Voters have finally had their say and the presidential race is now underway. While no one should be surprised that Senator Barack Obama and former Governor Mike Huckabee won their respective party caucuses in Iowa, there are some observations that should be noted as we look to New Hampshire and beyond. I picked former Senator John Edwards and former Governor Mitt Romney to win their respective party caucuses so, perhaps, the first observation should be that this is not the first time I've been wrong, nor will it be the last.
On the Democratic side, three things stand out. First, Barack Obama's comfortable win suggests that his personal charisma and message for change resonated well with Iowans and energized voters all over the state. Just look at the turnout. About 212,000 Democrats turnout for these caucuses, a gigantic increase over the 2004 total of 125,000 caucus-goers. Further, Obama got an impressive 41 percent of all first-time caucus participants and dominated the support of those between 17 - 29.
Second, Hillary Clinton did well in Iowa, but not well enough to justify her decision to compete in the Hawkeye state. She should have followed the advice she received in that infamous May 2007 memorandum that recommended she bypass the state because it didn't set up well for her. The campaign played the risk-reward card, trying to knock out Obama early and conserving its resources for the general election. That didn't pan out, so she looks more like a loser than she really is following Iowa. This places a premium on a strong finish in New Hampshire.
Third, it's difficult to see how John Edwards can pull out the nomination given his lack of fundraising and organization. While Huckabee was able to pull off Iowa with little money, it's doubtful that Edwards can do the same in New Hampshire given the strength of his competition.
On the Republican side, Huckabee's margin of victory may bring down the curtains on the Romney campaign. Romney was polling even with Huckabee before the Iowa caucuses. The bump Huckabee will receive, coupled with a resurgent Senator John McCain, leaves very little running room for Romney. All the pressure now rests on Romney, who is about to go into two states, New Hampshire and South Carolina, that are not well-suited to his candidacy. Meanwhile, McCain and former Senator Fred Thompson remain viable options for conservative Republicans.
One caveat for the Obama supporters who seek "change": Idealism is fine, but bringing about change will require much more than talk and a new president. All presidents need at least 60 votes in the Senate and a majority of votes in the House of Representatives to get their preferred legislation passed. Consequently, change is not as easy as just changing presidents. While congressional public approval numbers hover around 20 percent, more than 90 percent of all members of the House who seek reelection win. In other words, the public doesn't vote its feelings about Congress. This is significant conflict that reveals the schizophrenic nature of American voters. If voters really want change, then they will have to give Obama a completely new Congress to bring about the change he is proposing. Maintaining the status quo Congress won't get the job done. The electorate will have to be brave enough to vote for change up and down the ballot, not just the top of the ticket if they really want change.
Michael K. Fauntroy is an assistant professor of public policy at George Mason University and author of Republicans and the Black Vote. He blogs at MichaelFauntroy.com
Follow Michael Fauntroy on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MikeFauntroy
1. Have the illegal immigration stance currently espoused by Mitt Romney - someone for whom I would NEVER vote.
2. Make sure that our 2nd amendment rights remain. I live in a state where I have a carry concealed permit and take full advantage of that right. Our law enforcement community cannot protect us until after a creim has been committed.
3. While I wholeheartedly support the troops we should get out of Iraq NOW!! Yes, Sadam is better gone but he was NOT responsible for 9/11.
4. GET BACK WHAT HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY BY THE PATRIOT ACT AND DO AWAY WITH THAT ACT IMMEDIATELY BEFORE ANYMORE HARM IS DONE.
5. Protect women's right of choice.
Now, can anyone suggest a candidate who will fill that bill?? John Edwards has most of my backing and there is NO republican I would ever support. But every democratic candidate is lacking and will not directly answer questions. Personally I would like to see a moderator who will ask very pointed questions and then when the candidates go off on their same old political tangents, cut off the microphones to that person. Either answer or no air time!!
But what you say it true, Hillary will need a different Congress to really succeed--but you wanna bet that if/when she wins, the press will continue to blame her if the changes she wants are refuted by Congress? I have NEVER seen such negative press converage, including and lead by Arianna, in my life. I wonder if Obama could withstand all the negative press. I also wonder if his honeymoon with the press will continue.
True re-alignment in a parliamentary sense has only happen once in the last century, 1932 and that was in the throes of the Great Depression.
10) The big winner on the Republican side may be John McCain who may find people in New Hampshire and South Carolina taking another look at the Senator from Arizona.
11) While Iowa is a state that tilts Democratic (Governor is a Democrat/one very liberal Democratic Senator/a moderate Republican one/three out of five Congressional seats are Democratic though Iowa does send Rep. Steve King to Congress), the disparity in attendance between the Republican and Democratic caucus is perhaps the most important takeaway from yesterday’s caucuses. 220,000 on the Democratic side versus 114,000 on the Republican side. While Iowa permits change on the spot registration in the caucus and such I’ve heard of a few reports of people changing their registration in order to vote against Hillary, it bodes well for the Democratic Party that the groundswell is on their side.
12) As you note change is impossible without a filibuster proof majority of 60 Senators and even then with the likes of Lieberman and Feinstein that is really 62.
2) Obama carried the day with voters under 30. I am not sure why.
3) Bread & butter issues didn’t seem as important. This shocks me really. And I am confused how people could be for ending the war asap and yet support Obama. Apparently people do not listen to the candidates. Image seemed to carry the day, not substance.
4) Edwards had the best organization on the ground but it was swamped by the number of new entrants.
5) Edwards carried the most important demographic group traditionally, the 45 to 60 age bracket. A silver-lining if there is one for Edwards.
6) Hillary is in a heap of trouble as she only seem to do well with women over 60 but no one should discount the fact that she remains the choice of the Democratic Party establishment. Aside from her husband, look who was on stage with her: Madeline Albright, Wesley Clark and the Mayor of Los Angeles. And despite tonight’s results she remains ahead in the delegate count by nearly a hundred delegates. She remains the front runner and has the clout of a vast and well-moneyed political machine.
7) Only three times since Iowa became the first in the nation caucus in 1972 has the winner of the Democratic caucus gone on to win the nomination. However, both of the past two winners have. 8) It is important to remember that the results do not reflect on the Democratic side, the actual raw vote. It is impossible to know how distorted the delegate count is from the popular vote since the Democratic Party does not release the results.
9) I haven’t been able to discern what percentage of Huckabee supporters overlooked his Christian credentials and supported him purely on his economic populism. My sense is that those who voted for Huckabee did so largely because he is an Evangelical.
I hope I am wrong about Obama's stance on corporate power because I like him in all other respects. Hillary on the other hand, has a voting record that places her in the pocket of entrenched wealth. For that I cannot support her. I am not anti-corporation, I just don't think they should be running the country!
In closing, I thoroughly enjoyed your thought provoking post. I look forward to reading more of your work in the future.
If I were Hillary and Obama I would be worried about Lieberman campaigning in NH for McCain. Lieberman has considerable support among pro-war NH voters who might vote for Hillary or Obama -- in all 3 camps (Dems., Reps., and Independents). Those who might otherwise support Hillary or Obama -- two Democratic warmongerer candidates who refuse to commit to getting our troops out of Iraq by 2013 -- may be influenced by Lieberman to vote instead for McCain.
Lieberman may cause the Dems to nominate a true anti-war candidate by influencing the bi-partisan plus independent NH warmongerer vote away from Hillary and Obama to their equally barbaric Republican counterpart -- John McCain.
Let's hope so.
Achieving a larger Democratic majority in congress.
Bring jobs back to US by creating incentives.
Putting higher pay in the hands of teachers.
Ending the war in Iraq and bringing back the troops.
Health care that everyone can afford.
Stopping the practice of torture.
End the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
Adhering to the Constitution.
Stopping the oil tyranny by seeking alternate energy.
Cleaning up the environment for future generations.