|
User loginFeatured Blogad
NavigationAbout TennViewsUpcoming events50 State Blog Project• Alabama |
Iowa: More questions than answers?
We finally have our traditional first test of the candidates. So what do the Iowa results mean? It's hard to say. The keyword of the night was "change". Do any of the new top-tier candidates really represent that? It appears Obama rode in on a wave of young, energetic voters who are fed up with the status quo. So did Howard Dean, until he got torpedoed in Iowa. There are also reports of Republicans crossing over to support Obama. Is this because of his message of unity, or is it sabotage? If Obama stumbles, will the youth vote migrate to another camp, or give up in disgust and sit out the election like they usually do? Clinton must be in shock at the moment. Her decline can be traced back to when she gave several different answers to the same question in the Oct. 30th debate. And her vote on designating Iran a terrorist operation didn't help. Despite all that, it's as if she didn't see this coming. Maybe when you micromanage every aspect of a campaign with such efficiency and precision, it's a good idea to stick your head up and sniff the wind every now and then. If she starts making major adjustments now, will it make her look weaker and more indecisive? Also, does her finish mean that people aren't comfortable with the idea of a woman as president, or just not comfortable with Clinton? Is there an element of Clinton fatigue? At any rate, this is by no means a fatal blow. She is still in it to win it, and has as good a chance as any of the top three finishers. Edwards did well considering his campaign finances. He did it by going out and knocking on doors and looking people in the eye and promising to fight for working people and protect America from a hostile corporate takeover. But he didn't get unanimous support of labor unions, which should be his bread and butter. Will his funding problems hinder his ability to build on his strong showing in Iowa? There are also a couple of issues with his decision (out of necessity?) to go with public funding. He was limited to spending only about $3 million in Iowa, and it will be even less in New Hampshire. Clinton and Obama are estimated to have spent $20 million each in Iowa, and they are still flush. Edwards has other problems with the FEC, which recently ruled that donations made through ActBlue, Edwards' primary fundraising mechanism, are not eligible for federal matching funds. If this is upheld, it will cost Edwards around $4 million. Another Edwards problem with the FEC is that several recess appointments have expired leaving only one current sitting member, and the Senate is blocking new Bush appointments. Without a quorum, it's not clear whether one member can legally release matching federal funds. Despite all these obstacles, Edwards pushes on, enhancing his image as a fighter. Will that be enough in New Hampshire and beyond? As for the Republicans, is the Huckabee win a signal that the sleeping Christian conservative right is resurrected? Will Karl Rove join his campaign? Is the GOP base abandoning national security in favor of conservative family values? And what about poor Romney, who spent $30 million for a somewhat distant second place finish? And ol' Fred. Will his surprising third-place finish put fuel in the red pickup for a race to the finish line? Or will he plod along until Feb. 5th and save face with a huge win in Tennessee, then call it a day? And what about the record turnout? Is America finally awaking from the long national nightmare? Who benefits from high turnout? At any rate, it suddenly got even more interesting last night. ( categories: )
|
 BlogadsSearchVolunteer Blogs websites:
Power Blogs websites:
Media Blogs websites:
Democratic Party websites:
State Government websites:
U.S. Government websites:U.S. Congress websites:
Newspapers websites: |
There are also reports of Republicans crossing over to support Obama. Is this because of his message of unity, or is it sabotage?
According to entrance poll data, Republicans counted for about 3% of voters at the Democratic caucus. What does this mean? Well, they were registered Republicans in the last caucus they voted in...a lot of people have become disgusted with the GOP in the last four years, Obama just gives them a good reason to try out the Democrats.
If Obama stumbles, will the youth vote migrate to another camp, or give up in disgust and sit out the election like they usually do?
When do we usually do that? But for young voters in 2004, Bush would've won by a landslide. We backed Dean in the beginning, but still showed up for Kerry in the end...that he couldn't appeal to other constituencies was his fault, not ours.
For Obama, was it the youth vote, the Internet push, or the Illinois connection (lots of assistance in Iowa from people from Illinois)? I didn't think young voters traditionally had high turn out. If it was the Internet, then ask Howard Dean and Ned Lamont how that turned out. If it's the Illinois connection, it won't work to well in the majority of states.
Obama doesn't motivate me. Can't say I see the leadership skills. Not a real Oprah fan. However, as I have said before, an Iowa win does not necessarily make a nominee.
As mentioned previously on TennViews, winning the Iowa caucus is not the nomination:
1992 - Tom Harkin (76%)
1988 - Dick Gephardt (31%)
1976 - "Uncommitted" (37%)
1972 - "Uncommitted" (36%)
I am really astounded by how much money a candidate spends to become a presidential nominee. It is almost criminal.
When do we usually do that? But for young voters in 2004, Bush would've won by a landslide. We backed Dean in the beginning, but still showed up for Kerry in the end...that he couldn't appeal to other constituencies was his fault, not ours.
Sean, interesting point, and I agree 100% about Kerry. And you are correct about 2004 and I hope you are right that the trend continues.
Historically, the youth vote declined after 1972 (probably owing to ending the draft), spiked in 1992 (Bill Clinton's first election), and again in 2004 (the netroots/Dean effect you mention, and the war?).
Another factor at work is probably more GenX/Y people coming of age, having kids of their own, paying taxes, and starting to pay attention. This trend will definitely continue. I believe I read somewhere that once all the under 18s in 2004 reach the age of majority the Next Gens will outnumber Baby Bommers by a slight margin (something like 73 million to 71 million).
Here are some turnout numbers I was able to dig up:
In previous young generations, there was voter apathy...I happen to believe that our generation is a different breed. We are far more liberal than the previous young generations in the 80s and to an extent 90s, and with the internet and social networking sites, along with issues such as the war and future problems, we've come to see the importance of the political system.
If nothing else, politics has become cool whereas cynicism ruled the day before.
If nothing else, politics has become cool whereas cynicism ruled the day before.
Last night on C-SPAN coverage of the Dem Caucus, they interviewed a young woman who was still a high school senior. She was undecided, and (obviously) had never been to a caucus. When asked why she was there, she said "Everybody at school is talking about it. It's the thing to do."
So that's one encouraging anecdote.
I got Colbert's book for xmas and agreed to a read-swap with a friend who got Krugman's book.
I have not been able to read Krugman's book, so far. I'm having to wait for my college kids to finish it.
Krugman's book is great.
You'll love it.
And let me recommend Credo by William Sloane Coffin (if you're interested in how religion and liberalism are of the same cloth.)
gonzone
Since mangling language seems to be vital to presidents, the comment made by Huckabee indicates he may have what it takes to rule in Washington: "Tonight what we have seen is a new day in American politics."
Mrs. Clinton's problem is that everyone knows a woman just like her, and they realize they hate that BIT%H!
Hillary is many things, but she is not how you describe her. She's tough. She's assertive. She's smarter than anyone else I know. And, yes, I know here. Haven't talked to her since the early 80's but I paid very close attention to her when she was in Arkansas.
Now, this doesn't mean that I'm going to vote for her. I'm more inclined to vote for Edwards, and I like Richardson.
Pam Strickland
Thanks, Pam. I wasn't sure how to respond to such a comment. To many people, a tough woman is a bitch. It's almost amusing, but not quite, to hear the myth perpetuated.
Men are assertive. Women are bitches. Didn't they teach you that in b-school, bizgrrl?
You're welcome, bizgrrl.
Sometimes what we are taught needs to be changed.
pgs
Pam Strickland
Obama gets a little momentum. Edwards, too, but not enough to affect NH. Clinton is still the frontrunner. It's still a 3-person race.
Nothing much changed on the Republican side, though Mitt fared worst since his strategy was to win Iowa by buying name recognition, win neighboring NH, and try to become the consensus candidate. Now it's still wide open with six guys thinking they could win this thing.
This is pretty much what I say here and here.
Liberty and justice for all.
My new home
The problem is that today's "youth vote" is tomorrow's jaded middle-aged vote.
If there are consecutive generations of turned-on young voters, I will happily concede that this vote is valuable. As it stands, it's a notoriously fickle and flaky demographic.
__________________________________
"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." -M. Twain
I haven't bought into the "hope" message from Obama yet. We don't need compromise and it won't happen with the current Republican party anyway no matter much we hope for it. I want a candidate who will use the full power of the federal government, within constitutional limits, to make Reagan conservatism that we've suffered under for the last 27 years so small that we can drown it in a bathtub. So far Edwards "gets it" and I'm not sure Obama understands what he's up against.
Post new comment