« Tracking Iowa Caucus Results (Live Updates) - 7:30 PM, Projected Winners Obama & Huckabee | Main | NM Senate Leaders Pre-File Bill to Restore Petition Signature Option for Candidates »

Friday, January 04, 2008

Iowa Results: Change, Youth, Women, Money


Obama with the evening's most moving speech

Off the top of my head:

• About 67% of Iowa Dem caucusgoers voted for progressive change candidates (Obama and Edwards) over the status quo, business as usual triangulator (Clinton).

• According to so-called "entrance polls," almost a quarter of the Dem participants were under the age of 30 -- and of that group Obama got 57%, Edwards 14% and Clinton 11%.

• Obama captured the majority of women voters even tho Hillary targeted this demographic very heavily.

• Hillary did better with union members and low income voters than Edwards, despite his populist messaging.

• About 235,000 Dems are estimated to have participated last night, versus 124,000 in 2004. Only 114,000 Repubs attended caucuses, and about 60% of them were self-defined born again Christians or evangelicals. Among these voters, Huckabee got about 45%.

• Repub Mitt Romney outspent his rivals by huge margins and had a much larger paid staff, yet Romney finished a dismal second. Edwards beat Clinton by one point despite spending only about $4.2 3.2 million on ads to her $12 7.2 million or so. (Obama spent approximately $9 million on ads).

• Candidates with a heavily populist economic message -- Mike Huckabee and John Edwards -- had strong showings.

• According to anecdotal reports, large numbers of Independents and Republicans switched over last night to vote in the Dem caucuses, and most of them were caucusing for Obama. About 40% of registered voters in New Hampshire are Independents, and predictions are that the majority will back Obama, with the rest going for McCain.

• Sen. Chris Dodd and Sen. Joe Biden withdrew from the race last night. They each garnered less than 1% in "viable" support. Gov. Bill Richardson finished with viable supporters that numbered about 2%, but has announced he'll stay in the race at least through New Hampshire. (I originally reported that Mike Gravel had also withdrawn from the race, based on a statement by Keith Olbermann, but today the Gravel campaign insisted their campaign was still alive.)

• Four Dem candidates will participate in Saturday's debate in New Hampshire -- Obama, Edwards, Clinton and Richardson.

• New Hampshire's primary is set for next Tuesday, January 8th, which doesn't give candidates with disappointing finishes in Iowa much time to regroup.

• I thought the speeches of Obama, Edwards and Clinton last night were all very good, but that Obama's was a soaring, moving, historic masterpiece. It gave me goose bumps and even brought a few tears to my eyes -- and I was pulling for Edwards last night.

My prediction: Obama will win New Hampshire and South Carolina by significant margins and go on to sweep the majority of states on Super Duper Tuesday on February 5th. My gut is telling me there's an almost unstoppable new energy afoot in the electorate, especially among its younger members, and Obama is a master at feeding it with inspiring rhetoric and, yes, hope.

I think people are clearly seeking an uplift in candidates and their rhetoric at this critical juncture, not more cynicism. They seem to be very tired of looking back, of politics as usual, of positioning that reeks of phoniness and political expediency and of Beltway-style conventional wisdom. I'm really starting to believe that, as Obama says, a majority of Americans think it's time to turn the page.

January 4, 2008 at 11:45 AM in 2008 Presidential Primary | Permalink

Comments

I think Obama is the one to beat from here on out. Bye bye Clintons!

Posted by: roadrunner | Jan 4, 2008 12:41:48 PM

What a powerful speech by Obama. I'm for Edwards but I think Obama is more attractive as a candidate every day.

Posted by: | Jan 4, 2008 12:53:45 PM

Actually Obama spent about 2 million more on TV ads in Iowa than Clinton. Roughly 8 vs. roughly 6.

Posted by: Dave | Jan 4, 2008 1:14:44 PM

Dave, you're right, at least according to this CNN article:

"Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois far outpaces any other candidate when it comes to ad spending in Iowa, having spent more than $9 million on close to 11,000 spots. That's about $2 million more than Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York has spent ($7.2 million), and about three times the amount that former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has shelled out ($3.2 million). Clinton has aired close to 8,000 spots while Edwards has aired 3,700."

I heard the numbers I quoted on TV somewhere last night as I wrote them down. Should have dug deeper. But the fact remains that Edwards was outspend in a big way and still finished slightly ahead of Hillary.

By the way, that same CNN article reports that

"Iowa's 2.3 million eligible voters have been bombarded with close to $40 million worth of political ads on television this cycle -- more than three times the amount spent there in 2004.

"That works out roughly to about $17 per voter, between $150 and $200 per expected caucus-goer, and nearly $500,000 per each of the state's 82 delegates in a contest that -- unlike 2004 -- is wide open on both sides of the aisle."

Also worth a look is an article in The Caucus (NY Times) that examines why Iowa wants to retain its status as first in the nation.

Posted by: | Jan 4, 2008 2:41:32 PM

Post a comment