overperformances ever. The following year, in New Hampshire, he recovered enough to defeat Dole.
In national polls, neither McCain nor Buchanan ever seriously challenged the front-runners.
But in 1984, despite losing Iowa by more than 30 points to Walter Mondale, Gary Hart did so on the Democratic side. As a result of her improved performance compared to the pre-caucus polls, Hart received favourable coverage in the media. After that, he made a triumphant return to the race in New Hampshire, where he went on to win.
In the New Hampshire polls, where Hart was trailing by double digits, Haley is now far ahead. The New Hampshire contest may go either way depending on how she does in Iowa or how Trump does. Even a small improvement for her could make a big difference.
If Haley were to win the nation’s first primary, it would show that Trump is not unbeatable. That gave her thirty days to run for the South Carolina primary, where she was born and raised.
Contrarily, the inverse may easily be envisioned. Trump and Haley want to turn this into a campaign, according to Haley. If DeSantis finishes in second place, it will not occur.
Taking second place would provide the governor of Florida a legitimate excuse to remain in the campaign. The future seems bleak for him if he finishes third in Iowa.
In New Hampshire, he is polling in fourth place, while in South Carolina, he is a distant third. On a nationwide level, he is 50 points behind Trump. Where else may DeSantis get second, or even first, if he fails to do so in Iowa?
In Trump’s view, the standard is quite clear. Only Al Gore, who was not the incumbent, was able to secure the presidential nomination in each of the fifty states. Similar to Trump, New Hampshire was his least strong state.
Going into New Hampshire, Gore made sure that Bill Bradley didn’t get too much steam from his performance in Iowa. His final Iowa poll showed him performing 5 points worse, but he exceeded expectations. (Since both Bradley and Gore managed to sway some undecided voters, his 28-point lead over Bradley matched the final tally.)
It is possible that Trump is best compared to Al Gore. Among the candidates running for president, only Gore has maintained a steady lead over Trump in Iowa’s popular vote. Similarly, he has been at the head of the pack in nearly every poll conducted in every early state and on a national level, with the exception of Trump.
Trump places a premium on the second point. Because winning the nomination is the only real goal of the primary season, regardless of how important Iowa and New Hampshire are.
It is highly unusual for the Republican caucus winner in Iowa to also become the party’s nominee, as any observer of Iowa outcomes can tell you. Of all the non-incumbent presidents to do so, only Bush (2000) and Dole (1996) stand out. The winner from New Hampshire has always been a Republican.
It is hardly coincidental that 1996 and 2000 were outliers. The only two instances when the candidate who won in Iowa also led the national primary polls were in those two years.
As of this writing, Trump has a fifty-point lead in the national primary polls. The former president’s strength should allow him to weather a defeat in New Hampshire.
Because of this, his opponents in Iowa are under even more pressure to shock the public. On Monday night, they will begin their quest to chip away at his invincibility.
