Follow Iowa
January 3rd, 2008 at 06:05pm Matt Margolis
It happens tonight.
You can follow on the ground citizen reporting of the results via Twitter. I’ve put a feed of the IowaCaucus Twitter in the sidebar to the right.
You are welcome to discuss the results as they come in, and offer your thoughts.
UPDATE 8:55 PM ET: FOX News projects Huckabee the winner of GOP caucus… Still no winner projected for Democrats, but last I saw Edwards was on top and Hillary and Obama were neck and neck behind him.
UPDATE 9:02 PM ET: FOX now shows Obama, Clinton, and Edwards all around 32-33%.
UPDATE 9:29 PM ET: FOX News projects Obama the winner of Democrat caucus with 35%… Edwards and Clinton trail each with 31%. Considering early reports of high turnout for Obama, it appears something happened once Democrats got inside to caucus… Obama may be the winner, but to me, the vote seems close enough that the impact on New Hampshire and beyond may not be huge. Based on early reports, it sounded like Obama was gonna win in a blowout… if the numbers don’t change much from now, then Clinton and Edwards are certainly still able to capture the nomination.
But, it’s not lost for Hillary either… Obama’s victory tonight could make him vulnerable. Dick Morris was saying earlier tonight that Democrats may start to really think about Obama and ask if they want to bank their hopes on him for winning in November.
As for the GOP… Let’s face it, Mitt Romney was the loser tonight, more than Huckabee was the winner. If Huckabee’s victory translates to more victories and stronger victories, then Romney will fall very fast.
UPDATE 10:22 PM ET: Will Hillary scream like Howard Dean? John Edwards just spoke… Does anyone really believe that John Edwards has any real understanding about problems of middle class America? Mr. 400 Dollar Haircut?
UPDATE 10:27 PM ET: Hillary speaks. She sounds hoarse… I’m sure she was screaming her head off earlier… Pushes electability in her speech. Refers to her “national campaign.”
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008
20 Comments
1. David Aulds | January 3rd, 2008 at 9:08 pm
This is terrible my friends. Why is it that Iowa voters just blindly vote for Huckabee just because he says and acts like a Christian? The man has a LIBERAL RECORD…he raised taxes in Arkansas 10 times, he was endorsed twice while running for Gov by pro Illegal immigration groups, he released convicted felons by the number of over a hundred I believe, he continues to bash business and corps and he talks down American foriegn policy as heavy handed and completly wrong when the fact is WE ARE WINNING THIS WAR and GOP foriegn in the past has also been proven correct by history. This man is a Liberal and I hope conservatives wake up and see this before this clown gets the nomination. GOD FORBID HE DOES.
2. Ucommon | January 3rd, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Because in five simple words - He Is A Good Christian. For some reason voters have been douped this time around into believing that that is the only quality that really matters. All of this hoopla over faith has clouded the view of most voters who are to damn lazy to look at who they are voting for. It goes far beyond the things you have suggested if you really want to look at everything he has done and one could easily see that he really is incompetant. I think it is hilarious that Guliani thus far only has 4% of the vote and won’t do much better in NH and SC. The really corrupt part about it is that even though he polled so low he will still be allowed to participate in the Fox Debate while Paul who is so far in 5th place above him has been excluded. Even though ABC has said only 1st through 5th place will be able to participate in their debate I can’t imagine they will exclude him. Owell, what can you do.
3. Eric T | January 3rd, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Yeee Haa
GO HUCK!
4. David Aulds | January 3rd, 2008 at 9:35 pm
I am a strong christian also. I believe strongly in faith and family and that integrity should govern our lives in every way but I’m not blind to the fact that Huckabee is not a conservative and has a liberal record as GOV of Arkansas. Please WAKEUP MY FELLOW CONSERVATIVES!!!
5. Magnum Serpentine | January 3rd, 2008 at 9:37 pm
I hope this victory for mini-me george bush er I mean Mike Huckabee is a exception and not the rule. we do not need another george bush type of president, unless his name is President George H.W. Bush!!!
6. sleepygene | January 3rd, 2008 at 9:57 pm
OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA…….
FIRED UP & READY TO GO!
OBAMA/WEBB ‘08
The Huck win is courtesy of Karl Rove & George Bush.
7. Neologizer | January 3rd, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Just Remember The Great Ronald Regan, GHW Bush, Bill Clinton that other Mass Gov - Mike Dukaka all lost in Iowa
Iowa caucus
DEMOCRATS :
January 19, 2004 - John Kerry (38%), John Edwards (32%)
January 24, 2000 - Al Gore (63%), Bill Bradley (37%)
February 12, 1996 - Bill Clinton* (unopposed)
February 10, 1992 - Tom Harkin (76%), “Uncommitted” (12%)
February 8, 1988 - Richard Gephardt (31%), Paul Simon (27%)
February 20, 1984 - Walter Mondale (49%), Gary Hart (17%)
January 21, 1980 - Jimmy Carter (59%), Ted Kennedy (31%)
January 19, 1976 - “Uncommitted” (37%), Jimmy Carter* (28%) Birch Bayh (13%)
January 24, 1972 - “Uncommitted” (36%) and Edmund Muskie (36%)
Iowa caucus
Republicans
2004- George W. Bush* (unopposed)
2000- George W. Bush* (41%), Steve Forbes (30%), Alan Keyes (14%)
1996- Bob Dole (26%), Pat Buchanan (23%),
1992- George H. W. Bush (unopposed)
1988- Bob Dole (37%), Pat Robertson (25%),
1984- Ronald Reagan* (unopposed)
1980- George H. W. Bush (32%), Ronald Reagan* (30%),
8. hermie | January 3rd, 2008 at 10:02 pm
I’m disappointed that Romney lost to Huckabee. However, I believe that this advantage will be short-lived as New Hampshire is a different kind of race and Romney will have a bigger appeal.
9. Brian | January 3rd, 2008 at 10:03 pm
I don’t think we have to worry about Huckabee actually winning the primary. The rest of the states do not vote solely based on their religion.
On that note, congrats to Democrats for picking yet another unelectable uber-liberal.
10. liberalT | January 3rd, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Big winners: (obviously) Obama and Huckabee - but also McCain did decently for ignoring the state (it also helps him that Romney will not have the momentum going into NH)
Big Losers: Clinton (ouch a 3rd place from the “inevitable” candidate”), Romney, and Giuliani (ok he ignored the state but getting zilched is gonna hurt)
We will have to see if the momentum carries - but Obama came off very strong. Great speech - it also helped him that the Clintons looked rocked.
11. Mark Noonan | January 4th, 2008 at 12:12 am
It was, without a doubt, a very convincing win for Obama and Huckabee. Though Obama, right now, is on TV steadily becoming ever more of just another Donk beholden to the far left - the more he speaks, the more he’s just talking in sound bites - and worn out sound bites from 2006, at that.
At any rate, Hillary has got to be in a funk - and we’ll now see if she just fades away, or goes after Obama with a vengenance.
12. Kahn | January 4th, 2008 at 12:55 am
Neologizer - interesting post. Goes along with what Susan Estrich was saying. Any non-incumbent who wins Iowa does NOT win the general election. I guess the exception would be W in 2000.
It’s the total of delegates that counts. Not the order in which you win them.
13. Rana Quijotesca | January 4th, 2008 at 1:15 am
Dude… Ron Paul beat Rudy Giuliani… HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHaHAHAHAHAHAHAHaHAHAHAAHA!!!!
14. Aitch | January 4th, 2008 at 1:30 am
Rana, that is ve(r)y funny.
15. kjstrouble | January 4th, 2008 at 1:42 am
Rana - Ron Paul campaigned in Iowa, Rudy didn’t. No surprise on the out come. Now if he had beat Thompson or McCain, that would have been significant.
16. Huck Fillary | January 4th, 2008 at 4:52 am
Ditto, Mark; I watched Obama’s victory speech, and told my wife beforehand that he would sound like a preacher with BDS. He didn’t disappoint. He hit all the talking points, while promising to dispel all division in the country.
All in all, he, as did Huck, sounded like your typical politician. How will either do in the future? Who knows, except for Rico. lol
17. Timothy Horrigan | January 4th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Well, I suppose the key thing is that Hillary Clinton lost… which of course means that Romney, the one who has been anointed by the Bushes as the anti-Clinton, wins… notwithstanding Huckabee’s getting more votes in the Iowa caucuses.
Getting more votes doesn’t mean anything anyway: AlGore got more votes than Bush II in 2000, but that doesn’t change the fact that he lost.
18. SteaM | January 4th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Could those of you who didn’t like Obama’s speech please give some examples and specifics regarding actual things he said and why you disagree?
19. SteaM | January 4th, 2008 at 11:34 am
I agree with him. It is hope that should drive this country, not fear.
20. Faceplant | January 4th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
“Does anyone really believe that John Edwards has any real understanding about problems of middle class America?”
No of course not. He only lived his entire childhood in a lower middle class family, and was the director of the Center on Poverty, Work, and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Yeah, what does he know!