Associated Press – January 4, 2008
DES MOINES, Iowa – After all the campaigns’ sophisticated media tactics and high-tech maneuvering, Iowa voters offered the presidential candidates a version of Politics 101: In this state, stick to the basics.
“This couldn’t have happened in New York or California,” said Drake University political science professor Dennis Goldford, commenting after the caucuses in which Barack Obama defeated Hillary Rodham Clinton and Mike Huckabee beat Mitt Romney.
As the campaign signs were being torn down and miles of TV cable packed away Friday, strategists were sorting through the debris left by a round of precinct caucuses that reshaped the race for the White House.
Some lessons were clear, others more subtle:
- MONEY
Money may be the mother’s milk of politics, but Iowa showed the need for other nutrition as well, particularly in a state where voters demand to see candidates in person. “Money will always be important in politics because it takes money to get your message out,” said veteran Democratic activist Joe Shannahan, but he noted that Huckabee demonstrated there’s more than one way to make your points.
Romney far outspent Huckabee. But the former Arkansas governor “had the opportunity to network with key constituencies, and it doesn’t cost any money to get your message out with those people,” said Shannahan. “Iowans are used to grass-roots politics. We do it every two years and that’s the way Iowans expect to be contacted.”
- EVANGELICALS
Speaking of key constituencies, more than half the people who showed up for Republican precinct caucuses described themselves as evangelical Christians, and eight of 10 who backed winner Huckabee described themselves in such terms. “For evangelicals, a lot of them felt they have had lip service and nothing else from Republicans for 25 years,” said Goldford. “They said it’s our turn now. That’s identity politics.”
Evangelicals rocketed to prominence in Iowa politics in 1988 when televangelist Pat Robertson energized them to earn a second-place showing, but their role has been quieter since then. The tightly organized church network solidified around Huckabee, who had only a fraction of Romney’s campaign machinery and organization. “The question was, in an era of big media and big money, is it possible to actually run a grass-roots campaign,” said Goldford. “This certainly suggests you can.”
- WOMEN AND IOWA
“I think this was a tough state for Hillary Clinton,” said Dianne Bystrom, of the Carrie Chapman Catt Center for the Study of Women in Politics at Iowa State University. “On any indicator, we’re really not a great state for women.” In fact, Iowa is one of two states that have never elected a female governor or sent a woman to Congress. Mississippi is the other. While Clinton did pretty well among blue-collar working women, she was swamped by an avalanche of younger voters – men and women – who favored Obama. “If you look at bread-and-butter women voters, they turned out for Clinton,” said Bystrom. “What Obama was really helped by was an influx of young women.”
The lesson may be generational. “Young women don’t have the same take on Clinton that I do,” said Bystrom. “They look at Clinton as their grandmother.”
- TURNOUT
Iowa is all about getting your supporters out on a cold winter night. For a caucus system that’s often accused of shutting people out, turnout was far beyond predictions, even if a relatively small fraction of the state’s 3 million residents showed up. Democrats said 239,000 came to their caucuses, nearly double the previous record. More than 116,000 Republicans turned out, up from about 87,000 in the last previous contested GOP caucuses in 2000.
Clinton seemed glad to leave Iowa’s caucus system behind, saying in New Hampshire on Friday, “This is a primary election. You’re not disenfranchised if you work at night; you actually can come out and vote. You’re not disenfranchised if you’re not in the state; you can actually send in an absentee ballot. So this is going to be a much more representative electorate because we’ve got people who are going to be able to express opinions in the way we run elections in America.”
More upbeat, Mary Lundby, a former Republican legislative leader, said she visited several Linn County caucuses Thursday night and found them packed to the rafters. “It was very cool and we didn’t all wear seed corn caps,” she said.
The turnout disparity between Democrats and Republicans could be good news for the Democrats in the general election. Yet another beneficiary could be Sen. Tom Harkin, who faces election this year. He’s already ahead in money and lacking a big-name opponent, and the energy demonstrated by Democrats on caucus night probably brought a smile to his face. He sat out the Democratic contest, not endorsing anyone.
Bringing us to:
- ENDORSEMENTS
They don’t matter much. A popular former Democratic governor – Tom Vilsack – endorsed Clinton and campaigned tirelessly for her, as did the largest union representing state workers. Romney had the backing of former Republican gubernatorial nominee Doug Gross and a slew of GOP state legislative leaders. Neither translated into backing at precinct caucuses.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted January 4, 2008 at 5:48 pm
I wonder how much of Huckabee’s success was standard Evangelical stuff and how much was his populism? I can sympathize with populist leanings but on the standard Evangelical stuff I wish the Ev’s would remember their love for GWB and what a disaster he’s been for the country and the world. It will be interesting.
posted January 4, 2008 at 7:43 pm
It’s not over yet…and NH certainly isn’t Iowa. Better luck to Hillary, and even McCain in NH. Not a fan of McCain but I can’t get any energy for Romney…don’t trust him. Huckabee will be dealing with a more secular state than Iowa. In Iowa the evangelicals are more numerous…obviously since it seems they got him to #1 for the Republicans. I agree, nnmns, haven’t the evangelicals been around for the last 7 years to watch “W”?
posted January 4, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Jim Wallis made a comment on belief.net that Huckabee and Obama winning the Iowa caucuses was because of the people wanting a change over experience. In 2000 people voted for a ‘change’ over experience, and how’s that working for everyone? Any high position job requires proven experience, excellent education, the ability to work with people in the position he or she is seeking. In this case it also includes foreign diplomacy that will affect everyone in America. If we don’t have a President this time that has experience it won’t matter if we have the biggest change of a century….we’ll all be in trouble, and that’s TROUBLE, with a capital T, like in “River City” !!
Let’s see that was IOWA, too! (Music Man Style)
posted January 4, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Huckabee or Obama would have to lean heavily on their advisors. I have more confidence in Obama choosing advisors wisely, but with people with more experience we’d have a better idea of what we are getting going in.
posted January 4, 2008 at 10:25 pm
I like what happened in Iowa, I’m excited about this race I may actually vote.
posted January 5, 2008 at 12:15 am
There is quite a difference between a Church Council and a Community Action Board. Huckabee will look to his experience and choose good Church Council members, but they will not be able to think outside their usual patterns. Community Action people constantly have to scavenge and think outside the normal protocols and parameters. For that reason Obama is far better suited than any of the other candidates – IF we truly want to begin untangling the Bushes and brambles in DC. It seems that the Iowa experience was testimony to that and I expect NH will prove the same. Now we just have to keep inoculating ourselves against any of the vitriol and toxic publicity that is sure to start soon.
posted January 5, 2008 at 2:17 am
I often thank God that the comments made here does not reflect what most intelligent Americans think.
posted January 5, 2008 at 6:46 am
I often hope that the majority of Americans will be aware of issues like those sometimes raised here and will think seriously about them. And I will rejoice if we get any of the Democratic candidates for President and enough Democrats in congress to demand of them that they start putting the country back together again. Republicans ran the country unimpeded for six years and still have veto power.
Are you better off now than you were when the Republicans took over? I’m not.
Are you safer? I don’t think so because then we had a military that could fight two wars at once, now we can barely fight one. Then we had the strongest economy in the world, now we are reeling. Then we had the respect of the world, now after a Republican-sponsored pointless invasion and tortures we have the contempt of the world.
Is your government more concerned for you and people like you than it was then, or is it more concerned for the wealthy and for big business than it was then? The answer is obvious.
Has your government under Republicans worked to make the world a healthier place to breath and drink and work and consume or has it starved the responsible agencies for resources and made life easier for those who want to conduct business thoughtlessly? Again the answer is all too obvious.
It is time to give the Democrats a big broom to sweep up the mess Republicans have made and to demand they use it and use it well. And if they don’t I think it will be time for a whole new party.
posted January 5, 2008 at 11:12 am
“I often thank God that the comments made here does not reflect what most intelligent Americans think.”
Gee, cknuck, just what are you trying to say? That most of the comments here aren’t written by “intelligent Americans” because some don’t happen to want another person in the White House who claims to have been “born again” which is supposed to qualify that person to run this country? It certainly hasn’t helped the current occupant of the White House. It’s made this country much worse, as well stated above by nnmns.
This is just the beginning of a long,hard fought run for the candidacy and the big office. We can only hope the U.S. is tired of the RR running this country. IMO, Iowa was a fluke…and by no means represents the U.S.
posted January 5, 2008 at 11:44 am
Its nice to see voters actually waking up, and taking this seriously. Just because one candidate has more money, that doesen’t make Him/Her a better person. I try not too get all wrapped up in taking sides between democrats and republicans, because I keep it in mind that they are all politicians. I always vote for the best character person, and who I think will represnt the people of this country the best period. I also try to keep this in mind when I pray, and ask GOD too bless all world leaders and politicians, and to let them be reminded that they should always have the peoples best interest at hand, and not thier own. I don’t know who I’m going to vote for yet, but I have already crossed two democrats off of my list. Hilary Clinton appears to have no soul, and even though Obama seems to say all the right things, there is something about Him that I personally don’t trust. I for one am sick of all the infighting between democrats and republicans. It seems sometimes that thier behavior is worse than of little school children. They need to realize that they too have an example too set for the youth of our world. They seem to preach this, but they sure the hell don’t teach this.
posted January 5, 2008 at 12:43 pm
fofs@a, this is the second time you’ve said that Hillary Clinton appears to have no soul. That’s a serious judgment on anyone, tell us why you think this.
posted January 5, 2008 at 1:41 pm
fos&a:
I too would be interested in your judgement of Hillary and her having no soul.
She is doing what no woman has ever done in this country before…run for president. It’s about time this country caught up with the rest of the world regarding having a woman as leader. Many countries have done this years ago. Do and did those women have a “soul?” What is your definiation of “soul?” Is she spouting Christianity, like Huckabee? No. Is she claiming to be born again, NO (thank goodness). She is a woman who has had to work her way up in a country that is still predominately run by MEN. She is competing with ONLY MEN to try and be the first candidate for president. That, IMO, makes her have to, in some ways, have a different public personality. In private, I think she is as tough as she in public…and has to be. She is certainly no Barbara Bush, or Laura Bush, or Lady Bird Johnson or any other first lady or current F.L. and I think those ladies are tough too, but they aren’t and weren’t running for president though they backed up and back up their men. Politics is a whole different ball game, and to play you have to have a thick skin, rightly or wrongly. She still hasn’t lost or has Obama won nor has anyone else. This election should be interesting and we can hope whoever is finally elected, that it won’t be the joke that the 2000 election was when “W” didn’t really win. Supreme court blew that one!
Huckabee reminds me of another “W” with all his “Christian” rhetoric, and is just plain scary with it. Actually, none of the Republicans appeal to me. I am an Independent and don’t hold loyality to any party. But right now, the Republicans need to “get out of Dodge”.
posted January 6, 2008 at 12:39 pm
It is tremendously hard for any politic person to have a soul and I agree about both B.O. and H.C. they are shady and probably both have already sold their souls. Most politicians have.
posted January 6, 2008 at 4:12 pm
If that were true we wouldn’t be at our computers posting on beliefnet. Politicians have kept our country together since it began. Care to explain what a soul is, since you think some people lack one, you should be able to give us a great definition.
posted January 6, 2008 at 5:07 pm
cknuck, since you think most politicians have [sold their souls], would you care to postulate now which Republican candidates have done so?
posted January 6, 2008 at 6:26 pm
It would be short sighted to not know that big business drives the politician and own them. Follow the money, unless you want to take credit for the financial support. lol
posted January 6, 2008 at 11:34 pm
I’m not denying politicians are bought; heck, GWB was bought well before he was nominated; where else do you think he got all that money early.
I’m just asking you what Republican candidates you think have sold their souls.
posted January 7, 2008 at 1:45 am
Every politician has compromised his values; that is why the world waits for a true man of God. Regardless of how you feel about God or his people the world including atheist would vote in a godly man. But they made the same mistake with Jesus. Anyone with a soul wouldn’t be a politician for long regardless to party. I hope I have answered you question.
posted January 7, 2008 at 5:41 am
cknuck, if you’ve answered my question you’ve done so by saying you think all the Republican candidates have sold their souls. If that’s what you think, just say yes. If it’s not what you think just give a list of the ones you think have.
I think that’s a reasonable question since you said Clinton and Obama have sold theirs, and it’s an easy question to answer.
posted January 7, 2008 at 6:21 am
“Every politician has compromised his values; that is why the world waits for a true man of God.”
Aren’t you ignoring George W. Bush? Evangelicals and fundamentalists supported him in droves because he was a man of God, they were sure. Are you saying they were in fact wrong and couldn’t tell who was or was not a “man of God”?
From my perspective we are suffering through a “man of God” as president and the US is far the worse for it. Another one might pretty much do us in.
posted January 7, 2008 at 10:09 am
No I’m not ignoring G.W. he is only evidence of how desperate the world is, they will just about believe anybody. I don’tr think any clearer example is needed. Why do you think so many politicians are playing on religion?
posted January 7, 2008 at 11:18 am
If “W” is a man of GOD, I think I’ll take an atheist! No candidates for me, or anyone who claims this country needs to return to “GOD!” Return? This country needs to have a lot less RR in it…and more secular thinking…
Why do some people think that anyone’s god should have anything to do with running this country?????
posted January 8, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Maybe because He made it?
posted January 8, 2008 at 4:47 pm
“Maybe because He made it?”
Mystery poster, that would be your opinion…not everyone’s opinion.
No religion in politics. Not a Christian (or Muslim, or Jewish, or any other religion) country.
posted January 9, 2008 at 10:25 pm
impossible
posted January 10, 2008 at 10:09 pm
“impossible”
Let’s hope not.