Friday, January 4, 2008
"Iowa By the Numbers" by Tim Dickinson
http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index.php/2008/01/04/iowa-by-the-numbers/
"Four statistics blew me away tonight:
1) Obama beat Hillary among women voters 35 to 30 percent.
2)Amid record Democratic turnout, as many people under 30 showed up to caucus as those over 65.
3) Sixty percent of the GOP electorate in Iowa were born-again Christians.
4) Rudy Giuliani finished with a mere 4,013 votes, in sixth place, with less than half of the support of Ron Paul.
Taking them in order:
One:
Hillary lost tonight to Barack Obama by 8 points — a margin just as wide as Mitt Romney catastrophic shortfall against Mike Huckabee.
And Obama beat her eight ways to Sunday. He edged her out among Democrats 32/31, and cleaned her clock among independents (44/17) and wayward Republicans (41/10). He beat her among people making less than $15,000 (37/30) and more than $100,000 (41/19). He beat her among health-care voters (34/30) and suburban voters (30/25).
Most astounding however, he beat her among her core supporters, women, by five points. What more can I say than — in a night of mind boggling statistics — that that’s the stat of the night.
A black man did this. In a state that’s 96 percent white. This is truly a historic night in America.
Two:
The turnout on the Democratic side was unreal. It soared from 124,000 in 2004 to 230,000 in 2008. And that’s all about the man who won.
Obama’s been drawing record crowds from San Francisco to Des Moines — but there was always the question of whether he could produce a similar effect among real live voters.
He did so in a way that no one predicted. 57 percent of the caucus goers tonight had never caucused before. Most impressive: As many people under thirty showed up as senior citizens.
That’s fucking nuts is what that is. That’s the Rock the Vote political wet dream that never ever comes true… actually coming true.
What this portends for Obama as a national candidate is something truly special. He’s not only proven that he can draw the support of independents and open-minded Republicans. He’s the one guy who can make the Democratic pie higher, bringing new, unlikely voters into the fold. If he could replicate this kind of support among young people in a general election, it’s game over.
Three:
The Religious Right has found their candidate. The evangelical vote in the Republican caucus is usually 40 percent. Tonight it was 60 percent.
I give Mike Huckabee a lot of credit. He’s run the kind of grassroots campaign that’s not supposed to be possible in this era. Outspent 15:1, his earthy, inclusive plain-spoken authenticity won hearts and minds — and his faith-based network of supporters turned out in droves, beating back the best organization money can buy.
With Romney effectively out of the way, I’m not sure anybody else can stop this guy. Certainly not in South Carolina, where, if the churched vote behaves the way they did tonight, he’ll clobber a John McCain, no matter what happens in New Hampshire.
Four:
Rudy Giluliani is done. His slot — the maverick warmonger — is going to be filled by John McCain by the time Florida comes around. He’s executing the most amazingly misguided electoral strategy I can remember. Bravo and good riddance.
Closing thoughts
Obama scored two huge victories tonight. He not only popped Clinton’s aura of inevitability, he also beat Edwards roundly enough to establish himself as the only true anti-Clinton. So not only is Clinton wounded heading into New Hampshire, but the ABC (anyone but Clinton) vote has found its standard bearer — and his name isn’t John Edwards.
Which is all to say that even if Clinton makes a miraculous recovery in the next five days, I think enough of Edwards’ vote is going to migrate to Obama that it’s not going to make a difference. New Hampshire is his to lose.
And fond goodbyes…
Part of me, here, is going to miss the grand patrician stylings of Chris Dodd, here.
And Joe Biden, I think I’ll miss you most of all. "
Biden and Dodd Leave the Race By Shailagh Murray
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/04/biden_and_dodd_leave_the_race.html?hpid=topnews
"DES MOINES -- The two veteran lawmakers of the Democratic race, Sens. Joseph Biden (Del) and Christopher Dodd (Conn.), abandoned their candidacies after poor showings in last night's Iowa caucuses.
Biden, who was elected to the Senate in 1972 and serves as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, had hoped large crowds in recent weeks would help earn at least a fourth-place showing. But that support failed to materialize, and Biden netted only about 2 percent of delegates, about half what recent polls had predicted.
"There is nothing sad about tonight. We are so incredibly proud of you all," Biden told his supporters. "So many of you have sacrificed for me and I am so indebted to you. I feel no regret."
Dodd, who chairs the Senate Banking Committee and is serving his fifth term, posted a worse showing, registering just .02 percent of Democratic support.
"Let me assure you, we are not ending this race with our heads hanging but our heads held high," he told about 100 supporters at a rally in Des Moines. "I am not going anywhere."
Dodd moved his wife and two young daughters to Des Moines and built a sizable state-wide organization, including 13 offices and a large payroll of campaign professionals. Biden also blitzed the state, scooping up endorsements from state and local officials, and offering crowds intricate discourses on foreign policy.
But in a year when voters said they were seeking change, both veteran senators struck Iowans as a little too familiar, fixtures of a Washington establishment that had grown stale from years of gridlock and partisan infighting.
Biden's presidential bid was his second, having dropped out of the 1988 race before the Iowa caucuses."
"DES MOINES -- The two veteran lawmakers of the Democratic race, Sens. Joseph Biden (Del) and Christopher Dodd (Conn.), abandoned their candidacies after poor showings in last night's Iowa caucuses.
Biden, who was elected to the Senate in 1972 and serves as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, had hoped large crowds in recent weeks would help earn at least a fourth-place showing. But that support failed to materialize, and Biden netted only about 2 percent of delegates, about half what recent polls had predicted.
"There is nothing sad about tonight. We are so incredibly proud of you all," Biden told his supporters. "So many of you have sacrificed for me and I am so indebted to you. I feel no regret."
Dodd, who chairs the Senate Banking Committee and is serving his fifth term, posted a worse showing, registering just .02 percent of Democratic support.
"Let me assure you, we are not ending this race with our heads hanging but our heads held high," he told about 100 supporters at a rally in Des Moines. "I am not going anywhere."
Dodd moved his wife and two young daughters to Des Moines and built a sizable state-wide organization, including 13 offices and a large payroll of campaign professionals. Biden also blitzed the state, scooping up endorsements from state and local officials, and offering crowds intricate discourses on foreign policy.
But in a year when voters said they were seeking change, both veteran senators struck Iowans as a little too familiar, fixtures of a Washington establishment that had grown stale from years of gridlock and partisan infighting.
Biden's presidential bid was his second, having dropped out of the 1988 race before the Iowa caucuses."
"Iowa results shake establishment of both parties" By Patrick Healy
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/04/america/assess.php
"DES MOINES, Iowa: The Democratic and Republican establishments and their presidential candidates, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and former Governor Mitt Romney, were brought low in Iowa, shaken seriously by two national newcomers who won decisively on messages of insurgency and change.
The victors in Iowa, Senator Barack Obama for the Democrats and former Governor Mike Huckabee for the Republicans, are as far from the status quo as possible. One is the son of a Kenyan father and a white Kansan mother who entered the United States Senate just three years ago. The other is a former Baptist minister who was best known until recently for losing more than 100 pounds, or 45 kilograms, and taking on the issue of childhood obesity.
The two winners Thursday night burst the aura of strength and confidence that Clinton and Romney had tried to cultivate for months and left both parties suddenly without a clear path to their nominating conventions, let alone November.
Clinton's loss was especially glaring: her central strategy for much of 2007 was to appear as the inevitable nominee, but Iowans shredded that notion. She tried in recent weeks to convince voters that another Clinton administration could be an agent of change, but Iowans clearly did not buy it.
Without question, Clinton and Romney have the money, the campaign apparatus and the legions of supporters to stay in the hunt for the nomination and to right their campaigns. But Clinton's lackluster finish raises anew questions about her electability, and whether independent voters - who flocked to Obama - will ever come around to her.
And Romney, who outspent Huckabee 6-to-1 in television advertising in Iowa, now faces a far more crowded field of rivals in the New Hampshire primary who are eager to tear into his wounded candidacy.
All the candidates now move to that primary on Tuesday, which Clinton had tried to make a fire wall for her campaign, as it was for her husband's presidential candidacy in 1992, when he finished strongly in second place.
"If Hillary doesn't stop Obama in New Hampshire, Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee," said Robert Shrum, a Democratic consultant who was John Kerry's senior strategist in 2004.
Clinton advisers declined to say on Thursday night whether she would now pursue a different strategy against Obama. But a shift seems likely now that Clinton's multilayered, sometimes contradictory message - offering an experienced hand but also an agent of change - fell flat in this first contest.
"We built a campaign for the long haul - we feel very good about our operation in New Hampshire, and polling has us up," said Howard Wolfson, a Clinton spokesman. The danger for Clinton, of course, is that those polls may not hold after the outcome in Iowa.
Further undercutting Clinton, Obama peeled away broad swaths of women from her base of support, and the political potency of baby boomers fell apart in Iowa. Half of the Democrats under 45 said their first choice was Obama, according to a poll by Edison/Mitofsky of voters entering caucus sites.
At the same time, the fact that so many Iowa Democrats voted for an African-American man and a white woman was historic as well. For Obama, especially, the ratification of his candidacy by Democrats and independents in a predominantly white and rural state suggests that he may be able to build a broad and multiracial coalition in his bid for the White House.
The nomination fights will only intensify from now, though the steel that Huckabee will deploy in the battle is unclear. He seemed to come out of nowhere - an ex-governor who was so little known among Republicans that many of them could not even name the state he once led (Arkansas) - and turned from asterisk-status to giant-slayer here in spite of a paltry political organization, slim dollars and a final week marked by gaffes.
As when Pat Robertson made a surprise second-place showing in the Iowa caucuses in 1988, Huckabee enjoyed substantial political support from evangelical Christians and took advantage of a muddled Republican presidential field to drive toward an 11th-hour victory over Romney, of Massachusetts.
For Romney, his loss here will register as a deep blow to his candidacy - a failure bound to worry establishment Republicans and wealthy donors who have viewed him as their man. It will also energize and inspire Republicans who are backing Senator John McCain in the New Hampshire primary.
Romney's drive to the Republican nomination was supposed to begin with him looking formidable and confident coming out of Iowa. Romney, his wife and his sons planted themselves here for months and poured in money, including millions of his own; he now heads to New Hampshire clearly wounded and a target for even more rivals, like Rudolph Giuliani, former Senator Fred Thompson and McCain.
Huckabee, a folksy and fairly plain-speaking politician with a sense of humor that many Iowans enjoyed, appealed to Republican caucusgoers who put a premium on a candidate's Christian faith - and who were deeply wary about seeing a Mormon, Romney, become president.
But Huckabee also struck many populist themes that have deep appeal to middle-class Iowans and farmers, promising to tailor his economic priorities to their needs and taking tough stands on a key issue here, immigration.
But Iowa voters are not New Hampshire voters, as Huckabee and his advisers are well aware. Devoutly religious voters do not exist in nearly the same numbers in the Granite State. And the fervent anti-tax sentiment among Republicans there is likely to clash with Huckabee's record of raising taxes in Arkansas.
"If Huckabee scares the Republican establishment and makes the party fear losing, you could see a rapid rallying around a second candidate," said Nelson Warfield, a Republican consultant not working for any candidate.
Indeed, Robertson's Iowa performance in 1988 - when he came in second to Bob Dole and edged out the ultimate nominee, the elder George Bush - gave him little bounce in New Hampshire, given the lack of a fervent evangelical base.
"I'm going to be the nominee," Robertson said right after his victory, crediting God in particular with his success, which faded after a drubbing soon after in New Hampshire.
Huckabee talked about God on the Iowa campaign trail, as well, but on Thursday night there was one other word that he - as well as Obama, Romney, Clinton and former Senator John Edwards - discussed especially and emphatically: "change."
As Edwards put it, "the status quo lost, and change won" in the caucuses. Obama and Huckabee repeated the words incessantly in their victory speeches, brandishing the word as a talisman that overcame Clinton's decades of experience and Romney's leadership bona fides.
Yet change was not only the political message; change was the two men themselves.
Marjorie Connelly contributed reporting from Des Moines."
"DES MOINES, Iowa: The Democratic and Republican establishments and their presidential candidates, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and former Governor Mitt Romney, were brought low in Iowa, shaken seriously by two national newcomers who won decisively on messages of insurgency and change.
The victors in Iowa, Senator Barack Obama for the Democrats and former Governor Mike Huckabee for the Republicans, are as far from the status quo as possible. One is the son of a Kenyan father and a white Kansan mother who entered the United States Senate just three years ago. The other is a former Baptist minister who was best known until recently for losing more than 100 pounds, or 45 kilograms, and taking on the issue of childhood obesity.
The two winners Thursday night burst the aura of strength and confidence that Clinton and Romney had tried to cultivate for months and left both parties suddenly without a clear path to their nominating conventions, let alone November.
Clinton's loss was especially glaring: her central strategy for much of 2007 was to appear as the inevitable nominee, but Iowans shredded that notion. She tried in recent weeks to convince voters that another Clinton administration could be an agent of change, but Iowans clearly did not buy it.
Without question, Clinton and Romney have the money, the campaign apparatus and the legions of supporters to stay in the hunt for the nomination and to right their campaigns. But Clinton's lackluster finish raises anew questions about her electability, and whether independent voters - who flocked to Obama - will ever come around to her.
And Romney, who outspent Huckabee 6-to-1 in television advertising in Iowa, now faces a far more crowded field of rivals in the New Hampshire primary who are eager to tear into his wounded candidacy.
All the candidates now move to that primary on Tuesday, which Clinton had tried to make a fire wall for her campaign, as it was for her husband's presidential candidacy in 1992, when he finished strongly in second place.
"If Hillary doesn't stop Obama in New Hampshire, Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee," said Robert Shrum, a Democratic consultant who was John Kerry's senior strategist in 2004.
Clinton advisers declined to say on Thursday night whether she would now pursue a different strategy against Obama. But a shift seems likely now that Clinton's multilayered, sometimes contradictory message - offering an experienced hand but also an agent of change - fell flat in this first contest.
"We built a campaign for the long haul - we feel very good about our operation in New Hampshire, and polling has us up," said Howard Wolfson, a Clinton spokesman. The danger for Clinton, of course, is that those polls may not hold after the outcome in Iowa.
Further undercutting Clinton, Obama peeled away broad swaths of women from her base of support, and the political potency of baby boomers fell apart in Iowa. Half of the Democrats under 45 said their first choice was Obama, according to a poll by Edison/Mitofsky of voters entering caucus sites.
At the same time, the fact that so many Iowa Democrats voted for an African-American man and a white woman was historic as well. For Obama, especially, the ratification of his candidacy by Democrats and independents in a predominantly white and rural state suggests that he may be able to build a broad and multiracial coalition in his bid for the White House.
The nomination fights will only intensify from now, though the steel that Huckabee will deploy in the battle is unclear. He seemed to come out of nowhere - an ex-governor who was so little known among Republicans that many of them could not even name the state he once led (Arkansas) - and turned from asterisk-status to giant-slayer here in spite of a paltry political organization, slim dollars and a final week marked by gaffes.
As when Pat Robertson made a surprise second-place showing in the Iowa caucuses in 1988, Huckabee enjoyed substantial political support from evangelical Christians and took advantage of a muddled Republican presidential field to drive toward an 11th-hour victory over Romney, of Massachusetts.
For Romney, his loss here will register as a deep blow to his candidacy - a failure bound to worry establishment Republicans and wealthy donors who have viewed him as their man. It will also energize and inspire Republicans who are backing Senator John McCain in the New Hampshire primary.
Romney's drive to the Republican nomination was supposed to begin with him looking formidable and confident coming out of Iowa. Romney, his wife and his sons planted themselves here for months and poured in money, including millions of his own; he now heads to New Hampshire clearly wounded and a target for even more rivals, like Rudolph Giuliani, former Senator Fred Thompson and McCain.
Huckabee, a folksy and fairly plain-speaking politician with a sense of humor that many Iowans enjoyed, appealed to Republican caucusgoers who put a premium on a candidate's Christian faith - and who were deeply wary about seeing a Mormon, Romney, become president.
But Huckabee also struck many populist themes that have deep appeal to middle-class Iowans and farmers, promising to tailor his economic priorities to their needs and taking tough stands on a key issue here, immigration.
But Iowa voters are not New Hampshire voters, as Huckabee and his advisers are well aware. Devoutly religious voters do not exist in nearly the same numbers in the Granite State. And the fervent anti-tax sentiment among Republicans there is likely to clash with Huckabee's record of raising taxes in Arkansas.
"If Huckabee scares the Republican establishment and makes the party fear losing, you could see a rapid rallying around a second candidate," said Nelson Warfield, a Republican consultant not working for any candidate.
Indeed, Robertson's Iowa performance in 1988 - when he came in second to Bob Dole and edged out the ultimate nominee, the elder George Bush - gave him little bounce in New Hampshire, given the lack of a fervent evangelical base.
"I'm going to be the nominee," Robertson said right after his victory, crediting God in particular with his success, which faded after a drubbing soon after in New Hampshire.
Huckabee talked about God on the Iowa campaign trail, as well, but on Thursday night there was one other word that he - as well as Obama, Romney, Clinton and former Senator John Edwards - discussed especially and emphatically: "change."
As Edwards put it, "the status quo lost, and change won" in the caucuses. Obama and Huckabee repeated the words incessantly in their victory speeches, brandishing the word as a talisman that overcame Clinton's decades of experience and Romney's leadership bona fides.
Yet change was not only the political message; change was the two men themselves.
Marjorie Connelly contributed reporting from Des Moines."
"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."
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."
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Iowa predictions
I forgot to do this before work, but it is my lunch break now.
My predictions for Iowa:
REP
Romney to edge Huckabee who has been revealed to be a bit of a jerk.
Guiliani & Thompson to do very poorly.
Ron Paul to do suprisingly well. Say 10 %.
Dems
Obama to edge hillary or Edwards.
Biden to suprise and finish 3rd based on his foreign policy experience and the situation in Pakistan.
Let the games begin!
My predictions for Iowa:
REP
Romney to edge Huckabee who has been revealed to be a bit of a jerk.
Guiliani & Thompson to do very poorly.
Ron Paul to do suprisingly well. Say 10 %.
Dems
Obama to edge hillary or Edwards.
Biden to suprise and finish 3rd based on his foreign policy experience and the situation in Pakistan.
Let the games begin!
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Bipartisan group to explore independent presidential bid at OU meeting
"
http://www.kten.com/Global/story.asp?S=7558188
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - University of Oklahoma President David Boren is leading a bipartisan group of former U.S. senators, governors and party leaders who share concerns about "partisan polarization" in the presidential campaign.
Boren says the group will gather at OU on January 7th to urge an end to party squabbling and consider a possible independent candidate.
Boren -- a former Democratic U.S. senator from Oklahoma says the meeting will serve as a form of "shock therapy" to the major-party candidates to "stop the bickering" and provide Americans with a blueprint for bipartisanship in Washington.
Boren says New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a potential independent presidential candidate, is among a dozen political leaders who are likely to attend the meeting."
http://www.kten.com/Global/story.asp?S=7558188
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - University of Oklahoma President David Boren is leading a bipartisan group of former U.S. senators, governors and party leaders who share concerns about "partisan polarization" in the presidential campaign.
Boren says the group will gather at OU on January 7th to urge an end to party squabbling and consider a possible independent candidate.
Boren -- a former Democratic U.S. senator from Oklahoma says the meeting will serve as a form of "shock therapy" to the major-party candidates to "stop the bickering" and provide Americans with a blueprint for bipartisanship in Washington.
Boren says New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a potential independent presidential candidate, is among a dozen political leaders who are likely to attend the meeting."
Bloomberg running regardless of the candidate.
I am a McLaughlin Group junkie. Elanor Clift on that show has some contact with Bloomberg as do some of the other hosts. It has been stated repeatedly that Bloomberg might not run if certain candidates were selected by the Republican and Democratic parties. The jist is the guy is a career Dem. He has presidential aspirations, but doesn't want to throw the election to the republicans. The presumption has been if two widely disliked candidates like Guliani and Clinton were nominated, that would open the door for a "safe" bloomberg run. Both candaidates have very high negative approval ratings. That matchup would create 20-30+% of the populace who would be looking for a third option. And he doesn't like Guliani, so it makes a world of sense.
He would pull heavily from the same Guliani crowd and the people who dislike both candidates. Guiliani would get a no-show from the conservative crowd and either bloomberg or Hillary would win. But the pundits have said repeatedly that bloomberg would not be interested in challenging if his run might throw the election to the republicans.
This article is very interesting as it seems to strongly suggest that bloomberg has been seduced by the possiblity of being president and is running regardless of the opposition, by it's choice of candidates Bloomberg has mentioned. Obama has one of the lowest negative ratings in the race and that is only likely to be controversial at all if Bloomberg runs as a white man vs. Obama's black man. In that instance, Bloomberg is clearly running against the Democrats.
December 31, 2007
Bloomberg Moves Closer to Running for President
By SAM ROBERTS
Buoyed by the still unsettled field, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is growing increasingly enchanted with the idea of an independent presidential bid, and his aides are aggressively laying the groundwork for him to run.
On Sunday, the mayor will join Democratic and Republican elder statesmen at the University of Oklahoma in what the conveners are billing as an effort to pressure the major party candidates to renounce partisan gridlock.
Former Senator David L. Boren of Oklahoma, who organized the session with former Senator Sam Nunn, a Democrat of Georgia, suggested in an interview that if the prospective major party nominees failed within two months to formally embrace bipartisanship and address the fundamental challenges facing the nation, “I would be among those who would urge Mr. Bloomberg to very seriously consider running for president as an independent.”
Next week’s meeting, reported on Sunday in The Washington Post, comes as the mayor’s advisers have been quietly canvassing potential campaign consultants about their availability in the coming months.
And Mr. Bloomberg himself has become more candid in conversations with friends and associates about his interest in running, according to participants in those talks. Despite public denials, the mayor has privately suggested scenarios in which he might be a viable candidate: for instance, if the opposing major party candidates are poles apart, like Mike Huckabee, a Republican, versus Barack Obama or John Edwards as the Democratic nominee.
A final decision by Mr. Bloomberg about whether to run is unlikely before February. Still, he and his closest advisers are positioning themselves so that if the mayor declares his candidacy, a turnkey campaign infrastructure will virtually be in place.
Bloomberg aides have studied the process for starting independent campaigns, which formally begins March 5, when third-party candidates can begin circulating nominating petitions in Texas. If Democrats and Republicans have settled on their presumptive nominees at that point, Mr. Bloomberg will have to decide whether he believes those candidates are vulnerable to a challenge from a pragmatic, progressive centrist, which is how he would promote himself.
The filing deadline for the petitions, which must be signed by approximately 74,000 Texas voters who did not participate in the state’s Democratic or Republican primaries, is May 12.
Among the other participants invited to the session next Sunday and Monday is Senator Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, who has said he would consider being Mr. Bloomberg’s running mate on an independent ticket.
Mr. Boren declined to say which candidate would be strongest, but suggested “some kind of combination of those three: Bloomberg-Hagel, Bloomberg-Nunn.” He said Mr. Bloomberg would “not have to spend a lot of time raising money and he would not have to make deals with special interest groups to raise money.”
“Normally I don’t think an independent candidacy would have a chance” said Mr. Boren, who is the University of Oklahoma’s president. “I don’t think these are normal times.”
Mr. Bloomberg, who has tried to seize a national platform on gun control, the environment and other issues, has been regularly briefed in recent months on foreign policy by, among others, Henry A. Kissinger, his friend and the former secretary of state, and Nancy Soderberg, an ambassador to the United Nations in the Clinton administration.
Advisers have said Mr. Bloomberg, a billionaire many times over, might invest as much as $1 billion of his own fortune (he spent about $160 million on his two mayoral races) on a presidential campaign.
But they warned that while they were confident of getting on the ballot in every state, the process was complicated and fraught with legal challenges, and that Mr. Bloomberg would begin with an organizational disadvantage, competing against rivals who have been campaigning full time for years.
Still, the mayor said this month at a news conference, “Last I looked — and I’m not a candidate — but last time I checked reading about the Constitution, the Electoral College has nothing to do with parties, has absolutely nothing to do with parties. It’s most states are winners take all. The popular vote assigns electoral votes to the candidate, and I don’t think it says in there that you have to be a member of one party or another.”
The key players — virtually the only players — in Mr. Bloomberg’s embryonic campaign are three of his deputy mayors, Kevin Sheekey, Edward Skyler and Patricia E. Harris. Another aide, Patrick Brennan, who was the political director of Mr. Bloomberg’s 2005 re-election campaign, resigned as commissioner of the city’s Community Assistance Unit earlier this year to spend more time exploring the mayor’s possible national campaign.
One concern among Mr. Bloomberg’s inner circle is whether a loss would label him a spoiler — “a rich Ralph Nader” — who cost a more viable candidate the presidency in a watershed political year. One person close to the mayor, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to be seen discussing internal strategy, stressed that Mr. Bloomberg would run only if he believed he could win.
“He’s not going to do it to influence the debate,” the person said.
The mayor was asked last week at a news conference whether a Bloomberg campaign would cost the Democratic or Republican nominee more votes.
“You know,” he replied, “if it’s a three-way race, the public has more choice than if it’s a two-way race, and has more choice in a two-way race than a one-way race. Why shouldn’t you have lots of people running, and what’s magical about people who happen to be a member of a party?”
Sam Waterston, the actor whose former co-star on “Law and Order,” Fred D. Thompson, is a Republican presidential candidate, is a founder of Unity08. That group also hopes to advance a nonpartisan ticket, and Mr. Waterston says the mayor is often mentioned on the group’s Web site as a prospective nominee.
“If he formally embraced Unity08’s principal goals of a bipartisan, nonpartisan, postpartisan ticket — which he’s almost in a position to do all by himself, having been a Democrat, a Republican, and now an independent — and of an administration dedicated to ending partisanship within itself and in Washington, then it’s hard to think of anyone better placed to win Unity08’s support if he sought it,” Mr. Waterston said. “And, of course, there’s nothing that says Unity08 couldn’t draft him.”
Some associates said that after six years as mayor, Mr. Bloomberg was itching for a new challenge — much like he was in 2000 when, as chief executive of Bloomberg L.P., he was flirting with running for mayor.
But Mr. Bloomberg will also have to weigh several intangibles: Can he run for president and serve as mayor of a combustible metropolis simultaneously for eight months? (He believes he can, and would not resign as mayor to run.) Does he want to be president badly enough to sacrifice his zealously guarded personal privacy? (He’s not completely convinced.)
Meanwhile, he thoroughly enjoys the attention, and despite the public denials, suggests that he is poised to run if the political stars align themselves for a long-shot, but credible, independent campaign. During a private reception this month, Mr. Bloomberg playfully presided over a personal variation of bingo, in which guests could win by correctly guessing the significance of the numbers on a printed card.
“Two hundred seventy-one?” Mr. Bloomberg asked.
One guest guessed correctly: It was George W. Bush’s bare electoral-vote majority in 2000."
He would pull heavily from the same Guliani crowd and the people who dislike both candidates. Guiliani would get a no-show from the conservative crowd and either bloomberg or Hillary would win. But the pundits have said repeatedly that bloomberg would not be interested in challenging if his run might throw the election to the republicans.
This article is very interesting as it seems to strongly suggest that bloomberg has been seduced by the possiblity of being president and is running regardless of the opposition, by it's choice of candidates Bloomberg has mentioned. Obama has one of the lowest negative ratings in the race and that is only likely to be controversial at all if Bloomberg runs as a white man vs. Obama's black man. In that instance, Bloomberg is clearly running against the Democrats.
December 31, 2007
Bloomberg Moves Closer to Running for President
By SAM ROBERTS
Buoyed by the still unsettled field, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is growing increasingly enchanted with the idea of an independent presidential bid, and his aides are aggressively laying the groundwork for him to run.
On Sunday, the mayor will join Democratic and Republican elder statesmen at the University of Oklahoma in what the conveners are billing as an effort to pressure the major party candidates to renounce partisan gridlock.
Former Senator David L. Boren of Oklahoma, who organized the session with former Senator Sam Nunn, a Democrat of Georgia, suggested in an interview that if the prospective major party nominees failed within two months to formally embrace bipartisanship and address the fundamental challenges facing the nation, “I would be among those who would urge Mr. Bloomberg to very seriously consider running for president as an independent.”
Next week’s meeting, reported on Sunday in The Washington Post, comes as the mayor’s advisers have been quietly canvassing potential campaign consultants about their availability in the coming months.
And Mr. Bloomberg himself has become more candid in conversations with friends and associates about his interest in running, according to participants in those talks. Despite public denials, the mayor has privately suggested scenarios in which he might be a viable candidate: for instance, if the opposing major party candidates are poles apart, like Mike Huckabee, a Republican, versus Barack Obama or John Edwards as the Democratic nominee.
A final decision by Mr. Bloomberg about whether to run is unlikely before February. Still, he and his closest advisers are positioning themselves so that if the mayor declares his candidacy, a turnkey campaign infrastructure will virtually be in place.
Bloomberg aides have studied the process for starting independent campaigns, which formally begins March 5, when third-party candidates can begin circulating nominating petitions in Texas. If Democrats and Republicans have settled on their presumptive nominees at that point, Mr. Bloomberg will have to decide whether he believes those candidates are vulnerable to a challenge from a pragmatic, progressive centrist, which is how he would promote himself.
The filing deadline for the petitions, which must be signed by approximately 74,000 Texas voters who did not participate in the state’s Democratic or Republican primaries, is May 12.
Among the other participants invited to the session next Sunday and Monday is Senator Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, who has said he would consider being Mr. Bloomberg’s running mate on an independent ticket.
Mr. Boren declined to say which candidate would be strongest, but suggested “some kind of combination of those three: Bloomberg-Hagel, Bloomberg-Nunn.” He said Mr. Bloomberg would “not have to spend a lot of time raising money and he would not have to make deals with special interest groups to raise money.”
“Normally I don’t think an independent candidacy would have a chance” said Mr. Boren, who is the University of Oklahoma’s president. “I don’t think these are normal times.”
Mr. Bloomberg, who has tried to seize a national platform on gun control, the environment and other issues, has been regularly briefed in recent months on foreign policy by, among others, Henry A. Kissinger, his friend and the former secretary of state, and Nancy Soderberg, an ambassador to the United Nations in the Clinton administration.
Advisers have said Mr. Bloomberg, a billionaire many times over, might invest as much as $1 billion of his own fortune (he spent about $160 million on his two mayoral races) on a presidential campaign.
But they warned that while they were confident of getting on the ballot in every state, the process was complicated and fraught with legal challenges, and that Mr. Bloomberg would begin with an organizational disadvantage, competing against rivals who have been campaigning full time for years.
Still, the mayor said this month at a news conference, “Last I looked — and I’m not a candidate — but last time I checked reading about the Constitution, the Electoral College has nothing to do with parties, has absolutely nothing to do with parties. It’s most states are winners take all. The popular vote assigns electoral votes to the candidate, and I don’t think it says in there that you have to be a member of one party or another.”
The key players — virtually the only players — in Mr. Bloomberg’s embryonic campaign are three of his deputy mayors, Kevin Sheekey, Edward Skyler and Patricia E. Harris. Another aide, Patrick Brennan, who was the political director of Mr. Bloomberg’s 2005 re-election campaign, resigned as commissioner of the city’s Community Assistance Unit earlier this year to spend more time exploring the mayor’s possible national campaign.
One concern among Mr. Bloomberg’s inner circle is whether a loss would label him a spoiler — “a rich Ralph Nader” — who cost a more viable candidate the presidency in a watershed political year. One person close to the mayor, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to be seen discussing internal strategy, stressed that Mr. Bloomberg would run only if he believed he could win.
“He’s not going to do it to influence the debate,” the person said.
The mayor was asked last week at a news conference whether a Bloomberg campaign would cost the Democratic or Republican nominee more votes.
“You know,” he replied, “if it’s a three-way race, the public has more choice than if it’s a two-way race, and has more choice in a two-way race than a one-way race. Why shouldn’t you have lots of people running, and what’s magical about people who happen to be a member of a party?”
Sam Waterston, the actor whose former co-star on “Law and Order,” Fred D. Thompson, is a Republican presidential candidate, is a founder of Unity08. That group also hopes to advance a nonpartisan ticket, and Mr. Waterston says the mayor is often mentioned on the group’s Web site as a prospective nominee.
“If he formally embraced Unity08’s principal goals of a bipartisan, nonpartisan, postpartisan ticket — which he’s almost in a position to do all by himself, having been a Democrat, a Republican, and now an independent — and of an administration dedicated to ending partisanship within itself and in Washington, then it’s hard to think of anyone better placed to win Unity08’s support if he sought it,” Mr. Waterston said. “And, of course, there’s nothing that says Unity08 couldn’t draft him.”
Some associates said that after six years as mayor, Mr. Bloomberg was itching for a new challenge — much like he was in 2000 when, as chief executive of Bloomberg L.P., he was flirting with running for mayor.
But Mr. Bloomberg will also have to weigh several intangibles: Can he run for president and serve as mayor of a combustible metropolis simultaneously for eight months? (He believes he can, and would not resign as mayor to run.) Does he want to be president badly enough to sacrifice his zealously guarded personal privacy? (He’s not completely convinced.)
Meanwhile, he thoroughly enjoys the attention, and despite the public denials, suggests that he is poised to run if the political stars align themselves for a long-shot, but credible, independent campaign. During a private reception this month, Mr. Bloomberg playfully presided over a personal variation of bingo, in which guests could win by correctly guessing the significance of the numbers on a printed card.
“Two hundred seventy-one?” Mr. Bloomberg asked.
One guest guessed correctly: It was George W. Bush’s bare electoral-vote majority in 2000."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)