Wounded?

How Wounded Are Trump and Clinton?

Political insiders decipher what Iowa means for the front-runners.

By POLITICO Magazine

With one state down and lots more to go, the two front-runners are already looking a little shaky. A confident Donald Trump was polling ahead in Iowa—as he is in many other states—yet placed second in the Republican caucuses last night, after Ted Cruz and much closer to Marco Rubio than was projected. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton began the race as the clear No. 1, an experienced politician who has done this all before—yet she’s neck-and-neck with a 74-year-old socialist senator from Vermont, who’s ahead in the next state, New Hampshire. What does Iowa mean for the two top candidates? We asked top political gurus to parse the results: Is this the end of Trump, and why can’t Clinton just put it away?

***

‘Sanders passed the “legitimacy” test’
Brent Colburn, fellow at the Harvard Institute of Politics, former assistant to the secretary of defense for public affairs and national communications director for Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign

On the Republican side, the open question now is: Who has the infrastructure, savvy and discipline to turn the momentum from Iowa into results that affect the overall process? That means turning the good press out of last night into more volunteers, supporters, donors and—ultimately—voters. No one with resources is totally done after last night, and Donald Trump clearly has resources. But his path just became remarkably more difficult. He needs Republican voters who are wary of his persona to take a second look at him. Winning Iowa would have opened that door. More than for anyone else, not winning the state undercuts Trump’s (self-articulated) theory of his candidacy. This could turn into a nightmare scenario for the GOP. A wounded Trump could turn out to be worse than a winning Trump. He has the means to stay in the race, he’ll still be on stage at debates dogging the other candidates, and he has the ego to simply not go away.

On the Democratic side, this is still Hillary Clinton’s nomination to lose. That said, the close result last night, plus Bernie Sanders’ good fundraising numbers from over the weekend, mean the party could be in for a long nomination fight. Sanders passed the “legitimacy” test in Iowa. He has opened the door to Democratic voters in later states taking a second look at him. Clinton passed the “resiliency” test. Her campaign showed it can take a blow and keep marching on. Both survived, both advanced. Now, Sanders needs to make the case to moderate Democrats that he has the temperament and political skills needed to win a general election. Clinton needs to make the case to traditional liberals and younger voters that she can carry the torch on the issues they care about most. As much as we want to see the Sanders phenomenon as unique, you have to remember that establishment Democrats often get challenges from the left in the primary process. It happened in 2000 with Bill Bradley giving a scare to Al Gore in Iowa and New Hampshire. It happened in 2004 with Howard Dean. The liberal wing of our party often looks for a new alternative; the question for Clinton isn’t why is it happening, but can she bring those voters home?

***

‘The Democratic nomination fight is going to continue … with no end anytime soon’
Ron Bonjean, Republican strategist and a founding partner of the public affairs firm Rokk Solutions

There is now blood in the water for Donald Trump. He underperformed because of his attempt to sell Iowa voters wholesale with large media events with big crowds without really getting to know them on more of a personal level. Ted Cruz proved he could successfully beat back Trump attacks because he had a great retail ground game and identified well with evangelical voters. The fact that Trump skipped the Iowa debate gave Marco Rubio an outstanding chance to break through to voters with a positive message and bring more voters to his camp. Trump must now hope that he can still maintain his lead in New Hampshire and that his brand of being a winner doesn’t whither away to Rubio.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign isn’t bringing an overwhelming amount of Democrats to her camp because she has made the campaign about herself and her experience, and the scandals over her emails have caused her to lose the trust of voters. The Sanders campaign has succeeded in making it about more than just the candidate, but trying to create a movement of changing the country for the better towards a liberal philosophy. Barack Obama did the same thing with his left-wing vision of “change we can believe in” and captured the party’s attention. What is clear is that the Democratic nomination fight is going to continue in the months ahead with no end anytime soon. One regret Sanders may have is not going after the Clinton email scandal much earlier in the primary campaign.

***

‘It is the rare Democratic primary process that gets “put away” after one contest’
Anita Dunn, Democratic political strategist and the White House Communications Director from April through November 2009

Iowa was never going to be a good state for Donald Trump and he should be happy he escaped with second place. The truer test for Trump is New Hampshire—a primary with a much more open system, where he really should be able to win. How he campaigns this week and whether he can win New Hampshire will tell us much more about his potential staying power moving forward, but as is true with all momentum candidates, a message built around momentum only works when you actually are winning!

It is the rare Democratic primary process that gets “put away” after one contest—or even two. Historically, since the party rules were changed after 1968, our primaries have been prolonged because of the elimination of winner-take-all contests and because of proportional representation, on top of a desire by Democratic primary voters to keep contests going. In 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992 and 2008, the contests basically continued through the last primaries. Bill Clinton, as gifted a candidate as he was, didn’t wrap up the nomination until late spring. Barack Obama won 11 straight caucuses and primaries after his New Hampshire loss in 2008, and not only did Hilary Clinton stay in the race in the face of the string of losses, she rebounded with wins! So I think it is unfair to suggest that she should have been able to end this contest before it began. These are elections, not coronations, and candidates have to win nominations.

Heading forward, Bernie Sanders has huge advantages over insurgents of the past—but some liabilities. His advantages include a fundraising base almost totally outside of traditional large Democratic donors, and therefore not as susceptible to arguments about him needing to get out to unify the party (at least at this early stage, and why should he? he fought Clinton to a functional tie in Iowa); a message that represents a significant percentage of the Democratic primary electorate who want to have a voice in the nominating process; and winning margins with important parts of the general election Democratic coalition for the fall (young voters, for example). His liabilities are that he isn’t as well known as she is, he doesn’t have the infrastructure she has, he doesn’t have the relationships and political alliances that make a huge difference as you move through the calendar, through good times and bad. These liabilities are likely to become more apparent as the voting moves to a broader map.

***

‘Trump can win New Hampshire and will be a force’
Joe Trippi, Democratic political strategist and Howard Dean’s former campaign manager

Don‘t underestimate Donald Trump. Iowa was made for a candidate like Ted Cruz. Mike Huckabee won with evangelical support in 2008, Rick Santorum defeated Mitt Romney with evangelical support in 2012. Cruz was always in the best position and better organized to take advantage of that evangelical support. Trump can win New Hampshire and will be a force.

Bernie Sanders needed a win in Iowa and a win in New Hampshire to have any hope of expanding his support beyond progressive whites into the more diverse support needed in South Carolina and beyond for him to win the nomination. That’s why Hillary Clinton’s close win in Iowa was so important. She gets only stronger from her as the party gets far more diverse after New Hampshire. And in a state she lost badly in 2008, she was strong enough to win. If Sanders isn’t able to expand his support in South Carolina, it will be even clearer that Clinton’s win in Iowa proves the point that a win, however close, is a win.

***

‘Cruz vs. Rubio … or Cruz vs. Trump’
Mary Matalin, Republican political strategist

This is in no way the end of Donald Trump, who embodies a transcendent emotion, an itch Marco Rubio doesn’t scratch. The race now becomes, albeit not over night, Ted Cruz vs. Rubio, or Trump dumps on Rubio and makes it Cruz vs. Trump.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton did great last night, actually, proving the effectiveness of campaign manager Robby Mook’s tactical approach. Bernie Sander’s appeal is not about him; in this primary, he represents the general electoral anxiety and the party ambivalence for non-true believers.

The restoration of serious politics, à la 1800. Love love love it.

***

‘Clinton did not lose Iowa’
Douglas Schoen, founding partner and principal strategist for Penn, Schoen and Berland, and a former pollster for Bill Clinton

Huge setback for Donald Trump. Not only did Ted Cruz win, but Marco Rubio’s surge sets Trump back. Trump must win New Hampshire to stay viable, and expect virtually all of the establishment support there to coalesce behind Rubio. Cruz will also show strength in New Hampshire, but the key for him will be South Carolina and the SEC primary. I believe he now is the putative front runner.

Hillary Clinton did not lose in Iowa. That is the big takeaway from last night. With an effective tie (or perhaps a narrow win), she has avoided disaster in a state she couldn’t and didn’t lose. She will go to New Hampshire and lose—most likely handily. But the results last night suggest no reason to believe that her firewall in the South will not hold. Bernie Sanders will continue to raise huge amounts of money and generate substantial amounts of enthusiasm. But Iowa shows the limits of his appeal, and suggests Clinton’s principal challenge comes from exogenous factors and forces, not the Vermont senator.

***

‘Clinton’s party … is not yet inspired by her’
Van Jones, CNN political contributor and former Obama administration special adviser for green jobs.

Donald Trump’s problem in Iowa is simple and solvable: He pretended that he had a ground game, but he didn’t. Failing to fund a traditional political operation cost the billionaire—big time. That’s part of why he was not able to translate his high poll numbers into actual votes. Now, he simply needs to do two things. One, he needs to act like a remotely mature adult—reining in some of the insults and consistently showing up in the states he’s vying for. Two, he must stop being a cheapskate and must spend serious money on a real ground game in New Hampshire and beyond. If he does that, he can get his campaign back on track. After all, pundits have been writing Trump’s obituary for months. The smart money would bet that the big, orange cat has a few more lives in him.

Why can’t Hillary Clinton put it away? She began this race as the clear frontrunner, an experienced politician who has done this all before—yet she’s neck-and-neck with a 74-year-old socialist senator from Vermont, who keeps dogging her in the polls. Clinton will be fine, once she gets to run in more racially diverse states. But in the meantime, she will have to come to terms with an unpleasant fact: Her party’s base respects and admires her. But it is not yet inspired by her. Not even young women—who went big-time for Bernie Sanders in Iowa. And in politics, inspiration matters—a lot.

Most concerning: Iowa exit polls show that young voters completely rejected Clinton. The next generation sees a Sanders “movement” fighting the Clinton “machine.” They respect the “people-powered” Sanders model and detest the “super Pac-friendly” Clinton model. They see Clinton asking them to use their heads and be realistic; they see Sanders appealing to their hearts and asking them to reach for their dreams. They love our president, but the Obama years have been very tough. Young idealists don’t just want to defend and extend Obama’s achievements (Clinton’s promise); they want to transcend the whole, awful mess they are inheriting (Sanders’ goal). Also, Team Clinton seems to be surprised that the term “socialist” is no barrier to the affections of the young. They forget that FOX News has spent eight years calling our (economically reasonable) president a socialist 24 hours a day. The term now has zero power to scare young voters. Like an overused antibiotic, red-baiting simply doesn’t work anymore on this new generation.

Since Sanders won’t likely peel away black and Latino voters, Clinton can become our nominee without changing much. But to win the general election, she would be wise recast her solutions in terms that touch the heart’s of the next generation.

***

‘Trump can still be a factor’
Bill Scher, senior writer at the Campaign for America’s Future, co-host of the Bloggingheads.tv show “The DMZ” and a contributing editor at Politico Magazine

All year we’ve heard that the old rules don’t apply to Donald Trump, that you don’t need to be likable on the stump and you don’t need a traditional get-out-the-vote operation to win. In fact, rules are rules. Acting insane for media attention is not a winning strategy. And there’s no way Trump can build a functioning campaign apparatus on the fly. His job only gets harder from this point forward. But Trump can still be a factor. He has always been extremely eager to tear down his opponents. Will he continue to slam Ted Cruz as a pro-amnesty Canadian? Will he unleash his Twitter feed on Marco Rubio? He can make it harder for a bandwagon effect to materialize around the leading candidates, dragging the campaign out and giving others hope.

Hillary Clinton couldn’t immediately put it away in Iowa because young voters want to dream big. They don’t want to hear that breaking up the banks isn’t practical or that single-payer health care is politically impossible or that raising money from big donors is necessary to win elections. She still has the upper hand to win once the primaries move to bigger states with more diverse populations. But she’s not going to win over those young voters anytime soon, and she will need to by November.