With the Iowa caucus being shown for what it is – largely an outdated presidential primary tradition that celebrates voter suppression – we don’t know for sure who the Democratic winner is, how much they’ll win by, and how much it will ultimately matter in the coming races. For the Republicans, however, it was always rather obvious that Donald Trump would win the Iowa caucus in 2020, even though he lost the first Iowa caucus he ran in back in 2016, and still managed to clinch the nomination back then. And yes, back then pundits were predicting his loss in Iowa meant it was over for him and he’d be out of the race.
Of course, the fact that Trump overwhelmingly won the Republican caucus was a bit of much needed good news for him so he took to Twitter to gloat. It wasn’t enough to have a big win (over 97% of the vote). He had to brag that it was an historic victory, even though it actually wasn’t. In 2012, President Obama managed to pull off almost 99% of support in the Iowa caucus when he sought reelection.
Trump, however, has two remaining primary opponents – Bill Weld and Joe Walsh – who finished with just over 1% of support each. Defeating a presidential incumbent in a primary election is largely impossible. But it goes to show that even with all of the suppression the Republicans are doing to their own primary to ensure Trump keeps the nomination, two opponents who aren’t all that well known outside of their own states can still garner some support in a largely rural state, in a region Trump depends upon heavily for re-election. These are facts he’s desperately trying to bury.
James Sullivan is the assistant editor of Brain World Magazine and an advocate of science-based policy making