See last Thursday’s post.
It’s a binary proposition, right. He either finishes first and wins or does not finish first and does not win. So to pick one side of a Boolean / binary proposition…. there’s not innate impressive difficulty there except that it was to go against a pretty dominant conventional wisdom and as such it was almost a counterintuitive prediction (boy there was a lot of pants shitting that he was going to win…).
Well… it wasn’t really counter-intuitive. It was rather intuitive, in fact, that he would not win. It was just that there was quite a bit of herd mentality / mass psychosis preventing a plurality / majority of the punditry from discerning the most likely outcome. Which is / was, that you can’t win caucuses and primaries without a base of people behind you that are in the habit of voting in caucuses and primaries. And that, you need a real ground effort on which a shit-ton of money is spent. Trump does not have that, so he does not win (though the amount of people who voted for him is not insubstantial).
You’re also going against the polls at that point, and we had a few years ago the Republicans being embarrassed for their fixation with ‘skewed’ polls. But I had here some sense these Iowa polls were in fact crap… people doing a bunch of, ya know, virtue signaling on the telephone.
Anywho, the thought exercise here daily is to make insightful, correct observations free of fan worshipping or alternately paranoia, and I’m doing it… I think.
I see it as Rubio in the end, because he’s the R establishment candidate and is a quality candidate in his own right. And I think it highly likely he prevails over Clinton or Sanders, not because Republican policy prescriptions are best…. But because he’s a better candidate. It takes a lot for this country to elect a geriatric to the Presidency, and HRC or Sanders don’t have what it takes to be an exception.