CE WK #17: “Obama Takes Iowa in a Big Turnout as Clinton Falters; Huckabee Victor”
DES MOINES — Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, a first-term Democratic senator trying to become the nation’s first African-American president, rolled to victory in the Iowa caucuses on Thursday night, lifted by a record turnout of voters who embraced his promise of change.
The victory by Mr. Obama, 46, amounted to a startling setback for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, 60, of New York, who just months ago presented herself as the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. The result left uncertain the prospects for John Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina, who had staked his second bid for the White House on winning Iowa.
Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards, who edged her out for second place by less than a percentage point, both vowed to stay in the race.
“They said this day would never come,” Mr. Obama said as he claimed his victory at a packed rally in downtown Des Moines.
On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas who was barely a blip on the national scene just two months ago, defeated Mitt Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, delivering a serious setback to Mr. Romney’s high-spending campaign and putting pressure on Mr. Romney to win in New Hampshire next Tuesday.
Mr. Huckabee, a Baptist minister, was carried in large part by evangelical voters, who helped him withstand extensive spending by Mr. Romney on television advertising and a get-out-the-vote effort.
“Tonight we proved that American politics is still in the hands of ordinary folks like you,” said Mr. Huckabee, who ran on a platform that combined economic populism with an appeal to social conservatives.
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.
Two Democrats, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, dropped out of the race after winning only tiny percentages of the vote.
A record number of Democrats turned out to caucus — more than 239,000, compared with fewer than 125,000 in 2004 — producing scenes of overcrowded firehouses and schools and long lines of people waiting to register their preferences.
The images stood as evidence of the success of Mr. Obama’s effort to reach out to thousands of first-time caucusgoers, including many independent voters and younger voters. The huge turn-out — by contrast, 108,000 Republicans caucused on Thursday — demonstrated the extent to which opposition to President Bush has energized Democrats, and served as another warning to Republicans about the problems they face this November in swing states like this.
Mr. Obama’s victory in this overwhelmingly white state was a powerful answer to the question of whether America was prepared to vote for a black person for president. What was remarkable was the extent to which race was not a factor in this contest. Surveys of voters entering the caucuses also indicated that he had won the support of many independents, a development that his aides used to rebut suggestions from rivals that he could not win a general election. In addition, voters clearly rejected the argument that Mr. Obama does not have sufficient experience to take over the White House, a central point pressed by Mrs. Clinton.
Mr. Obama took the stage, smiling broadly and clapping his hands in response to the roar of cheers that greeted him.
“They said this country was too divided, too disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose,” Mr. Obama said. “But on this January night, at this defining moment in history, you have done what the cynics said we couldn’t do.”
The result sent tremors of apprehension through Mrs. Clinton’s camp, and she promptly turned her attention to New Hampshire, flying there on a plane that left at midnight. Aides said that former President Bill Clinton would go there immediately and spend the next five days campaigning in a state where he has always been strong. Mrs. Clinton, in her concession speech, sought again to embrace the mantle of change that has served Mr. Obama so well, even as she was flanked on the stage by Mr. Clinton, his face frozen in a smile, and Madeleine K. Albright, who was Mr. Clinton’s secretary of state.
“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,” Mrs. Clinton said. “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.”
Mr. Edwards in his speech suggested that he had benefited from the same electoral forces that lifted Mr. Obama to victory. “Continue on,” Mr. Edwards shouted at supporters from the stage, his voice sounding hoarse. “Thank you for second place.”
In fact, he drew 29.8 percent of the delegates awarded, to Mrs. Clinton’s 29.4 percent.
Mr. Huckabee declared victory at a boisterous rally in which he rejoiced in his ability to overcome his better-financed opponent, who had spent much of the past year building up for a victory and had hammered Mr. Huckabee with negative advertisements over the past month here.
“We’ve learned that people really are more important then the purse,” he said.
Mr. Romney will now make a stand in New Hampshire, where he has also invested heavily.
“Congratulations on the first round to Mike,” Mr. Romney said on Fox News.
Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, had campaigned intermittently here over the past month, at one point hoping to take advantage of the unsettled field here to come in third. Instead, he came in sixth place, garnering just 3 percent.
Mr. Obama and Mr. Huckabee face very different circumstances heading into New Hampshire and the states beyond. Polling suggested that a once overwhelming lead enjoyed by Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire was vanishing even before the results of Thursday’s vote. Mrs. Clinton’s advisers have long worried that a loss here would weaken her even more going into New Hampshire, stripping her both of claims to inevitability and to electability.
Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama — as well as Mr. Edwards — face a rigorous and expensive run of nearly 25 contests between now and Feb. 5. Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton appear far better-positioned, in terms of organization and money, to compete through that period, than Mr. Edwards. Though Mr. Edwards presented second place as a victory, he fell far short of winning — as he had once sought to do — and might find it difficult now to raise more money or find new supporters.
Compared to Mr. Obama Mr. Huckabee’s situation is much more tenuous, and his victory on Thursday did little to clarify the state of the Republican field. In New Hampshire, polls have shown Mr. McCain on the rise and little support for Mr. Huckabee. Mr. Giuliani has invested much of his time and money in Florida. And, as Mr. Romney’s advisers noted tonight, he has more a foundation of money and support in many of the coming states.
Iowa seemed particularly fertile ground for Mr. Huckabee. Polls of Republicans entering the caucus sites found that 60 percent described themselves as evangelical, and by overwhelming numbers they said they intended to vote for Mr. Huckabee.
The polls, conducted by Edison/Mitofsky for the National Election Pool of television networks and The Associated Press, also left little doubt about the reasons for Mr. Obama’s convincing victory here. He did much better among young voters.
Voters here were far more interested in a candidate promising change — as Mr. Obama was — than one citing experience, the heart of Mrs. Clinton’s appeal. Half of Democrats said their top factor in choosing a candidate was someone who could bring about change. Just 20 percent said the right experience, Mrs. Clinton’s key argument, was the main factor.
For all the talk about electability, barely one in 10 respondents said it was the main factor in their decision.
There was a sharp generational break in support of the two candidates. Mr. Obama was backed by 60 percent of voters under 25 while Mrs. Clinton was supported by about 45 percent of voters over 65.
The survey of Democrats entering the caucus sites found that more than half said they were attending their first caucus — and they divided with about 40 percent for Mr. Obama and about 30 percent for Mrs. Clinton.
Quite an interesting article. I thought long and hard about what sort of thoughts the Iowa caucus would bring into the minds of the American people; would they vote for the quasi-experienced former first lady — the first time African-American senator? Of course things should theoretically go far beyond visible racial and gender lines when choosing the candidate for the most important office in Amercia but I had my doubts Americans would follow their “morals” when going to those little booths to caucus. Of course Iowa is but one state and as the article stated much of the caucus goer’s were first timers and many were under the age of 25 (significant, I think yes) so it’s difficult to tell how this victory for Obama will influence the rest of the race. While many saw Hillary as the one in the know, with the most experience, it seems that to voters, at least in Iowa, that has little to do with the possibility of becoming the next president and Obama seems to be fit for the job. Huckabee’s surprising win (sort of surprising anyway) will probably have more influence over what Romney and Thompson do in the upcoming weeks as far as negative ad’s and campainging in New Hampshire. Huckabee reminds me of learning about Howard Dean’s decent into the depths of the political field after his “pwayaaahhhhh” moment in the 2004 election, let’s hope this unfortunate event doesn’t reoccur for Huckabee, a candidate made by the media and one which could be just as easily torn down by the media at any moment.
“They said this country was too divided, too disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose,” Mr. Obama said. “But on this January night, at this defining moment in history, you have done what the cynics said we couldn’t do.”
Well I knew Obama would do well in the caucus, and by well I figured either second or first place, what I didn’t expect is for Hilary to flat out lose it especially from how well she has been doing. Then again she barely lost by a percentage point, but good luck in getting Edwards or Obama to admit it. But despite the fact that Hilary might be potentially screwed by this it is important to remember that presidential elections are often unpredictable and she could always surprise us, especially since she’s gotten a head start in New Hampsghire.
My favorite thing about this article is how it addresses the fact that the voting turnout was a record breaker and how the republican turnout was half as much as the democratic turnout. Like the article says, democrats are very against Bush and don’t want to see another eight years of presidential horror, and apparently they all realized they could do something about it. This election is getting exciting.
RE: E-How
First of all, I don’t really think that Hillary’s defeat in Iowa was, “unexpected.” She’s not exactly the Iowa electorate’s type. Her message of “experience” and “knowing how to get things done” doesn’t fly in Iowa, a state where politicians are expected to be people first, and on-the-hill scheming is seen as in-authenticity, hated in the hold-my-hand state. I also think that the demographics of Iowa make another thing not surprising: the victory of Mr. Mike Huckabee. Sixty percent of republican voters were evangelical. The former Baptist minister won? Really? Over the Mormon? No one will run a negative ad about Huckabee because no one is worried about him; he’s still a joke. He’ll get third at best in New Hampshire; that’s as far as his momentum will take him, and he’ll drop out two days after Super Tuesday. As to your what this victory will do for Obama… well that’s the real question, isn’t it?
RE: K.E.M.istry
Again, I don’t think Clinton’s defeat is that surprising. I do agree, though, that the election is getting exciting as democratic voters are finally getting off their lazy asses. It is true that if Hillary wins the nod demo-turnout in the general will be lower, this will hurt her if Obama brings it up, but maybe even more if he doesn’t… the media’s doing it enough, but in an off-handed non-confrontational way that doesn’t give Hillary the ground to stand on for a rebuttal. Just the facts, man. No banging your fists on the table, Mr. Obama. Good restraint sir, good restraint.
Re: Kirk E. McLaughlin
“They said this country was too divided, too disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose,” Mr. Obama said. “But on this January night, at this defining moment in history, you have done what the cynics said we couldn’t do.”
I also figured that Obama would ether get first or second in this primary and also thought that Hillary would for sure be in first or second at lest especially for how well she had been doing. But to me I don’t think that Obama really cares that Hillary only lost by less then one point because she lost by a lot to him. I think that more then anything Hillary got a wake up call she now knows that she dose not have a free pass just because her husband was the president.
Also I think it is funny that you write about how the voter turn out was a record high. I think that this is because there was such a close race and people knew that they could do something about it. I also believe that as soon as a candidate is declared that there the other candidates supporters will not vote because they are so strongly ageist the other candidates. I also think that the reason that the republican turn out was so low is because there still isn’t a real conservative candidate, and a lot of people will just vote for who ever is on the republican ticket because they can not stand any of the democratic candidates.
After reading this article one of the first things that came to mind is how much Mike Huckabee reminds me of Howard Dean. Then sure enough I read Emily’s response to the article and by golly she thinks the same thing. And congratulations to Mike on winning the Iowa Caucus, but unfortunately for my boy I have a terrible feeling that things will not play out the same throughout the rest of the country. Yes, he won in Iowa but everyone there is evangelical. Then again he was a surprise a few weeks ago and maybe he’ll be a surprise again. I HOPE so.
Then there’s Obama on the democratic side. Despite being mostly republican I could easily see myself voting for Obama in the upcoming election, if the right people are running for president as republicans. Also the article and Kirk talked about the Democrats presence at the caucuses in order to avoid another Bush like President. Could this be a sign as to what the 2008 elections will be like? Will people want change so bad that the republicans will stand no chance?
Despite what most peoples opinions of Bush are there was a video in the Republican debate on Saturday of Bush that I thought was very interesting. Bush has acted in what he believes is right and not what the polls say of how the citizens approve of the job he is doing. I think one day people will look back and respect him for that.
To be honest very little in Iowa surprised me. My only mistake was assuming that Thompson was a total washout and McCain could take him. But using this post to gloat, I picked on the Democratic side: 1. Obama, 2. Edwards, 3. Clinton. And on the Republican side: 1. Huckabee, 2. Romney, 3.McCain [also noting that Ron Paul would do well—which he did receiving 10%.]
I read a article in Newsweek about why the Huckabee—Dean comparison works and why it doesn’t. It does because:
1. Both under vetted [media loved them.]
2. Both appeal to very extreme group in party. [Democrats—Anti War, Republicans—Evangelicals.]
3. Both governors of small states.
Why it doesn’t is a bit more tricky. Huckabee doesn’t seem like the type of guy who will sing and scream during his speech’s. He has shown he is a pretty classy humorous down to earth guy. Dean never seemed that way to me. But as far as Huckabee winning in Evangelical Iowa the real question is who couldn’t see it coming? I say the same thing about Hillary. Tell me who hates Hillary the most? Evangelicals.
Iowa is a huge setback for Hillary. If NH had been first she probably would have won and would have had a huge advantage coming into Iowa. Instead she comes into NH completely failing to meet expectations as the national front runner.
Kirk I think you slightly misread the article or misspoke. You said
“Well I knew Obama would do well in the caucus, and by well I figured either second or first place, what I didn’t expect is for Hilary to flat out lose it especially from how well she has been doing. Then again she barely lost by a percentage point, but good luck in getting Edwards or Obama to admit it.”
And I think it is a little ridiculous for Edwards to claim that he beat Hillary big time or anything because it was ridiculously close but, I think you fail to realize (or make clear that you realize) Obama [like Christine said] beat Hillary by nearly 10 points.
Event though I think our President has done a terrible job, I do agree with Anthony Mendez. I think he tried to do what he thought was right. I just think what he thought was right really was. Anthony represents the average citizens. A little more conservative but, seeing Obama inspire them…makes them consider voting for him.
Re: Christine
You said: “To me I don’t think that Obama really cares that Hillary only lost by less then one point because she lost by a lot to him.” I think that that couldn’t be farther from the truth. I believe that Obama clearly thinks and cares a lot about the fact that he beat her so greatly. It shows him that a black senator can certainly outshine a white senator (and former first lady) in the polls in this unique presidential election. I do agree that Hillary certainly got a wake-up call in regards to her standing in this election.
You also said: “I also think that the reason that the republican turn out was so low is because there still isn’t a real conservative candidate, and a lot of people will just vote for who ever is on the republican ticket because they can not stand any of the democratic candidates.” While I do not know whether you are speaking from experience or not, I do think that there is a strong candidate emerging on the Republican’s side, Mike Huckabee. While stronger names such as Giuliani and Romney (as well as Thompson) might appear to have a stronger following, Huckabee’s is that of people who look at his honesty and tactics. He has taken a different approach to how he has been running his campaign, and so therefore is gaining a large following of people who believe in him, not those who will vote for him because they “cannot stand Democrats.”
~Liz
I too, knew that Obama had a chance in Iowa, but by no means did I think that he would come in first place. In my mind, that spot was designated for Hillary. But as Sjol points out, this was certainly not “unexpected” by most. She has been losing ground for the last few weeks as Barack had surpassed her in many polls. Edwards has been coming on stronger and stronger. But one thing I watched earlier on TV suprised me. According to a poll conducted throughout the country, 67% of whites said that the United States was ready for a black president. On the other hand, only 47% of blacks thought that America is ready. This was, by the way, on the Chris Matthews show. They talked about how Hillary is shoring up a lot of the black votes, but people are starting to realize that they arent going to get the same thing that Billy Clinton gave them. As Barack wins more and more battles, black folks are going to look at him with more and more legitimacy. It was said that if he wins New Hampshire, black folks are going to look and see that “white” America is ready to vote for a black man, and therefore, a lot of blacks are going to get on Baracks bandwagon with South Carolina and later even. So it looks like if Barack gets New Hampshire, he could win big. I mean real big.
For me, the biggest surprise about the Iowa caucus was Huckabees win. Maybe I’m the only one, but I didn’t think he had it in him. I always had faith in Obama. That’s probably because he is my future husband, but I felt he had the 3 m’s under control in Iowa, especially in the last few weeks. Although, Obama and Huckabbe both lost New Hampshire, I feel like the Iowa caucus is more important because the media attention carries onto other states primaries and caucuses. It wasn’t until these first few days of primary season that I really understand why they call it a horserace. How the media switches attention so fast, is almost what I would classify as brutal. As for the future, I am particularly excited to see what happens in South Carolina and Barack Obama. For the Obama campaign, it will be a deciding day. Neither I, nor anyone will be able to predict with absolute certainty how the black voters will vote in South Carolina on primary day. Honestly, I don’t see what Hillary can offer them, that Barack can’t, and that is why I believe that the black vote will support Obama. Maybe not in the numbers that Obama may hope, but in a considerable amount.
Response
Semi made the comment that “No one will run a negative ad about Huckabee because no one is worried about him; he’s still a joke.” I would have to disagree with this statement because according to the article, “[Mitt Romney] had spent much of the past year building up for a victory and had hammered Mr. Huckabee with negative advertisements over the past month here.” Romney is certainly worried. Huckabee appeals to the base because of his religion. And since he has actually promoted the most “change” out of all of the Republicans, (his ideas about reforming the current tax system) I can see the Independents coming out in support of him over Mr. Barack Obama. They are both very likeable candidates, but the difference I see is how Huckabee’s voice of change is not so vague. Also, I don’t really get the Huckabee- Dean comparison; however, this is probably because I don’t know enough about Howard Dean. And Derrick, I thought Kirk’s post made perfect sense (I think you missed the part where he said Hilary flat out lost.) The part that confused me is where you said, “I just think what he thought was right really was.” I think you may have misspoke.