Mediaboss Marketing

Supporters of former President Donald Trump cheer during his caucus night event in Des Moines, Iowa. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images hide caption

Supporters of former President Donald Trump cheer during his caucus night event in Des Moines, Iowa.

After a year of campaigning and more than $120 million in ad spending in Iowa, the caucuses have come and gone.

And the result was ... what everyone pretty much expected.

Former President Donald Trump won in a landslide.

So, what's it all mean? Here are five takeaways:

Trump won by such a large margin that The Associated Press was able to call the race at 8:31 p.m. ET, just half an hour after voting began. It was able to do so because it conducts a massive voter survey and then it compares that to key precincts in the state, which showed Trump with an insurmountable lead.

So much of this race has been a race for second place, and that held up. Trump finished with more than 50% of the vote, had the most enthusiastic voters in polling, and they showed up despite predictions that they might not because of record cold weather and high expectations that he would win.

The GOP base is pretty much all in on Trump's election lies and conspiracies. According to media entrance polls of Iowa GOP caucusgoers sponsored by CNN, NBC News, CBS News and others:

The signs have been clear. Trump's campaign noticed it, it raised tons of money from these indictments, and Trump's lead has only expanded in the GOP nominating process this year. His lead in Iowa, according to an average of the polls, went up a net of 9 points since May.

With a general-election audience, it's a different story. An NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll from October found that majorities of independents and Democrats believe he has done something illegal, and views of Trump haven't budged much Republicans love him, but majorities of everyone else have an unfavorable opinion of him.

So much of this primary campaign has been about the race for second place, but politics is not grenades and horseshoes. And even if coming close mattered, this wasn't a close finish.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis was barely ahead of Nikki Haley, and more importantly, he lost to Trump by 30 points. That's the largest margin in Iowa caucus history. (Previously, the widest was 12.8 points.)

DeSantis is vowing to stay in, but it's hard to make the case for a path forward for him. Consider that he and the super PACs supporting him spent millions of dollars on campaign ads, he visited all 99 counties, got the endorsement of the state's popular governor and its most influential religious leader and it still didn't matter.

In fact, his support only went down from the beginning of the campaign. He topped out just shy of 30% in June and he never improved.

DeSantis modeled himself after Trump and tried to sell himself as Trump without the baggage, but Iowa Republicans just weren't buying it, didn't want to move on and went with the original. Now he's going to likely have to balance this campaign with his future in politics.

Trump is the head of the party, and if DeSantis wants a future in it, he is probably going to have to curry favor with Trump. And there's an argument that staying in and denying Haley a one-on-one race with Trump might be a way to do that, at least for a while.

Haley finished within a couple of thousand votes of DeSantis. And she denied Trump a clean sweep of all of Iowa's 99 counties. She won one county, Johnson County in the eastern part of the state by ONE vote.

But the stakes now for Haley in New Hampshire in a week have just gone up.

"Tonight, I will be back in the great state of New Hampshire," Haley said during her speech Monday night. She said the question before Americans "is very clear do you want more of the same or do you want a new generation of conservative leadership?"

Voters are shown checking in at a caucus site at Franklin Junior High on Monday in Des Moines, Iowa. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images hide caption

Voters are shown checking in at a caucus site at Franklin Junior High on Monday in Des Moines, Iowa.

She argued that "America deserves better" because majorities dislike both President Biden and Trump and don't like that they're both 80 or approaching it.

It's not a bad argument. Now she needs to show that in a more moderate state, where independents can vote, she can give Trump a real run for his money.

But there are some red flags for Haley going forward.

Her win in Johnson County is indicative of the problem she faces. The county, home to the University of Iowa, has the highest percentage of college degrees in the state. And look at the groups Haley won in the state overall:

Those are hardly the majority of Republican Party rank-and-file voters.

Plus, Trump won independents and those who said being able to beat Biden was the candidate quality that mattered most.

So, the electability argument Haley has been trying to make didn't resonate in Iowa, and her team spent a lot of money trying to drive that message home.

If she can't prove it to New Hampshire voters by winning or finishing a reasonably close second, it's going to be tough for her to convince donors and supporters that she should continue.

Turnout was low in these caucuses compared to the record-setting 2016 turnout. Only about 110,000 Republicans caucused with 99% of results in, as of 1:30 a.m. ET.

That represents less than 15% of the total number of registered Republicans in the state perhaps not surprising in the record cold. But Trump got almost 900,000 votes in Iowa in 2020.

Put another way, almost $124 million was spent on campaign ads in Iowa by the Republican candidates, more than any other state by far.

That translates to $1,124 per person who showed up to vote.

It's pretty amazing for so few voters to play such a prominent role in the presidential nominating process.

Read more here:
5 takeaways from the Iowa Republican caucus results - NPR

Which issues matter most? Share of likely Republican primary voters who said each issue was among the most important to determining their primary vote

The top {{ top_n }} issues are shown. Other issues are {{ other_issues }}. Respondents could select up to three issues from a list of 20, with additional options for something else and dont know.

Next, we presented likely Republican primary voters with a list of 20 issues and asked them to pick up to three that would be most important in determining their vote. By far, the two most cited issues were getting inflation or costs under control (49 percent) and controlling immigration (48 percent). That was also the case the last four times we conducted this poll, although in the past, respondents were significantly more likely to pick inflation than immigration. The closing gap could be because inflation is easing while immigration officials are encountering a record number of people attempting to cross the southern border. Meanwhile, issues like limiting abortion and improving election security were not cited by even 10 percent of respondents.

Finally, we also asked about several topics that have recently been in the news. For example, 73 percent of respondents said they were very or somewhat familiar with the U.S. House voting to authorize an impeachment inquiry into Biden, and 83 percent said they were very or somewhat familiar with Colorados and Maines rulings that Trump should be disqualified from the primary ballot (those rulings have both been stayed pending a final decision by the U.S. Supreme Court). Unsurprisingly, 84 percent of likely Republican primary voters felt the efforts to remove Trump from the ballot were politically motivated, while just 21 percent thought they were justified by the law (respondents could say both were true). But they dont think those efforts are going anywhere anyway: Only 24 percent of respondents thought it was very or somewhat likely that those rulings would stay in place. In fact, a plurality (47 percent) of respondents thought these efforts would actually make Trump more likely to win in a general election against Biden only 15 percent thought they would make Trump less likely to win.

We also asked about Haleys recent answer to a voters question about what caused the Civil War. She did not mention slavery but rather cited the role of government and what the rights of the people are. (She later clarified that of course slavery was one of the causes of the war.) Our poll found that more likely Republican primary voters thought slavery was a major cause of the Civil War (68 percent) than thought that the role of the federal government was a major cause (56 percent). Only 7 percent thought slavery was not a cause of the war, while 10 percent thought the role of the federal government wasnt.

However, Haleys response may not hurt her much among voters, simply because they didnt hear about it. (The gaffe came during the week between Christmas and New Years Day when many Americans probably werent paying attention.) In the poll, only 46 percent of respondents said they were very or somewhat familiar with the exchange, while 30 percent said they had not heard of it at all.

See the article here:
Where Do Republican Voters Stand Ahead Of The New Hampshire Primary? - FiveThirtyEight

The use of the phrase from the river to the sea has come under particular scrutiny in the last three months. When Palestinians, or anyone on the left, has used the phrase to demand a free Palestineas in the popular chant, From the river to the sea, Palestine will be freethose on the right have disingenuously argued that it is calling for the death of all Jewish people in Israel.

Representative Rashida Tlaib, the only Palestinian American member of Congress, was censured by Congress last year for her use of the phrase. Many Democrats joined Republicans in condemning her, minutes after she used a floor speech to condemn both rising Islamophobia and antisemitism in the wake of Israels deadly assault on Gaza.

From the river to the sea is an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate, Tlaib wrote in an effort to clarify her language as the bad-faith critics amassed against her. My work and advocacy is always centered in justice and dignity for all people no matter faith or ethnicity.

Read more:
Oklahoma Republican Introduces Shortest, Most Racist Bill You've Ever Read - The New Republic

House Speaker Mike Johnson also threw his weight behind the former president and rejected the ruling, calling it nothing but a thinly veiled partisan attack.

Trumps primary competitors joined the fray, including former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who has staked his campaign on positioning himself as a foil to Trump.

Christie, answering a question at a town hall in Bedford, New Hampshire, said the ruling was probably premature because Trump hasnt been tried for inciting insurrection.

I do not believe Donald Trump should be prevented from being president of the United States by any court. I think he should be prevented from being president of the United States by the voters of this country, Christie said, adding that he had not yet had a chance to read the ruling that came out while he was en route to his campaign event.

Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley echoed Christies remarks. We dont need to have judges making these decisions, we need voters to make these decisions, she said in Iowa, according to the Des Moines Register.

She added at a campaign event : Were going to win this the right way.

Vivek Ramaswamy pledged to withdraw his name from the Colorado primary ballot and encouraged his opponents to do the same.

The Framers of the 14th Amendment would be appalled to see this narrow provisionintended to bar former U.S. officials who switched to the Confederacy from seeking public officebeing weaponized by a sitting President and his political allies to prevent a former President from seeking reelection, Ramaswamy wrote in a social media post .

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, another of Trumps primary rivals, also attacked what he saw as judicial overreach. The Left invokes democracy to justify its use of power, even if it means abusing judicial power to remove a candidate from the ballot based on spurious legal grounds. SCOTUS should reverse, he wrote on a post on X.

GOP Whip Tom Emmer of Minnesota, Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz were among the many other Republicans to denounce the ruling on social media.

This is extreme judicial activism that is designed to suppress the vote and voices of hundreds of thousands of Coloradans, which is absolutely unacceptable, Colorado Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert said in a post to X.

Kari Lake, who famously refused to concede her loss in the 2022 Arizona governor race, called for the Supreme Court to block the state courts ruling.

Shortly after the ruling was announced, a spokesperson for Trumps campaign said that the former president would file an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Lisa Kashinsky, Kelly Garrity and Eric Bazail-Eimil contributed to this report.

Read the original post:
GOP rallies around Trump after Colorado ballot ruling - POLITICO

The Republican prosecutor in Sheboygan County has appealed a Dane County judges ruling that an 1849 law widely interpreted as a near-complete ban on abortions only applies to feticide and not consensual abortions.

But shortly after he filed the appeal with a state district court Wednesday, Sheboygan County District Attorney Joel Urmanski said he plans to also file a petition in the next few weeks to have the liberal-majority Wisconsin Supreme Court hear the case directly.

He said a direct appeal to the states highest court could provide the speedy and conclusive end to this dispute that I believe our citizens want, according to a statement first reported by WisPolitics.com. I believe it would be in the best interests of the State as a whole for this issue to be considered and resolved by our Supreme Court immediately.

Urmanskis petition before the 2nd District Court of Appeals asks the court to overturn a 1994 case that led to the determination that the law only applies to feticide. Additionally, he questions whether Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul had standing to bring the lawsuit that led to the Dane County ruling.

Urmanski didnt respond to a request for comment asking whether hell withdraw his appeal if and when he goes directly to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Urmanskis appeal seeks to reanimate a 19th century criminal abortion ban, taking away peoples abilities to make decisions about their own lives and futures, said Michelle Velasquez, chief strategy officer for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin.

She said the organization will continue offering abortions in Milwaukee and Madison and will follow through with its plans to reopen its Sheboygan abortion clinic.

Kaul told the Wisconsin State Journal that he was confident the law is on his side.

Reproductive health care decisions should be made by women, not by the government, he said. As this case moves forward, we will continue standing up for access to safe and legal abortion in Wisconsin.

Dane County Judge Diane Schlippers preliminary ruling in July clarifying the scope of the 1849 law led to the resumption of abortion services in Wisconsin two months later. She issued a final ruling in the case earlier this month.

Abortions were stopped in Wisconsin after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022 because many legal experts and abortion providers assumed the 1849 law banned virtually all abortions.

In his lawsuit filed days after that decision, Kaul argued the 1849 law conflicted with later, more permissive abortion bans.

Doctors joined the case late last year to argue that the 174-year-old law didnt apply to abortions at all, but rather only to feticide. They pointed to a 1994 Wisconsin Supreme Court case that found that the law only applied to somebody killing a fetus by assaulting its mother, not consensual abortions.

Its not clear why Kaul didnt initially mention the 1994 case, or why abortion providers closed in June 2022 given the determination in that case.

Kaul initially filed the case against Republican legislative leaders, but he later named as defendants the prosecutors in Dane, Milwaukee and Sheboygan counties, which were home to abortion clinics before Roe was overturned.

"I believe it would be in the best interests of the State as a whole for this issue to be considered and resolved by our Supreme Court immediately."

Joel Urmanski, district attorney for Sheboygan County

Get local news delivered to your inbox!

Excerpt from:
Republican prosecutor appeals Wisconsin abortion ruling - Madison.com