My first political post of 08! Here we go!

[wordplay]

So, regarding the Republican primary in Iowa, Marc is convinced that this is good news for us, that Huckabee can't win a national election and that the best thing that could happen for Democrats in '08 is to see him emerge as the candidate. Howard Dean seems to believe the same thing.

I have to admit that I feel differently. (1) I have thought GWB was an absolute idiot, an obvious puppet and a brainless wonder for over 10 years. I kind of STILL can't believe that the American public has elected him president not once, but TWICE. So, while I love my country and try to respect my countrymen, any political argument that's predicated on "people aren't that stupid" is likely to fail with me. (2) More globally, I am deeply worried about what it means when people in America can seriously promote for President someone who has gone on record as "not believing" in Evolution, apparently because he seems to believe that evolution implies descendence from apes. *rolls eyes so hard they stick* This guy makes GWB's anti-science position look reasonable. Having him included in the discourse, having him taken seriously as someone whose ideas and principles are worthy and necessary to guide us, makes me deeply, deeply anxious. I am appalled that voters have validated him even THIS much.

Surprisingly, I don't have much to say about the Democratic race. I have to admit that I'm a John Edwards girl at heart - he appeals to my gut, because Southern Democrats I KNOW - but I have been completely stuck on the Clinton v. Obama question due to experience, electability, all of that stuff and mostly wish I could just merge them into the best supercandidate ever. I'm waiting to see how it all shakes out, because I just want this SO SO BAD and I feel like we could win it and, as per usual, I'm terrified we're going to somehow screw it up for ourselves. (That said? OMG his address last night after he won? Chills like you would not believe, and what a gift that is.)

Comments

[chromodynamics.livejournal.com]

I agree with you that I to was dumbfounded that Shrub won in 2004 (still haven't convinced me he won in 2000). But he did it by uniting the 3 main wings of the Republican party: social conservatives, fiscal conservatives (cut all taxes), and neocons (strong military and aggressive foreign policy). Huckabee can't do that, and isn't even trying. In Iowa, 80% of the people who voted for Huckabee identified themselves as evangelical or born-again Christians. Huckabee won the social conservative vote, clearly, but his policies are not going to please either of the other two groups. That is why I would love to see Huckabee as the nominee: he would have a hard time getting a significant part of the Republican party to vote for him, let alone independents.

That said, I doubt he will win and be the Republican nominee. We shall see what happens in New Hampshire, where the fiscal conservatives and neocons have much greater weight. Already they are talking about it being a contest between Romney and McCain. I think Huckabee can play on his Iowa victory to take states in the South and Midwest, but will have a hard time in the Northeast and West.

By far, I think one of the most interesting stats in the Iowa caucus is that Paul got 10% while Giuliani got only 3.5%. I'm waiting to see the pundits start to sink their teeth into this one, and how it will affect Giuliani's chances in his big state strategy, especially if Huckabee starts making strides in South Carolina and most importantly Florida after his Iowa win.

Another statistic, one that has me hopeful, is turnout. Republican turnout was up (114,000 compared to the 87,000 of 2000), but Democratic turnout (which of course means Democrats and Independents who chose to participate in the Democratic caucus) was WAY up, 220,000 compared to 124,000 of 4 years ago. For a long time I have seen the pundits talk about how interest in the election and voter turnout seems to favor the Democrats this time, and in Iowa we saw actual proof that this is the case.

On the Democratic side, I'm really interested to see what happens on Tuesday in New Hampshire. Clearly this was a victory for Obama; I don't think anyone predicted he would have such a high percentage. Most of the latest polls in NH have Clinton ahead by several, or Obama ahead by a few. It will be interesting to see if Obama will springboard from Iowa and take NH.

Interestingly though, if you look at the state-by-state polls (I like to look at Electoral Vote) so far the closest polls have been in Iowa and NH. In many of the other states, including the big ones like California and New York, as well as the national polls, Hillary is still ahead, by double digits in many. If Obama wins NH, how will that affect these other contests? How about if Hillary wins?

I think the person on the Democratic side who is going to have the toughest time after last night is Edwards. He really needed to win. He did come in second, but the actual figures are like 27.7% for Edwards and 27.5% for Hillary, which is pretty negligible. Furthermore, Hillary actually has more delegates (Obama 16 - Hillary 15 - Edwards 14, according to CNN), though I have no idea why that is the case. If Edwards comes in 3rd in NH, as most polls have him now, and especially if he fails to capture SC, can he continue? Of course, if Edwards were to drop out, I think the main beneficiary will be Obama.

This is truly an interesting election on both sides.

[chromodynamics.livejournal.com]

I found this article to be very interesting as far as the Republican race:

GOP race in total disarray

"The Iowa results, with a victory for a populist social conservative deeply mistrusted by many people in the Republican establishment, also virtually guarantee that the nomination contest will not simply be a battle over personalities and credentials. Instead, the race will now be a deep and probably intensely negative fight for the direction of the party in the post-Bush era."