Skip to main content

Iowa caucus


 Last week, in a decision of great sacrifice, I decided to watch the final debate of the remaining two non-Trump Republican presidential candidates before the Iowa caucus ... so you, dear reader, didn't have to. 

Only a couple of points are worth mention.  Ambassador Haley seemed to think it an important point about DeSantis that under him insurance rates for homeowners have gone up in Florida. He never really responded on point, though she came back to this several times. 

Neither of them really said anything about WHY property insurance rates have risen. Haley could have made it seem an important point if she had said, "property insurance rates are up because insurers are factoring in the increase in extreme home-destroying weather events in Florida. THAT is happening due to climate change. Here is my plan for what to do about THAT." 

But she didn't make that connection -- EVEN when she was specifically asked about climate change she did NOT tie it to the talking point she had already established about insurance rates in RD's home state. This would be a very different world if one could talk like that in a Republicans' presidential primary debate.. but she seemed to think a Governor can command insurance companies lower their rates and that he had bull-headedly refused to do so. 

Another point: RD kept making the argument that he must be doing something right as Governor because Florida has high net in-migration.  More people arrive than leave.. 

As distinct from the fact that people go to Florida as a retirement destination and stay there until they die.  (Their death does not count as emigration.)  So the state gets high net in-migration numbers. Even despite the extreme weather events. 

They both get F in statistics. 

So now the caucus has been held.  The result, as you all know by now, is that Trump won with slightly more than 50 percent of the vote. 

RD came in a distant second, and NH came in a distant third, reasonably close to one another. 

This is more devastating for RD, though, than for NH.  Iowa was central to his plan. He is supposed to be the younger baggage-free Donald Trump.  To make a case for THAT as the description of the nominee he needed to pose a strong challenge to the older, baggage-carrying DT in Iowa.  He has made a point of visiting every one of the 99 counties of the state.  He has blown a lot of money.  Yet to no avail. RD will likely drop out soon. 

NH will continue to hope for a boost from New Hampshire. The world rolls on.


Comments

  1. Debates are a tightrope act: claiming victory in a debate is a hollow claim. Even claiming that one has "come out ahead" is suspect, because all participants reveal weaknesses in their contentions, including misinformation and a tendency to misrepresent their 'facts'. You were, perhaps, optimistic in covering the event; perhaps hoping for some glimmer of honesty or hope? I like optimists---try to adopt that stance, myself. The electoral process has been tainted for some time. Mr. Trump and many other aspirants only illustrate the fact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was more curiosity than optimism. It was indeed a matter of somewhat morbid curiosity. We may be watching a republic die. If the republic survives the next couple of years, it will be because the Republican Party will be in its death throes by the end of that time. Either way, something is dying and I couldn't resist some rubber-necking.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak