Finally, in Iowa, the voters speak

Finally, the voters spoke. After all the speculation, we have some real numbers to talk about. I have a smorgasbord of thoughts after Iowa. They may not be connected, but take what you like and forget the others.

The perceived winner of the night was Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). He proved that exceeding expectations is the name of the game when it comes to the pre-convention primary caucus season. Rubio’s strong third (just 1 percentage point behind Trump) was surprising and he made the most of it. If you heard and saw him after the results came in, you would have thought he had won Iowa. He is presenting himself as the true choice for sensible, sane GOP regulars, as opposed to a slick ideologue like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) or an embarrassing buffoon like Donald Trump (R).

{mosads}Rubio wants Republicans to view him as presentable and electable; young and dynamic — the future. He is crafty and flexible enough to alter his image if he believes it will work. To Iowa evangelicals, he didn’t want to get shut out completely so he started spouting “Judeo-Christian” mutterings to signal to that group that he could speak their language. When necessary, he can talk tough and use highly partisan, red-meat rhetoric to appeal to the GOP base. His goal in New Hampshire and later states is to crowd out the centrist Republican moderates: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. (There is also the unlikely scenario that those three combine to split the moderate vote, thus aiding Cruz or Trump.)

As for Cruz, in retrospect, Iowa was perfectly made for him. He worked the state, visiting all 99 counties and targeted expertly the votes he needed to win. But even his editorial allies such as The Wall Street Journal said the day after his victory that he needs “to broaden his support beyond the Mark Levin-Glenn Beck radio audience.” This statement surely applies to a general election audience, but just as much to rank-and-file Republican voters in the nominating process.

Now turning to Trump: Well, in Iowa, he was a loser. His entire campaign and essence was that he was a winner; people like to be with a winner, but once the winner tag evaporates, many start to leave. The result in Iowa will hurt him in New Hampshire. His winner aura is fading and without that, Trump has nothing else to fall back on. John Dickerson of CBS has said it best: Trump has a fervent following, but it has a “ceiling.”

The best line of the night was from one of the dropouts, 2008 Iowa winner Mike Huckabee, former Republican governor or Arkansas. He said that he was leaving the race because of “illness.” When asked what the “illness” was, he said that “voters are sick of [him].” I’ve always found Huckabee to be genuinely likeable and charming in manner and presentation. I sure didn’t agree with him on most issues, but the other candidates could emulate his style.

Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton proclaimed herself the winner of the Iowa Democratic caucus — that’s a real stretch. She literally won by a coin toss. (That happened in six precincts.)

Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-Vt.) candidacy was deemed a fantasy when he started and he all but won the first contest. Among young voters, he won with 84 percent. Astounding and amazing. As I have said before, he can stay in for a very long time; small donors love him. He raised a stupendous $20 million in January. He has 3.2 million contributions, the most in American election history. He has one-million-plus donors who aren’t near maxing out ($2,700) and will want to continue giving all the way to Philadelphia. Sanders’s supporters are devoted to him and will stay with him even if he starts losing after a win in the New Hampshire primary.

Clinton is the establishment. That means she has the superdelegates (she already has over one-quarter of them; 300-plus pledged) and nearly all the elected officials who have committed. For Sanders to make it close or to win the nomination, he needs to win where he is not supposed to. You will have to see these headlines: “Sanders wins South Carolina.” “Sanders wins Georgia and Arkansas.”

Failing that, how about: “Sanders wins Michigan.” “Sanders wins Ohio and Florida.” “Sanders wins Pennsylvania.”

And finally, late in the game: “Sanders wins California.” “Sanders wins New Jersey.”

Sanders’s candidacy reminds me of then-Sen. Mo Udall (D-Ariz.) in the 1976 Democratic primaries. He always finished second. He never won anywhere. Maybe Sanders can upset Clinton in a few of these mentioned states, but right now, it appears that after New Hampshire, he runs strong but doesn’t finish first. Bernie, prove me wrong!

(Of course, all bets are off if Clinton is indicted or an indictment seems likely.)

A final word about former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D): Sanders stole his portfolio. O’Malley is appealing and charismatic, and he has a winning personality, but this was definitely not his year.

I have one closing question. Former Gov. Jim Gilmore (R) of Virginia got 12 votes in Iowa. Will someone please find those brave souls and ask them why they did what they did? I truly want to know.

Plotkin is a political analyst, a contributor to the BBC on American politics and a columnist for The Georgetowner.