Iowa – What It All Means
HUCKABEE, OBAMA SCORE BIG WINS – BUT WILL IT BE ENOUGH?
FITSNews – January 4, 2008 – First of all, it’s important not to underestimate the significance of what former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee pulled off in last night’s Iowa GOP Caucus. Outspent 20-to-1 in the state and subjected to a barrage of negative attacks by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Huckabee’s 9-point win surprised the hell out of us. Sure, he enjoyed roughly that same cushion in public opinion polls, but a caucus isn’t a primary election, it’s more of a beauty contest for political activists – who are easily purchased.
Which brings us to our second point – it’s important not to overestimate what Huckabee accomplished last night, either. True, it’s good momentum, but Huck is barely a blip on the radar screen in the next early voting state (New Hampshire), and his fiscal record will be given intense scrutiny here in South Carolina over the next few weeks. Thusfar, Huckabee’s strategy has been to defend his record (i.e. citing the number of times he’s cut taxes), but our sense is that this strategy doesn’t get him where ne needs to go in South Carolina, a state that has become increasingly pocketbook-focused in recent years. Our recommendation to his campaign is to stake out some strong tax-cutting and budget positions now that will get him to the right of his primary opponents.
On the Democratic side, another big-spending, by-the-book campaign went down in Iowa as former frontrunner Hillary Clinton took one squarely on the chin, finishing in third place with 29% of the caucus vote (behind Barack Obama’s 38% and John Edwards‘ 30%).
Of course, the same caution should apply when interpreting these results as well. Like Romney, Clinton is far from finished, but both candidates now face intense pressure to win in New Hampshire.
The other big – or rather, little – number from Iowa is 4%. Which is the percentage of the caucus vote received by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Hizzoner still leads his Republican rivals in most national polls, but his risky strategy of ignoring Iowa (and largely blowing off New Hampshire and South Carolina) to focus on the Super Tuesday states remains the biggest question mark of the 2008 campaign.
If it works, the way we select Presidents could be irrevocably altered, which as far as we’re concerned would be a good thing.
Anyway, congrats to the Huckabee and Obama campaigns on their cornfield victories, now it’s on to Battleground New Hampshire.
Oh, and in case you wanted to hear from some people who actually know what they’re talking about, check out these links:
Wall Street Journal’s Morning Brief
Chris Cillizza’s Take
New York Times’ Blog
The Politico’s Chris Frates
“The Man” (a.k.a. The State’s Lee Bandy)
The National Journal’s Take
Boston Globe
UPDATE – Whoops! We forgot this one … probably the best analysis available on the GOP side.
Comments
By BillM on January 4th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
“This campaign is not just about people who have religious fervor,†Huckabee said as he made the rounds of morning talk shows this morning (Friday). Unfortunately, it is largely about people who have religious fervor. A country governed by religious zealots is disastrous.
If theocracy in Iran and the dominance of religion in the governments of other states is to be abhorred, American voters should also guard against the dangerous corruption of democracy by religion. America’s seeming insistence on Christian leadership not only threatens the constitutional separation of church and state but smacks of theocracy.
The current field of Republican party presidential candidates woos voters in primary contests based largely on who is the most Christian, rather than who will best get the U.S. out of Iraq with honor, who will best repair damage to the country’s broken economy and domestic infrastructure and who will best restore its foreign relationships. One of the candidates has to assure voters that his religion, Mormonism, is Christian.
On the Democratic side, the presidential candidates actively present their Christian bona fides to voters. One of the candidates, whose name sounds Middle Eastern and who spent part of his childhood in an Islamic country, has to convince voters that he is not a Muslim but is a Christian.
The U.S. is straying from the wise counsel of its founding fathers. Too many voters demand that politicians be, or at least profess to be, Christians. Would a majority of voters not also elect men and women to office who are, or who profess to be, atheists, agnostics or deists? Would the U.S. not elect Thomas Jefferson to office today?
Americans seem to believe that the more Christian their president, senators and representatives, the more divinely inspired their governance will be. When the policy directions and the missteps of the current Christian-based administration are considered, even the most ardent Christian would not admit to seeing the hand of Jesus or inspiration by the Holy Trinity.
Presidents and politicians may pray for divine inspiration, intervention and special blessing, but voters shouldn’t insist that they do so. Too much time spent in prayer might take time away from the rational consideration of the issues that confront the nation.
When voting for a change in course of the ship of state, the electorate should minimize, if not eliminate from its calculations, the importance of a politician’s religion.
Trackbacks