![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Election 2008 now officially under way...
Jan. 4th, 2008 01:26 amThe Iowa caucuses happened tonight. On the Democratic side, Obama was the big winner, with Edwards and Clinton in a near-tie for second. Great news for Obama, bad for Clinton, probably somewhat good for Edwards (not a win, but better than had been expected). All the other candidates had 2% or less; Dodd has already withdrawn and Biden is expected to. Kucinich will probably see it through all the way to the end, as his candidacy has never been about winning the nomination anyway, but about getting his ideas into the political discourse. The other news is that the turnout in the Democratic caucuses was HUGE -- almost double the number in 2004.
The Republican picture is muddier. Huckabee was the winner in Iowa, but his support seems to have mostly come from evangelical Christians, and he's not going to play well in New Hampshire. Romney was second; a big disappointment given the amount of money he spent there. Thompson and McCain were in a near-tie with 13% each, but New Hampshire is a McCain stronghold, so their candidacies are headed in opposite directions. Paul got 10% of the vote; I still think he doesn't have a chance of being nominated, but that's a surprisingly strong showing for a fringe candidate, and he's likely to duplicate it in New Hampshire, a state with a strong libertarian streak. Guiliani finished behind Paul with 7%; he didn't campaign in Iowa at all, but that's still bad for an ostensibly major candidate.
So... what does it all mean? The Democrats are more united, with only three significant candidates; furthermore, most Democratic voters would probably happily vote for any of them in November. One interesting question; if Clinton fades, where will her voters go, to Obama or Edwards? The Republicans are a lot more divided, and the winner in Iowa ran in part by showing opposition to the incumbent Republican president, an unusual tactic.
I think that Romney is the big loser of the evening; if he doesn't manage to turn things around with a good result in New Hampshire, and current polls suggest that he won't, it may be the end for him. Clinton is also a loser, but she's not in as much trouble as Romney; even if she also loses in New Hampshire, she can hope to turn things around in the larger states that vote on Super Tuesday, whereas Romney is likely to do WORSE in those states. Guiliani's strategy of ignoring the small early states and counting on a big Super Tuesday is looking risky right now, but it could still work if the media don't proclaim him dead before the voters have their say.
I suppose we'll know a lot more about where this thing is going after the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday.
The Republican picture is muddier. Huckabee was the winner in Iowa, but his support seems to have mostly come from evangelical Christians, and he's not going to play well in New Hampshire. Romney was second; a big disappointment given the amount of money he spent there. Thompson and McCain were in a near-tie with 13% each, but New Hampshire is a McCain stronghold, so their candidacies are headed in opposite directions. Paul got 10% of the vote; I still think he doesn't have a chance of being nominated, but that's a surprisingly strong showing for a fringe candidate, and he's likely to duplicate it in New Hampshire, a state with a strong libertarian streak. Guiliani finished behind Paul with 7%; he didn't campaign in Iowa at all, but that's still bad for an ostensibly major candidate.
So... what does it all mean? The Democrats are more united, with only three significant candidates; furthermore, most Democratic voters would probably happily vote for any of them in November. One interesting question; if Clinton fades, where will her voters go, to Obama or Edwards? The Republicans are a lot more divided, and the winner in Iowa ran in part by showing opposition to the incumbent Republican president, an unusual tactic.
I think that Romney is the big loser of the evening; if he doesn't manage to turn things around with a good result in New Hampshire, and current polls suggest that he won't, it may be the end for him. Clinton is also a loser, but she's not in as much trouble as Romney; even if she also loses in New Hampshire, she can hope to turn things around in the larger states that vote on Super Tuesday, whereas Romney is likely to do WORSE in those states. Guiliani's strategy of ignoring the small early states and counting on a big Super Tuesday is looking risky right now, but it could still work if the media don't proclaim him dead before the voters have their say.
I suppose we'll know a lot more about where this thing is going after the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday.
