CNN's Iowa focus group had some interesting insights into Iowa

This race might be less settled than it looks. Or at least differently-settled. Maybe.

If you haven’t seen it, I would recommend you go watch this CNN video of their Iowa GOP caucusgoer focus group conducted after last night’s debate.

Short version:

• only ONE person is committed to caucusing for Ron DeSantis

• TWO are committed to caucusing for Nikki Haley

• FOUR are committed to caucusing for Donald Trump

• ALL of the three who are unsure are deciding between Trump and DeSantis and don’t seem to have a clue how they will decide between the two (DeSantis better knock on a lot of fucking doors over the weekend).

Now, a CNN focus group is not indicative of how the caucuses will go. (Frankly, I’m never convinced polling is indicative of how a caucus will go, either; caucuses are weird and they’re not like primaries; even the famed Ann Selzer got her 2016 Iowa poll wrong).

But if we extrapolate these answers to potential statewide results, here’s the upshot:

• DeSantis COULD tie or narrowly beat Trump. But he has to close that deal this weekend.

• DeSantis COULD also finish behind Haley in Iowa. Think about THAT for a minute.

If either of these things happens, conventional wisdom about the way this nominating contest will unfold, at least in terms of the specifics, will be completely blown.

Either Trump will wind up looking much weaker than 99 percent of political pundits have been opinionating that he is.

Or Nikki Haley will wind up looking at least a bit stronger than 99 percent of political pundits have been opinionating that she is.

Either way, multiple Iowa polls could wind up looking rather off.

If Haley does better than DeSantis and pulls, say, 20 percent or higher, that is going to contribute to her momentum going into New Hampshire.

If DeSantis converts all the waverers and bests Trump, with Haley’s numbers where they are in New Hampshire and Chris Christie having now dropped out and most of his people being likely to move to her column, Trump might not win either of the first two contests— if the polls that are more bullish on Haley are correct (they might not be, but I think from Trump’s behavior, we can construe that his team thinks they are).

Now, in 2016, Trump did narrowly lose Iowa, so that would not be unprecedented. But he blew out the whole field in New Hampshire, so losing there would be a really big bloodying of his candidacy.

You can say whatever you want about national polls, but I think if Trump fails to notch a win in either of the first two primary states, he looks massively weaker and less certain to be the nominee than people are pretending. Yes, he’s very popular in South Carolina and they might correct it, but then again, they might not.

This is interesting because in 2016, until we got past the first two contests, basically no one rated Trump as the likely nominee (except for me, Rick Wilson, Ben Howe, and Nathan Wurtzel, may he rest in peace— plus the Breitbart crowd, and if I recall correctly, Robert Draper).

And in 2024, basically no one apart from a few people on that list have thought that there was a pathway, even a very narrow one, to Trump getting, well, schlonged (OK, a few of us plus presumably the candidates who polled above 5 percent themselves have seen a very narrow path, otherwise why run?).

I’m not saying Trump won’t be the nominee. I’m not saying he will be, either.

What I am saying is there are breadcrumbs that indicate it might be less of a cakewalk than, say, Romney achieving the 2012 nomination was (to be fair, that was a pretty major cakewalk). And I think for the next couple of weeks, we all might want to act like that is the case instead of this all being a done deal.

We may, come February 1, conclude that yes, everything happened exactly as the polls suggested and it was an easy Trump coronation and DeSantis and Haley got schlonged. Maybe it will be and maybe they will be.

But I’m not sure about that and I think you should be skeptical of anyone saying they are really 100 percent sure about any of this. Maybe listen to the people who say they are 90 percent sure, not the people operating with absolute certainty. Just for awhile.

Bottom line is that most political pundits and consultants and experts are at best 10 percent more accurate in projecting outcomes than a poo flinging monkey. Some of them are less accurate than the poo flinging monkey. Or a laptop flinging monkey.

Remember that.