Obama, Huckabee cruise to huge Iowa victories

January 4, 2008

Before getting into this, let’s first note the final results of the Iowa caucuses. The Dems:

1. Obama — 38%
2. Edwards — 30%
3. Clinton — 29%
4. Richardson — 2%
5. Biden — 0.9%
6. Dodd — 0.02%

And the Republicans:

1. Huckabee — 34%
2. Romney — 25%
3. Thompson — 13.3%
4. McCain — 13.1%
5. Paul — 10%
6. Giuliani — 3%

There’s no shortage of angles to all of this, of course, and I’ll have more detailed analysis throughout the day, but first, let’s briefly go one at a time, taking a look at Spin vs. Reality. Starting with the Dems (and excluding Kucinich and Gravel, neither of whom had active campaign operations in Iowa).

Barack Obama — What Obama fans are saying: Iowa is the spark that will propel Obama to the Democratic nomination. What Obama critics are saying: Iowa’s just one state.

Who’s right? It certainly looks like the fans are, doesn’t it? There’s a lot of campaigning yet to be done, but an amazing eight-point victory — exceeding all expectations — with broad support from every constituency not only makes Obama the frontrunner, it will likely give him a big boost in New Hampshire and South Carolina. And if he wins all three, the race is over. On the flip side, Obama, not Clinton, will now quickly become the center of attacks from all sides. We’ll see if he can handle the heat, though my hunch is he can.

John Edwards — What Edwards fans are saying: We beat Clinton and are alive to fight another day. What Edwards critics are saying: He needed to win Iowa to stay competitive.

Who’s right? A little bit of both, actually. Edwards’ strong second-place showing certainly won’t force him from the race, but it’s going to be difficult to boost fundraising and poll numbers in light of Obama’s big win.

Hillary Clinton — What Clinton fans are saying: It’s only the first round of a multi-round fight. What Clinton critics are saying: Say goodbye to “inevitability.”

Who’s right? Again, both. Clinton isn’t going anywhere; she has the resources to keep the fight going over the long haul, and has solid support in Feb. 5 states. But now, she’s the underdog, and has no obvious avenues to retaking the lead.

Bill Richardson — What Richardson fans are saying: We came in first … among second-tier candidates. What Richardson critics are saying: Dude, you got 2%.

Who’s right? Critics are. If there’s a scenario by which Richardson makes a comeback, I don’t see it.

Joe Biden — What Biden fans are saying: Have we mentioned what a great Secretary of State Biden would be? What Biden critics are saying: You gave it your best shot, Joe.

Who’s right? Biden withdrew from the race last night, but with his head held high.

Chris Dodd — What Dodd fans are saying: Have we mentioned what a great Senate Majority Leader Dodd would be? What Dodd critics are saying: You gave it your best shot, Chris.

Who’s right? Dodd withdrew from the race last night, but with his stature and reputation at an all-time high.

And then there’s the Republicans (excluding Duncan Hunter, who did not have an active campaign operation in Iowa):

Mike Huckabee — What Huckabee fans are saying: Onward and upward, Christian soldiers! What Huckabee critics are saying: Iowa, Schmiowa, he still doesn’t have the resources to compete long-term.

Who’s right? Critics are.

Mitt Romney — What Romney fans are saying: Silver medal! What Romney critics are saying: Didn’t you have a huge lead in Iowa just a few weeks ago?

Who’s right? Critics are, and unless he can eke out a victory in New Hampshire, Romney’s in serious trouble.

Fred Thompson — What Thompson fans are saying: Third place ain’t bad for a guy who doesn’t campaign. What Thompson critics are saying: It’s only a matter of time before Thompson realizes he has to go.

Who’s right? Actually, both. It was a weak third-place showing, which won’t come close to giving him a boost anywhere. But the results probably won’t force him from the race. Yet.

John McCain — What McCain fans are saying: With a weakened Romney, McCain is suddenly the odds-on GOP nominee. What McCain critics are saying: Dude, you came in fourth, losing to a guy who was barely awake the last several months.

Who’s right? Regrettably, the fans are, thanks in large part to an adoring media which can barely contain its pro-McCain glee.

Ron Paul — What Paul fans are saying (probably in all-caps): We tripled Giuliani! What Paul critics are saying: Paul still isn’t going to win anywhere.

Who’s right? Once again, both.

Rudy Giuliani — What Giuliani fans are saying: 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! What Giuliani critics are saying: “Frontrunners” don’t come in a humiliating sixth place, with one-third the support of a libertarian gadfly, in a state where he was once in the lead.

Who’s right? Take a wild guess.

Plenty more to come. Stay tuned.

Obama for president

If he can win in Iowa and do well in New Hampshire with Independent support, Obama will have earned the opportunity for a final appeal to Democrats. As he does so, he will undoubtedly tout his then-proven ability to attract Independents and attract new voters into the process. That is why Clinton’s status as frontrunner will be more vulnerable.

Carlos Menéndez
http://www.segurosmagazine.es

  • IF OBAMA WON THE PRESIDENCY, along with an overwhelming Congressional majority, any (granted, long overdue) Lincolnesque attempts to reverse the inherent slavery of Reaganomics could convulse the World because more than 25 years ago our ruling white majority began Reaganomics; A systematic transfer and/or draining of this nations resources because (racist?) concluded that given our liberal democracy the day might come when [panic!] the ethnic minorities would come to power…And that day could well be nigh.

    In practical terms, assume Obama wins, and in his 1st year signs legislation
    to raise taxes on the wealthy and large corporations. He also orders a
    (strategic?) withdrawl from Iraq. And so things are looking okay, with projections showing revenues up and spending down. Feeling comfortable, he then signs additional major social/welfare legislation…And he’s just stepped into a trap.

    The treasury is looted! Debt is now at dangerously high, record levels. Hard
    to fathom, but unless we bring in $3 billion of foriegn capital every day we’re broke. It can be argued that corporate balance sheets are in okay shape, but the trend there for decades has also been toward lower credit quality. This partly is because many corporations borrowed to fund massive stock-buy-backs, so their CEO’s could cash in options. Looked at another way; Who predicted that Citigroup would have to borrow at 11% just to survive?

    RFK, Jr. characterized Reaganomics as treating the nation like a company in
    liquidation. It may be inevitable, but any sharp reversal now could trigger a
    cascade of unpleasant economic outcomes. The most immediate being soaring deficits, that then trigger higher interest rates, so that eventually
    monetization [hyper-inflation] must be employeed to square-the-circle…
    Historically, that’s often how these things get resolved.

    We sure can’t produce our way out. Much of the manufacturing base was off-shored so (again) CEO’s could report higher earnings to juice stock prices. By the way they also (cruelly and unashamedly) raided employee pension funds and gutted healthcare & retirement benefits…So who now picks up that tab? Mend those safety nets? At what cost? Or [*gasp*] would anyone dare to seriuosly pursue across the board give-backs? If so, you’re looking at a core-shaking revolution; The (currently on-it’s-heels) radical right attack machine would go apoplectic, shifting into “This is it men – lock & load!” hyper-drive.

    When Mao’s revolution in China went after the rich, they then just simply moved to Formosa. You think today’s zillionaires are willingly going to pay up for lush new social programs when it was they who took the money to begin with? Yes, publicly financed elections and the the tax code simplified for fairness are part of any real solution. But start passing that legislation and doesn’t everything not nailed down just move to Lichtenstein?

    Also doing anything meaningful about climate change has been blocked. Now we are on track for what Al Gore describes as a “planetary crisis”. [Arctic Sea surface temps rose to 9 F above average last year. Scientists calculate that if the temperature in Greenland increases by ~5° F, its ice sheet will begin to melt. Antarctica aside, just the melting of Greenland’s ice sheet alone raises the oceans by ~23 ft.] Any meaningful trend slowing (never mind reversal) of global greenhouse gas emissions, using current technologies, would be the economic equivalent of open heart surgery…Meanwhile, back in Iraq?

    To some Marxism in theory may have looked like the answer. But alas no, because ideology notwithstanding, people only cooperate until breaking allegiance looks more personally advantageous. So doesn’t any overreaching of a President Obama agenda eventually flounder as well? Yes Barack has the temperment & intelligence, however he’d have to win not only an overwhelming majority of the politically moderate, but then hold their allegiance through turbulent times. And as we’ve seen; 8 times out of 10, the more powerful [corporate] forces of reaction out maneuver the Democrats. And with trillion$ at stake, anybody see that dynamic fading away soon?

    Nevertheless, in charting a new coarse, any President should try to get a fix on the downside risk, then prepare the Nation. Also, when America changes direction, it greatly influenences the rest of World…And let’s ourselves ‘hope’ that the next President doesn’t just robotically sign everything Congress passes.

    America may be facing this right-of-passage; Washington borrows-to-spend because dealing with constituents abstract concerns about deficits is easier than voting to raise taxes, or cut programs. However, if/when inflation becomes too painful, politicians are usually forced by voters (or bankers) to sober-up.

    2007 YEAR-IN-REVIEW:
    HRC raises loads of corporate cash.
    MM’s SiCKO blames evil insurace companies.
    HILLARYCARE = more $$$ to insurance cos.
    BARACK OBAMA wins with younger voters.

  • The Rethug result is no surprise. Huckster Huckabee had god on his side, which he won’t in NH. What will the Rethug establishment do now to discredit him and annoint McCain? Robot Romney is going to fade, and McCain is the only one they can stomach, more-or-less.

    The Dem side is surprising. A three-way statistical tie seemed to be in the offing. Obma running away with the vote in Iowa says something, certainly about Iowa. However, as acceptable as Obama is to me, I still don’t see this racist country electing (fairly or otherwise) a (half) black man president. I’ll vote for whomever emerges out of the chaotic Dem fire drill, but would prefer to see Clinton fade. And I fear Obama could easily become our own Bhutto. Iowa is over, and NH really doesn’t matter all that much. After NH it’s worth paying attention.

  • It’s heartening that the Democratic turnout in Iowa was double that of the Republicans. This in a Red State that went for Bush in ’04. Voter turnout is the Democrats’ best friend and the Repubs worst enemy. Here’s hoping that it keeps up.

  • Sorry to have missed the fun-stuff last night, but fighting off a combination of cold/flu will sometimes do that. I do appreciate Z’s in-depth on the caucus last night—I’ve been hunkered down in front of the computer since about 3 this morning—it was a thing sorely needed, and with a wee bit of luck and some common-sense thinking, maybe folks will see that it’s really not the elitist, country-club thing that some peddle it to be.

    DEMOCRATIC PARTY COMMENTS
    I am pleased with the results of last night’s events. Contrary to what some would see as “conservative frames,” Obama’s outreach to a greater section of the electorate is, in part, what I feel helped him last night. It certainly didn’t hurt. As for the other Dem candidates (still standing after “the Iowa Massacre” of Dodd and Biden), I think it’s a safe assumption that Richardson is on life-support, that Edwards is crippled (due to money issues), and that various bits-n-pieces of the HRC camp will continue to fall back on the Muslim/madrassa rumor (and other attack-esque stupidities), furthering her campaign’s demise.

    REPUBLICAN PARTY COMMENTS
    On the GOPer side of the coin, Huckabee will need to prove that he’s not just a “flash-in-the-pan” candidate. He poured an unimaginable percentage of his funds into Iowa, which could spell certain doom by next month when “Glacial Tuesday” rolls around. Such a blitzkrieg mentality would also spell certain disaster in a general election, leaving a candidate “twisting in the wind” with no means to maintain any forward momentum after a “shock and awe” jump from the gate. Romney now knows what it’s like to be in second place; he’ll just borrow more money from himself to shore up the damage, but it may be doubtful if he can manage enough to avoid a brokered convention. New Hampshire will tell. Thompson is like the dead guy at a frat party—someone stuck a lampshade on the corpse’s head, and he became an elemental component of the bacchanalia. Dead things, it is rumored, eventually take on “an odor most foul.” McCain must’ve hit the ejector seat last night; he still slammed face-first into the carrier-deck, but people can say that “at least he didn’t wreck an expensive plane this time.” If Thomson and McCain continue, it’s only because they’re too senile to know better.

    ESCAPED-CREATURES-FROM-DISNEY-WORLD PARTY CONTEST
    Paul will go down in history as “the first gadfly to beat a serious contender”—and Ghouliani will also go into the books—as “the first serious contender to get his a$$ waxed by a gadfly.”

  • At my caucus last night — what I really took great joy in was the very large number of people registering as a D – Independents and Repubs and people who never registered. (my precint had over 500 – double from last caucus. and this is a precint heavy R) Regardless of the outcome last night– I think this over-whelming turn out for a Dem caucus I HOPE proves to be the trend right into November. (in my humble view this caucus thing in IA should be really for each candidate to evaluate their ground game, strategy, etc before moving on to bigger states). yes — being in Iowa during this time was more than fun, the caucus last night was so energizing, the chance to have 1:1 conversations with almost all the candidates truly great experience — but I do agree that so much emphasis on Iowa is not good. But heck — how can you blame me, an Iowan, for what the media hypes?

  • We must admire the young “Paulards” in Iowa, walking this frozen state and trying to awaken a lot of frozen minds — 10%, 30,000 votes for Paul! Guiliani is finished (along with such as Tancredo, etc.) The geezer twins are exhausted in both money and energy. Huckabee will wilt outside of the warm and loving Bible belt, and Romney is running out of cash — the only thing he had to offer. Who cares about Obama or Clinton? Or that fellow with the $400 haircut whose always heated up about helping working class folk? Let them get into a dog-fight and Paul can take care of the limping winner. The MSM have discredited themselves when it comes to Paul. He now remains off the suicidal “top-tier” and yet cannot be ignored. I think he might well win the Republican primary… but if not, hell, a write in will allow the Republicans to re-think what has happened to them since outfits like the Heritage Foundation, AIPAC, Zionist Christians, and the flock of neocons replaced real conservatives.

  • Mary Matlin, Fred Thompson’s spokesperson, just accused McCain of running a dirty tricks campaign (about 8:50 AM on Scarborough). I guess that should end speculation of Dopey endorsing Grumpy in New Hampshire.

  • blogingRfun said:
    When Mao’s revolution in China went after the rich, they then just simply moved to Formosa. You think today’s zillionaires are willingly going to pay up for lush new social programs when it was they who took the money to begin with? Yes, publicly financed elections and the the tax code simplified for fairness are part of any real solution. But start passing that legislation and doesn’t everything not nailed down just move to Lichtenstein?

    Sadly, blogingRfun is correct. Whichever Democrat wins in 2008, orporations and the super-rich will do everything they can to sabotage any meaningful (and necessary) change in direction. The question is, would President Obama have the courage to fight back against his big donors? Would he declare any billionaire who renounces his citizenship and moves offshore persona non grata and refuse to give him a visa? Would he treat corporations who move their headquarters to a mailbox in the Carribean as hostile foreigners and security risks?

    Doubtful.

    I’m beginning to feel sympathy for the French masses in 1789. [G]

  • I’d like to know what percentage of the independent vote Obama won. My guess is that his rightward tilt helped him with the independents. Was that the plan in coming after Hillary and Edwards from the right? I hope so, but until he shifts left, I’ll take his rhetoric at face value and my support will lean toward the fighter against corporate greed, John Edwards.

  • Good job Obama – BTW I’ve been noticing almost all thinkprogress policy wonks endorsed him – Tom Daschle, Larry Korb, Joe Cirncione, Brian Katulis… should thinkprogress.org have disclaimers when they write about Edwards or Hillary? Good to see this blog remain above the fray…

    I hope Dodd and Biden stay in the Senate with leadership positions. We really can’t lose Senate seats, unless we flip 5-8 seats blue…

  • “rege: Was that the plan in coming after Hillary and Edwards from the right”

    You may have been reading too much Krugman – Obama made 2 mistakes, one on Social Security and another on mandates. On SS, he recognized the mistake and hasn’t talked much about it after that. Mandates addresses the problem of free-riders, and Obama’s plan now addresses that with penalties, and he is open to other ideas as well. It’s a minor detail and calling it “attack from the right” is going a little overboard.

    On foreign policy Obama is well to the left of Hill & Edwards – both Hill and Edwards attack him from the right… independents are against the war, and Hillary and Edwards voted for it.

  • Ohioan
    There is no such thing as reading too much Krugman. Obama also went after trial lawyers during the closing days of Iowa.

    Don’t get me wrong, I would enthusiastically support Obama in the Fall, much more so than Hillary, but I prefer a candidate that will take advantage of the GOP failures and go for the jugular while they are down. I think Edwards is that candidate.

  • What I found interesting in CNN coverage was that several commentators said that Edwards would have to drop out of the race if he didn’t beat Clinton (at that point he was slightly behind Clinton). They repeated that several times until he inched ahead. They made no such assertion about Hillary if she came in third or about any of the Republican candidates, even the ones who received under 10% of the vote. The media really doesn’t want Edwards to be in the race.

  • DEMS: Iowa was not a coronation of HRC, as many predicted/feared a while back, and with the close grouping of the top 3, NH voters are free to support the candidate they actually prefer rather than switching because they fear their first choice is no longer viable. The field could flip in NH, but as long as the candidates remain close, Tsunami Tuesday voters would also be free to vote their first choice, giving us a much better sense of who will be the best candidate in the long haul.

    REPS: Good luck (not really). Iowa evangelicals threw this one to Hickabee, but also damaged Romney in the process. At this point, I don’t think either are viable in the long term.

  • re jen flowers @ 17…

    I think the sense is that Edwards doesn’t have the cash or infrastructure that Clinton has in other states. A win would have (presumably) given Edwards a boost to possibly strengthen his organization and thus make him more able to complete. Without the win, he’s in an uphill battle.

  • beth @ 7 – are you out in the western ‘burbs of DSM? that sounds (almost to the numbers) like another precinct i heard about.

    feel free to drop me an e-mail at badzeitgeist (at) hotmail (dot) com

  • the “complete idiot’s guide to the iowa caucuses”:

    obama won and huckabee won. at the end of the day, there’s only one Winner on each side. the fact that they did it convincingly gives their supporters lots of warm fuzzies (i have ’em right now).

    the rest are, in a word, losers.

    on to new hampshire.

  • Gah! What a load of raw meat to chew on 😉

    Obama won a convincing victory. But I think it is fair to say that all Democratic primaries might not go the same way.

    I think Edwards did well. Not as well as I expected, but unlike another commentor who pointed out he’s down to 30% from 32% in 2004, I would point out that twice the number of people came out to vote for him in 2008 as 2004 (as the caucus population more than doubled).

    Hillary has to work now. And damn it, she ought to have all along. I’m glad this is not a coronation.

    Richardson is still in! There is a man who can form a strategy. If Edwards does fold (not a given I’d say) Richardson will be left as the ‘not Hillary or Obama’ candidate. I heard on NPR of his precinct captains strong-arming Hillary’s to give them a couple extra votes and thus delegates rather than lose the people to Edwards. Now that’s playing the game.

    Biden/Dodd. Unlike some here, I see these long time Senators dropping out as no loss.

    On the Dark Side:

    Huckabee has proven his wing of the Republcan’t party can field one of it’s own. But now he has to do well in South Carolina.

    Romney. All I can do is smile as the Ken Doll melts.

    Thompson. Perhaps this will give him a shot in the arm. Or perhaps his wife will whack him upside his dumbass head and he’ll actually get out and campaign. I thought he was dead.

    McCain is positioned for a underdog comeback. If the MSM hasn’t tired of him, this is where he wants to be.

    I think Ron Paul will stay in the race to the convention. None of the other candidates deserve the support of his people, and I think it’s great that they have him to rally around (thank God).

    As for Rudy, I really want to actually drive a stake through his heart. I don’t count him out, I just wish I could.

  • rege: “but I prefer a candidate that will take advantage of the GOP failures and go for the jugular while they are down. I think Edwards is that candidate.”

    Just watch a tape of the Edwards-Cheney debate in 2004. Jugular my ass, what a woefully unprepared man on foriegn policy. Cheney lied about 18 times, Edwards couldn’t call him out once. I love John, but I can’t bear to watch that kind of stuff again.

  • (ref: ohioan above) — also, cheney lied about not having met edwards in person prior to the debate and edwards didn’t call him out on that either. it could have been a “sir, you’re no jack kennedy” moment… but it wasn’t.

  • As somone pointed out the other day, the VP candidate isn’t supposed to overshadow the #1 guy on the ticket – yeah, Edwards should have countered Cheney better than he did, but I think he was trying not to overshadow Kerry, who had a bit of a problem being as hard-hitting as he should have been against all the crap that was thrown his way. I don’t see anything in 208 presidential contender Edwards that resembles 2004 VP candidate Edwards, so that doesn’t worry me – I’m happy to see that someone learned something from that contest. You think Edwards wouldn’t shred Huckabee or Romney – or McCain – on the nonsense they keep spouting?

  • At the caucus…

    Obama had the younger voters, Hillary had the elderly. The Edwards group leaned as much to Richardson, Dodd or Biden, but felt they couldn’t sustain a campaign.

    If anyone looks closely at the voting record of Obama or Hillary they will lose ground. I think it’s funny that Hillary’s group thinks people won’t vote for her because of her likability. It has nothing to do with like or dislike — just look at your actions. As for Obama he’s played the fence being non-committal with the same “Let’s work together” theme. I wonder if he’s bringing in people on the theme or his notion of something different? Personally I don’t think he’s any different, but perception is reality for many.

    The Huckster was big with the religious group… no surprise in Iowa. He will also do well in the Bible belt. Where it’s more important not to kill a fetus until it’s breathing on it’s own (healthcare, war, death penalty…).

  • God are we ready for CHANGE, or WHAT?

    And what d’ya, the Republicans voted for Bush v2000 – the version that didn’t know who was in charge of Pakistan, hadn’t really been out of the country, prayed a lot, and spouted off about something called Compassionate Conservatism.

    Amazing!

  • Finally, Sean Hannity gets what he has had coming to him for ages.Sean has been the most vocal Rudy cheerleader in the media, and it is very satisfying to watch his hopes crushed so decisively.

  • Think you’re all underestimating Huckabee. A religious populist “common man.” It’s the wave of the future, unfortunately.

  • bcinaz @ 27 said:

    God are we ready for CHANGE, or WHAT?

    or, as they say at the Republican caucuses in Iowa

    Change – are we ready for GOD, or what?

    • Comments are closed.