Make no mistake the real winner last night was Ted Cruz

[Bad Dog]

Because now people outside America know who he is. And if the Clinton and Sanders camps carry on attacking each other he may well be the next bloody president.

Actually the real winner was Pep Guardiola, that's who's dominated the news today.

[beachbum bob]

1. nope...the winner are democrats with Ted Cruz beating trump

once the democratic nominee is settled....the planning for democratic landslide in November will proceed unless Bernie supporters want to do a Ralph Nader supporter imitation and give america a batshit craxzy conservative in the whitehouse

[6chars]

2. winner was Rubio on Republican side

he has the advantage of not being Ted Cruz, which more than offsets the disadvantage of being Marco Rubio.

[Yupster]

3. I agree

Listening to the three of them last night, I think Rubio is by far the biggest threat.

On the Dem side, I think Hillary was the big winner. Bernie has such a narrow path to the nomination, in my opinion he needed to win convincingly last night. Draws are good for Hillary until Super Tuesday where she wipes him out.

[exboyfil]

5. He is also relatively popular (favored son) in a key state

I have to think the money people around Bush have him in a full blown full nelson right now to persuade him to stop nuking Rubio. Bush spent nearly $3,000/vote in Iowa.

The GOP results in Iowa are bad for the Democrats. It would have been better if Rubio had finished fourth or a distant third. He almost beat Trump, and the three are very close packed.

[onenote]

24. 77 percent of the voters picked someone other than Rubio

I wouldn't go crowning him either. Trump and Cruz together got 51 percent; Carson another nine. While Rubio did the best of the so-called "establishment" candidates, all of those candidates put together trailed the crazies by a large margin.

This has a ways to go.

[6chars]

25. the betting odds sites moved pretty dramatically

the R nomination going into Iowa Caucuses was about 53% for Trump and 26% for Rubio and that basically reversed after yesterday. Cruz went up a little but not a lot, and the Dem line barely moved. For what it's worth, they have it at about 5/8 (62%) chance the Dems win the presidency, with odds a little better against Trump and Cruz than against Rubio.

[onenote]

34. I'm just not sure I see lots of Cruz, Trump and Carson voters switching to Rubio.

It will be interesting to see how the polls change.

Iowa is different from New Hampshire, but a bit more like South Carolina.

In Iowa, the poll averages (per realclearpolitics) gave Trump and Cruz a combined 52.5 percent. They ended up with 51.9 percent. Carson was polling (average) at 7.7 percent, and ended up with 9.3 percent. So on a combined basis the three leading "outsiders": Trump, Cruz, and Carson were polling at 60.2 percent and ended up with 61.2 percent. I could see Rubio making a push into second place in New Hampshire, but I don't see him winning any of the early primaries. And if he finishes third each time -- even a close third -- he's going to have trouble winning the whole thing.

[DanTex]

4. And Marco Rubio.

[Bad Dog]

6. Pep Guardiola's got a 3 year contract at £15 million pa.

And a huge war chest for the Summer. City are set to dominate Europe.

My point remains, while you're knocking lumps out of each other Cruz is sliming his way to the top. Being batshit crazy didn't harm Dubya.

[yeoman6987]

10. Cruz will not be the nominee

Cruz spent years and big money in Iowa. He will not do well in New Hampshire. Iowa was perfect for a Cruz win. He probably should have win handily but he only won by 4 points. Not great. We'll see how Donald does in New Hampshire. Donald should have lost Iowa way more then he did. That state is not Donald country. He will probably win New Hampshire. Rubio number 2 in New Hampshire. Cruz is done. The good news is we will win in November.

[zappaman]

26. I agree with all this!

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

7. Rubio was the real winner

The RNC will now be putting a lot of pressure on the other candidates to pull out of the race, since they have determined that Marco Rubio is their best chance.

And most of those votes will go to Rubio.

[NRaleighLiberal]

8. not at all. In fact, perhaps his 15 minutes of fame moment only.

[DetlefK]

9. To the contrary: Ted Cruz will now be scrutinized even harder.

And the liberal media will ask mean, partisan, loaded questions like:
"You keep bringing up that claim. What are the numbers? And where did you get these numbers from?"

[ljm2002]

11. So the Cruz and Trump and Rubio campaigns...

...aren't attacking each other during the primary?

Odd.

[Bad Dog]

12. Not on DU they're not.

You need to keep your eye on the ball. There were disagreements during the Labour party leadership, but not the level of vitriol and sheer nastiness I can see here. I find it really shocking.

[ljm2002]

14. Well duh...

...they aren't on DU at all, so no wonder they're not attacking each other here!

The point, of course, is that during a primary, candidates in the same party will indeed be attacking one another, politically. It's baked into the system. I am pretty tired of people acting surprised and scaremongering that it will help the Republicans. They are also attacking one another, because that is how primaries work.

[Bad Dog]

16. So just because you've always done it that makes it OK.

You don't need it. It's quite possible to want different leaders and not let the debate descend to the level of personal nastiness on here. I'm not talking about the candidates, I'm talking about the supposed Democrats on this forum. You're all supposed to be on the same side but you wouldn't think it from what's being said here.

I really don't give a monkeys who becomes the next president just as long as they're not a Republican.

[ljm2002]

17. Ah, I see you're in the UK...

...I was wondering what you meant by "you've always done it".

That is fine, of course. I do appreciate hearing from people in other countries, because it provides a different perspective.

I will say though, that when it comes to political nastiness, it is hard to top the Brits. I've been there (although not recently) and I've seen politicians tear at one another, not to mention the talk shows where they really let it rip. And no one, but no one, can let it rip like a Brit!

[Bad Dog]

19. Not when we're on the same bloody side.

Certain backbenchers may be outspoken, but when a party spits into warring factions and focuses its attack on each other instead of the opposition it doesn't normally end well.

[ljm2002]

21. Certain backbenchers...

...like Jeremy Corbyn, who ended up winning in a landslide?

I do see parallels between his rise and Bernie Sanders' rise. Bernie has also been considered a bit of backbencher, although since he was not actually a member of the Democratic party, the term would be technically not correct. But he is a Senator from a very small state, not considered particularly influential, until he threw his hat in the ring for the presidential campaign.

Anyway, you are right, it is a concern when a party splits into warring factions. But that dynamic was certainly in play in the 2008 campaign, and that ended pretty well at the presidential level, with Barack Obama going on to win two terms in office.

[Bad Dog]

27. I didn't vote for Jeremy Corbyn.

I voted for Andy Burnham, but I never said anything derogatory about Corbyn, or his supporters, before during or after his campaign. He won the vote and I accept it.

The problem the party faces is unity, if Corbyn loses the next election it will all be down to others jockeying for position.

Corbyn is not like Sanders, he's a Socialist, no qualifying Democratic needed, just like it's not needed with Liberal or Conservative. I have no problems with his policies, it's his electability I'm worried about.

[liberal_at_heart]

29. I don't consider Hillary on my side. I consider her on the rich people's side.

[Vinca]

13. I think Ted's victory will be fleeting.

Michele "Bible Thumper" Bachmann also won and that didn't work out so well. And now that the Donald has been dissed, I wouldn't be surprised to see a legal challenge to Cruz's "natural born" citizenship claim.

[ipfilter]

15. Agreed

Cruz is full of hubris now. It's only a matter of time before he says something off the wall and sinks his own campaign.

[yellowcanine]

18. Ted Cruz went all in to win Iowa based on winning the evangelical vote.

But he ended up winning only one more delegate (8) than Trump (7) and Rubio (7). And he lost a fair amount of the evangelical vote to Trump and Rubio. When all is said and done, I think Iowa will be seen as the high point of the Cruz campaign.

[grossproffit]

20. Ted's toast after Iowa.

[cali]

22. Nope. Rubio

[onenote]

23. People "outside America"?

What does that even mean?

Concluding anything based on the outcome of the Iowa caucus is risky. Going into last night Trump had a double digit lead over Cruz in New Hampshire and South Carolina. It's far from certain that Cruz will overcome that deficit. Cruz only gained one more delegate than either Trump or Rubio (8-7-7), so I wouldn't go crowning him yet.

[Bad Dog]

30. It means people who aren't inside America.

You know, people who aren't American.

[onenote]

32. And how does being known to people outside America make Cruz a winner?

And how does it make it more likely he will get the nomination, since that is the connection you seemingly drew in your OP?

[Bad Dog]

35. Being president involves dealing with other countries.

It helps if people in those other countries know who you are.

[onenote]

37. it helps you govern. how does it help get him elected?

[Bad Dog]

40. Remember Mitt Romney

When he came to Britain on the campaign. Nobody knew who he was until he opened his mouth, and then he was known as the bloke who'd slagged off the Olympics.

Meanwhile British politicians were falling over themselves to be photographed next to Obama.

Join the bloody dots.

[onenote]

41. Get back to me when foreign politicians start falling over themselves to be photographed with Cruz

Hell, being photographed with European leaders would probably hurt Cruz amongst Republicans.

[Bad Dog]

42. I'm finding this all rather depressing.

My point was that both Democratic camps spend too much time attacking each other instead of the real opposition. As an aside I pointed out that at least people over here now knew who he was.

That's it.

[liberal_at_heart]

28. I would think those in other countries would welcome a challenger that wants less war.

And sorry but there are other things to consider besides war too such as social and economic justice issues. For me the person who will best fight for those things is Bernie Sanders.

[Bad Dog]

31. I don't think there's much difference

between Sanders and Clinton as far as war mongering goes. Blair had to pressurise Bill Clinton into acting in Kosovo. It's the Republicans who like war.

You may have good reasons domestically why you prefer Sanders, but as far as international stuff goes, I don't think there's much in it. Clinton's got more experience diplomatically, but I don't think that's enough to swing it.

[liberal_at_heart]

33. Clinton voted for the war in Iraq. Sanders voted against it. Yes, there is a difference.

[Bad Dog]

36. It still happened though.

A collective madness hit America during Dubya's presidency. During the run up to the illegal war the Media colluded in lies, being against the war was being un-American. It was insane. We got drawn into it despite the majority of our population being against it and having the largest anti War demonstration of all time.

If Cruz or Trump gets in I can see the same thing happening again. We don't want to get caught up in that.

Bill Clinton is extremely popular over here, probably more popular than Obama. He was the first president to actually get involved in the NI peace process. For all the hogwash about Thatcher and Reagan's special relationship he still allowed Noraid to fund terrorist offences.

Clinton was the first president to show he actually cared about people who weren't American. The peace didn't last for long though, America may have stopped funding terrorist attacks in Britain but it wasn't long before they inspired them. 7/7 happened because of Bush.

[liberal_at_heart]

38. Never mind. You just don't get it. Hillary will continue and expand our wars. Bernie

would work to decrease our military presence. You can think and support anybody you want. I am voting for Bernie.

[Bad Dog]

39. It's not that I don't get it, I don't agree.

Clinton was the only one who had a realistic chance to standing against Bush next election. The pro war fever was insane, with Bush reducing everything to black and white, for and against, and the opposition was vilified, not to mention the French. Remember Freedom Fries?

I can forgive Clinton for getting whipped up in the hysteria. Although clearly it's come back to bite her on the arse since. Given her husband's record I don't think there's anything to indicate she's particularly gung ho. I think she's quite measured.

As far as Clinton/Sanders goes I remain ambivalent. I don't mind who wins as long as it's not the Republican. What I don't want to happen, and what I fear might happen, is that Democrats, whose candidate does not get in, will either not vote, or protest vote, paving the way for the Republican.