Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
TOP NEWS   LeftArrow - Townhall.com   RightArrow - Townhall.com  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Friday, January 04, 2008
Rich Galen :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Caucuses
by Rich Galen
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
What do you think of John McCain's selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate?



Nobody had predicted what actually happened last night at the Iowa Caucuses.

You have seen the headlines: Barack Obama rolled to a victory in the Democratic caucuses with about 38 percent and Mike Huckabee sailed into first place on the GOP side with about 34 percent of the caucus goers' support.

Thus, Obama and Huckabee were the big winners.

But the Iowa Caucuses are often more about who lost than who won. Hillary Clinton came in third among the 240,000 Democratic voters, a fraction of a percentage point behind former Sen. John Edwards. Mitt Romney came in second among the 100,000+ Republican caucus attendees.

The turnout, in Iowa terms, was very heavy. About double the number of Democrats turned out as had been expected. Something on the order of 25% more Republicans trekked to their local caucus than the Iowa GOP had predicted.

A year ago, Sen. Clinton was seen as marching through the process as the certain nominee. "Inevitability" was the word. Obama had burst onto the scene, but most political geniuses believed him to be unable to sustain the early excitement he was generating.

A year ago, Gov. Huckabee was … invisible. Sen. John McCain was the GOP front-runner and Gov. Mitt Romney was using his enormous personal fortune to build a team designed to lead his march to victory.

McCain's campaign collapsed in mid-year. He has enjoyed a resurgence over the past month and has decided to make his stand in New Hampshire next week, not Iowa. Without campaigning here, he came in fourth with 13 percent, a handful of votes behind Sen. Fred Thompson (for whom I am a paid advisor).

Romney spent something north of $7 million here in Iowa but could generate support from only about a quarter of the caucus goers.

Clinton pulled out all the stops to win in Iowa including bringing former President Bill Clinton not just into the fray, but pushing him onto center stage in an effort to sway Democrats to her side.

Obama portrayed himself as the agent of change. Clinton ran as the voice of experience.

Change won.

Huckabee, as recently as six weeks ago was an asterisk in public polling. His sudden emergence as a serious candidate was met with a furious counterattack by the Romney campaign which directed reporters to any number of issues and actions Huckabee had supported and taken as Governor.

About a third of Iowa Republican caucus goers were not dissuaded from supporting the combination of good humor and deeply held Christian beliefs which Huckabee portrayed. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Rich Galen has been a press secretary to Dan Quayle and Newt Gingrich. He currently works as a journalist and writes at Mullings.com

Be the first to read Rich Galen's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Subject: @renny RE: Rudy
Given that it has been estimated that at least 5% of the conservative base that voted in the LAST election will not vote in this one if Rudy is the nominee, do you think that Rudy picks up that 5% from Dems and independents who voted for Kerry the last time around.

If he does, he wins, if he doesn't he loses.

The only candidate that can galvanize fiscal, security, and social conservatives is Fred Thompson.

Pretty much all the others lose against Obama if he gets the nom and will be close to losing against Mrs. Lenin. Personally, I think Rudy is the ONLY candidate we have that can lose to Mrs. Lenin. Because I think he loses the red state vote.

Thank you, Baseballdoc
I don't think the Reps. will nom. Rudy, since the Iowa caucusees said they didn't care if they selected a viable candidate who can win a national election. They picked Huckabee because he was agreeable to their religious values.

The "values" cons. are more concerned with the perfection and purity of their choice rather than their pol. records and proven leadership ability.

I would remind them that Reagan did nothing on abortion, his attempted assassination set back the 2nd amendment a 1000 degrees, he appointed a couple clunkers to the Sup. Court (the exiting Sandra Day O'Connor was one), and he paid little attention to the other "cultural" issues. He was strong against communism and for defense, stood against the federal unions, and had a positive view of America. He also ONLY had his landslides because Dems. crossed over to vote for him and independents voted overwhelmingly for him.

No Dem is going to vote for Huckabee or Romney, and independents today make up possibly 40% of the voting electorate.

Part of Rudy's negative take on TH is bloggers here get their Rudy news from the MSM that has hated Giuliani ever since he cleaned up the streets of NYC. When he removed the hookers and drug dealers from the front steps of the NYTimes, the staff had to walk a few blocks to get their next hit or buy a 12-year-old runaway. They've never forgiven him.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily dose of conservative columns, editorial cartoons, talk radio, news, and more!
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.