Of course, the big "gold standard" poll got it wrong. Not only did Cruz and Trump switch positions, but Marco Rubio shot way up, from 15% to 23%.
Adams has been fun to read because he's been so confident in his smarter-than-you pronouncements. What can he do now? Analyzing why he was wrong isn't consistent with his brand, which has included the pretension of access to a "third dimension" (a dimension where Trump is doing everything right).
Okay, here's what Adams does. He says "the result coincidentally matched what I would expect from a rigged election." He's "not saying the election was rigged," but:
If you had the power to rig the vote in Iowa – either to hurt Trump, or help Rubio – what election result would do the best job?Adams's back up move is that he said all along that Trump could win by not winning, that losing could also count as winning, and that Trump was masterminding things, setting it up so that losing is winning.
A Rubio first-place win would raise too many questions. Even a second-place finish would raise questions. But how about a strong third? Yes, that’s the ticket. You would engineer the vote so Rubio got the strongest possible third-place showing without overtaking Trump....
Now consider motive and opportunity. Lots of people in both of the major parties want to stop Trump. And the GOP establishment is probably betting on Rubio as their best hope. Suspects are everywhere.....
AND really, Adams is trying to win within the game that he is playing, and he's always got the argument — which he deploys today — that this is all for entertainment purposes only. That opens up a space for him to spin wild theories imaginatively. It can't lose.