Iowa: Winners and Losers

The Iowa results are official, and they're quite interesting for us political junkies.

The first thing they tell us is that both parties have wide open races. That, in turn, will encourage folks like Bloomberg, and maybe Ron Paul, to run as independents.

Let's examine the results in turn.

Democrats

Barack Obama is a big winner. He beat expectations, besting both Hillary and Edwards by eight points.

Hillary is a loser for coming in third, but it's not as bad as it looks--she basically tied Edwards. Still, Iowa is going to give Hillary supporters around the country a lot of pause. So far, she hasn't found a strategy for dealing with Obama's popularity.

Edwards is a loser. Oh, his campaign will spin second place (barely) as some sort of win, but let's face it--he pinned everything on Iowa and he really didn't come close to winning. As the campaign turns to New Hampshire, most serious voters are going to be deciding betweeen Hillary and Obama, leaving Edwards far behind. We think he's done, save maybe for a brief showing in Nevada.

Amongst the pollsters, give kudos to the Des Moines Register, which called Obama by seven points, with Hillary and Edwards statistically tied, and which predicted independents would be the key. Maybe give second prize to the Zogby tracking poll for getting the order correct and giving Obama a decent advantage.

Another winner is the Democratic Party, which had robust, enthusiastic turnout across the state, and which reported it's results quickly and professionally. If Democrats can ultimately unite around their nominee--and all indications are that they will--they should win this election.

Republicans

Obviously, Huckabee is a winner, doing slightly better than the polls predicted. He's even showing some teflon coating--just think how much Romney spent on negative advertising without making a dent, even with the Huckster shooting himself in the foot a few times to boot!

But where does the Huckmeister go from here? New Hampshire will be tough on him, but he has opportunities in Michigan and South Carolina. He needs to come up with a national strategy--winning Southern and border states while letting others divide the spoils in the rest of the country. Ed Rollins is smart--he might just get Big Mike across the finish line.

For Huckabee to win, however, he'll need someone to be strong enough to counterpoise McCain in northern states. If it gets down to a race just between Huckabee and McCain, the Huckster will lose.

Romney is a big loser. He spent untold millions on Iowa, used every trick play, brought in all the free agents, and still lost. He's like the New York Yankees. And now there's every sign that Romney will lose New Hampshire to McCain. The one wild card is that with the Democratic race suddenly so interesting, many Granite State independents who would side with McCain may opt to vote in the Democratic primary instead. Romney needs to regroup--his whole campaign could come crashing down in a hurry.

Giuliani is also a loser. He came in SIXTH place, well behind Ron Paul. The Giuliani people will say that's fine--they didn't compete in Iowa. But they did, for awhile, and then gave up. Giuliani could well come in fifth or sixth in New Hampshire too. By the time Florida rolls around, most folks will have forgotten that's he's running.

Ron Paul is a winner. He took home 10%. We sure hope that in the debate this weekend they include Dr. Paul--as one of the top contenders--and exclude Rudy G. With all the money he's got, and his dedicated corps of volunteers, we think Dr. No will ultimately throw his hat in the ring as the candidate of the Libertarian Party come November. Excluding him from the debate will only make that more certain.

The one question still undecided as we sit here tonight is who gets the "honor" of "winning" third place among the GOP field in Iowa. It's neck-and-neck between McCain and Thompson. But, really, WHO CARES?

Let's say Thompson ekes it out over McCain. Big deal. Fred has no standing in New Hampshire, and as we've said a million times, he has no strategy. Where's he going to go next? Fred is dead. A distant third in Iowa, basically tied with someone else, does not a political future make standing alone.

McCain, on the other hand, basically skipped Iowa in the end (unlike Fred, who made the motions of canvassing the state) and has momentum in New Hampshire. We think he's a pretty big winner, because of lot of old time Republicans, horrified at the prospect of Huckabee as their nominee, are going to rally to him.

Amongst the pollsters, the winners are Zogby tracking and Insider Advantage, with an honorable mention to the Des Moines Register. Zogby had Huck up by six points over Romney, with McCain, Thompson and Paul clustered around 10-11% and Giuliani in sixth. Insider Advantage also had Huckabee up by six, with McCain and Thompson tied and Paul close behind, with Giuliani in sixth. The Register had Huckabee up by six, but gave McCain a distinct edge over Thompson, followed by Paul and Giuliani.

And the big poll loser: CNN!! The CNN poll got both elections wrong, predicting Hillary for the Dems and Romney for the GOP and basically getting the rest of it wrong, too. Memo to CNN: fire your pollster!

And finally, another loser: the Republican Party. With turnout far below that of the Democrats, and lackluster rallies for the candidates (compared with those for the Democrats), the Iowa GOP showed little enthusiasm. Their website crashed. They got their results in much slower than the Dems despite smaller numbers and a simpler caucus system. And the party faithful that turned out were so disproportionately evangelical Christians that you really wonder what the party has come to. It really did reflect the party of George W. Bush.

And our final winner: political pundits! Iowa confirmed that this will be a raucous year of elections, with the possibility that the GOP won't even have a candidate come their convention, and with a three-four-or more-way race in November certainly possible.

Iowa Is Fun, But New Hampshire's The Real Deal

We'll certainly enjoy the spectacle unfolding tonight in Iowa, and will no doubt put up a post or two late tonight on what it all means with New Hampshire just five days away.

But we can already tell you this much: it doesn't mean all that much. Indeed, it would be kind of neat if Huckabee and Edwards won tonight, just to prove the point, because we doubt either could get the nomination even if they do win.

New Hampshire is where the real action is, as David Broder points out in today's Washington Post. (See "Wait For New Hampshire.") In the past 30 years, Iowa has rarely picked the eventual nominee when there's a wide open contest in either party, whereas New Hampshire has often been on the mark.

Still, momentum out of Iowa will count for something going into New Hampshire.

And, it really doesn't pay to simply skip Iowa because--Rudy Giuliani, are you listening?--then you're name is out of play at a time of immense media interest. Does Rudy G. REALLY think he's getting more mileage out of some appearance in Florida that's getting NO coverage, while the Florida media, along with everyone else, is reporting on what's happening in Iowa (and then New Hampshire)?

If anything, the real indictment against Giuliani from this whole process is that he lacks the judgment to hire good people, and the competence to vet their advice. If that sounds like a familiar problem that our current President has had for at least the past seven years, then you realize just how scary a Rudy presidency could be.

Happy Election Year!

It's a bit weird sitting here in a New Year, nursing a hangover, uninspired by the football bowl fare, and staring at the Iowa caucuses JUST TWO DAYS AWAY.

Let's hope that the political parties fix this insanity before the 2012 election.

Normally, we'd take New Year's Day off, but with Iowa looming and New Hampshire just a week away, we'll give you a quick update:

Democrats

On the Democratic side, Hillary, Obama and Edwards are basically tied. Polls can only get you so far in a caucus state--the outcome will depend on turnout, particularly, who gets their voters out Thursday night. Hillary's campaign is well-organized, which could give it an edge, but we think all three campaigns will do well. (And Democrats will turn out in twice the numbers of Republicans--consistently, in campaign coverage, you see that the Democratic rallies are far bigger than those of the Republicans in the state.)

We expect the three front-runners to end up very close to each other, with roughly 30% apiece. If Hillary wins, even by 1%, it's a victory for her. If she comes in third, trailing by 5% or more, it's a loss. Obama is fine if he wins or comes in a close second to Hillary. Edwards MUST win or he's probably done--he's staked his whole campaign on Iowa for the past four years. He'll declare some kind of victory if he trails Obama, but still beats Hillary, but it won't be enough to get him any traction in New Hampshire or South Carolina.

Speaking of New Hampshire, a poll came out today that could be very good news for Hillary in the Granite State: it has Hillary up 14 points over Obama at 36% to 22%, with Edwards far behind at 14%.

Republicans

On the GOP side, it looks like Huckabee has stabilized with a small lead over Romney, but again, it will all depend on the ground game. Romney has the organization, but Huckabee's followers have the fervor, so we'll see which wins out. The rest of the field is competing simply to come in third.

A big win for Huckabee would be beating Romney by anything greater than 5%. A big win for Romney would similary be beating Huckabee by 5% or more. Anything closer is basically a tie, although at this point Romney probably gets a boost by anything that can be called a "win" in Iowa, even if by the slimmest of margins.

The rest of the guys are competing for third place. McCain would get a good boost going into New Hampshire with a third place showing, with bonus points for anything better than 15%. Thompson MUST get third to have any chance of going on--and we don't think he'll get it. Giuliani really needs to avoid an embarassing sixth place finish. And, we wouldn't rule out Ron Paul pulling off a bit of shocker by coming in third himself--he has a dedicated corps and they just might pull it off.

For some of the Republican candidates, the Iowa results will be important going into New Hampshire. Romney desperately needs the win in Iowa to shore up his slipping candidacy in NH--indeed, a new poll there has McCain leading Romney 31%-25%. Likewise, McCain would benefit from a third place finish in Iowa, but he doesn't really need it. The rest of the field isn't really competitive in New Hampshire, although Ron Paul could, again, pull off third place in New Hampshire, which would be a big embarrassment to Giuliani and Thompson. Meanwhile, if Huckabee could pull off third in New Hampshire, it would give him some help going into South Carolina.

One other thing: what if Romney, per his campaign plan, does pull off wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, no matter how small the margins? He would be well on his way, but to where? David Brooks has a good column in today's NYT, "Road To Nowhere," positing that Romney's selection by the GOP would be a disaster for the party. We think that's right. It's an interesting analysis that pegs Romney pretty well.

Huck's Christmas Message Will Trump Romney's Scrooge

Fascinating. A few weeks ago we noted that this will be the first Holiday campaign, with candidates falling all over themselves to get voters' attention in Iowa and New Hampshire in the midst of the busy, festive holiday season.

Now, in Iowa, we see two very different strategies in play. Which will work?

On the one hand, we have the big, heavily financed, professionally run Romney campaign. If you somehow thought Romney was going to bring the least bit of anything new to American politics, think again--he's W Bush incarnate. It's the classic corporate campaign. (Hillary, too.)

And what is the Mittster doing? He's gone completely negative, with harsh campaign ads attacking Huckabee on immigration, crime and taxes. It's standard fare from the hardened professionals who run campaigns these days. Panicked by Huckabee's rise in past Romney in the polls, they go to the typical measure of the desperate: tear the other guy down. (Romney's hardly unique in this regard--we're just saying he sure isn't different.)

[Down in South Carolina, the usual litany of campaign dirty tricks is in full swing on the GOP side, and you can bet that no campaign is doing it more than Romney's, which early on signed up the state's hardest core political trench fighters to do it's bidding.]

Will Romney's negative campaigning work? Perhaps--it will move a few folks off Huckabee, but not toward Romney. Iowans typically don't like negativity, but you can bet they really don't like it during the Holiday season.

Now, what about Huckabee, he of the scrappy, underfinanced, ad hoc campaign? Huckabee came up with the idea of doing a Christmas commercial. Sitting in a living room in front of a fire, wearing a red sweater, the Huckster starts off with "Are you about worn out of all the television commercials you’re seeing? Mostly about politics. I don’t blame you.”

He then goes on to discuss "what really matters" this time of year, which, to him--and a huge chunk of GOP caucus goers in Iowa--is "the celebration of the birth of Christ and being with our family and our friends."

Here's the ad, if you're interested (or go to YouTube here):



Despite it's obviousness as a Holiday season political ad, it's quite brilliant. Why didn't anybody else think of it? Because, of course, hardened political consultants are all grinches at heart, all Scrooges whose only interest in true religion is as a demographic target. It's just not in their playbook.

Personally, we don't really like his ad at all--what about those who aren't Christians? But we're going to bet that it will be a huge hit among the voters that matter in Iowa for a Republican candidate, and that it will make Romney look like a total schmuck for running his bitter, negative advertising.

In about two weeks, we'll know which strategy worked.

Right Said Fred?

We didn't watch the silly Des Moines Register Republican debate yesterday afternoon (nor the Democratic one today)--really, how many "debates" do we need? And if we're going to have them, why not when someone will watch, and why not a format that makes sense?

Anyway, it seems all the pundits who DID watch say Fred Thompson "won." (That may be more a reflection on how badly he'd done before--he exceeded everyone's by now low expectations, kind of like "W" in his last debate with Kerry.)

So, with his new exclusive focus on Iowa and his big win in a terrible debate (format-wise) that practically no one watched, will Fred make a surge and peak at just the right time?

No. Team Fred (which must be secretly being advised by all-time loser Bob Shrum) says their strategy is to come in third in Iowa. Thompson supporter Mary Matalin says the Fredster just needs a "solid third" and adviser Rich Galen says "we don't even have to come in second." (For more, see Byron York in National Review.)

Wow, now that's shooting for the stars--third place in Iowa. Talk about setting the bar low.

Let's see. Right now, Fred is polling last--in SIXTH place--in New Hampshire. What if he loses to Duncan Hunter there? And he's plummeted in the most recent ARG national poll to a mere 6%.

Then after New Hampshire there's Michigan and Nevada, where Fred does no better than fourth in the polls. Even in the first Southern primary--SC--he's polling third. It's hard to see how a third place finish in Iowa will propel Thompson anywhere special.

Now, if he somehow managed to pull off SECOND in Iowa, well, then--we might start giving the guy a chance.

We will say this. We remember a cold December night in 2003, at a Kerry fundraiser, where all of us were down in the dumps, basically saying, "this is it, too bad." Things do change--less than two months later, Kerry trumped Dean in Iowa and the rest was history (thanks to Shrum). So we'll give Fred 20-1.

Newsweek Poll: Huckabee Up By 22 In Iowa!

Good lord--check out this just released Newsweek poll of Iowa voters, with Huckabee up 22(!) points over Romney (39-17 among likely caucus-goers).

This may be an outlier, but nothing on its face suggests that.

If anything, the results even more strongly favor Huckabee, because his supporters are both more locked in and more likely to attend the caucus.

Maybe there's something weird in the Iowa water.

Prez. Contest--More Polls With Huckabee, Obama On The Move

As we write this, some crazed jackass has taken a couple hostages in Hillary Clinton's New Hampshire campaign office. We hope this ends with one guy--who turns out to be just a crazy--in jail and no one else hurt.

In today's political news, more polls, of course. What to make of them?

Interpreting small changes from poll to poll is dangerous, since there is a lot of data "noise" in these polls. More important are trends. A consistent gain or loss by one candidate over a series of polls is probably real. Likewise, a big move between two polls taken by the same organization may mean something--at least we know the methodology is the same between those polls.

[Methodology is more important in some places than others. In Iowa, for example, methodology matters a lot, because a pollster is trying to measure preferences amongst those who will actually turn out on caucus day, which is a very small minority of voters. Just asking every recipient of a telephone call in Iowa who they prefer won't be very accurate in projecting caucus results. The various polling organizations all use somewhat different approaches to identifying those most likely to attend their caucuses.]

With those caveats, here's what we see in a round of new polls from Iowa, NH and SC (by the way, if you want the best place to get up to date polling info, go to Realclearpolitics.com):

First, Obama may now be in the lead in Iowa. Probably better to call it a tie, but his recent strength in Iowa polls has been consistent. And Edwards isn't far behind. However, Obama's strength in Iowa hasn't translated into surge elsewhere, at least not yet: in both NH and SC Hillary still has a comfortable lead that hasn't changed much.

In SC, a Clemson University poll had Obama only two points back, trailing Hillary's 19% with 17%. But three other polls by professional pollsters--two before Clemson and one after--all consistently have Hillary in the 43-47% range with Obama in the 21-33% range. We have to view the Clemson poll as an outlier, although it may show that among the hardest core voters who have really made up their minds, Obama is closer to Hillary. (There were a lot of undecided voters in the Clemson poll.)

In New Hampshire, the last seven polls are remarkably consistent. Hillary ranges from 34-38% while Obama ranges from 21-26%, a comfortable lead for Hillary that hasn't budged over the past month.

Still, what we've seen before is a delay between moves in Iowa and those elsewhere. If Obama starts to move in New Hampshire, then watch out!

On the Republican side, the story continues to be Huckabee. He's a good example of the Iowa delay factor. After a steady rise in Iowa that didn't appear to be translating to other states, Huckabee is now getting a momentum effect, helped by not only Iowa, but tons of media attention, his debate performances and his good humored deflection of attacks on him.

Bear in mind, no one had ever heard of Jimmy Carter before Iowa in 1976, and he went on to win the whole thing. We might have to start thinking about how Huckabee would play in a general election. But not yet.

Here's what the most recent polling data shows: in Iowa, an ARG poll--the most recent--has Huckabee one point behind Romney. Consistent with other recent polls, this means the two men are tied. But Huckabee has an edge--in the ARG poll, 89% of Huck's voters say their support is "definite" compared to 56% for Romney. And, in other polls, the Huckmeister's support is greater amongst previous caucus goers--considered the most reliably likely to attend again. In short, we think Huckabee will be able to get his supporters to the caucus rooms, and if so, he will best Romney by a small margin.

In New Hampshire, Huckabee is moving up fast. In the Rasmussen and ARG polls, Huckabee is at 13% and 14%, up from 10% and 7% at the beginning of the month. His support is not coming at Romney's expense, however--the Mittster has remained consistently in the mid-30's all month.

How's this for a scenario: Huckabee wins Iowa and comes in second in NH? Then he'd be for real, for sure.

Finally, in SC, a new ARG poll has Huckabee at 18%, up from just 1% in an ARG poll a month earlier. Now that's movement! His support came from Romney, Thompson and and McCain.

If the overall ARG results for SC are accurate, then Thompson clearly has to worry. SC is make or break for the Thompson campaign, yet he's running in FOURTH place, barely ahead of McCain. That said, other recent polls had the Fredster as high as second place, but Thompson really needs to move to SC for the duration if he's going to have any shot.

Huckabee also leapt into second place in a recent Florida poll, behind Giuliani, which is consistent with his trend around the country.

What we don't have is any particularly recent--or robust--data from the two states that will vote between NH and SC: Nevada (caucus) and Michigan (primary). No one's really campaigning much in those states, so why worry.

So, with five weeks to go before the real voting starts, Huckabee's the story of the moment, along with Obama. Iowa is going to be tight all the way around. And the media's going to have something better to write about than holiday traffic, gloomy Christmas retail sales and whether we'll have a white X-mas.

Huckabee's Significant Edge Over Romney In Iowa

In the Washington Post/ABC News Iowa poll of Republicans reported on today, Romney leads Huckabee by 28% to 24%. But if you go inside the numbers, Huckabee has the edge. (That's the former fat Huckman to the right.)

In Iowa, the most reliable indicator of whether someone reached in a poll will actually attend the caucuses is whether they've attended in the past. Significantly, Romney has a huge lead over everyone else among "first-time caucus goers," with 37% to 14% for his nearest rival. In contrast, Huckabee has the lead among those who "have attended before," although his lead over Romney there is only about five points.

What that means, at least if past is prologue, is that Huckabee is better positioned to capitalize on his support than Romney, and thus could pull off a surprise on Caucus Day.

Huckabee's sudden strong support among Iowa evangelicals contrasts with his weakness in South Carolina, where Romney has recently shown strength. However, if Huckabee manages to pull off the upset in Iowa, all that will change and Romney will be in big trouble.

Who would benefit most from the Huckster winning Iowa? We think McCain, as sober Republicans in New Hampshire would be likely to coalesce around the most experienced of the traditional GOP members in the field. Just a hunch. But wouldn't it be weirdly fun if, after all this, the Elephant race came down to McCain versus Huckabee?

Iowa: Huckabee In Reach

The latest Iowa poll, from American Research Group, shows Mike Huckabee within reach of Mitt Romney on the GOP side, with Romney leading 26% to 24%.

If the Huckster can best Romney in Iowa, all bets are off. Romney has been favored for several months now, and while he'd probably still win in New Hampshire, it would be Huckabee emerging with the big mo'. Indeed, a close second by Huckabee will still be the lead story, unless Obama or Edwards can upset Hillary on the Dem side.

We'd still put our money on Romney--he has built a terrific on the ground organization in Iowa, while Huckabee is playing catch up. Those details matter in a caucus state.

The poll also shows danger for Giuliani and Thompson--both of whom we've been warning are in a strategic quandary because they've ignored Iowa to their great peril. McCain, at 10%, trails Rudy and Fred by just one point. If McCain beats either or both, it's going to be very bad for them going into New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. Neither can afford to be in fourth, much less fifth(!) place in the first contest.