Hillary Clinton suffered two setbacks in Iowa on Monday. Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., didn't inflict either one. In fact, he suffered worse.
First, tens of thousands of Iowa Democrats sat out their caucus there. They did this despite polls showing a very, very close race. A small fraction of these voters could have decisively ended Sanders' campaign -- or given him a real boost. They didn't care enough about this race to do either.
Granted, 2008 was quite a year, but the Democratic drop-off compared to then is stunning: from 239,872 to 171,109. That's a 28.7 percent drop.
Clinton presents herself as the most experienced candidate and the last hope of the Democrats. Sanders runs as the man who can bring on a revolution despite locked-down GOP control of the U.S. House. Both together can't drum up a decent turnout in one of the most liberal states in the union.
Sanders' camp says that's because Clinton can't generate excitement. Now we know Sanders can't either. The problem here isn't that Clinton is a bad campaigner. The problem is that Democrats want miracles. They believed Barack Obama could give them one in 2008. Now they know better. They don't believe Sanders can deliver. Clinton won't promise one.
The second setback happened at the GOP caucus. Sanders in particular believes this country's pent up frustrations are leading to liberal revolt. Every election since 2008 -- now including this one -- points the other way.
GOP turnout in Iowa exploded. An estimated 186,874 people showed up. The old record was 121,503 in 2012. This year, 46 percent never went to an Iowa GOP caucus before. So the math says that caucus drew about 85,000 new people.
Note that the Iowa Republican Caucus drew more people than the Democratic one, in a year in which Democrats had a competitive presidential race. That never happened before, not during the "modern era" that began in 1972. That was the first presidential caucus after 1968 Democratic Party rule changes. That put Iowa early on the election year calendar, giving it its current overemphasis.
I can picture a middle-of-the-road voter skipping the Democratic Caucus to go stop Donald Trump at the GOP contest. I can't imagine such a voter supporting the winner, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. Until somebody comes up with a fact-based theory, that's my wild guess of where that sudden surge of support for Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., came from.
Trump, who is unelectable, got knocked off his high horse. That may be temporary, but I doubt it. Cruz, who is also unelectable, knocked him off. Rubio came in third but performed far above expectations. He's now the clear rival to the other two.
As John Brummett put in a line I wish I had written: "Trump could make nearly anyone seem pleasant, and Cruz could make nearly anyone seem moderate."
Rubio's new standing bothers me. He's a good-looking, charismatic first-term senator running for president. He has excellent campaigning skills. Yet he has no solid accomplishments and no remarkable qualifications. He wouldn't get a second glance as a serious presidential contender if his ethnic origin didn't make a statement.
Electing someone very much like this was a bad idea in 2008. It still is. Pinning irrational presidential hopes on blank-slate freshman senators is getting to be a national habit. We should break that habit.
I first mentioned Obama in a column in December 2006. I wrote then, in the Fayetteville Free Weekly: "The very idea that such a rookie as Barack Obama gets serious, although speculative, consideration as the next leader of our country during a time of such crisis is a testament to the power of brand, not substance." Deja vu all over again.
As long as I'm whistling in the wind, here's a word to those who believe their principles won't allow them to support anybody except Sanders -- or Cruz, depending on whose principles apply.
The liberal tide peaked in 2008. Now Republicans get elected everywhere. Yet even as the conservative tide peaks, it swept in only 40 or so members of the "real" conservative "Freedom Caucus" among the U.S. House's 435 members.
Neither Sanders' great liberal revolution nor Cruz' great conservative counter-revolution is happening or will happen. If your principles won't let you support anyone but a miracle worker, fine. At least start bringing your candidate some water to turn into wine before you vote for him.
Commentary on 02/06/2016