Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Last night's Iowa caucuses didn't hold a lot of big surprises. On the Democratic side, it clearly showed that it's still a three candidate race (and only a three candidate race). Hillary Clinton was clearly the loser of the night for the Democrats, with both Barack Obama and John Edwards finishing stronger than expected. Edwards and Clinton finished in essentially a dead heat for second with Obama clearly the winner.
This should clear things up for the other Democrats, some of whom may officially drop out while the others may limp along for a couple more weeks before doing so. Interestingly, almost all of the lower candidates appear to be throwing their support to Obama. Kucinich, Richardson and Biden all encouraged their supporters to mark Obama as their second choice. Clearly, Hillary is not the one they want to give their support to.
For the Democrats, I really believe that nominating Hillary Clinton would be a big mistake; she's the one candidate they've got who could lose one of the least losable elections in history because of her high negatives. And last night's Iowa results bore that out. Among registered Democrats, Hillary and Obama were tied in support. But among independents, Obama got 41% while Hillary only got 17%.
Now, general elections are decided by independent voters without a clear party affiliation. About 40% is going to vote Republican almost no matter what, and about 40% are going to vote Democratic almost no matter what; it's that 20% that goes back and forth that decides the winner. And among those voters, it is clear that Obama is a far more attractive candidate than Hillary Clinton. That makes him a much better general election candidate than her.
The Iowa results really put the focus on New Hampshire for the Democrats. Hillary needs to win New Hampshire, I think; anything less than a win and her once seemingly inevitable nomination may be out the window. Another convincing win for Obama in NH will really solidify his campaign. And Edwards needs a strong showing in New Hampshire. I don't think he necessarily needs to win it, but he can't take a big step back like only getting 10% while Hillary and Obama finished in the 40% range. If the results are similar to Iowa, it may be a 3-way race for quite some time.
For the Republicans, obviously the big winner is Huckabee. Given the amount of money Romney spent in Iowa, the huge organization he had there, and the polling numbers up until just the last 3 weeks or so, this was really a remarkable surge for Huckabee. Of course, let's bear in mind that Iowa Republicans are very heavily weighted toward the religious right; they were the ones who gave Pat Robertson a 2nd place finish in 1988, ahead of Bush the Elder.
Everyone other than Huckabee comes out of Iowa clearly weaker. Romney finished a strong second, but outspent and out-organized everyone else to do so. Clearly, they were expecting to win and didn't. Giuliani took a huge nose dive, getting only 4% of the vote. Ron Paul, who was hoping to really surprise people with a stronger finish, got 10% and finished in 5th place. Interestingly, McCain finished one spot higher than he did in 2000, when he finished 2nd behind Bush the Lesser.
I don't expect any of the top 6 candidates to drop out on the Republican side. Thompson finished 3rd, which is probably good enough for him to continue. McCain barely ran in Iowa and should finish much stronger in New Hampshire (he needs to; if he doesn't finish in the top 3, perhaps top 2, in New Hampshire, his campaign is done). Giuliani still has a fair amount of cash, but he needs a strong finish in New Hampshire as well or he'll be gone by Super Tuesday.
Comments
I have commented before that Hillary Clinton faces that big disadvantage you mention: there is a large group of people who absolutely hate her. They think she is the devil, almost literally.
Posted by: Mark P | January 4, 2008 9:16 AM
That's what everybody here in New York was saying in her first senate run when (after Rudy had to drop out) she was up against a young fresh-faced Republican (whose name escapes me at the moment and I'm to lazy/busy to look up). Then he got condescending to her in a debate and his candidacy disappeared in a flash.
I think women are sick and tired of being told they are too emotional and too weak to be in charge. And, once a woman who is tough and smart comes along, if a bunch of men deny her the nomination because of her "negatives" (i.e., the fact that a lot of men think she's a "bitch"), you could wind up sinking the Democratic party for a generation. Conversely, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if, in the general election, she drew substantial numbers among evangelical women, who have more to resent about male attitutes than most.
Posted by: John Pieret | January 4, 2008 9:28 AM
There is a possible wild card in the race that none of the so called pundits are considering, namely a possible run by Mayor Bloomberg of New York as an independent. Remember that in 1992, Ross Perot got 19% of the vote in a race against an unpopular incumbent and a much scarred challenger. Perot was totally inexperienced in electoral politics which was demonstrated in his numerous mistakes, aside from his being a little dingy. Bloomberg, by contrast has successfully run twice for elective office and is generally credited with having been a successful mayor of New York and is not at all dingy. Like Perot, he is also a very successful businessman. It occurs to me that if the electorate is as unenthusiastic about major party candidates this year as they were in 1992, Bloomberg could do better then Perot did, possibly carrying enough states to throw the election into the House of Representatives (an electoral victory is a very long shot, although I think that Bloomberg would do a better job as president then any of the major party candidates). By the way, for the information of the readers of this blog, Mayor Bloomberg is a strong supporter of teaching science in science classes and vigorously opposes teaching ID therein.
http://www.nysun.com/article/33432
Posted by: SLC | January 4, 2008 9:39 AM
I did find it amusing that Fairfield went for Ron Paul. Fairfield is the location of the Maharishi University of Management - a major home for Transcendental Meditation.
From an outsider's point of view the Republican race is looking scary. Has there even previously been a case where an ordained minister become President?
Posted by: David Durant | January 4, 2008 9:40 AM
or worse: a candidate who's talking points mirror anti-constitutional-ratification rhetoric.
Posted by: rpsms | January 4, 2008 9:50 AM
THe reason I can't stand Hillary is that she seems to desperate to win, with an "I'll do whatever it takes" kind of attitude. I think she's always been attracted to power, and I think she's shown some serious flaws as a senator. Supporting the Iraw war, and pushing for video game regulation in multiple states despite every bill she sponsored or helped being shot down as unconstitutional (the first time I could maybe forgive, but still trying after the courts have decided its unconstitutional? Come on, thats just wasting taxpayer money for cheap rhetorical points)
If it came down to Hillary and Huckabee, well I'd swallow my pride and vote Hillary, but please, let it not come down to that.
Posted by: Robert | January 4, 2008 9:56 AM
TPM describes how it was really Edwards who was helped by 2nd choices.
Entrance polls showed Obama 35%, Hillary 27%, Edwards 23%. Which means Edwards got a big boost while Obama only a little.
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/entrance_poll_the_secondprefs_winner_was_edwards.php
Posted by: jubjub | January 4, 2008 9:59 AM
Posted by: Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD | January 4, 2008 10:04 AM
What's interesting is that this is setting up New Hampshire to be, in some sense, a direct Obama vs. McCain race. NH independents (of which there are a lot, proportionally speaking) are allowed to vote in either primary, but not both. With Clinton and Romney both wounded from Iowa, Obama and McCain are real contenders for the non-party-loyalist vote and both will be seeking support from the exact same pool of unaffiliated centrists. If Obama does well enough at attracting NH independents, he could end up being Romney's biggest asset.
Posted by: Alex | January 4, 2008 10:08 AM
SLC, you need to add that there is no natural constituency for a Bloomberg candidacy. Ross Perot, even if a little dingy, excited people enough to work for him to be on the ballot in several states, but not all 50 states. It is very difficult to be a third party nominee in this country - you have to petition to be on the ballot. Everyone seems to assume that you just announce you are a candidate for president and you get on the ballot. Not so. If there is no movement for petitioning to be on ballot by March, then there is no chance for a Bloomberg candidacy. Reality bites.
Posted by: bc | January 4, 2008 10:24 AM
Call me cynical but there isn't much of anything that I can think of that any of the other candidates (the ones who think they have a chance, anyway) wouldn't do or say in order to be elected. Maybe "we" expect women to be better than that but ...
Posted by: John Pieret | January 4, 2008 10:24 AM
The interesting thing about Hillary is that if the fiscally conservative Republicans got over hating her guts for 5 minutes or so, they'd see that many of her economic policies are similar to her husbands, IE pro business, arguably the most fiscally conservative amongst the major candidates. The amusing thing for me is, that is the primary thing I don't like about her.
Posted by: dogmeatib | January 4, 2008 10:46 AM
Small typo:
McCain finished 5th in 2000, where at the end of your penultimate paragraph you have him finishing second, which of course implies that he won this year.
Like I said, nothing major. Very interesting analysis, and I can't say I'm unhappy that Giuliani bombed, nor that the Democratic minor players are supporting Obama.
Posted by: Aaron Lemur Mintz | January 4, 2008 11:04 AM
Another thought...
If Obama is really driving in the sort of left-leaning under 30s that usually don't vote and yet he still doesn't manage to gain the nomination does that mean those folks are going to be put off politics for life?
Posted by: David Durant | January 4, 2008 11:08 AM
Could Huckabee's support of the Fair Tax take any voters away from Ron Paul? Or at least earn Huckabee some votes against the Democrats if he turns out to be the nominee?
Posted by: JuliaL | January 4, 2008 11:37 AM
"Of the three, Edwards has the best hair"
I'm afraid I have to disagree. Obama has a no-nonsense "I will spend more time on running the country than getting my hair done" haircut that I think is far better than the normal pretty boy hair like Edwards or the hair-helmet Romney has.
Posted by: jba | January 4, 2008 11:56 AM
I agree with you about Hillary -- she really seems like she's stuck in the previous generation, and is unable to understand the new threat to our basic freedoms posed by Bush Jr. and the loony right. She has the appearance (at least) of being desperate to say as little as possible, avoiding EVERY topic that's the least bit emotional or might trigger a Republican attack, and thus not actually saying any of the things the people need to hear the opposition party say. Liberal Democrats have been too timid about emotional issues for too long, and have spent too much time disdaining the darker characteristics of leadership (kicking ass, making deals, explaining issues in simple terms, and showing resolve and backbone) and then wondering why those stupid voters don't trust them to be leaders.
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 4, 2008 12:07 PM
The "Hillary will do anything to win" meme demonstrates the success of the right-wing echo chamber's repetition of anti-Clinton talking points; even some Democrats believe it. Hell, within minutes of the news of the hostage situation at a Clinton office in New Hampshire there was speculation that it was a publicity stunt. I am not making this up.
Posted by: Pieter B | January 4, 2008 12:15 PM
(About Hillary) Supporting the Iraw war, and pushing for video game regulation
The first I would forget (if I lived in the US), the second? NEVER! Hands off my Quake CD, Hillary!
Posted by: Roman | January 4, 2008 12:26 PM
Hillary is far too pro-censorship for my support; sadly, the rest of my family seems to feel otherwise.
The only candidate I'm really able to support is Mr. Obama...so this is at once heartening that he's doing well, and disheartening in that no-one in my family seems able to understand why Mrs. Clinton didn't win at the caucus.
Posted by: M | January 4, 2008 12:39 PM
Yup. I'm one of those 20% and I caucused for the first time for Obama last night. My second choice would have been anyone that took a delegate from Clinton.
I don't know if Obama can take it all, but unless something changes I think Edwards is screwed. His showing doesn't seem terribly impressive considering he's pretty much been campaigning here in Iowa since 2004.
Posted by: SeanH | January 4, 2008 12:51 PM
I'll say this: when it comes to politics I am a bitter, cynical prick - but Obama's speech last night brought up a goosebump or two. Despite being a heathen, I'm a fan of good preaching, and that man was preaching.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 4, 2008 1:05 PM
maybe i'm still too recent of an immigrant to have all the background, but i've never got my head around why Hillary Clinton is so widely hated here. i'd think that between her and Obama, with the latter being a recent product of the most notoriously corrupt political machine in the country, Clinton would not be so summarily dismissed as unelectable.
overweening political ambition might be a good argument, except that this is the presidential race. no candidate gets near that level without great stores of ambition to draw on.
that said, i'm still calling this election for the republicans. Hillary is unelectable because female, and Obama is unelectable because colored; the country is still too sexist and racist for either of them. their running will help, but they're too early yet.
and Edwards can't hope to pull off the landslide victory the dems would need to win. but we've seen, in the last two presidential elections, that anything less than a landslide for the dems is a victory for the GOP. ergo, the GOP will win again. what i can't yet call is which of them will get their party's nomination, and hence the presidency.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | January 4, 2008 1:15 PM
I agree with SeanH. Rather than being sunk by Iowa, Edwards is strangely being regarded as a semi-winner for beating Hillary. There is no doubt that Hillary, the presumptive front runner just a couple weeks ago, is the big loser. But Edwards, low in the national polls, put all of his eggs into Iowa. Instead of running a national campaign, Edwards' strategy was to invest his money and time into tiny Iowa in order to win there, thus establishing himself as a serious candidate and gaining momentum. But he was creamed. Eight percentage points, which Obama beat him by, is huge for a multi-person race. And he was nearly tied with Hillary. Edwards' strategy failed, and commenters should call him on rather than congratulate him for barely edging out Hillary.
Ed is right about Obama's speech. He embodied leadership, unity, and vision, and there was electricity in the crowd. It's called charisma, and we've seen it before with Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. (Whatever you think of their politics.) The other post-caucus speeches were also telling: Hillary looked dazed and deflated, while Huckabee was so lackluster that he sucked the energy from a room of his own supporters.
Posted by: Colugo | January 4, 2008 1:19 PM
Re bc
The natural constituency for Perot in 1992 was people fed up with the 2 major parties. The number of such people today is at least equal to the number of such people in 1992, and I suspect may be considerably larger. As for getting on the ballot, I agree that Bloomberg has to decide within the next 2 months whether to park it or drive it. Considering that he is even wealthier then Perot, I think he could get on the ballot in enough states to at least theoretically make an electoral victory possible. In addition, he, like Perot, is capable of buying enough television time to be competitive in that category. I would agree that an electoral victory for Bloomberg is very much a long shot but, as any horse player will tell you, long shots have been known to come in. I guess my point is that Bloomberg, based on his record in electoral office (i.e. mayor of New York) is a more credible candidate in 2008 then Perot was in 1992 and would probably not make anywhere near as many mistakes as the latter did.
Posted by: SLC | January 4, 2008 1:20 PM
I don't think she's that widely hated outside of Republican circles. I've got nothing against her, but 20 years of Bushes and Clintons is enough already. The idea of making it nearly 30 just sucks the life out of me. One of the reasons I went for Obama is I do believe he would be a unifying force as president. I'm tired of the polarized partisan bickering and electing Clinton would ensure another 4-8 years of it.
I agree completely with Ed and Colugo on his speech. He's just a fantastic speaker. Once other states get a good taste of him I think he's just going to thump Hillary. I'm a bit of a cynical, both-partys-suck kind of bastard too, but he really has me buying in to his message and getting behind him and that's a first for me.
Posted by: SeanH | January 4, 2008 2:21 PM
The thing with Hillary is that while there is much to legitimately criticize, those who really hate her do so to the point of derangement. I'm no fan of Hillary by any means (or of her husband), but the religious right's hatred of them is way beyond being irrational. It's what Volokh calls Clinton Derangement Syndrome (and of course, there is also a Bush Derangement Syndrome, an ACLU Derangement Syndrome, and so forth).
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 4, 2008 2:28 PM
Colugo: Press coverage of Edwards has been...weird. He was a serious 2004 candidate (fought Kerry pretty well), was the 2004 VP candidate, and was certainly a top-tier 2008 candidate -- raising good money, polling in the double digits, and generally well above the "viable candidate" threshold.
Yet....he couldn't get coverage. I've been watching the reporting on the primaries, and the constant drumbeat was "Clinton/Obama match". Edwards was in some weird limbo -- not a vanity candidate, yet not mentioned as a real candidate. It's pretty much as if the media decided it was a two person race and that Obama/Clinton was what they wanted to cover.
So in essence, edging out Clinton -- even if by a statistically meaningless amount -- is a decent outcome from Edwards. I'm sure he'd prefer to swap places with Obama on results, but maybe he can actually get the coverage of a top-tier candidate now.
His only real hope wasn't to win Iowa, but to either define the race as a three-way race OR to come in second so it's harder to claim it's a two-person race without mentioning him.
I suspect he'll hang around until South Carolina, and I'm glad for it. The right has had forceful and loud advocates of conservative ideology for a long time. The left needs a few as well -- you don't reach real compromise unless all sides are willign to go to the mat for what they believe in.
The Democrats have come to the table having already pre-compromised, and the GOP has been eating their lunch because of it.
Posted by: Morat20 | January 4, 2008 2:33 PM
Kucinich, Richardson and Biden all encouraged their supporters to mark Obama as their second choice.
Wait, be careful about this. There were reports of all three of these things early in the day yesterday, but later in the day as I remember both the Richardson and Biden campaigns denied this emphatically.
My overall general impression, though maybe I'm just confused myself, has been that Kucinich did in fact request his supporters throw to Obama as a second choice, but the other two were just rumors that the media took too seriously (and at one point I think there was a similar, false, rumor concerning Dodd). This theory is bolstered by TPM's observation that it appears the #1 collector of second-choice votes was Edwards.
Posted by: Coin | January 4, 2008 3:11 PM
The U of Iowa elections futures market has Hillary and Obama in a virtual tie now. Overnight from midnight the 2nd to midnight the 3rd, Hillary dropped 8 cents to 51 and Obama gained 19 cents to 47. The market doesn't think much of Edwards' chances -- he lost 7 cents to 4 cents.
On the Repub side, Huckabee gained 10 cents to 22, McCain gained a nickel to 33 cents (yes, he's significantly higher than Huckabee), Romney lost 15 cents to 13 cents. Guiliani gained a penny to 23.
Those prices are pretty much holding (plus or minus a penny or two) as of this afternoon (Jan 4). So the market is saying Hillary and Obama very close with a slight edge to Hillary, and McCain well in front of all the Repub rivals, with Guiliani second, Huckabee third, and Romney fourth. Thompson is way down in the mud at 3 cents.
Posted by: RBH | January 4, 2008 3:36 PM
I should add that on the Repub side, "none of the above" is trading at a nickel, 2 cents higher than Thompson. That suggests that the market either doesn't think Bloomberg will run or that if he does, his chances are small.
Posted by: RBH | January 4, 2008 3:39 PM
I did find it amusing that Fairfield went for Ron Paul. Fairfield is the location of the Maharishi University of Management - a major home for Transcendental Meditation.
Interesting. Though I'd say, looking at Orac's posts about Ron Paul and "health freedom" I think I have a bit of an idea why...
The natural constituency for Perot in 1992 was people fed up with the 2 major parties. The number of such people today is at least equal to the number of such people in 1992,
Although remember, you're limited to people who are fed up with the 2 major parties and can somehow manage to convince themselves that Bloomberg isn't a Republican...
Posted by: Coin | January 4, 2008 3:56 PM
The election markets are garbage. As best I can tell, they pretty much track conventional wisdom and nothing else.
You can watch them fall in rise in time with poll releases and candidate news.
Posted by: Morat20 | January 4, 2008 4:28 PM
Re coin
Actually, Mayor Bloomberg was a life long Democrat until he discovered that he had to re-register as a Rethuglican in order to run for Mayor of New York on a major party ticket. In point of fact, Mayor Bloomberg has virtually nothing in common with the base of todays' Rethuglican party.
Re RHB
As I have stated several times on this thread, a successful presidential run as an independent by Mayor Bloomberg is a long shot, probably 500 to 1.
Posted by: SLC | January 4, 2008 4:38 PM
I haven't read all the comments (too time rushed right now) but here's a possible gotcha for Edwards and Obama. When Michigan and Florida moved forward their primary dates despite the DNC saying sorry your delegates won't count if you do, both Obama and Edwards chose to not participate in those two primaries but Clinton registered for them. So when in the next few weeks both those states hold their primaries Clinton will get all the delgates.
Now the question you have to ask yourself is whether the DNC will hold to their word and not count those delegates votes or will they cave? If they cave then the next question you have to ask is are the state Democratic chairpersons and any others responsible for making the decision to move the voting date forward in each of those states, big Clinton supporters? Because if the answer to that is yes and it's fairly certain that the DNC leadership is behind Clinton, then you just have to wonder if this was not all a dirty trick designed to ensure she gets the nomination.
Posted by: Doug Alder | January 4, 2008 5:00 PM
Lordy! If that's the state of our politics today, why don't we just nail down the coffin top and all tiptoe off to Canada or someplace? Heck, get out the hammer if that is a widespread concept of the state of our politics today.
Posted by: John Pieret | January 4, 2008 5:35 PM
I think Huckabee could easily win the general election if Clinton or Obama are his opposite. He was on Leno the other night and is very well spoken. Southern people will eat his "everyman" schtick up. I think the number of people who would vote for him just because he is southern is much stronger than those who will vote democrat just because they dislike Bush's final four years. Not to mention those who'll vote republican just so Obama, a black man, doesn't win. I think Edwards is the only candidate who could challenge Huckabee in a general election.
But Huckabee isn't guaranteed to survive the primaries, especially when his opponents have much more cash. If he doesn't win, I see the democrats winning the general election; unless it's Clinton of course.
Posted by: Matthew | January 4, 2008 5:47 PM
A good analysis by Ed, of something where analysis is always quite speculative.
Obama's strong win surprised me, but I think it probably reflects his great ability at making people feel like he really is something more than the typical "all I really want is to be in power" politician. He really is a uniter, rather than a divider, which I think gives him a real chance to win. (Although I'm not backing off prior comments about his lack of international relations experience).
Hillary's definitely not out of it yet, but the aura of inevitability has certainly been punctured, and with the way the media plays things, it's not where you placed, but where you placed relative to expectations that matters, and that's bad news for her.
Now my real concern is that it will be Huckabee vs. Obama and their religious beliefs will be the dominant theme of both campaigns. If so, it will at least provide a lot of fodder for these blogs.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 4, 2008 5:47 PM
John I'm a Canadian - I don't know if that's the state of your politics these days or not, as I do not live in your country but am observant nevertheless. However, given the things Karl Rove did or inspired (such as having GOP operatives jam the get out the vote telephone banks of Democratic organizers on voting day so they could not call people to get then to go and vote) that would really be mild in comparison
Posted by: Doug Alder | January 4, 2008 5:51 PM
Doug Alder wrote:
Doug, that is a big, and fascinating, question. In the '60s and early '70s the Democrats did block delegates from states that didn't bring in more women and minority delegates, so there's historical precedent for it. And there's enough real concern with the leapfrogging of primaries that they may in fact do so this time.
That said, other state parties may be reluctant to punish Michigan because they want to hold open the option of jumping forward themselves. And it's more than a little hypocritical for punishing those states while letting Iowa and New Hampshire get away with their demands to always be first.
I'll go on record here--as if anyone's paying any attention to me--and predict the Michigan and Florida delegates will be seated at the convention, for the reasons listed above, and because Bill Clinton still has a lot of pull (I think). Feel free to flame me next summer if I'm wrong.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 4, 2008 5:55 PM
To answer David Durant's question, yes, there has been one president who was a minister: James A. Garfield.
Posted by: TheTwistedOne | January 4, 2008 6:27 PM
... which were mild compared to the things the Founders, such as Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, did. I suppose I should look to see if there is a tongue-in-cheek emoticon. Still, that scenerio seems awful complex ... a Rube Goldberg conspiracy that, if true, should get Hillary points for ingenuity. She'd have proven herself more than up to the task of international intrigue ... er ... diplomacy.
Posted by: John Pieret | January 4, 2008 6:53 PM
"Everyone other than Huckabee comes out of Iowa clearly weaker."
Except McCain, who is now the front-runner on both the Iowa Election Futures market and Intrade.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | January 4, 2008 9:00 PM
"...the religious right's hatred of them is way beyond being irrational."
I wouldn't expect rationality from a movement that views an utter clown like Pat Robertson as some sort of iconic figure.
Posted by: daniel rotter | January 4, 2008 9:12 PM
It is interesting (and highly refreshing) that the "outsider" campaigns came up the big winners in Iowa. About this time last year, I was predicting that the eventual party nominees would be Edwards and Huckabee, so I'm feeling pretty good right now. Okay, so I assumed that the anything-but-Hillary vote would go to Edwards, rather than Obama: I'm still saying I had the general dynamic right.
So how does it play out from here? On the Republican side, things are bleak for the establishment. Romney is all but finished, and none of the other candidates are really acceptable to the powers that be. McCain pretty much wins by default as the least objectionable of the candidates. So I see McCain-Huckabee as the ticket, assuming Jeb Bush is not a late "save-the-party" entrant.
On the Democratic side, I still expect Obama to have some hiccups, and I still see Edwards as the non-Hillary candidate. He really is just about everyone's second choice, and that will come into play sooner, rather than later. Barak can get it, but he'll have to endure a punishing media attack first.
Score one for democracy last night!
Posted by: kehrsam | January 4, 2008 11:06 PM
I don't know what it is with our country and the recent love of Southern men in office! I mean look at Carter, both Bushes, and Clinton. Even Reagan won because he was an actor and well-spoken. Boy I hope this doesn't pan out for Huckabee. After seeing Obama last night-and living in greater Chicagoland-I could easily support him.
I have been a Republican for most of my life-but I am one of those people who have been highly pissed off at the last four years of Bush. To top it off, we have a governor here in Indiana(Republican) who even screwed up the time issue; of all things! Our governor's race is this year, and I have a feeling both he governor's race and the presidential race in Indiana will go democrat. At least I hope so....
Posted by: Rev. AJB | January 4, 2008 11:07 PM
Forgot to add that I am also highly ticked at the way the religious right has taken over the party.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | January 4, 2008 11:12 PM
Bill O'Reilly has criticized Hillary Clinton, which is a pretty good indication that she can't be all bad.
Posted by: daniel rotter | January 5, 2008 12:04 AM
The votes the Democrats got in Iowa was statistically insignificant. All of them together got less votes than Ron Paul. We don't know how many whites voted for Obama because in a state with a 2% black population, he got 1/3 of one percent of the vote. None of the Democrats got enough votes to become class President in many High Schools.
Posted by: Sternberg | January 5, 2008 12:02 PM
I'm wondering how you figure Ron Paul got more votes than all of the Democrats, considering that the turnout for the Democrats was about twice that of the Republicans. With 115,000 estimated coming out for the Republicans, Ron Paul's 10% is 11,500 votes. With 240,000 from the democrats, the 38% for Obama is 91,200. I know the way the caucus system worked on the Democratic side will tend to inflate the numbers of the more supported, while decreasing the less supported, but I'm having trouble seeing how you can justify your second sentence. I will agree that the results aren't that representative of the whole state, much less the nation, but that's applicable to both parties.
Posted by: mcmillan | January 5, 2008 12:54 PM
Yeah, I'd like to know what the hell Sternberg is babbling about as well. On the sheer number of votes, Ron Paul had the 8th highest number of votes among all candidates. The first three spots all go to Democrats and the next 5 to Republicans.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 5, 2008 1:08 PM