DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Iowa Caucuses This Evening

After months of speculation about who'll win Iowa, we finally have winners and losers. Some of them are obvious, while others may not be. One thing for sure is that a rousing speech on caucus night doesn't mean a candidate has won. In some cases, losers seemed to yell even louder than winners.

Iowa Winners

1. Barack Obama. The easiest pick of the night, Obama's win means that he goes to New Hampshire as a winner. No, the Democratic contest is not over, but if he wins in the Granite State, he'll be hard to stop in South Carolina. And if he sweeps those three, he may never look back.

Entrance polling showed Iowa Democrats responded strongly to Obama's message of change - half of Democrats said that the top quality they were looking for in a candidate was his or her ability to bring about change, and of those respondents, 51 percent voted for Obama. The Illinois Democrat's campaign also clearly benefited from the surge in Democratic turnout and from the participation of Iowans who had never before caucused.

Obama won among caucus-goers who said the war was the top issue, as well as among those who identified the economy or health care as the most important issue. He won "very liberal" and "somewhat liberal" Democratic caucus attendees handily, and nosed out Clinton among self-described moderates. All in all, an impressive performance.

2. Mike Huckabee. In May, Huckabee wasn't even on the radar screen in Iowa. At the end of the day, he was outspent, and he won what is always regarded as an "organizational race" without much of an organization.

Huckabee clobbered the rest of the GOP field on two key candidate qualities: "shares my values" and "says what he believes." That's a good place to start when you are running for your party's Presidential nomination.

But Huckabee did as well as he did on Thursday only because of the make-up of Thursday's Republican caucus-goers. The former Arkansas Governor won the caucuses because he cleaned up among the most conservative and most religious attendees. Six out of ten GOP caucus-goes were evangelicals, and he won them 46 percent to 19 percent over Mitt Romney.

Among the 36 percent of GOP attendees who said that the religious beliefs of the candidates matter "a great deal," Huckabee won 56 percent - five times more than Romney, McCain or Thompson. But New Hampshire doesn't look like natural Huckabee territory, and the Arkansas Republican's long-term prospects in the race are not as bright as they may look today.

3. John McCain. Sure, McCain finished essentially tied for third with Fred Thompson, but Romney's less than sterling showing could dry up some of the former Massachusetts governor's support in New Hampshire, and that could boost McCain's prospects on Tuesday. The only problem for the Arizona Republican: If the Obama bandwagon draws even more Granite State Independents into the Democratic primary, depriving McCain of potential supporters.

4. Rudy Giuliani. The win by Huckabee means that the GOP race is as confused as ever, and that's a plus for the former New York City mayor, who benefits from confusion in the early contests. Giuliani's chances for the Republican nomination don't look all that bright, but he would have been much worse off if Romney had won in Iowa.

Iowa Losers

1. John Edwards. Anyone who listened to Edwards's caucus night speech had to be asking, "What's he smoking?"

After drawing 32 percent in the 2004 caucuses and spending the next four years camped out in the state, Edwards finished essentially tied for second on Thursday. To make matters worse, the other "change" candidate in the contest, Bracak Obama, finished first. And, Obama's optimistic change message trumped Edwards's angry, populist message.

Edwards, who railed against corporate greed, focused on jobs and trade and aimed his message at the "little guy," lost union households to both Clinton and Obama.

Edwards will now have major resource problems, and he isn't likely to do well in New Hampshire. If his comments last night are any indication, he isn't likely to go quietly. But the former North Carolina senator is in serious trouble. He needed to win in Iowa, and he didn't. It's just that simple.

2. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Clinton's problem isn't that Edwards nosed her out for second; it's that caucus attendees preferred change over experience, raising questions about her fundamental appeal. The calendar isn't her friend over the next month, and she'll be peppered with process questions when she'd rather talk about things that voters want to hear.

Nobody should count the New York senator out. Iowa, after all, is just a single state, and Clinton and Obama ran virtually even among self-described Democrats in Iowa, which offers her hope in true closed primary states. But Clinton no longer is in the driver's seat, as indicated by the fact that she lost women, 35 percent to 30 percent, to Obama in the caucuses.

3. Mitt Romney. How do you go from a prohibitive favorite in the Iowa caucuses to a surprisingly distant runner-up to Mike Huckabee? Ask Romney. He did it.

Romney won with upscale Republicans, more moderate and urban GOP caucus-goers and those for whom the religious beliefs of the candidate didn't matter a lot. But he got swamped by conservative evangelicals who wouldn't vote for a Mormon. He won't have that problem in New Hampshire, but he has a different one there: John McCain.

Romney needs a win in the Granite State or in Michigan to stay in the hunt. One of his biggest problems is that caucus attendees didn't think that "he says what he believes."
Obama 08

Didn't pay much attention to it..,

But this morning when I heard that Obama was 1st, Edwards 2nd and Hilary 3rd,, My heart sang out and I decided that there is a god....LOL

Anybody,, Please anybody but Hilary Rodent Clinton.....

Quote:

---

Anybody,, Please anybody but Hilary Rodent Clinton.....

---

I agree. My vote is for Zod. General Zod. Vote for your ruler.

http://www.zod2008.com/

You say it's shortsighted yet you're willing to judge a president in a historical context right now.

Probably not. He's not the worst ever, not by a long shot.

Quote:

---

To be honest, none of those three would even be my #2...that would be Polk.

---

Wow. Polk?? Now I assume this is because he was a stounch supporter of slavery. Am I correct or is there something more to it?

The war did lead to the Treaty of Guadalupe which gave the US a lot of land in exchange for money. But I understand your viewpoint. It was just a surprise to see you rank him as one of the worst when he is mostly regarded as one of the top dozen presidents.

I have a friend who's very sharp on history, and we have had this exact argument many times...the way I see it, Polk did a lot of good for our nation...A LOT...but there's a lot of really evil, ruthless people in history that did a lot of good for their country...doesn't make them great leaders.

Quote:

---

Look around at the major themes of our time -- rampant, unrelenting greed of major corporations and businessmen, many of which are members of the Bush administration or, at the very least, templates and associates. Now, am I saying that Bush himself is responsible for Enron or Halliburton? No, but he is in a sense a representation of that kind...and I firmly believe he will serve as a figurehead for that mentality, just as Reagan stands for a template of the prosperity of the 1980's. The difference is the 1980's represents the fruits of the labor - you had sons of immigrants landing good jobs and everyone was making good money. You had corporate greed, yes (in fact that sort of spawned in this period). But it was different. When people look at today, I'm guessing they will see the spoils of that fruit...the rampant greed and the overspending which I think will bury us. And whether he deserves it or not, I feel Bush will be associated with that. A lot of it has ZERO to do with him and a lot to do with *everybody* spending outside of their means...but I feel it will stick.

---

There has been corporate greed long before Regan and even America, I highly doubt this will be pinned to the legacy of W.

Quote:

---

Iraq? Yes. It will be a blemish, and a big one.

---

Yes, I think there was a lot of mistakes but Vietnam was more of a mistake thank Iraq and it cost more American and Non-American lives so again I highly doubt that this will pin Bush as the worst president ever.

Quote:

---

I don't think Bush's tax cuts were a wise idea, given the monumental cost this war will end up being...the amount of money the man spent on government programs was absolutely ridiculous.

---

Again, I'd have to disagree, Bush received a recession from Clinton and the effects of 9-11 in his first year also didn't help matters and the tax cuts helped spurn a good amount of economic growth until recently. As for government programs a lot has to do with the republican congress and that's why the democrats are in control now. And I'm seeing more of the same from them.

Quote:

---

Wiretapping. Torture. Tribunals. Those simple words may not tell the whole story, but they will be remembered in history.

---

These will be remember as much as the US placing Japanese immigrants in concentration camps during WWII and Clinton selling missile technology to the Chinese. Very little.

Quote:

---

Osama bin Laden. If he is captured and killed in Bush's time, he'll look alright here. If not, it will be another strike. I'm not saying that's fair or just, or an accurate assessment...but it will be made.

---

I wish he had gotten him as well, and I agree that it will be a strike against him if he doesn't get caught or killed before his term is up.

Quote:

---

He talks like a bumbling idiot. Constantly.

---

NO argument here.

All in all nothing will qualify him as the worst ever in fact I think history will place him at the middle of the pack IMO.

sorry to say but Polk was actually a decent president. in fact he is about the only president who actually DID what he campaigned on. He said he was going to annex Texas which basically would War with Mexico but the people knew that and elected him for it.

You want bad presidents, he isn't even close.

Millard Filmore
Warren G Harding
Franklin Pierce
James Buchanan
Andrew Johnson
Ben Harrison
Herbert Hoover
Richard Nixon

Those were bad presidents

Quote:

---

Richard Nixon

---

Funny thing about Nixon is he was one of the most popular presidents. He holds the record for biggest swing in approval rating. Bush is either close to breaking it or has broken it.

I cant believe nobody is talking about the local guy Kucinich. If you vote for the candidate with the hottest wife, hes your man

Quote:

---

This era will be earmarked by people spending beyond their means...this is a unique time in history as everyone - from the top to the middle to the bottom - is spending way, way beyond their means. I feel Bush's government spending reflects that, and I feel both will cause HUGE problems for us in the coming years.

---

I can't debate most of what is being said intelligently because my knowledge of past presidents is very poor.

I do know that the period of greed and overspending happened way before Bush.

The whole tax cut arguements don't hold water with me. If you cut taxes it encourages spending which helps the economy grow, bringing in even more money. Raise tax rates and you recieve more money from a smaller pie.

Which is right? I believe the first arguement but there are quite a few who disagree.

The one thing I'm sure of is that we have had uncontrolled spending that I put the blame on Congress for. We have neutered (sp) our presidents so much that they don't dare veto most spending bills. There are so many poison pills included now that if you dare veto something you get blasted for any number of evils.