Huckabee and Obama win Iowa caucuses
A few months back, the predictions were that Hilary Clinton would easily capture the Democrat nomination and Rudy Guiliani would easily win the Republican one. While those two may still go on to be the eventual victors of their respective parties, the results in Iowa were much different than many would have guessed earlier. Mike Huckabee not only come out of nowhere and into contention, he went on to win Iowa caucuses resoundingly despite the fact he was outspent massively by Mitt Romney and faced a barrage of attack ads from the Romney camp. McCain and Guiliani were not in contention in Iowa despite the fact they are still in contention at the national level. For the Democrats, Obama was gaining momentum and pulled off a win, with Edwards and Clinton still battling out for second and third.
If there was a common theme of the two caucuses, it was that the people of Iowa were tired of the status quo and wanted those who represented change. There were however, deeper reasons for tonight's results. In the case of the Republicans, Iowa has a very strong Evangelical community and Huckabee's social conservatism as well as the fact he was a former Baptist minister gave him a strong appeal amongst this group. While this group is strong in Iowa, they are considerably weaker in New Hampshire, where Republicans tend to be more the smaller government type ones as opposed to social conservatives, so Huckabee will likely face more difficulty there. In the case of Obama, his support was strongest amongst both younger voters as well as Independents. Unlike Clinton who is a very polarizing candidate, Obama has a much stronger appeal to independent voters. Although this was only becoming apparent recently to many, I saw this all along since in his home state of Illinois, he won several traditionally Republican counties in the senate race in 2004 and is well-respected across the spectrum. Now, that more people elsewhere in the country are getting to hear about Obama's vision, many are coming over to his camp. Another significant factor is Iowa has a relatively small Black community compared to many other states, so if a Black candidate can win in an overwhelmingly white state, this should hopefully put to rest the idea the United States isn't ready for a Black president. I've argued all along that the only group who has a problem with a female and/or Black president are the hard-core Conservatives who won't vote Democrat no matter what. The Democrat and swing voters for the most part don't have a problem with either and this is where the Democrats will get their votes from, not the hard-core conservatives.
As for what this means? It no doubt gives a lot of momentum to both Obama and Huckabee, but it is far from over. John Edward's competitive showing means he is still not out and Hilary Clinton will likely continue to fight back. On the Republican side, Romney will definitely need to win New Hampshire if he is to still stay in the game. Despite McCain's poor showing in Iowa, where he put very little effort in the first place, most polls show him neck-neck with Romney in New Hampshire, so a McCain win there will be pivotal in determining whether he has momentum going forward or not. Rudy Guiliani has pretty much written off both states, so we will have to wait for South Carolina as well as Super Tuesday to see whether the strategy of focusing on later states was wise or not.
I am certainly pleased to see Obama win Iowa, while although not a fan of Huckabee, the fact a candidate who relied on the traditional method of grassroots support rather than big money and negative ads is a plus. Hopefully the next president will have those two qualities minus the right wing views Huckabee holds.
If there was a common theme of the two caucuses, it was that the people of Iowa were tired of the status quo and wanted those who represented change. There were however, deeper reasons for tonight's results. In the case of the Republicans, Iowa has a very strong Evangelical community and Huckabee's social conservatism as well as the fact he was a former Baptist minister gave him a strong appeal amongst this group. While this group is strong in Iowa, they are considerably weaker in New Hampshire, where Republicans tend to be more the smaller government type ones as opposed to social conservatives, so Huckabee will likely face more difficulty there. In the case of Obama, his support was strongest amongst both younger voters as well as Independents. Unlike Clinton who is a very polarizing candidate, Obama has a much stronger appeal to independent voters. Although this was only becoming apparent recently to many, I saw this all along since in his home state of Illinois, he won several traditionally Republican counties in the senate race in 2004 and is well-respected across the spectrum. Now, that more people elsewhere in the country are getting to hear about Obama's vision, many are coming over to his camp. Another significant factor is Iowa has a relatively small Black community compared to many other states, so if a Black candidate can win in an overwhelmingly white state, this should hopefully put to rest the idea the United States isn't ready for a Black president. I've argued all along that the only group who has a problem with a female and/or Black president are the hard-core Conservatives who won't vote Democrat no matter what. The Democrat and swing voters for the most part don't have a problem with either and this is where the Democrats will get their votes from, not the hard-core conservatives.
As for what this means? It no doubt gives a lot of momentum to both Obama and Huckabee, but it is far from over. John Edward's competitive showing means he is still not out and Hilary Clinton will likely continue to fight back. On the Republican side, Romney will definitely need to win New Hampshire if he is to still stay in the game. Despite McCain's poor showing in Iowa, where he put very little effort in the first place, most polls show him neck-neck with Romney in New Hampshire, so a McCain win there will be pivotal in determining whether he has momentum going forward or not. Rudy Guiliani has pretty much written off both states, so we will have to wait for South Carolina as well as Super Tuesday to see whether the strategy of focusing on later states was wise or not.
I am certainly pleased to see Obama win Iowa, while although not a fan of Huckabee, the fact a candidate who relied on the traditional method of grassroots support rather than big money and negative ads is a plus. Hopefully the next president will have those two qualities minus the right wing views Huckabee holds.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 7:01 PM
11 Comments:
Iowa is a weird state anyway that is quite divided...the cities (such as Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, Davenport and especially Iowa City) are quite liberal, while the rural areas and smaller towns are very conservative, more so socially than fiscally though. Huckabee is actually quite centrist on economic issues and has upset the libertarian and fiscal hawk wing of the Republican Party, but they have little clout in Iowa. (The Iowa Democratic Party is one of the most liberal state parties in the US, and even more liberal than most of our Liberal Parties).
New Hampshire is centre-left socially and on foreign issues, while economically very right-wing (used to be a GOP stronghold, now a swing state leaning Democratic).
Anonymous - Iowa is somewhat divided between rural and urban, but less so than many other states. In the last election there were only a few counties where either Bush or Kerry got over 60%. It is true the Republicans are more socially conservative than economically conservative where in New Hampshire the reverse is true, which may explain why what was once a safe Republican state is now a swing state.
The Iowa Democratic party, I am not too familiar with, although a CNN entrance poll showed far more people in the Democrat caucuses identified themselves as moderates than in the Republican caucuses. Now I should note a Republican can choose to attend a Democrat caucus and vice versa.
Both Iowa and New Hampshire are now comfortably in the Democrats fold and will remain so for some time. In Iowa, the days of left wing candidates doing well for the Dems are over ie. Dick Gephardt in 1988 and Tom Harkin in 1992. Note also the Howard Dean result in
2004, compared to an establishment candidate such as John Kerry.
There will be no Eugene McCarthy 1968 for the Dems in NH either. Clinton and Obama are as centrist as you can get.
Chris Dodd and Joe Biden have dropped out, but neither had a prayer at winning anyway. I'd watch Ron Paul in New Hampshire - he may surprise everyone due to his strange views being quite popular there (fiscally hard right, socially centrist, foreign policy left). My Predictions for New Hampshire are:
Democrats - Clinton 39%, Obama 36%, Edwards 20%, Richardson 2% (and drops out), Kucinich 2%, Gravel 1%
Republicans - McCain 27%, Romney 23% (and drops out), Paul 18%, Giuliani 13%, Huckabee 11%, Thompson 7%, Hunter 1%
After New Hampshire, Michigan is next (January 15) but it might not mean much as the DNC is going to block all their delegates and the RNC is going to block half their delegates for pushing up the primary too early (only IA, NH, NV and SC are allowed to go before February 5 due to tradition). Florida will face the same punishment.
Mushroom - I am not sure that Iowa and New Hampshire are solidly Democrat. Although in the midterms the Democrats did well in both states, the last two presidential elections saw those as very close, so they strike me as more bellwether if anything. Iowa though is rather an odd swing state as normally a state as rural and as white as Iowa would be solidly Republican. New Hampshire is a moderate Republican state that is centre-right on economic issues, but centrist on social issues. It use to be solidly Republican, but today is more swing. It though may be like Vermont, which went Republican in every presidential election from 1857 - 1988, but is now solidly Democrat.
Anonymous - I think 18% is a bit optimistic for Ron Paul, although I think he does have a decent base, but has no chance at winning the nomination, and considering he is more libertarian than conservative, I wonder how well the coalition would stay together if he won. I am not sure that Mitt Romney will necessarily drop out if he loses New Hampshire, although it will be a major setback for sure. I agree McCain has the best chance in New Hampshire, but Romney could still win it.
For the Democrats Clinton is in the lead for now, but with last night's results, I think an Obama win in New Hampshire or even a strong showing by Edwards is not out of the picture. Although the Iowa caucuses are don't mean a lot in the grand scheme of things, winning them gives the appearance of momentum.
Miles,
Iowa went Bush in 2004, Gore in 2000. Not really rural but many manufacturing sectors: Davenport, Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, Sioux City, Burlington etc. These centres make it more like Minnesota than Missouri sometimes.
NH went Kerry in 2004 due to the Mass. influence. The death of the Northeast Federalist Republican (David Souter, Sununus) means that NH will go Dems for years to come.
Mushroom - It is true that Iowa has a nuumber of blue collar towns, however the share of the population that live in rural areas is higher than most Democrat and even some Republican states. Also mid-sized cities like Des Moines tend to be more competitive than large cities like Chicago. Iowa is more conservative than Minnesota but more liberal than Missouri. When traveling from the Canadian border to the Gulf Of Mexico, the most liberal areas are in Northwest Minnesota near Lake Superior, while Northern Louisiana is the most conservative area. The Further south one travels until Louisiana, the more conservative it gets.
As for New Hampshire, I agree a Republican pick-up of this state is pretty unlikely as the New England Republicans have generally been more moderate and their influence is greatly diminished. However, parties do tend to change their policies after losing, so I wouldn't say it will necessarily go Democrat for years. This will only be the case if the Republicans continue to stay on the hard right.
In case you are wondering, I found the state platforms. The differences are stark compared to the national platforms. The Iowa GOP platform is well to the right of the national party and representative of the right-wing base. The Iowa Democratic platform is well to the left of the national party and almost resembles Canada's NDP platforms remarkably!
The platform for the Iowa Democratic Party - http://www.iowademocrats.org/ht/action/GetDocumentAction/id/234773 (PDF)
The platform for the Iowa Republican Party - http://www.iowagop.net/inner.asp?z=11 (HTML)
Anonymous - The Republican platform is no doubt very right wing at least by Canadian standards. I somehow doubt such a platform would be acceptable in any other Western country or even in the Northeast or West Coast states.
As for the Iowa Democrats, they are undoubtedly to the left of their federal counterparts, although not as left wing as the NDP. Comparisons with the Liberals are tough, as the Liberal platform is often as left wing as theirs, but once in power, they generally govern more to the centre if not slightly to the right.
In the shadows of New Hampshire, Wyoming held a mini-caucus for the Republicans last night (worth only 50% due to RNC penalties).
The results were: Romney 8 delegates, Thompson 3 delegates, Hunter 1 delegate, everyone else 0. That only represents some of their delegates - the rest are declared in their May primary. (The Democrats there go in March)
Anonymous - The Wyoming caucus, is no doubt good for Romney, although considering how little media attention it gets, I suspect it won't do much to help his fortunes in New Hampshire. If had to predict who I think will take New Hampshire, my prediction is McCain.
Post a Comment
<< Home