Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Democracy and Elections

Iowa Voters Reject Front-Runners

By Peggy Simpson, Women's Media Center. Posted January 4, 2008.


Iowa's caucus results prove that being mainstream and raising big bucks won't necessarily get you votes.
Advertisement

A come-from-behind victory can be a potent propellant in politics. That may be the case for Senator Barack Obama, whose strong win in the Iowa caucuses may translate into strong momentum for the New Hampshire primary in four days. It may be more difficult for the Republican winner.

Obama's team succeeded in bringing in tens of thousands of young people and independents who helped double the turnout in the Iowa Democratic caucuses compared to four years ago.

Senator Hillary Clinton, the front-runner for much of 2007, suffered the consequences of that status. Opponents turned the heat on her in debates, political advertising and endorsements. She is the inevitable nominee no more.

Both Obama and Clinton have found their political footing in the past year under the klieg lights, breaking records as the first mainstream black and female candidates in U.S. history. The election of either would mark a dramatic break with the past.

But the Iowa caucuses showed that, at least in the opening vote, Obama corralled the "change" vote. Polls showed the Democrats put a priority on change versus experience by a 52-20 edge and Obama benefited from that. He managed to paint Clinton as a candidate tied to the past, to the Democratic establishment, while portraying himself as a change agent for the future.

Obama gave an inspirational victory speech, talking of barriers already broken in Iowa and challenging New Hampshire voters to carry on the momentum. Clinton, who came in third with 29 percent to Obama's 38 percent of caucus votes, was low-key but steady, losing in the charisma campaign to the euphoric Obama. She put the focus on the general election -- on Democrats choosing someone who is electable and can lead with experience from day one.

Obama not only commanded the under-35 voters, he also won among Iowa women in general by a 35-30 edge, according to polls of Iowans as they entered the caucuses. Clinton led Obama in the category of voters 45 and older. The polls showed that Iowans felt that the economy and the Iraq war were most important, at 35 percent each, followed by health care, at 27 percent.

Obama and Clinton are flush with campaign money, more than enough to fuel their head-to-head combat in coming primaries. Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, who came in slightly ahead of Clinton, is in far more perilous financial condition.

The situation is dramatically different in the Republican ranks.

Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee also scored big as a giant-killer, surging from single-digit support two months ago to clobber onetime Iowa front-runner Mitt Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts. But Romney still has plenty of money and is a known quantity in New Hampshire. Huckabee was outspent 15-1 by Romney in Iowa and has run a shoestring campaign nationally, both in terms of funding and political structures. He has to parlay his Iowa victory into new infusions of money and talent.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: election, polls, clinton, obama, democrat, iowa, huckabee, caucus

Peggy Simpson worked 17 years for the Associated Press, in Texas and Washington, D.C.; covered economics and politics for the Hearst Newspapers, served as Washington bureau chief for Ms. magazine and reported on Eastern Europe's transition from communism to a Democratic market economy, as a freelancer during the 1990s. She has taught at Indiana University, George Washington University and at the American Studies Center at Warsaw University. She currently is a freelance writer in Washington.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Democracy and Elections! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
not very objective
Posted by: hitmancdrs on Jan 5, 2008 1:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This column barely mentions John Edwards, continuing a media trend. Not very objective. Exactly how many times did you mention Clinton (who finished 3rd) as opposed to Edwards (who finished 2nd)?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]