"What do the Iowa results mean?" by the BBC

"http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7171057.stm

It was celebrations for Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama, who won the Republican and Democratic nominations respectively, as voters in Iowa turned out in force to make their selection.

The Iowa caucuses can give big boosts to candidates' campaigns in the long haul to reach the White House.

Which factors contributed to the success of Mr Obama and Mr Huckabee?

The key message for both, despite their very different political stances, was the promise of change.

The word cropped up regularly in Mr Obama's campaign speeches. And about half of the people attending the Democratic caucuses said a candidate's ability to bring change was the most important factor.

For Mr Huckabee, another key word was "values", with many Republican caucus-goers saying the former Baptist minister was someone "who shares my values".

His win was built on the support he got from evangelical voters. More than half of Republicans interviewed as they attended the caucuses said they were either born-again or evangelical Christians, the Associated Press news agency reported.

What about the turnout?

This was also another important factor.

The Republican turnout was about 115,000, up on the 2000 figure of 87,666. For the Democrats it was even higher, with some 239,000 turning out to register their choice, up from 124,000 four years ago.

This seems to reflect Mr Obama's success in reaching out to first-time caucus-goers and independents.

Many voters under 25 turned to him and he also outpolled his main rival Hillary Clinton among women.

Who were the biggest losers?

Without doubt the most glaring loss was for Senator Clinton, long considered the Democratic frontrunner and who once enjoyed a significant lead in the Iowa polls.

On the Republican side, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney saw the many millions of dollars he spent campaigning in Iowa translate only into second place.

In recent weeks he saw his advantage whittled down and shortly before the contest, his camp dampened down expectations, saying second place would be fine.

What about the other candidates?

John Edwards, who also campaigned on a theme of a break with the status quo, will be hoping his strong finish to secure second place in Iowa, ahead of Mrs Clinton, will boost his campaign.

Republican Senator John McCain, who came fourth behind Mr Huckabee, Mr Romney and Fred Thompson, spent little time in Iowa and has been much more focused on the next election stop of New Hampshire.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani did not mount a major campaign in Iowa and his showing of 3.5%, behind outsider Ron Paul who scored 10%, will be no surprise. His strategy is to target the larger states that hold their contests later in the electoral calendar.

"We're ahead in maybe 16, 18 of the 29 states that are coming up," was his reaction to the Iowa result.

Are any campaign changes likely?

Mrs Clinton and Mr Romney have the funds, the organisational backing and plenty of supporters. But it is clear they have both been wounded politically and need to regroup fast.


Mrs Clinton has tried to present herself as the candidate of change and experience, a feat it seems she was unable to pull off in Iowa.

But her campaign appeared to pursuing this line as they headed on to the next election stop of New Hampshire.

"This is an election that is really going to be about the choice that people have between an experienced leader for change versus leadership with less experience that talks about change," Mrs Clinton's chief strategist said.

What happens next?

The nomination battle is set to intensify further, with only a few days for the respective campaigns to gear up for New Hampshire's primary on Tuesday.

Polling data from there has indicated that Mrs Clinton's once-secure lead has been dented and it is virtually neck-and-neck between her and Mr Obama. Although Mrs Clinton has consistently led in the national polls, a defeat in New Hampshire would be a bitter blow to her campaign.

The polls for the Republicans show a much more open contest. Mr McCain, who has devoted much more time to campaigning in New Hampshire than Iowa, is doing well, surveys suggest.

New Hampshire polls put Mr Romney and Mr McCain about level.

Mr Huckabee will face a tougher test in this state where issues like taxation and national security are set to figure more prominently than in Iowa, where social and religious issues came to the fore.

He will be aiming to use his Iowa victory to boost his chances in New Hampshire, where he cannot count on the same level of Christian conservative support.

Are there any lessons from history?

Very often it is not so much about winning in Iowa but doing better or at least as well as expected.

Democrat Howard Dean was leading his party's polls in 2004 but after his third place in Iowa his campaign stuttered and never recovered.

But an Iowa victory, while important, is no guarantee of national success. The 1992 winner for the Democrats was Tom Harkin. Trailing way behind him was Bill Clinton, who went on to capture the presidency."