Make HuffPost Your HomePage
Get Email Alerts
Iowa Republican Change Candidate
Last week over lunch with someone who works at a local college, the woman confessed to me that she was not going to the polls in November. A Clinton supporter, she couldn't bring herself to vote for Obama. Now this woman is neither poor, uneducated or Appalachian. However, she is one of many people I"ve met on the campaign trail who aver that they will not be reconciled to "the other Democrat." Among Obama supporters, this intransigence was best expressed by the man at the rally in North Carolina who told me that he and five of his friends "were ready to start a revolution" if Obama didn't get the nomination. So the party and the pundits can say all they want that Democrats will come together in the fall; however, from talking to people on the trail, I just don't see that happening.
Assuming Senator Obama gets the nomination, some Clinton supporters will be reconciled. But the question is--how many? What is the percentage for mulishness that the Obama Campaign needs to factor into a strategy for winning electoral votes? Conversely, what is the percentage of Republicans who, disheartened in their party for different reasons, will not make it to the polls? Nobody knows the answers, but Deb Satern, the GOP chair in Emmet County, Iowa, talks about the conundrum as well as anybody I've heard.
Over (another) lunch, I asked her how she thought Iowa would play in the general election. She shrugged and laughed, saying, "It's three-way ping pong. Don't like Obama, vote McCain. Don't like McCain, go Clinton." Despite this muddled state of affairs, Deb herself is running for office, for the 7th district seat in the state house of representatives. "My mother told me she's worried about my running this year," Deb said, "because it's the Democrats' time." (Deb's mother, a life-long Democrat, isn't worried enough, however, to promise to vote for her.)
But really it's Deb's time, too, because she's just the kind of take-charge change agent, working to make things happen from the ground up, that Senator Obama has been talking about. While we were talking, she was simultaneously finding an Epi-pen source for a young man with a life-threatening food allergy who couldn't afford the prescription. Deb had just met the guy next door in Starbucks--he wasn't even a possible constituent--but she was trying to help him.
Deb's answer to her mother is that it's okay if she loses because "there'll be something in the experience of running that I'm supposed to learn." But if elected, she wants to help people back home in Estherville, Emmet County, learn how things work down in Des Moines. "Our town has had some troubles," she said, "but you just have to put in your two cents and go to work." Apparently, a lot of folks in Emmet have been putting theirs in and going to work. Deb's been amazed at the turn-out for local meetings and the level of volunteering. "There've been people coming forward, interested in politics--never even saw them come out before." Deb hopes to build on this enthusiasm to get the county better roads ("all the improvements are down around Des Moines") and jobs. "Why are those ethanol and bio-fuel plants in other counties and not ours?"
The level of involvement among Emmet Republicans may have a lot to do with Deb's personality and natural leadership, because Republicans elsewhere in Iowa are not so sanguine. "The Iowa Republicans seem demoralized at the moment," according to David Redlawsk at the University of Iowa. (I wrote about Professor Redlawsk's caucus last January and in the interest of full disclosure point out that Redlawsk is an Edwards delegate.) Redlawsk mentions the indisputable fact that Democrats have taken control of the state house and senate and have kept the governor's office. "And it looks like Republicans will not have strong candidates against Harkin or Braley, and marginal against Loebsack--even Boswell looks reasonably safe if he gets through his primary."
On the level of the national election, Mitch Hambleton, the Dallas County, Iowa Republican Central Committee Chairman, puts it another way. "Iowa had a very spirited caucus. The candidate chosen by many die-hard Republicans did not make it through the nominating process. The McCain campaign now has the challenge to inspire those folks to help elect John McCain in November. That will be no small challenge." Indeed the Huckabee voters are other players in Deb Satern's ping pong.
Mitch Hambleton goes on to say, "Probably the biggest thing that Iowans are faced with today is the price at the pump. With gasoline nearing $4 per gallon, the increased costs are infringing in their lives. Personally, I believe that the sales tax holiday proposed is much like peeing your pants on a cold winter day. It feels nice and warm for a little while, but very soon begins to feel quite cold. Given the tough winter that the Midwest has endured the past few months, our road infrastructure is in dire need of repair, the funding source being taxes on fuel.
"I think that John McCain offers a very strong defense and foreign policy experience and wisdom. With Senator Obama the presumptive nominee, the Republicans will be challenged to define exactly who Barack Obama is. I hear that he stands for 'hope.' 'Hope' for what, I'm not so sure."
Both hope and change are large words. But this is indeed a hope and change election, and Democrats don't have a patent on either. So many Americans want change--big change--and in ways that go beyond policies and issues--that Senator Obama is likely to find Iowa's electoral votes come November. But there will be Republicans like Deb Satern who have responded to the shift in the country's mood, as well. Change, however, by its very nature is inchoate. A leader can only try to use it, to ride its energy; he or she cannot control it. And that will be the challenge for Senators McCain and Obama, whoever wins in November.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
November is a long way out.
Time heals and Hillary will ask her followers to support the Party's nominee.... after the Supreme Court rules, of course, on the "Rules" and Caucus "unfairness" to women.
Obama won fairly. Vote your conscience. Anyone that votes for McCain deserves 4 more years in Hell.
Change is NOT the result of a person... it's the result of a group reacting to a leader.
Fear is NOT the lever that will move the masses in this climate. Hope is. And that's why Obama will prevail. The debates will make it obvious. McCain is simply wrong about what's best for the country at this critical time.
I wish you could find your roots in a sense of social justice and help pull us together after a divisive campaign. Your fears are wearing... you wear them well.
Think that many of the posters on these blogs will not accept it but can only tell you that there are many of us who have been working hard for Hillary Clinton for months and think many will not vote for Obama. He seems to superficial, opportunistic, arrogant and lacking any real credentials to govern this nation. And think given the sort of wave of mass adulation, especially from Africian-Americans, he will be forced to tailor his administration to very specific segments of the population. There are other problems he has yet to deal with as to his judgment: the Rezko scandals are not completely investigated.. It is no wonder he wants the nomination to occur as soon as possible, before any connections can be fully made between Obama and Rezko and a group called Combine. The Democratic Party has pretty much turned its back on the Clintons. Are the Party leaders, Howard Dean and others, willing to see the Party destroyed? Perhaps. But a lot of us know that but all one can say is, good luck beating John McCain and the Republican mean machine.
The Clinton's turned on the party because they found out they do not OWN it.
Democratic "destruction" belongs to the Clintons.
For scandals, no one tops the Clintons and Paul v. Clinton was put off to November. There are many scandals plaguing the Clintons as well.
Rezko has no revelations worthy of consideration.
Nothing readies someone for POTUS and HRC's and Obama's government experience is comparable.
http://wvw.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Info/experience.html
"Suppose you had to choose between two Presidential candidates, one of whom had spent 20 years in Congress plus had considerable other relevant experience and the other of whom had about half a dozen years in the Illinois state legislature and 2 years in Congress. Which ... would make a better President? ....
Buchanan had served 6 years in the Pennsylvania state legislature, 10 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, 4 years as ambassador to Russia, 10 years in the Senate, 4 years as Secretary of State, and 4 years as Ambassador to England. ..., Buchanan did just about everything except serve on the Supreme Court, a job ...offered by President Polk and refused.
Yet ..., he wasn't up to the job as President. ..., Abraham Lincoln served 8 years in the Illinois legislature and one term in the U.S. House (1847-1849), a decade before becoming President. The rest of the time he was a lawyer in private practice, ...."
FDR had 6 years, Wilson had 2 years, Teddy R 4.5 years.
Oh don't waste your time on these bitter voters, no one can change their minds if they really aren't open to rational thinking.
Change is definitely in the air for this election. With gas prices heading towards $5 a gallon, the housing market still in turmoil, and grocery prices rising, change had better be on politicians minds.
What other changes are voters looking for?
1)A better FDA inspection process-name me one representative or senator that says they want to import poisonous toys or food from other countries. We need to increase inspectors, but in a budget neutral way. Once upon a time, before Bush II, people actually cared about not spending more than the revenue the US brought in.
2) Less partisan government. The nations business should be governments first priority-not scoring political points while citizens have problems like health care or keeping their home. We don't want to elect politicians who will behave like lemmings and follow their party off a cliff into a sub prime mess. Citizens want elected officials that represent their needs and work with other parties as needed.
3) A more engaging foreign policy-especially with smaller countries like Iran. Perhaps we can even use technology and have virtual diplomacy through video conferencing. It might be a way for leaders to talk to each other, when the need arises.
4) Education-should we take a page from Ireland and give students free college tuition?
I do like your columns, Ms. Fowler. :) It's too bad you can't attend some of John McCain's fund raising events-would love to hear the inside skinny on those.
Looks like Mayhill has been banned from the Obama campaign. Good.
Mrs. Mayhill after Hillary last gaffe of invokeing the assenation Bobby kennedy in june, as her reason to stay in this race---------I'd say a lot of Hillary supporters just got the message loud and clear! You see she can't have it both ways! She's either a very intelligent person who meant to invoke this at a time where june is comeing up and we have our first Black Presidential Nomanee who is being protected for fear of assenation Or she made yet another mistake and shows she just is not able to handle the rigerouse demands of this campagne trial, and therefore unfit for Commander of Chief of the United States! Being President will take a lot more stamini than this campagne has done on her and if she claims she is fatiqued yet again, and that fatiqued caused yet another error in her judgement, than this lady does not have the stamini to keep up with the demands that the office of president would be expect of Mrs. Clinton! Her supporters has to see this as a very reasonable and correct arguement! We can't take a chance on voteing ing in to the Presidential office some one who is physcally and mentally weak and makes constant error under stress and fatique! Fatique indeed is what her campagne manager keeps saying is happening to her, and thus causeing her to make constant mistakes and errors! Hillary has failed the trial run for President!
I just don't care anymore. People can show up, or not. Either way the responsibility is on them. I just know I will be there -- regardless of who is on the Democratic ticket.
And I'm fine with the November vote, however it turns out. The reason I'm fine is that this vote is a moment of truth -- and without question this country is going to wake up the next morning and get exactly what it deserves, just as we have for the past eight years.
The only difference in the past eight years is that we got an extra bonus -- we got not only what we deserved, we also got what we allowed.
Our country, from top to bottom, is so corrupt, and failing on so many levels that it would seem that John McCain is custom-made for continuing our journey into the abyss.
If people want to participate in promoting that collapse -- for whatever reason -- then knock yourself out.
Because come November we are either going to get what we actually deserve -- or we're going to get very lucky.
EXACTLY!
perfectly put...."continuing our journey into the abyss."
"or we're going to get very lucky."
Who broke the mirror 7 years ago to end up w/this administration??
Break a mirror and get 7 years bad luck.
This HAS GOT TO BE OVER SOON.
I am going w/the Luck (hope) too!
Absolutely right, however, I would not put too much stock into Fowler's account. I have spoken to six people today about the election-- all Democrats-- who are willing to go with the other candidate should theirs not win (all Clinton supporters who would vote for Obama over McCain). I logged onto to read a real story and I got a sample of five people. I would not take this as evidence. Not only do the numbers not add up, but neither does the time-frame. Give people a few weeks/months to put their thinking caps on and they will. I have much more respect for my fellow Democrats and Americans than someone whose articles continually try to stir up a controversy where there is none. On this Memorial Day, she would have been wise to stick to a story that honors Americans and their goodness rather than try and exploit us. Serve your country well Mayflower, and go with our positives. It seems to be a trend that is working.
Shame on that young woman for not listening to her mother. Shame on anybody if they vote for the Republican party at any level---a treasonous collation of gangsters and thugs. The term "racketeering-influenced corrupt organization" defines them perfectly---although the suggestion that "GOP" stands for "Grand Oil Party" also holds a lot of truth.
Change is not "by its very nature inchoate." It often has specific goals driving it. For example, your new best friend, the Republican, specifically wants to raise Estherville's understanding of the levers of legislative power in aid of 1) better roads and 2) a slice of the ethanol pie. That, unlike your writing, does not sound inchoate to me at all, although the second change sounds a little naive given the current state of ethanol production, unless she's talking cellulosic.
What IS inchoate about change is when people adopt an "anybody but..." attitude. When "anybody but Bush" change is assumed to be equally satisfied by Obama, Clinton or McCain, then you ARE voting for inchoate change, but again, not due to the nature of the change, but due to the inchoateness of your own thoughts. That's how you end up with 3-way ping pong.
It was this indisciplined thinking that led to the election of Bush in the first place, when people mistakenly assumed that Gore and Bush were pretty close on most issues and voted for Bush as more of a change from Clinton.
Of course, change must seem inchoate to you, as the flow of this electoral season seems to have totally eluded your grasp. "Assuming Senator Obama gets the nomination...?" It's no longer an assumption, but a given. That change must be inchoate to you, but you seem to be groping towards it as you buddy up to the McCain side.
JP
Please get facts straight. More people voted for Gore than for Bush---half a million more.
Furthermore, Gore carried Florida, which would have been clear if several thousand ballots which were clearly marked had been counted. Those were ballots where the voters had written the candidates' name as well as marking the voting box. Those votes were NOT counted because the voters didn't follow exactly the instructions---but the law says that they should be counted if the voter's intent is clear. That intent WAS clear. Had those "over-votes" been tallied, as they should have been, then Gore would have carried Florida by almost a thousand votes---and been elected.
Having Bush's brother as Governor and his campaign chair as Secretary of State, enabled the election to be stolen. and the US supreme court ratified the steal. Remember, you embittered Hillary supporters, that the next President gets to REALLY pack the Supreme Court.
All this talk of one candidates supporters not willing to vote for the other should tell us one thing. That they do not believe in Democratic (Party) Ideals. Otherwise you would vote for the Democratic Nominee.
Thanks for seeing that we Hillary supporters are real and we aren't all redneck women. I am a college educated male, 28 years old and make over 50 thousand a year and would never vote for someone I see as "dangerous and naive" Most pundits will tell you that people like me will fall in line but honestly I like John McCain...I do not like Obama.
Good luck with that. The interesting thing about commenters like you is that you parrot your candidates lines instead of offering any insight. Please tell us how Barack is dangerous and "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" McCain or Hillary "Obliterate them" Clinton are not . Your intention, attitude, and comment are neither progressive, democratic, liberal or even independent minded. I have a hard time believing you have taken anytime reviewing policies or stances by any of the candidates. I bet you picked who you thought would be the winner and now decided that you have hate the team that beat your team. So please vote for McCain, because Clinton will not be the nominee or the VP and you and every other republican can and will get what you deserve.
They think "redneck women" are chewing tobacco and waving Confederate flags. So they think they're safe from accusations of racism. But the "I don't like Obama" line is more about not wanting a black man as an authority figure. It's not hardcore racism, but an aversion to the idea they should answer to a black man. People don't want to admit this, ergo the parroting of Hillary's lame comments and never offering a reasonable excuse for their misgivings.
GOOD BY TO ROE v. WADE.
No more equal rights for women. Conservative Judges on Supreme Court
Thank you Democrats for McBush. Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran, MORE WARS
Our young men and women killed fighting those wars.
Shame on Dems for McBush
You know, it is truly sad when emotion will win out over policy. Obama has won the election and represents those Democratic policies that this country and world must embrace, yet some people will chuck that over the most ridiculous and actually stupid emotional aspects of politics. To hear some say that they wanted HRC so badly that now they will vote for McCain is the absolute height of lunacy. We vote for the platform not the personality. RIGHT? Mr. McCain is diametrically opposed to our VALUES.
I sense glee in the wishful thinking of "I just don't see that happening".
Of course, anecdotal evidence from one voter, and allusions to anecdotal evidence from others, is hardly in tune with the scientific method.
If I aver that bemoaning the lack of unity before real efforts at unity have even begun is premature, will you quote me too?
True that! A line I stole from another commenter elsewhere goes like this: The plural of anecdote is not data!
JP
Your last reportage from the scene of Obama's last speech enraged thousands of people because of its misrepresentations. Today, you are calmer, and less emotional, and on the feelings of potential voters, you write, "A leader can only try to use it, to ride its energy; he or she cannot control it. And that will be the challenge for Senators McCain and Obama, whoever wins in November."
Quite fair. This is called the epiphany. You have seen the light, Sister Mayhill.
Loading comments…
Posted May 23, 2008 | 10:06 AM (EST)