The Iowa Caucuses: The Postmortem
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in 2008 | Democrats | Iowa Caucuses | Republicans — Comments (35) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
So much then for my predictions. But now that the results are known, let's discuss what they mean.
Do please read on . . .
Winners For The Republicans
1. Clearly Mike Huckabee. I think that he is the worst major candidate to throw into the general election, but give the man his due; with very little money and very little organization, he won in a state where money and organization matter a great deal indeed. And he won by taking Huey Long populism, rebranding it with a Republican label and selling it as the coalition of the future. I admire the political skill needed to bring that about almost as much as I am appalled by this willy-nilly abandonment of what has worked for Republicans--and for the country--in the past. Contrary to popular opinion, the small-government, low tax, free market, strong-on-national-defense coalition Ronald Reagan built is not dead. With the proper leader, it can spring very much back to life. And that brings us to . . .
2. Fred Thompson. I know that he didn't campaign as hard as some thought he should have in Iowa. And I know that he doesn't have much money. Despite all of that, he snagged third place. He can get stronger as candidates drop out or as those who looked to Mitt Romney perhaps look again (whether Thompson will get stronger is the question). Thompson will probably look for a third place finish in New Hampshire and then look to South Carolina as well for a state in which he can do well. One thing is for sure: He's not going anywhere. He's remaining in the race.
3. John McCain. Thanks to Romney being wounded, McCain looks to New Hampshire with a lot of hope and promise. The only question, however, is whether his campaign might falter in its quest for New Hampshire independents thanks to Barack Obama's strong win in Iowa this evening.
Loser For The Republicans
1. Mitt Romney. All that money just went down the drain, didn't it? Apparently "I can look at spreadsheets with the best of them" and "I can calibrate my positions to make anyone happy" just don't go down well with the electorate, do they?
Winner For The Democrats
1. Barack Obama. The only winner the Democrats had. A very impressive turnout led to a convincing victory, which led to a powerful speech. The man has loads and loads and loads of political talent and even if you disagree with his worldview (as I do), you can't deny that he is one of the most engaging and charismatic politicians out there. He goes into New Hampshire with huge momentum.
Losers For The Democrats
1. Hillary Clinton. A no-talent campaigner with no message other than "wouldn't it be cool if a former First Lady got elected as the first female President?". She can mention "change" until the cows come home--it won't alter the fact that she is the ultimate status quo candidate (you don't convey a message of change by having Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright and Wesley Clark standing behind you at the podium). She has no discernible message. No stump speech of any coherence or power. She can't come close to matching Obama. She has loads of money and the Establishment behind her. And she will need all of that to finally craft a rationale for her campaign.
2. John Edwards. How is that Huey Long Message Of Populist Anger working out? Badly enough that even though John Edwards has lived in Iowa, has had the best ground game of any of the candidates and has visited all 99 counties not once, but twice, he barely managed to hold on to second place. He has no money, little appeal in New Hampshire and no message of hope and optimism. It is all rage, all class warfare, all the politics of resentment. And it failed tonight. Couldn't happen to a more deserving candidate.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Huck's win and the revenge of the SoCons — Comments (248) »
The Iowa Caucuses: The Postmortem 35 Comments (0 topical, 35 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Sorry, I can't accept this. Fred eeked out a 3rd place finish. He finished 3% ahead of HWSNBN and 12% behind Mitt Romney. Maybe you can say he maintained but absolutely is not a winner. This provides no momentum. It won't lead anyone to give him a second look.
I'm very worried now, not about Thompson. I am scared to death that Huckabee is still thriving. This guy is an absolute disaster for our party. Now, Mitt, my preferred candidate is hobbled badly and Fred, my second choice, has shown me nothing.
Mitt or Fred need to find some momentum and step it up to stop the Huckafraud. Claiming that Fred won is not the message his campaign needs to hear. They need to step it up and do it now!
* PRIESTCRAFT is thus defined: “The stratagem and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns. Management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose upon the credulity of others.”
I wasn't expecting 20+% from Fred. And the fact that Mitt stunk up the place makes this more of a win for Fred. I think people will abandon Mitt now that he's clearly not an inevitable contender and seems to have some serious issues with his campaign. Fred stands to gain from that.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
lost more tonight than Fred but I don't think people will abandon him and go to Fred and that's what I'm afraid of. If people do abandon Mitt I truly hope that they go to Fred since I see him as the next best option. The message to Fred should be that he has an opening and he needs to step it up, not, great job, keep up the lackluster media campaign. There is a vacuum to fill and Mitt could regain that space, Fred could get in there, or people will go the next acceptable alternative - which could be Rudy, McCain or heaven forbid, Huck himself.
Tell Fred he's not doing enough. Tell him to step it up. Stop calling him a winner. He needs to hear that he is losing, when the opportunity to surge is now.
* PRIESTCRAFT is thus defined: “The stratagem and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns. Management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose upon the credulity of others.”
Is that, at least on this site, Fred and Mitt were very common first and second choices, in one order or the other. In fact, I'd say they were, by far, the most common first and second choices. They are also my first and second choices. I had Mitt on top for a while, because I thought he had a campaign in place that could easily win this whole deal and kill off Huckabee and McCain.
Now it looks like he might not be able to pull that off, so I'm going with Fred. I've always preferred him on the issues and on a personal level, anyway. Mitt just had the electability thing going for him... emphasis on the past tense.
The only thing that would bring me back to Mitt is if he makes a big comeback. Win NH, win MI, come in second in a couple states.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
comes out of this a winner. He is most likely looking at fourth in NH, followed by third or fourth in South Carolina. If he can't move up by then he's as good as done.
why would anyone jump from one candidate to another who managed HALF of what the first candidate did? that's insane, and Fredheads better have stronger hopes than Romney voters jumping ship to Fifty-percent Fred, or McCain voters switching to a guy he tied with.
*shakes head*
Crazy spin.
to McCain voters, a candidate that will do much better in NH than Fred, and might even win, while Fred will be lucky not to finish 6th in NH.
If Mitt's support just comes from people who are really excited about the guy and think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread, it makes no difference.
He was simply acceptable to me. That's it. I was never in love with the guy. But he had a first class campaign and a clear path to the nomination. I don't know if you can say that any more. If I'm going to go with a guy with a questionable path to the nomination, it's going to be Fred who I have always liked a great deal more than Mitt.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
"I am scared to death that Huckabee is still thriving. This guy is an absolute disaster for our party. Now, Mitt, my preferred candidate is hobbled badly and Fred, my second choice, has shown me nothing."
Iowa gave us a Clusterhuck.
We have a prolife John Edwards who won the GOP contest while the real John Edwards didnt do too great. What gives?
What the voters did:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1948098/posts?page=15#15
“They’re informed on abortion and gay marriage; they consider everything else kind of secondary until you explain just what a nanny-stater Huckabee is, and they still stay with him, usually. They support him because he’s strongly pro-life, and because he’s an evangelical like them. It really is identity politics like Rush says; they identify with him and don’t care that he’s basically a pro-life John Edwards.”
What the GOP now gets ...
WSJ: "In August, he (Huckabee) told a group of Washington reporters that the application of his faith to politics must include concerns for the environment, poverty and hunger. "It can't just be about abortions and same-sex marriage," he said. "We can't ignore that there are kids every day in this country that literally don't have enough food and adequate drinking water in America.""
Wyoming seems like a Thompson kind of state and I could see Romney doing well here, too.
Seems like there's plenty of opportunity there for some cheap campaigning considering how sparsely populated that state is... and a win is a win.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Sure it could have been worse. And, if the current numbers stand up he will have beaten McCain for 3rd place by less than 250 votes. But, so what?
Thompson pretty much lived in Iowa the past few weeks and it's a state that would seem a natural fit for his style and conservatism. But, still he could only muster a tie with McCain, whose spent much less time the state and campaigned against ethanol and farm subsidies.
I like Thompson (he was my original first choice) and would love to be able to read some silver lining into his Iowa results. But, I just don't see it. Is a tie for third place really goning to jump start his (to date) lackluster campaign? Are we really going to see a spike in this campaign contributions now?
So now he lives to fight in NH, where the RCP poll average has him in sixth place, with only 2.3%. And, then comes Michigan where he's in fith place with only 6.5%. Even in South Carolina (which is supposed to be his best shot) he's only in third place, with 13.5%. I fail to see how anything happened in Iowa that could lead any reasonable person to conclude Thompson's in much better shape than he was beforehand.
"Thompson pretty much lived in Iowa the past few weeks and it's a state that would seem a natural fit for his style and conservatism. But, still he could only muster a tie with McCain, whose spent much less time the state and campaigned against ethanol and farm subsidies."
Iowa isn't all that conservative. It elects "moderate" Senators, for instance. (One is a raving lunatic old line pol, the other has resigned, I believe).
I somehow don't think McCain "campaigned against ethanol and farm subsidies," at least not in Iowa. He did answer that one question in the Iowa debate, though. That was heralded as brave, oh so brave. If he is so brave, where was he on the Social Security plan proposed by his President two years ago? Nowhere to be found. But I digress. Not everybody in Iowa depends on ethanol and farm subsidies. The ones who do probably went for Huck or Romney, not Thompson.
Prior to the last couple of weeks, Thompson spent little time in Iowa. His strategy was to go all out for two weeks, and that two weeks got him PAST McCain, even though not by much (or maybe not at all, depending on final tallies).
Fred did this on the basis of his personal strengths, and he did it without any free publicity from the media, who are resolute in their decision to ignore him.
Somehow, the Breck Girl of Fox News decided that by finishing fourth just behind Thompson, McCain has staged a comeback. So, why doesn't that mean that Fred has staged a takeoff?
"I fail to see how anything happened in Iowa that could lead any reasonable person to conclude Thompson's in much better shape than he was beforehand."
I think I'm reasonable. I don't know that I'd say he's in much better shape, but he's in better shape. Considering that the polls all had him at about 6% to 9% yesterday, I'd say that an increase to 13% is a 50% to 100% improvement in one day. He seems to have outdone McCain, As a result, perhaps the news media will be forced to acknowledge his presence, and he might get some of that helpful free publicity.
At least, he's much better off than if he'd gotten only 6% of the vote.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
the ONLY guy who came out shining tonight was Barack Obama. All the rest of the "winners" were just far second place losers, (unfortunately). I think that Fred is the best option for keeping the republican party intact for this election cycle, but someone needs to inject the guy with some personality and raise his sense of urgency. Independants could very well play a important role in this election, and I have a sneaking suspicion (if they show up at the polls) they will move to Barack. If Barack Obama gets the democratic nomination he'll be hard to beat.
and will be until NH, "Polls showed more than 8 in 10 of Mike Huckabee’s supporters described themselves as evangelicals."
How is the Huck going to overcome being classified as the "evangelical" candidate going forward? Identity politics will backfire on him big time. I suspect in about 5 days the cheers from the Hucksters will turn to tears as they reflect that it was fun while it lasted.
In states with five or ten per cent evangelical supporters, I wonder how the Huck will do? Let's see if these fantastic followers start opening up their wallets and start pouring in the millions in donations necessary for Huck to compete in the next few states.
My guess is the Huck will fizzle fast. I seriously doubt most Americans will be as gullible as this handful of religious fanatics in Iowa. Frankly I am embarrassed for Iowan’s; their credibility with me is now zero.
Mitt has class and patience. I wouldn't write him off yet.
Link:
http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/maps/map.asp?variable=9&state=101&var...
For that matter, the only major pre-Super Tuesday primary state that falls below a 10% evangelical population is New Hampshire.
It still wouldn't bode well for the general election, though.
They asked people whether they considered themselves evangelicals in the polls leading up to the caucus and the number was more like 40%, not 10%. And a whopping 60% of those who caucused today said they were evangelicals. You can bet they aren't going to come close to that 60% number in a whole lot of states.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
The methodology varied quite a bit by poll and I don't have them in front of me, but that certainly seems likely. Either way, 60% of GOP caucus goers identifying themselves as evangelical is a pretty amazing stat... and not something you can duplicate in just about any primary state, IMO. The turnout in those states is going to be much higher and will more closely represent the population of the states as a result.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Link:
http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/RCMS_Notes.asp
I doubt that evangelical church membership quadrupled in 8 years, but there could be a large number of non-members self-identifying as evangelical.
I estimated about 100,000 votes in the Iowa Republican primary out of almost 3 million Iowans - 3% of the population participated.
If 60,000 out of an estimated 300,000 Iowan evangelical church members voted today, that's 20% turnout, which suggest high motivation relative to the rest of the state.
The caucuses are not a primary. So only 5-8% of Republicans show up. Thus, 60% of caucus goers were evangelical in Iowa.
In NH, MI, and SC, the have primaries that will have 30-60% turnout. Thus, the evangelical percentage will be much lower as turnout goes up (and the percentage of evangelicals goes down).
Also, the survey you are looking at measures church-going, not self-identification. The original content dealt with self-identification.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
with the Christian bashing! "gullible" and "religious fanatics".
I am on the verge of supporting Huckabee just to irritate the hell out of you.
And loose the "identity politics". It's just another retarded buzz word. I fully expect to wake up tommorrow and hear it all over the MSM.
as he did say, "I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass." While I think that may be a little extreme, seeing as Mr. Falwell is no longer with us, it appears that the evangelicals/social cons have just unilaterally decided to dump the other two legs of the coalition that makes up the Republican party, i.e. Fiscal Cons and Defense Cons. The Defense Cons are not too upset, mostly Rush and the likes are, however, the Fiscal Cons seem to be hopping mad. The Club For Growth and the Libertarian Republicans are going to go nuts over a Huckabee Presidential run. His nomination, I am confident to say, would tear the Republican Party apart and send us into the political wilderness for many years. So its not that Christians are gullible or fanatics, or that they play identity politics, rather we i.e. the other two legs of the Party would like to have had a little more say in who the candidate will be, otherwise its rock bottom for the Republican Party.
To those that consider Huckabee a "disaster for the party", I get the sense that you don't just mean he would lose, or he would be a bad president.
I gather you mean that the campaign alone would be harmful. Would "Obama beats Huckabee" in November would be worse than "Obama beats Thompson"?
Thanks
If
a) the Republican Party becomes identified as the party only of religious conservatives.
or
b) the Republican Party drives out religious conservatives in the wake of defeat.
These would be bad things.
I can't put it more straight forward than that. Huckabee is the game over for the fiscal cons and many defense cons, I doubt he will secure the nomination without all factions on board but if he does kiss the conservatives in the Republican party good-bye.
is a distinct possibility. That's why the Dems' are so happy for us tonight. The second headline won't happen.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
Fred has virtually no chance to get the nomination?
OR
Fred would beat Obama in the general election?
I'm amazed if you believe the second. Fred has shown no ability to convince large numbers of people to vote for him over some pretty mediocre opposition (mediocre in the sense that all have serious negatives). Huckabee aside, Obama would probably match up best against Thompson. Young, dynamic, energetic against what? An apparently tired old man who thinks acting serious is an attractive character trait. Our elections are pretty superficial and Fred, whatever his core strengths may be (and I'm not convinced they're anything more than boringly ordinary) has zero charisma.
Obama's toughest opponent would probably be McCain. Rightly or wrongly, a lot of people see substance in McCain that isn't apparent in Fred. Personally, I think many here at Redstate have imagined Fred to be much more than he is. I assume that's because all of the other candidates have one or more serious flaws and Fred seems OK across the board. The problem is that's all Fred is -- OK. He was no great senator, his rhetorical skills are limited, he has little personal appeal (he may be a great guy privately, I'm speaking of how he comes across publicly), and he is the antithesis of dynamic, charismatic, or inspiring. I can't imagine -- short of the complete collapse of everyone else -- how he could get the nomination.
Fred might do reasonably well if Clinton is the nominee, since there are so many people who won't vote for her under any circumstances, but will vote against her. However, if Obama pulls off the major upset and gets the nomination, Fred's last man standing story won't get much attention at all. Huckabee and to a lesser extent McCain could steal some of Obama's thunder. Huckabee, because his nomination would be as big a shock (or bigger) than Obama's. McCain, because the press loves him and his Phoenix-like rise from the ashes would really appeal to the MSM.
I have to agree. I don't know what the FredHeads are smoking lately, but obviously it's some pretty powerful stuff.
Unless McCain can somehow develop some meaningful momentum, I do believe a Democrat of some flavor is going to be the next POTUS.
And I do think that people throwing around phrases about "religious fanatics" is a very, very bad idea, regardless of how true it may be.
"Fred has virtually no chance to get the nomination?
OR
Fred would beat Obama in the general election?"
I'm glad you didn't waste any time on the first choice. The second statement is correct.
You state your case very well. I disagree.
All the drawbacks you ascribe to Thompson can be moved right over to McCain as well.
"Huckabee and to a lesser extent McCain could steal some of Obama's thunder. Huckabee, because his nomination would be as big a shock (or bigger) than Obama's. McCain, because the press loves him and his Phoenix-like rise from the ashes would really appeal to the MSM."
Once the battle lines are drawn, the MSM will move directly to the Democrat side. Don't expect them to help the Huckster. In fact, they'll be more than happy to point out all the little details that are missing from his public history. (He does speak well, though.)
The press will love McCain until he's nominated. They will then make a point of highlighting McCain-Feingold, his stand on amnesty (for it, don't quibble with semantics), and his petulance. And he did say some mighty nasty things about people who disagreed with him on the illegal immigration issue.
By your reasoning, NO Republican can beat Obama. My estimation is that Obama will (if nominated) run an issues campaign, and that is exactly the best forum for Thompson, while it is a terrible forum for both Huckabee and McCain.
If the conservative electorate is given a choice between a DemocLib and a RepubLib, I'm afraid too many of them will opt to stay home.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
Bad for the party - will fracture the Reagan coalition. Not a conservative, so will destroy our brand. And practically unelectable due to his easy pegging as a creationist boob once the MSM turns on him.
why Huckabee is a terrible choice, perhaps the worst choice, in the nomination race:
1. Soft-on-crime Governor who went on a pardon/commutation spree
2. Pro-instate-tuition for illegal aliens and for other giveaways - his record on immigration stinks
3. Fiscal liberal Tax-and-spender as Governor
4. Dissembled about his record when challenged
5. Not a conservative, hurt conservatives in Ark.
6. Ethics issues, taking public money for private use
7. Flipflopper, on immigration, Cuba and other issues
8. An incompetent Jimmy Carteresque boob on foreign policy
9. Will get beaten easily by the Democrats
let's be perfectly frank about what happened here, Huckabee came to Iowa with no issues except I feel your pain and told the people there "I'm a Christian" vote for me! And the built in Christian base did so.
All this talk about having no organization is silly. A built in evangelical Christian base of some 46% or so is an incredible organization that doesn't cost any money to create (if your a Southern Baptist minister)
If you ask me this speaks volumes about the GOP in Iowa. Everyone keep going on about how informed caucus goers were... Bull feathers!!! Huckabee has no issues expect a broad populist message with no details and the Fair Tax! Iowan caucus goers aren't more informed than anyone else they clearly chose their candidate by either religion or 30 second sound-bite and I find the whole circus and hype surrounding Iowa and its Tammany tactics to be repulsive.
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Editor for The Hinzsight Report
I am an evangelical christian. But I am also a conservative. And I think it is very dumb to vote for a man simply because he is a former minister. He is pro-life and anti-gay marriage. But so is pretty much every other candidate (with the exception of Rudy). The point is, what do we win by electing Huckabee? We get to hear him quote scripture every time he speaks to the American people? Doesn't Bush already do that?
My Dad is an ex-minister and he supports Huckabee. And every time I point out his awful record on anything but values, my dad just ignores it. I learned most of my political beliefs from my dad and I know he is smart politically. So the fact that he is such a Huckabee supporter really worries me. I think this guy has a chance to win.
**On a side note: I also think being anti-Romney for being a mormon is very bigoted. I don't support him for other reasons, but his mormonism is definitely not one of them.
"Republicans think every day is the 4th of July, but the democrats think every day is April 15th." -Ronald Reagan
I think Rudy Giuliani would also qualify as a winner on this on - did not waste money on a state caucus that will have very little to do with the eventual republican nominee.
Adam B.
Fred Thompson finished third in Iowa under the mainstream media's radar and, when they did write about him, more often than not it was with dismissive disdain. He was the stealth candidate who had to create his own buzz and earn every caucus vote the old-fashioned way.
Poor Mitt Romney couldn't buy himself a victory. See, Red Staters? It could have been worse. You could have spent the evening at National Review Online or with Hugh Hewitt.