01/04/2008
Obama and Huckabee Take Nation's First Caucus in Iowa
Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mike Huckabee won their respective races in the Iowa caucuses Thursday night, leaving leftover candidates from both parties either scrambling for their next move or on their way out. Senator Hillary Clinton and John Edwards came within a percentage point of one another in the race for second place on the Democratic side, with Edwards edging out Clinton by a hair.
On the Republican side, second-place winner Mitt Romney was not even close, leaving a wide-open opportunity for John McCain in New Hampshire next week, where his support has risen in recent weeks.
The numbers came in like this: " Mr. Huckabee won with 34.4 percent of the delegate support, after 86 percent of precincts had reported. Mr. Romney had 25.4 percent, former Senator Fred D. Thompson of Tennessee had 13.4 percent and Senator John McCain of Arizona had 13.2 percent. On the Democratic side, with 100 percent of precincts reporting, Mr. Obama had 37.6 percent of the delegate support, Mr. Edwards 29.8 percent and Mrs. Clinton had 29.5 percent. Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico was fourth, at 2.11 percent."
Other details:
Massive turnout bad omen for the GOP.
Chris Dodd, Joe Biden drop out of Democratic race...
Keith Olbermann declares that Mike Gravel has dropped out of the race, and Gravel demands a retraction!
Thompson finishes in near-tie for third with John McCain...
McCain reacted from New Hampshire: "I think that the lesson of this election is that, one, you can't buy an election in Iowa; and, two, that negative campaigns don't work. They don't work there, and they don't work here in New Hampshire."
Giuliani vows to fight on after poor showing.
Independents go for Obama and Ron Paul.
Check out what the candidates had to say (Clips of ALL THE SPEECHES) about their respective wins and losses, AFTER THE JUMP...
OBAMA: "You know, they said this day would never come. They said our sights were set too high. They said this country was too divided, too disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose. But on this January night, at this defining moment in history, you have done what the cynics said we couldn't do. . . . You have done what America can do in this new year, 2008."
HUCKABEE: "What is happening tonight in Iowa is going to start really a prairie fire of new hope and zeal. And it's already happening across this nation because it is about we; we the people. We saw it tonight. . . . And we're going to continue to see it because this country yearns and is hungry for leadership that recognizes that when one is elected to public office, one is not elected to be a part of the ruling class; he's elected to be a part of the serving class."
CLINTON: "We're going to take this enthusiasm and go straight to New Hampshire...We have always planned on running a national campaign all the way through the early contests...What is most important now is that, as we go on with this contest, that we keep focused on the two big issues, that we answer correctly the questions that each of us has posed. How will we win in November 2008, by nominating a candidate who will be able to go the distance? And who will be the best president on day one? I am ready for that contest."
EDWARDS: "The one thing that's clear from the results in Iowa tonight is the status quo lost and change won. And now we move on. We move on from Iowa to New Hampshire and to the other states to determine who's best suited to bring about the change that this country so desperately needed."
ROMNEY: "Well, well, we won the silver. But just as Dan Jansen pointed out - you win the silver in one event, it doesn't mean you're not going to come back and win the gold in the final event."
THOMPSON: “It looks like someone’s gonna have to carry a strong conservative message, and it looks like it’s gonna be me.”
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 7:39 AM EST by Andy in Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, Election 2008, Fred Thompson, Hillary Clinton, Iowa, John Edwards, Joseph Biden, Mike Gravel, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, News, Rudy Giuliani | Permalink
Comments
You might want to amend this post a bit. Calling it a "primary" implies that people went to polls and cast ballots. What happened in Iowa were caucuses, and those are significantly different. It's not just a technicality, either. The way the caucuses work (which are different between the parties) are considered by some to be so undemocratic that that's a far more important reason to consider not having Iowa be the first state, rather than raising issues of its small population and homogeneity.
Posted by: Kirk | Jan 4, 2008 7:50:33 AM
Go Obama! I'm delighted by the outcome and hope this propels him to victories in NH and SC. We just can't have Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. We can't have dynastic politics; I also still can't figure out how 8 years as first lady counts as experience. Obama is just what we need at this time -- he will almost overnight transform the image of America in the world.
The contrast between Obama and Huckabee couldn't be more stark. It really reflects the polarization of the American electorate. Huckabee really is a wolf in sheep's clothing -- he portrays a very reasonable, modest image but beneath lurks some very dangerous ideas.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jan 4, 2008 7:56:08 AM
A hair is all it takes to devestate the so-called "annointed"
Bye bye to the bush clinton bush years
Almost 2x the number of caucus goers showed up this time to the dem caucus as compared to 2004 elections. HUGE numbers of under 30.
Bill probably is getting stitches right this second from hillary throwing those glasss ash trays at his head (ref to secret service reports that she used to do such in the white house and even put a gash in his head with a glass ash tray)
3rd place even by a hair = LOSER!
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Jan 4, 2008 8:47:15 AM
Andy: you are just too cool. I don't know any other site that put together anything as complete as this for the Iowa caucuses. This is why yours is the first website I look at everyday. Cheers and Happy 2008. W
Posted by: Winston | Jan 4, 2008 8:53:44 AM
Kirk
Actualy caucuses are considered even more democratic than a ballot vote system. It is all face to face. No hanging chads. No hackable computer systems.
All the state reps to the DNC support Iowa as 1st. All the states signed on in agreement a long time ago.
Just because your particular candidate didn't do well...............
I will settle for Obama as the anti-Hillary though Gore was my 1st, Kucinich 2nd for his support of gays, and edwards 3rd for his populism
Obama though as the anti-hillary (especialy if he takes edwards as VP) is a winnable and supportable ticket.
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Jan 4, 2008 8:54:53 AM
JIMMYBOYO, I've come to respect your contributions here, along with other regular contenders, for having succinct cogent arguments, even if our opinions differ.
I'm going for Obama, like you. But the truth is there isn't a candidate out there that doesn't scare me at least a little. Some scare me lots-- like Huckabee and Romney-- others are pandering hypocrites like Guiliani and I daresay Clinton. McCain is someone I would have liked to see win eight years ago.
Obama scares me because he's someone that I think should win, but probably won't. Remember a few weeks ago when I alluded that he's a Muslim? I care so much that Romney is a Mormon but in fact wouldn't care if Obama really was a Muslim. It was a blazing stroke of ignorance on my part, but most of my friends (and enemies I guess) still think the same thing. My point is, there's too much against him, and I'm not sure this sad country can accept a black man as President, especially one who they think has a foreign religion. Shit, even the gays are still mad at him for having the anti-gay Bible thumper on his campaign trail. Where I see a candidate that truly is interested in dialogue from opposing sides, others see a naive politician.
I am inspired by my state's election of Jon Tester in Montana 2006, however. Grassroots populism worked here, a state I contend is politically unique yet regularly red. But it can also be looked at as a political barometer as it seems Montuckians just get tired of politicians in Washington before the rest of the country does.
So Go Obama!
...I hope.
Posted by: justincredible | Jan 4, 2008 9:32:45 AM
Barack n Roll in 2008!
Thanks for the outstanding summary, Andy.
Posted by: Roger Newcomb | Jan 4, 2008 9:41:00 AM
The Iowa caucuses are much ado about nothing. Bill Clinton lost in 92, the senior Bush and Dukakis lost in 88, Reagan lost in 80, and Carter lost in 76. With this track record I wouldn't place too much importance on Iowa.
Posted by: wetcnt | Jan 4, 2008 9:41:42 AM
JIMMYBOYO, I feel pretty much the same as you except I do not have hard feelings toward Mrs Clinton. Some of my friends are furious with me because I don't have any passion for Obama (one even called me an Uncle Tom. The Silly bitch! You can call me an Aunt Jemima, but never an Uncle Tom, slut). I try to explain to the brothas & sistuhs that even though I am a Black American, I am also a Democrat--a liberal Democrat. I believe in a strong central government to make this idiotic conferation of backward states behave themselves. If it weren't for a strong central government, I wouldn't be allowed to vote today...Miss Thaings. Therefore, Obama's clever strategy of bringing everybody together (Republicans, Independents and Democrats) just doesn't turn me on. I'm angry at those bastards he wants to reconcile with--decades of anger. Those people have humiliated Liberals for 50 years now. BUT...but still Obama's message may be the smart message, "Come together all American children--it's time to make friends" Shiiit.
Well, let me hush.
If it's still just him and Hillary in April (PA Primary), I'll vote for him; and of course, if it's him in November, I'll vote for him. I'll vote for him the same way I voted for Hillary's husband and for all centrist Democrats--holding my nose.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Jan 4, 2008 9:56:59 AM
Bye, bye Hillary. Now if we can only hope for the fair tax...
Posted by: RB | Jan 4, 2008 10:19:18 AM
Wetcnt
Twisting the facts a bit aren't you
NOT 1 single dem cnadidate campaigned in iowa back then. IOWA SENATOR TOM HARKIN was running. He was the shoe in due to being an IOWA SENATOR. NONE of the dems campaigned in iowa. To come in third with the Clinton name, money, and media attention is devestating
Justincredible, I agree. McCain 8 years ago was a good guy. Since then he has gone overboard in embracing everything bush cheney.
Derrick :-)
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Jan 4, 2008 10:49:04 AM
RB...please stop calling it the 'fair tax'...there is nothing fair about it...it would only result in lower/middle class taxpayers contributing a far larger percentage of their incomes to the IRS than the wealthy would contribute...such a scenario would hurt the poor as well as middle class taxpayers like yourself who dream of owning their first home.
Posted by: peterparker | Jan 4, 2008 1:15:31 PM
Derrick -
Let go off the anger, it gives you lines.
You can't move forward holding onto past stuff.
Posted by: Ben | Jan 4, 2008 1:31:11 PM
RB...I've just seen your post from yesterday in which you correct my misunderstanding about your status as a homeowner. I'll post below (with an addition or two...just to keep it interesting) what I posted from yesterday's item about Huckabee:
*****************************************************************
RB,
Excuse me for misunderstanding one of your previous posts from months ago. I believed you were expressing a desire to own a home. I was not aware that you already are a homeowner.
A flat tax *does* hurt the poor. It results in a greater percentage of lower/middle class families' earnings going to state and federal governments. Think about the following scenario: Steve Ballmer, billionaire co-founder of Microsoft shells out $300,000 for a new Rolls Royce Phantom with a flat tax of 10%. Ballmer would pay $30,000 in taxes. That sounds like a lot of taxes for an automobile...until you consider that Steve Ballmer is worth about 15 billion and a modest 10% increase in net worth each year would yield Ballmer an income of $150,000,000.00 per year! Assuming an income of $150 million per year (again, a modest figure for Steve Ballmer), about .02% of Ballmer's income has gone to paying taxes on his new luxury car. Meanwhile, consider a lower-middle class family in the Midwest eyeing the 'previously owned' Ford Taurus on the lot at the local Ford dealer. The family needs a new car to shuttle kids to school and Dad to work at the local meatpacking plant. Dad earns $45,000 a year (maybe) while Mom earns $25,000 as a secretary. The 'previously owned' Ford Taurus on the dealer's lot is going to set them back $11,000. A ten percent flat tax means that $1,100, or 1.5% of their earnings, is going to the government.
The real tragedy of a flat tax is that working class families end up giving up a greater percentage of their earnings to pay for necessities like clothing, food, transportation, etc...while millionaires and billionaires consume luxury goods and STILL pay a smaller percentage of their incomes to the government.
Finally, RB...it's eminEnt domain...and I don't know what percentage of private property is seized by the government each year, but I'm guessing it is even less than the percentage of income a billionaire would pay on the purchase of a new Rolls Royce in the scenario of a flat tax.
xo,
peterparker
Posted by: peterparker | Jan 4, 2008 1:57:21 PM
Ben,
You're right. No one wins converts, or just understanding, by coming across like a raging queen. I was just trying to show how frustrating it is for some Democrats who've been emotionally scarred by 40 years (including Big Daddy Clinton) of Conservative rule--to have to settle for a nominee who's just a handsome version of Colin Powell.
"Raging Queen" Couldn't get DeNiro to play that--he's too old. I could do it. I don't have as many "anger lines" as you'd think, but I will if Obama doesn't move to the Left after his skinny (but cute) butt is in the White HOuse....wonder if Michelle grabs one of those narrow booty cheeks when they.......oh, I'm so disrespectful, but I'd do the same thing to Mitt Romney. Does he have buns?
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Jan 4, 2008 2:17:43 PM
Jimmyboyo,
it seems that you are the one that has a tenuous grasp on facts. Wetcnt and Kirk have valid points.
the iowa caucuses were moved to january by the iowa dem party in 1972. the following are results of the iowa caucuses since then, and they bolster Wetcnt's assertion:
1972 mcgovern lost to ed muskie
1976 carter, while getting the highest vote among 5 dems, came in a distant second to "uncommitted."
1980 bush defeated reagan
1988 dole beat v.p. bush who came in third. dukakis also came in third.
1992 harkin won 76%, tsongas 4%, clinton 3%, bob kerry 2%, and jerry brown 2% with 12% uncommitted. harkin was the favorite son. the other candidates didn't actively campaign, but they were on the ballot.
clearly, iowa is not predictive of anything. a win or strong showing in iowa can provide a boost to a flagging campaign or a little known candidate, however.
it seems to me that all the ballyhoo over iowa is a creation of the media as much as by the politicians. especially since the population of the entire state of iowa is only slightly larger than the city of chicago. and of that population, less than 10% participate in the caucuses. for a small part of the population of a tiny state to hold so much sway over national politicvs is undemocratic.
perhaps that is one of the reasons that Kirk believes that the caucuses are not very democratic. there are other reasons to think so.
the Democratic caucuses do away with the secret ballot. with a field such as the dems have this cycle, one dem is about as good as another. but it is easy to see how this process could become contentious with a polarizing slate of contenders, pitting neighbor against neighbor.
the length of the Dem. caucus process prohibits the participation of people who don't have a lot of free time. absentee ballots are not permitted so people in the military or people who are ill are excluded. there are still other reasons, but you get the picture.
something that i find puzzling is your almost pathological dislike of hillary. as i said before, any of the dem candidates stands head and shoulders above the repugs. i can support any of the remaining dems. what exactly is your problem with sen. clinton?
Posted by: nic | Jan 4, 2008 3:37:53 PM
Seven very important reasons not to vote for Barak Obama:
FIRST, he’s a Democrat, a political hustler in a right centrist party who’ll say anything to get elected. As Gore Vidal said says “We have one party - we have the party of essentially corporate America. It has two right wings, one called Democratic, one called Republican.” A vote for either party is a vote for people whose pigheaded opposition to samesex marriage and gutting of ENDA make them open opponents of GLBT equality.
SECOND, like Clinton and the Republicans he openly, arrogantly and unashamedly panders to gay bashing christian bigots.
THIRD, like Clinton and the Republicans he’s a candidate bought and paid for by corporate interests; his contributors are a virtual rogue’s gallery of parasites including:
Goldman Sachs $430,578
JP Morgan Chase & Co $273,359
Exelon Corp $269,100
Kirkland & Ellis $256,089
Sidley Austin LLP $241,525
Lehman Brothers $241,090
Citigroup Inc $207,500
Skadden, Arps et al $206,271 etc.
FOURTH, Obama was the first presidential candidate to support the NAFTA Peru extension bill before Congress. Look at his list of donors above and his stand makes perfect sense. The AFL-CIO, all Peruvian unions and most environmental and anti-poverty organizations oppose NAFTA because it’s used to pauperize workers, bust unions and is an environmental disaster. Obama, Clinton and most Republicans support NAFTA. They have to if they want corporate money.
FIFTH, in spite of all his hype about the war one thing remains crystal clear, neither he, Edwards, Clinton and the Republicans can end the war. A victory by the Iraqis will end it, just like the war in Vietnam was ended. Obama would spread the war to Pakistan, a nation with nuclear weapons.
Congress supports the resources wars including the oil piracy in Iraq. If the US pulls out of the Mideast it’ll be dependent on the good will of the anti-American governments of socialist Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Putin in Russia, and the leftist Lula in Brazil. That’s why Obama and all the leading Democratic and Republican candidates flatly refuse to promise withdrawal before 2013.
SIXTH, like Clinton and the Republicans, Obama is a hand puppet for the HMO, pharmaceutical and insurance industries. Don’t get sick if one of them wins. The National Nurses Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO condemns Obama, saying “There are two basic options for healthcare reform: increase the role of health insurance companies or replace them. Obama has chosen to give more customers and more public funds to the for-profit insurance corporations. It’s an expensive gift and one that allows them to continue meddling in medical decision-making while raking in obscene blood-money profits.”
SEVENTH, and most important, if enough people vote for him he might win. Anyone older that eight or nine years old who believes campaign promises is not that much older than eight or nine. With Democrats like these who needs Republicans. A Republican candidate is a loud-mouthed baboon in a people suit with a theocratic christian attached at the hip. A Democratic candidate is a Republican in drag.
Posted by: Bill Perdue, RainbowRED | Jan 4, 2008 4:24:08 PM
As a brit watching your (very complex but well established) system I am just happy to see the country that I was brought up to respect and admire begin to engage its democracy again. The world needs leadership and whatever your decision a well thought and fought election in the US will contribute to getting that leadership more than most other societies could even begin to understand. The bloggers are also such an important part of the picture so well do Andy. To all of you in the US have a great year indulging in pure democracy, us europeans enjoy it as much and will also keep on trying to do the right thing in this mad world!
Posted by: arch | Jan 4, 2008 8:03:04 PM
Recent Comments