So looks like the
Iowa Caucus results are mostly in. Obama came out on top of the Dems, and Huckabee for the Republicans. Fruitcake Ron Paul
got only 10% (my apologies to my republican friends who like the man, but he is a certifiable nut).
AlterNet has some
interesting perspectives on what Barak Obama's win means for everyone (even if it is only one caucus in one midwestern state):
Obama's win gives us all hope. It signifies the kind of country we imagine ourselves being: optimistic, forward-looking and unafraid to take risks...
Unfortunately Clinton's campaign rode the same fear-mongering horse that Bush and Cheney have been flogging to death, this time directed at Obama (Be afraid of something new, something different. He might meet with our enemies. His middle name is Hussein. He went to a madrassa school. A vote for him would be like rolling the dice..) - and funny enough, Obama beat Hitlery (sorry, had to throw that bone back to the Ron Paul fanatics) by a decent margin (9%) in what was supposed to be a dead heat three-way tie. Huh, go figure.
Further question posed: Why should ABC and Fox get to decide who is a viable candidate for president?
And in case you're wondering as I am, why Iowa and New Hampshire are considered such a huge caucus deal when they just don't represent a good cross-section of the American electorate, AlterNet
ponders the same.
It seems like we go through this every four years. People bitch and moan about the inflation of importance (and influence) of early primaries in New Hampshire and Iowa in selecting presidential nominees. According to an AP article today, neither state represents a true cross section of the American electorate…
The
AP article in question discusses the frustration that voters in other states feel with the current nominating process.
According to national survey conducted for The Associated Press and Yahoo News, just over half of all voters said New Hampshire and Iowa have an extraordinary amount of influence over who wins the two nominations.
Doesn't seem to draw any conclusions or offer any insight as to what could change. They just seem to quote people defending the process. Ah well. Unsurprisingly, the Iowans and NH residents who participated in the survey didn't have a problem with their state's influence on politics (actually, the NH folk want more).
But out of all the news bits that have come across from yesterday (and I'm sure there are already pundits theorizing on a Obama-Huckabee matchup) there was one
particularly interesting insight I found on CNN.com that I wish to close with. What isn't remarkable about the Iowa Dem caucus is the fact that Obama beat out Clinton and Edwards. What is remarkable is the way he did beat them, by beating his opponents across a stunning demographic spectrum.
Obama won Democrats, Republicans and independents; men and women; and virtually every income bracket. People most worried about the Iraq war gave him their vote. So did voters most concerned about the state of the economy. And those whose top priority is fixing the nation’s health care system.
Huckabee seems to have pulled off his expected demographic: evangelicals. Though he managed to attract a wide demographic of income and age (excluding the over-$100K income bracket).
So, stuck with the system we have still, we move on to New Hampshire. Can Obama keep his lead? Will Clinton change tactics, or stick to the same? Can Edwards still prove he's a contender?
And will Huckabee, faring well in a state where more than half the voters are evangelical, make a similar showing in the (admittedly) less-pious demographic of NH?
EDIT: I just came across a very funny piece on the
Burbia blog. They had written a
prior article questioning why we're holding caucus' in IA and NH, and got some
very funny outraged replies, mostly from Iowans. In short, they say "Get over yourselves."
