The results of the Iowa caucus dealt Donald Trump and his supporters a pretty heavy blow. Sen. Ted Cruz triumphed over Trump by more than three percentage points. While this was a narrow margin, it was decidedly larger than the one Hillary Clinton managed to gain over Sanders. Regardless of party affiliation, American voters were on the edge of their seats. Clinton’s win was certainly a cause for celebration among her supporters, they shouldn’t have been too overjoyed. The Vermont senator’s remarkably close finish against the former Secretary of State demonstrates that he is a credible threat to her campaign.
Although Sanders’ surge was unexpected, Trump’s plunge widened far more eyes on Monday night. His supporters likely contemplated the possibility of foul play, or more realistically, whether their fellow “Trumpeters” (as Sarah Palin called them) failed to show up to the polls. In contrast, Trump’s opponents were probably asking whether his loss was a fluke or the beginning of a long-awaited downward spiral. Ultimately, such uncertainties can be traced back to a single question — why did Trump fall in Iowa?
Needless to say, there is no straightforward answer. Trump’s dominance and now, decline, are equally enigmatic. However, analyzing current events in the political arena may get us closer to a reasonable conclusion. Trump’s recent endorsement by Palin, just like his refusal to participate in last week’s Fox News debate may have brought about his defeat.
Whether Palin’s vote of confidence helped or hurt Trump is uncertain. What is certain is that the former Alaska governor’s endorsement brought even more attention to Trump’s campaign. Unfortunately for Trump, the extra coverage didn’t translate into more votes. Initially, a Rasmussen report indicated that Palin’s endorsement boosted Trump in the polls. However, Iowans may have changed their minds after Trump skipped the debate in their home state. While the polls are inconclusive, Palin’s support was probably detrimental to Trump’s campaign. The real estate mogul has often boasted about his success in the business world. He’s sold himself as a “winner.” It’s no secret that Palin hasn’t enjoyed the same success in the political arena. Her loss in the 2008 election was decisive and she withdrew from politics soon thereafter. The endorsement of a “winner” by a “loser” probably didn’t help Trump’s case with Iowans.
In all likelihood, Trump’s bypassing of last week’s debate contributed to his second-place finish in Iowa as much as Palin’s endorsement. The debate, held only a few days before the Iowa caucus, was a chance for Trump to make his case before undecided voters. In his absence, voters who were on the fence probably threw their support behind a different candidate. By not attending, Trump appeared weak and afraid of playing hardball with the debate moderators. Likewise, he gave every other candidate a free pass to attack him freely on the national stage.
While both of these are reasonable explanations, there is a third factor that may provide some insight into Trump’s decline. Perhaps his supporters are losing steam, their enthusiastic cheers replaced by calls for greater reason in Washington. Maybe Trump’s rallies were little more than an outlet for frustrated right-wingers, somewhere to vent their concerns about the direction of the country. They might not have sympathized with Trump’s platform, but simply attended the gathering for experience’s sake. Recent surveys support this idea. According to a recent poll of Iowa Republican voters, “shared values” was the most important criteria in deciding who to support . Perhaps even more tellingly, 38 percent of Iowa voters said their values aligned with those of Cruz. In contrast, only five percent of those polled shared the same sentiment when asked about Trump. With these figures in mind, Trump’s decline has been written on the wall for weeks.
