Finally got home from work and settled in a bit. Here are the results:
Obama: 37.58 percent
Edwards: 29.75 percent
Clinton: 29.47 percent
Richardson: 2.11 percent
Biden: 0.93 percent
Uncommitted: 0.14
Dodd: 0.02 percent
Huckabee - 40,841 - 34 percent
Romney - 29,949 - 25 percent
Thompson - 15,904 - 13 percent
McCain - 15,559 -13 percent
Paul - 11,817 -10 percent
Giuliani - 4,097 - 3 percent
Hunter - 524 - 0 percent
Tancredo - 5 - 0 percent
I must say this was a great night for the American people and a great night for Iowa. No matter what your political persuasion, no matter what you believe in, no matter what we may all argue about, you have to be pretty encouraged by what happened in Iowa tonight.
Ordinary Iowans came out in droves to caucus for their candidates and if you look at Mike Huckabee's win on the GOP side and John Edwards' second place finish, they chose message over money. Barack Obama should have won. Mitt Romney should have placed at least second. They spent millions and millions of dollars. Romney supposedly spent close to $10 million, reportedly 20-to-1 compared to Huckabee. While it wasn't 20-to-1, it was pretty close to that with Obama/Clinton versus Edwards' spending. That is outrageous.
"The status quo lost and change won," Edwards stated in his speech and that's exactly right.
The Iowa Caucuses have claimed three victims on the Democratic side: Chris Dodd, Joe Biden and Mike Gravel have all dropped out: ["Biden and Dodd drop out"]. No one on the GOP side has decided to drop out yet.
The big media types are spinning this as a win for John McCain. I don't know how that can be. The guy barely came in fourth, slightly ahead of Ron Paul. It may help him in Iowa and surely more encouragement of New Hampshire indies to cast votes for McCain will help Clinton. But, what if Obama wins N.H.? Then, what if he wins South Carolina? Can Hillary the Inevitable survive three losses in a row?
On the ride home, I was listening to NPR and they were amusing. Virtually every time, they mentioned Clinton as if she were in second place or referenced her second, even though she trailed Edwards the entire night. They would also throw in these caveats like, she is slightly behind Edwards but could pull ahead, which never happened.
There was an amusing exchange between Sen. Chuck Grassley and Michele Block where Grassley's rattling off all these things to be worried about if the Democrats take back the White House, including taxes being raised. After a few times of "All the Democratic candidates are going to raise your taxes," Block countered with a Democrat talking point: "Do you mean repealing the Bush tax cuts?" There was silence for a few seconds and Grassley said something like, I meant the Democrats are going to raise taxes! After that, she quickly let him go and went on to E.J. Dionne and Rich Lowry. I was laughing in the car. The Beltway insiders in the media are so, so amusing.
But, it wasn't just in the Beltway. There was a lot of spinning on Boston radio too! Over at Dan Rea's "Nightside" on WBZ 1030, he had Democratic consultant Michael Goldman on and they were chatting away about the results. Goldman wouldn't shut up about John Kennedy this and John Kennedy that. Both said Huckabee was a fluke, another Pat Robertson, and stated he couldn't win a national election.
So, I called in and said I thought they were totally underestimating him, noting that he was nice, charming, calm, and was so different than most politicians that Americans might be interested in that. Both acknowledged that they had interviewed him and found him to have all those qualities but they both insinuated he wasn't all there.
Goldman said, He has some problems with things like science, issues that are considered not mainstream ... And even Rea said, I don't think he can win.
I was a bit shocked by what I was hearing. Basically, since the guy doesn't believe in evolution, which is a theory, it hasn't been proved, he is not mainstream. I know we live in an enlightened society and all, but a lot of people in the nation still believe what is written in the Bible. Granted, Goldman is a liberal activist, he isn't going to be realistic about a Republican potentially winning, although he called McCain's fourth place finish a win, but Rea should know better. The guy is a bit more moderate and Catholic. He knows what religious voters are like.
I countered, If Hillary is the nominee, Huckabee could easily win since she is the most divisive political figure the Democrats have every considered. I added that Kerry and the Dems in 2004 had one of the best organized campaigns ever in the history of the party and they still lost to a bonehead like Bush.
Rea agreed with that, calling her "The Democrats' Richard Nixon," but they still weren't biting on the other stuff. Goldman starts talking about Huckabee's evangelical positions again and I counter that there are no real religious differences between Bush and Huckabee, and actually Huckabee is a better human being than Bush.
So, I asked a question: What red state that Bush won in 2004 does Huckabee lose?
Goldman says, Well, Huckabee can't win California or Texas ...
I jump in, Michael, Bush didn't win California! What the heck are you talking about?
I repeat the question again.
Goldman says, you can't compare elections between cycles because things change, 2006 showed the Democrats have momentum, blah, blah, blah [I agree with him on this point but presidential cycles are not midterms]. He then flips to Ohio, saying Huckabee can't win there.
I counter, All a fair trader like Huckabee has to do is campaign in every closed factory town in Ohio, talking about lost jobs, and he could win the state and hold Bush voters.
They both laughed and decided to take other calls.
So, there you go. It isn't just the Beltway where the mentality is totally clueless about what regular folks in the real world think about politics. I was pretty shocked that both of them could just write off the guy, saying he is another Robertson when in actuality, Huckabee is a much more compelling and serious candidate. We'll see what happens.
Update: Ron Paul did win one county in Iowa, Jefferson County, according to the Iowa GOP site. The Iowa GOP, however, refused to list the results of some of the lower tier candidates, like John Cox and Alan Keyes.
Obama: 37.58 percent
Edwards: 29.75 percent
Clinton: 29.47 percent
Richardson: 2.11 percent
Biden: 0.93 percent
Uncommitted: 0.14
Dodd: 0.02 percent
Huckabee - 40,841 - 34 percent
Romney - 29,949 - 25 percent
Thompson - 15,904 - 13 percent
McCain - 15,559 -13 percent
Paul - 11,817 -10 percent
Giuliani - 4,097 - 3 percent
Hunter - 524 - 0 percent
Tancredo - 5 - 0 percent
I must say this was a great night for the American people and a great night for Iowa. No matter what your political persuasion, no matter what you believe in, no matter what we may all argue about, you have to be pretty encouraged by what happened in Iowa tonight.
Ordinary Iowans came out in droves to caucus for their candidates and if you look at Mike Huckabee's win on the GOP side and John Edwards' second place finish, they chose message over money. Barack Obama should have won. Mitt Romney should have placed at least second. They spent millions and millions of dollars. Romney supposedly spent close to $10 million, reportedly 20-to-1 compared to Huckabee. While it wasn't 20-to-1, it was pretty close to that with Obama/Clinton versus Edwards' spending. That is outrageous.
"The status quo lost and change won," Edwards stated in his speech and that's exactly right.
The Iowa Caucuses have claimed three victims on the Democratic side: Chris Dodd, Joe Biden and Mike Gravel have all dropped out: ["Biden and Dodd drop out"]. No one on the GOP side has decided to drop out yet.
The big media types are spinning this as a win for John McCain. I don't know how that can be. The guy barely came in fourth, slightly ahead of Ron Paul. It may help him in Iowa and surely more encouragement of New Hampshire indies to cast votes for McCain will help Clinton. But, what if Obama wins N.H.? Then, what if he wins South Carolina? Can Hillary the Inevitable survive three losses in a row?
On the ride home, I was listening to NPR and they were amusing. Virtually every time, they mentioned Clinton as if she were in second place or referenced her second, even though she trailed Edwards the entire night. They would also throw in these caveats like, she is slightly behind Edwards but could pull ahead, which never happened.
There was an amusing exchange between Sen. Chuck Grassley and Michele Block where Grassley's rattling off all these things to be worried about if the Democrats take back the White House, including taxes being raised. After a few times of "All the Democratic candidates are going to raise your taxes," Block countered with a Democrat talking point: "Do you mean repealing the Bush tax cuts?" There was silence for a few seconds and Grassley said something like, I meant the Democrats are going to raise taxes! After that, she quickly let him go and went on to E.J. Dionne and Rich Lowry. I was laughing in the car. The Beltway insiders in the media are so, so amusing.
But, it wasn't just in the Beltway. There was a lot of spinning on Boston radio too! Over at Dan Rea's "Nightside" on WBZ 1030, he had Democratic consultant Michael Goldman on and they were chatting away about the results. Goldman wouldn't shut up about John Kennedy this and John Kennedy that. Both said Huckabee was a fluke, another Pat Robertson, and stated he couldn't win a national election.
So, I called in and said I thought they were totally underestimating him, noting that he was nice, charming, calm, and was so different than most politicians that Americans might be interested in that. Both acknowledged that they had interviewed him and found him to have all those qualities but they both insinuated he wasn't all there.
Goldman said, He has some problems with things like science, issues that are considered not mainstream ... And even Rea said, I don't think he can win.
I was a bit shocked by what I was hearing. Basically, since the guy doesn't believe in evolution, which is a theory, it hasn't been proved, he is not mainstream. I know we live in an enlightened society and all, but a lot of people in the nation still believe what is written in the Bible. Granted, Goldman is a liberal activist, he isn't going to be realistic about a Republican potentially winning, although he called McCain's fourth place finish a win, but Rea should know better. The guy is a bit more moderate and Catholic. He knows what religious voters are like.
I countered, If Hillary is the nominee, Huckabee could easily win since she is the most divisive political figure the Democrats have every considered. I added that Kerry and the Dems in 2004 had one of the best organized campaigns ever in the history of the party and they still lost to a bonehead like Bush.
Rea agreed with that, calling her "The Democrats' Richard Nixon," but they still weren't biting on the other stuff. Goldman starts talking about Huckabee's evangelical positions again and I counter that there are no real religious differences between Bush and Huckabee, and actually Huckabee is a better human being than Bush.
So, I asked a question: What red state that Bush won in 2004 does Huckabee lose?
Goldman says, Well, Huckabee can't win California or Texas ...
I jump in, Michael, Bush didn't win California! What the heck are you talking about?
I repeat the question again.
Goldman says, you can't compare elections between cycles because things change, 2006 showed the Democrats have momentum, blah, blah, blah [I agree with him on this point but presidential cycles are not midterms]. He then flips to Ohio, saying Huckabee can't win there.
I counter, All a fair trader like Huckabee has to do is campaign in every closed factory town in Ohio, talking about lost jobs, and he could win the state and hold Bush voters.
They both laughed and decided to take other calls.
So, there you go. It isn't just the Beltway where the mentality is totally clueless about what regular folks in the real world think about politics. I was pretty shocked that both of them could just write off the guy, saying he is another Robertson when in actuality, Huckabee is a much more compelling and serious candidate. We'll see what happens.
Update: Ron Paul did win one county in Iowa, Jefferson County, according to the Iowa GOP site. The Iowa GOP, however, refused to list the results of some of the lower tier candidates, like John Cox and Alan Keyes.
1 comment:
I think you're exactly right. The liberals discounting Huckabee as a serious candidate is ridiculous. As you said, he's charming, a talker, and yes, a fair trader who could make jobs his major platform, taking Edwards' talking points away from him. And he has been steadfast in his social conservatism, unlike Romney and Giuliani (something that serves McCain well when he campaigns).
Things are looking very good for Huckabee right now and liberals should be worried. Governors generally do better than senators in presidential races, and NONE of the frontrunning Democrats can boast a gubernatorial background (only scanty Senatorial experience). His governorship was one of the reasons I believed Howard Dean was a better candidate than John Kerry and while I still do believe he would have done better than Kerry in the 2004 general election.
Post a Comment