Democrats & Liberals Archives

A Blowout

Last night’s Iowa caucuses were a blowout favoring Democrats in that blue state. About twice as many Democrats showed up to choose a candidate than did their Republican counterparts. To me that’s the big story to come out of Iowa.

To be sure, the fact that Hillary Clinton came in third is big news, but she still leads in delegates with 175 as opposed to Obama's 75 and Edwards' 46 and the contest is a long way from being over. But the fact that, in a state that broke for Bush the last time, Democrats had twice the turnout as Republicans is the real story.

As Senator Clinton noted in her concession speech:

This is a great night for Democrats. We have seen an unprecedented turnout here in Iowa and that is good news because today we're sending a clear message - that we are going to have change and that change will be a Democratic president in the White House in 2009.

A great night for Democrats indeed. Let's keep it up!

Posted by American Pundit at January 5, 2008 12:00 AM
Comment #242275

What’s important for me to keep in mind is how the candidates address the needs of the aging population — the baby boomers and above. therefore, social security, healthcare insurance, the economy — these are important issues. My selections will be based on their stance in the areas that personally effect me and others of my age group. I’m hoping we’ll all be watching this. Even if you’re younger, you probably have parents and other’s in your life to whom such issues matter.
The question — which candidates care about this and what are they doing about it?

Posted by: Ann Fry at January 5, 2008 12:31 AM
Comment #242282

Feb. 5 should tell if Iowa was a fluke, or a template for November’s election. Don’t rule out Iowa being a fluke, just yet. There is a lot about Iowa and their caucuses which are indeed not representative of the rest of the states.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 5, 2008 1:01 AM
Comment #242286

I took away the same thing from Iowa. While the outcomes are interesting, what is really significant is the voter turnout. Democrats showed up in numbers nearly doubling Republicans. That’s amazing. As to who will win, well, I live in Oregon, so I have almost no say in the matter; the parties will determine the presidential candidates long before Oregonians vote. But I think most Democrats and liberals agree that Clinton, Edwards, and Obama all tower over the Republican presidential hopefuls- or rather, hopelesses. This could be a landslide of epic proportions.

Posted by: phx8 at January 5, 2008 1:20 AM
Comment #242287


Good to see you around!

I spend about 12 hours a week at the hospital in the natural course of staying alive (although I have a DNR order) so I have a lot of contact with Republicans. This is Kansas after all.

Nine out of ten women I listen to like Hillary, I mean they really, really like Hillary. They even like the fact that she stood by hubby Bill in spite of his indiscretions.

OTOH, most of the men I come in contact with really, really like McCain.

Does that indicate anything?

Posted by: KansasDem at January 5, 2008 1:31 AM
Comment #242289

So, twice as many voters came out to vote against Hillary in Iowa?

What is so surprising about that American Pundit?


Posted by: JD at January 5, 2008 2:15 AM
Comment #242293

AP, nice to see you back at it again!
This is no doubt a display of many voters just fed up with the current status. It’s going to be a whirlwind few weeks ahead of us that will show pretty clearly we’re ready for change, and in which direction it will be. Notice that Wyoming isn’t getting a lot of attention, so will be interesting to see how a state that is “ignored” feels about the candidates.,1,1836394.graphic?ctrack=1&cset=true

Posted by: Jane Doe at January 5, 2008 3:13 AM
Comment #242304

I have to agree with David Remer. Twice as many Dems showed than Reps in a blue state. I’d like to see the ratio in a red state…South Carolina. Will it be 2 to 1 (Reps to Dems) in a red state? Too early to tell, I think.

Posted by: Jim T at January 5, 2008 11:18 AM
Comment #242321

Somewhat correct about a big turnout of anti-HC voters. You may not like that so much when the realization ever comes to you that they are anti-Clinton because she is not LIBERAL enough.

Posted by: BillS at January 5, 2008 2:56 PM
Comment #242323
AP, nice to see you back at it again!


Jim T, I predict record turnouts of Democrats in every state.

Posted by: American Pundit at January 5, 2008 3:11 PM
Comment #242324

Jim T, I thought Iowa was a Red State in the 2000 and 2004 elections. Are you now throwing it into the Blue Column? I might be confusing it with Ohio, but, I don’t think so.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 5, 2008 3:13 PM
Comment #242326

A news station here in Ohio on their web site asked if Huckabee and Obama were to run against each other in a presidential race who they would vote for Huckabee got 60% of the votes cast and that’s in a Dem majority county.

Posted by: KAP at January 5, 2008 3:21 PM
Comment #242333

KAP was the news station Fox by any chance?

Posted by: j2t2 at January 5, 2008 4:10 PM
Comment #242334

David wrote:

“Jim T, I thought Iowa was a Red State in the 2000 and 2004 elections.”

Gore won the popular vote there in 2000. Bush took it in 2004.

I guess you could say it’s a “flip-flop” state. I took it to be heavy Dem though.

AP wrote:

“Jim T, I predict record turnouts of Democrats in every state.”

AP…I don’t know. Maybe the Dems are turning out in massive numbers simply to defeat Hillary. The nomiation process was simply supposed to be nothing more than a “coronation” of Hillary for Prez. Backlash, perhaps? She IS the most polarizing person in the race.

What I’d like to see is a resurgance in voter participation. In 2004, just over 55% of eligible voters turned out. In a participatory government…that SUX!

Posted by: Jim T at January 5, 2008 4:12 PM
Comment #242347

Here are a couple “fyi”s.

Posted by: Jane Doe at January 5, 2008 9:00 PM
Comment #242352


I agree pretty much with your assessment. Iowa is a poor predictor of winners. It is a great predictor of losers. What I mean is that Iowa is important because it clears the field of candidates who just are not going to be president.

I agree with some who say (AP) the real story is the number of voters voting democratic. I’m puffing on that line, but not inhaling. Obama is a pretty good speaker, and someday will probably be president. However, wow is he lean on experience.

Hillary seems to canned to me. It’s like she doesn’t have the real stuff to be president but has the best machine behind her. I think in a straight up debate with Obama or Edwards she looses. She needs a large group.

Wow do I think it’s premature for just about any conclusions. Every candidate looks flawed to me on both sides.

As a Republican I don’t fear Obama. Obama is pretty liberal!!

Posted by: Craig Holmes at January 6, 2008 12:19 AM
Comment #242397

For those hopeful of some real change at last, I give you this.Happy New Year.

When the mariner, sailing over tropic seas, looks for relief from his weary watch, he turns his eyes toward the southern cross, burning luridly above the tempest-vexed ocean. As the midnight approaches, the southern cross begins to bend, the whirling worlds change their places, and with starry finger-points the Almighty marks the passage of time upon the dial of the universe, and though no bell may beat the glad tidings, the lookout knows that the midnight is passing and that relief and rest are close at hand. Let the people everywhere take heart of hope, for the cross is bending, the midnight is passing, and joy cometh with the morning.
Eugene Debs

Posted by: BillS at January 6, 2008 2:43 PM
Comment #242404

Craig said of Obama: “However, wow is he lean on experience.”

I don’t buy it. His law degree is in Constitutional law. How many of the candidates currently running have an education in Constitutional law? None is the correct answer. A pretty handy experience if one considers the egregious oversteps of the Constitution taken by the Bush administration and Bush’s absence of any education whatsoever in the Constitution.

Executive experience is regarded in the corporate world as fungible. By that I mean that a CEO of ice cream company can easily become the CEO of an auto company. This goes on all the time.

When one looks at Obama’s history, he has been involved in the management and executive decisions in several of his own election campaigns. Successfully, one might add. And as a U.S. Senator, he is the manager of a number of staff persons, aides, and advisors, not to mention having the wealth of experience in reviewing a large number of bill and legal propositions as an elected representative and making the decisions on what is supportable and what is problematic. Again, successfully according to his constituents.

There are many kinds of executive experience. Romney has corporate executive experience. But, what does that mean? It presumably means he has the ability to understand financial reports, the ability to understand marketing reports, the ability to manage staff, and the ability to make decisions that support his remaining a business person (which he isn’t, anymore).

Obama may be weak on understanding financial reports (I don’t know), but his Constitutional experience and education compensates handily for Romney’s lack thereof. Obama certainly understands marketing reports like Romney, as marketing is what an election campaign is all about and Obama has successfully managed several. Obama has managed staff in his congressional roles. And he has made decisions which have allowed him to continue his role as decision maker.

So, on balance, given the fungibility of executive experience in the real world, Obama is as qualified as Romney. Bush had more business experience than Obama, and look how far that took Bush in making sound fiscal decisions.

I just don’t see any legitimacy in the claims that Obama lacks sufficient experience. Personally, I believe every first time president spends at least their first year in the White House doing part time OJT. We know that is true in part because certain aspects and combinations of aspects of the job for President are not found in any other employment situation due to national security concerns.

Experience is important. But, just as many corporations have hired public school teachers to become managers in their corporation, a great deal of experience is fungible across job titles. Obama’s career experiences definitely fall into that realm as do Romney’s and a number of the other candidate’s.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 6, 2008 4:03 PM
Comment #242416

Somewhat correct about a big turnout of anti-HC voters. You may not like that so much when the realization ever comes to you that they are anti-Clinton because she is not LIBERAL enough.”
Posted by: BillS

Thanks for the reminder, Bills. It is reassuring to know that liberals are out there demanding someone as “far left” as they can possibly get for 2008.

This is great news for the Republican Party!!!


Posted by: JD at January 6, 2008 6:12 PM
Comment #242439

Speaking of experience, I’m not sure how Hillary always gets away with claiming 35 years worth. Since when do you get to count your spouses positions on your own resume.

Posted by: Schwamp at January 7, 2008 7:51 AM
Comment #242458

The Iowa results might mean more this year due to the compression of the process. I hear Obama is getting a bump in NH from it, and Super Tuesday is less than a month away. Maybe the hype will help him. He keeps talking about everybody being on the change bandwagon, and I really like Change, by Tracy Chapman of course. The IL primary is on Super Tuesday this year. I do not know if they will have early voting this year. I will have to search to find my voter registration card, but on the early voting you can use your drivers license.

I am sorry to hear KansasDem is in such bad shape. You have been a great contributor to this site for years. I spent most of last year with two clients on hospice who ultimately died, one an 83 year old COPD patient, and the other an 87 year old WW2 vet and doctor on peritoneal dialysis at home until it stopped working. He refused hemodialysis to the consternation of his son, also a doctor.

Posted by: ohrealy at January 7, 2008 12:19 PM
Post a comment