pageok
pageok
pageok
Huckabee Declared Projected Iowa Winner.--

Fox News is presenting Huckabee as the projected winner in Iowa—"an early blowout for Huckabee."

The Democratic results so far show three candidates in a virtual tie.

1st UPDATE (9:05pm ET): With 25% of precincts reporting, Obama leads Edwards and Clinton by 1%. Obama also led in Fox entrance polls. And I see that Des Moines County and Johnson County (Iowa City) have yet to report, both presumably areas of strength for Obama.

2d UPDATE (9:13pm ET): With half of the counts in, Obama now leads by 2%.

3d UPDATE (9:17pm ET): Still virtually no results from Story County (Ames-Iowa State U.), Des Moines County, and Johnson County (Iowa City-U of Iowa).

4th UPDATE (9:22pm ET): Still nothing from Linn County (Cedar Rapids). Obama leads by 4% over Clinton and Edwards.

5th UPDATE (9:27pm ET): I should note that the reports showing 71% of the Democratic precincts reporting is even more misleading than usual. Even within particular counties, it appears that the smaller precincts may be in, but the larger precincts are still not reporting. All this looks good for Obama and bad for Edwards.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Obama Declared Winner.--
  2. Huckabee Declared Projected Iowa Winner.--
liberty (mail) (www):
Obama as a winner doesn't frighten me; Huckabee does.

Its not national, but it still scares the bejeezus out of me-- and should of all libertarians.
1.3.2008 9:28pm
CrazyTrain (mail):
Watching the Republican establishment's freak-out over Huckabee has been really fun. After relying on people who have the exact same views as Huck for the last 30 years to form their electoral coalition, they are all acting like Huck is some sort of rogue who represents views completely out of the mainstream. I can't wait for the establishment's freak out to get more out of control in light of what just happened. Good for the fundamentalists for finally putting up on one of their own, standing by him, and realizing that the Republicans, after controlling the federal government for six years never gave a crap about their issues.
1.3.2008 9:35pm
liberty (mail) (www):
well, i'm not republican establishment (by any stretch) but he seems pretty different to me.
1.3.2008 9:44pm
DiversityHire:
At least the Democrats made a good choice. The Republicans need to get serious and send this evil Pat-Buchanan/Jimmy-Carter-in-Bill-Clinton-clothing back to Hope.
1.3.2008 9:46pm
LM (mail):

Watching the Republican establishment's freak-out over Huckabee has been really fun.

Schadenfreude is nothing to be proud of, but after everything we've endured for the past 7 years, I'll gloat tonight and repent tomorrow.
1.3.2008 9:53pm
John T. (mail):
I should note that the reports showing 71% of the Democratic precincts reporting is even more misleading than usual. Even within particular counties, it appears that the smaller precincts may be in, but the larger precincts are still not reporting.


True, although OTOH the rather complicated system that the Democratic Party of Iowa uses for the caucuses may means that this is somewhat less misleading than usual. Turnout of caucus goers doesn't really matter-- each precinct has a fixed number of delegates to award based on historical turnout in general elections, etc. That means that it is possible to construct an absolute number of delegates awarded based on the available results in a way that would be more difficult with the one man one vote system that the Iowa GOP uses.
1.3.2008 9:55pm
Sean O'Hara (mail) (www):

After relying on people who have the exact same views as Huck for the last 30 years to form their electoral coalition, they are all acting like Huck is some sort of rogue who represents views completely out of the mainstream.


I don't think conservatives are cold towards Huckabee because he's an evangelical. It's because he's a nanny-stater who thinks it's the government's job to help us, good and hard.
1.3.2008 10:02pm
Finally:
At long last we'll be done with all the Ron Paul nonsense. There is simply no conspiracy theory possible that explains getting 5th place and 10%.
1.3.2008 10:07pm
Prosecutorial Indiscretion:
It's because he doesn't know a darn thing about foreign policy. It's simply not acceptable to waste the first half of an administration teaching the President the basics of world geography. Mike Huckabee is a good man, but he's the wrong man to be president.
1.3.2008 10:08pm
Frater Plotter:
I think it's interesting how much more the Democrats have a set of clear leaders than the Republicans do. There's a clear divide between the three leading Democratic candidates and all the others. There is no such clear dividing line among the Republicans.
1.3.2008 10:10pm
neurodoc:
Good for the fundamentalists for finally putting up on one of their own, standing by him, and realizing that the Republicans, after controlling the federal government for six years never gave a crap about their issues.
Gee, the Repubs in Congress and the WH sure had me fooled. What would things be like today if they had given the crap about the fundamentalists' issues you say they didn't give?
1.3.2008 10:17pm
CDU (mail):
There's a clear divide between the three leading Democratic candidates and all the others. There is no such clear dividing line among the Republicans.
I think you could draw a dividing line that marks Huckabee and Romney as the leaders and separates them from the rest of the pack pretty easily. What makes the Republicans different is that the dividing line means less because candidates that did poorly tonight look likely to do considerably better in New Hampshire. McCain and Giuliani were never destined to be winners in Iowa, but they've always polled much better in New Hampshire (though at the moment McCain's doing much better than Giuliani).

On the Democratic side, on the other hand, the race in New Hampshire looks pretty much like the race in Iowa. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have a considerable lead over the other candidates (though Edwards isn't doing as well there).

Of course, all this could change, based on how people in New Hampsire see tonights results. At the moment, however, New Hampsire is Iowa redux for the Democrats and a completely different race for the Republicans.
1.3.2008 10:23pm
legaleagle (mail) (www):
"At long last we'll be done with all the Ron Paul nonsense."

Paul will be in the race long after Hunter, Thompson, and McCain drop out. And he beat Guliani tonight. Ron Paul is here to stay. Get used to it.
1.3.2008 10:23pm
Finally:
"Paul will be in the race long after Hunter, Thompson, and McCain drop out. And he beat Guliani tonight. Ron Paul is here to stay. Get used to it."

Uh-huh. But we won't have to hear anybody trot out that tired line about the polls being wrong because Ron Paul won some online poll with 406,235,021 votes cast.

Sorry. The conspiracy theory that the "MSM" polls are all rigged is done and debunked and it's clear that nobody actually likes Ron Paul other than the Internet crew.
1.3.2008 10:38pm
jim:
The Huckabee first place and Romney second place were pretty largely expected. Does anyone here know if the 3rd, 4th, 5th placers caused any surprise? Last I checked it was McCain and Thompson at around 13% and Paul at 10%. Does that presage anything going into New Hampshire?
1.3.2008 10:40pm
ChrisIowa (mail):
Just back from the caucus.

Very large turnout, standing room only. I'm sure we exceeded the fire marshal's capacity. The locations for the caucuses were not designed to accommodate that much traffic. I parked four blocks from the school, on a side street. the school parking lot was full long before. After the vote was taken, most people left, before any platform discussion. There were about 300 there, maybe 20 stayed for the platform issues.

I would discount Huckabee's results, and would not expect them to be repeated elsewhere. The evangelicals took over the Republican party of Iowa long ago, marginalizing anyone that was not anti-abortion. They were out in full-force tonight. Abortion is the only issue they care about, and they went for Huckabee as the only pure play on that issue. This was borne out in some of the discussions after the vote.
1.3.2008 10:42pm
legaleagle (mail) (www):
Fine, Finally, but the vast majority of Ron Paul supporters have never believed that conspiracy theory, much less Dr. Paul himself.
1.3.2008 10:43pm
LM (mail):

The conspiracy theory that the "MSM" polls are all rigged is done and debunked and it's clear that nobody actually likes Ron Paul other than the Internet crew.

How little you understand about conspiracy theories.
1.3.2008 10:45pm
Chris Bell (mail) (www):
jim, McCain might edge Thompson, which would be a surprise.
1.3.2008 10:46pm
Truth Seeker:
I know it can't happen, but if Huckabee is the Rep. nominee I'll vote for the Libertarian Party nominee, whoever it is. First time since 1996. Didn't Dole also win Iowa?
1.3.2008 11:00pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
The conspiracy theory that the "MSM" polls are all rigged is done and debunked and it's clear that nobody actually likes Ron Paul other than the Internet crew.
Given that Fox News decided to exclude Paul, and only Paul, from the NH debate, I don't think too many Paul people are going to be quieted.
1.3.2008 11:09pm
legaleagle (mail) (www):
Some interesting CNN entrance poll results for Ron Paul:

Among self-labeled "moderates" who voted Republican, Paul led in a tie with Romney (26% each).

Among voters aged 17-29, Paul got 21% of the vote, versus McCain with 7% and Thompson with just 4%.

Dr. Paul got 54% of the vote among voters for Republicans who said they are "angry" with President Bush, versus only 13% for McCain and even less for the other Republican candidates.

Paul scored higher among voters whose top issue was "Economy" than among voters whose top issue was "War in Iraq"

Paul at 29% led all the Republicans among voters who labeled themselves as "Independent" (vs. 19% for Romney and 17% for Huckabee).

Compared to other Republicans Paul had a higher percentage of low-income than high-income voters (interesting in light of Paul's fundraising prowess).

0% of Paul voters labeled themselves as "liberal" (contrary to theory that much of Paul's support comes from anti-war liberals crossing over from the Democrats).

More here.
1.3.2008 11:28pm
Mark Bahner (www):
OK, I'll modify my reductio ad absurdum argument:

http://volokh.com/posts/1199296568.shtml#309607

Suppose, in a general election, it's Obama and Huckabee, and Ron Paul as a Libertarian. Who should a small-l libertarian vote for?

To me, it's pretty clear. A libertarian should vote for the Libertarian.
1.3.2008 11:31pm
Thorley Winston (mail) (www):
I don't think conservatives are cold towards Huckabee because he's an evangelical. It's because he's a nanny-stater who thinks it's the government's job to help us, good and hard.


Agreed, some people may have strong feelings about social issues but at the end of the day 95+% of what the federal government does involves either (a) economics or (b) foreign policy. While I don't doubt Huckabee would be better than the nutter who won the Democrat race in Iowa when it comes to foreign policy, I'm no longer willing to accept the "lesser evil" when it comes to economics. I will only vote for a candidate who is making entitlement reform and consumer driven health care a key part of their platform. I don't care about their proposals for tax cuts or tax reform, it's the spending and reduction of the regulatory burden on the market that I care most about.
1.3.2008 11:43pm
Mark Bahner (www):
The conspiracy theory that the "MSM" polls are all rigged is done and debunked and it's clear that nobody actually likes Ron Paul other than the Internet crew.


I'm not at all surprised that Ron Paul didn't do better in Iowa. The state's economy is hugely dependent on agricultural subsidies. Plus, his pointing out that abortion is not a federal issue, but a state issue per the Constitution, does not impress all the people who don't care about the Constitution.
1.3.2008 11:48pm
Oren:
<blockquote> To me, it's pretty clear. A libertarian should vote for the Libertarian. </blockquote> In a plurality voting system that's just not the case and really never will be.
1.3.2008 11:50pm
ChrisIowa (mail):

I don't care about their proposals for tax cuts or tax reform, it's the spending and reduction of the regulatory burden on the market that I care most about.


The issue that gave Romney the early lead in Iowa was spending and his promise to Veto excess spending. I would estimate a lot of people agree with you.

Unfortunately that issue was not emphasized in the later days of the campaign, which I think was a strategic mistake on his part.
1.3.2008 11:52pm
Mr. X (www):
Uh-huh. But we won't have to hear anybody trot out that tired line about the polls being wrong because Ron Paul won some online poll with 406,235,021 votes cast.


But the polls were wrong. Paul had 7% in the RealClearPolitics average in Iowa, but got 10% in the caucus. It's not off by an order of magnitude or anything, but it does show that the scientific polls underestimate his support by at least 30% or so.
1.3.2008 11:52pm
Mr. X (www):
The Huckabee first place and Romney second place were pretty largely expected. Does anyone here know if the 3rd, 4th, 5th placers caused any surprise? Last I checked it was McCain and Thompson at around 13% and Paul at 10%. Does that presage anything going into New Hampshire?


The 3/4/5 was not a surprise as much as the gap between Huck and Romney.

As far as presaging New Hampshire, probably not. Thompson is DOA in NH and will probably do as poorly as Giuliani did in Iowa (almost 4%!!!). McCain and Paul will do better than in Iowa, probably at the direct expense of Huckabee.
1.3.2008 11:56pm
Iowan:
FWIW, Polk County is home to Des Moines, not Des Moines County, which is home to Burlington and the mouth of the Des Moines River.
1.4.2008 12:03am
Oren:
<blockquote>But the polls were wrong. Paul had 7% in the RealClearPolitics average in Iowa, but got 10% in the caucus. It's not off by an order of magnitude or anything, but it does show that the scientific polls underestimate his support by at least 30% or so.</blockquote>

The poll was +/- 5%, so the actual result is well within the range. As for quoting it as a percent, that's just bad math -- any polling method is always going to have a higher percentage error for options with very low support.
1.4.2008 12:04am
CDU (mail) (www):
But the polls were wrong. Paul had 7% in the RealClearPolitics average in Iowa, but got 10% in the caucus. It's not off by an order of magnitude or anything, but it does show that the scientific polls underestimate his support by at least 30% or so.


Considering the standard of error in most polls is +/-3%, we can't really say that the difference between 7% and 10% means anything.
1.4.2008 12:08am
The General:
Where do Romney voters go when he drops out? Not Huck, some to Rudy, but probably to McCain as the "safe" choice, which probably makes McCain the nominee and he'll very likely lose to Oprahbama.
1.4.2008 12:09am
Mr. X (www):
The poll was +/- 5%, so the actual result is well within the range. As for quoting it as a percent, that's just bad math -- any polling method is always going to have a higher percentage error for options with very low support.


Not poll, average of last five polls (technically, it was 7.3%). Unless you're claiming that the MoE randomly broke low for all five, that looks like the polls came in about 30% low.

It doesn't show any deliberate conspiracy, just the danger of how you choose a "likely voter" sample and ignore independents who could break for Paul. That effect was about +30% in Iowa, but it remains to be seen how it'll work in NH.
1.4.2008 12:10am
Mark Bahner (www):
In a plurality voting system that's just not the case and really never will be.


So you're saying in a hypothetical general election of Obama/Huckabee/Paul, a libertarian should vote for...?
1.4.2008 12:16am
Snake (mail):
"Where do Romney voters go when he drops out? Not Huck, some to Rudy, but probably to McCain as the "safe" choice, which probably makes McCain the nominee and he'll very likely lose to Oprahbama."

I won't vote for a pro-choice candidate, I won't ever vote for huckabigot, and McCain takes glee is sticking it to conservatives. Thompson or Hunter are the only other candidates I could support. Better to let the democrats control the entire government so they get the blame than let any of those guys take control of the party.

What a completely depressing night. What has happened to the GOP.
1.4.2008 12:33am
Mark Bahner (www):
What has happened to the GOP.


The majority of the GOP is composed of big-government social conservatives. It's been that way for more than a decade. The voting in Iowa isn't very surprising.
1.4.2008 12:44am
JB:
What has happened to the GOP? The breakdown of the unholy alliance of small-government types with right-wing evangelicals.

For decades, the Republicans have won because their factions tolerated one another, while the Democrats tore one another apart on the basis of ideological purity*. Now the Dems are increasingly tolerant to one another, while the Republicans are at daggers drawn.

*This is not completely true, but the shibboleths have retreated to the Democrat fringe.
1.4.2008 12:47am
Thoughtful (mail):
The real story out of Iowa on the Republican side is "3 way tie for third place, [including one guy we go out of our way to lampoon and otherwise not mention]".

I've no doubt Paul would have beaten Thompson and McCain were it not for the vital Civil War question... :-)

CNN had two pie charts showing candidate results:

On the Democratic side, you had little slivers of 1% and 2% dutifully labelled Richardson and Biden.

On the Republican side you had Huckabee, Romney, and, at 13% each, Thompson and McCain. Then there was this large white slice, bigger than McCain and Thompson's, most of which went to Paul, not labeled at all.

Surely any objective observer would see an asymmetry there...
1.4.2008 1:10am
Thoughtful (mail):
The real story out of Iowa on the Republican side is "3 way tie for third place, [including one guy we go out of our way to lampoon and otherwise not mention]".

I've no doubt Paul would have beaten Thompson and McCain were it not for the vital Civil War question... :-)

CNN had two pie charts showing candidate results:

On the Democratic side, you had little slivers of 1% and 2% dutifully labelled Richardson and Biden.

On the Republican side you had Huckabee, Romney, and, at 13% each, Thompson and McCain. Then there was this large white slice, bigger than McCain and Thompson's, most of which went to Paul, not labeled at all.

Surely any objective observer would see an asymmetry there...
1.4.2008 1:10am
Thorley Winston (mail) (www):
Where do Romney voters go when he drops out? Not Huck, some to Rudy, but probably to McCain as the "safe" choice, which probably makes McCain the nominee and he'll very likely lose to Oprahbama.


I think it's a bit too early to be predicting a Romney withdrawal. Despite the attention Iowa gets, its reliability as a predictor of who ultimately wins leaves a bit to be desired. Wyoming's this Saturday, New Hampshire's next week and after that Michigan and a few other States until Super Tuesday on February 5 when I'll finally be able to cast a vote. Romney's said he's in it until then and I see no reason to reevaluate him (or any other candidate) until after Super Tues.

FTR though, my preference remains Mitt Romney, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Fred Thompson.
1.4.2008 1:12am
Cornellian (mail):
I think the Republicans ought to nominate Huckabee. He's the logical inheritor of what the Republican party has become - consumed with a few hot button social issues and almost totally oblivious to fiscal discipline, limited government, federalism, the rule of law or virtually anything else that conservatives used to care about. Let them nominate Huckabee, let him carry the banner into the next election and let's see what the American people think of what the Republican party has become.
1.4.2008 2:08am
Christopher Cooke (mail):
Cornellian, that is a bit harsh about Huckabee, if not about the Republican party. He seems like a nice person, if a bit extreme on certain views and wildly contradictory on others. Naturally talented, but unseasoned, on the national stage, is my assessment. Part of his appeal is that he has a common touch and decency about him that comes through when he talks. Not arrogant, or robotic, or calculating, like some of the other candidates.
1.4.2008 2:22am
Cornellian (mail):
Yes, Huckabee has mastered the art of looking natural on television. As for whether he's a nice guy, he comes across that way but that's not what people from Arkansas say about him. Anyway, you can be nice and still completely unconcerned about fiscal responsibility, limited government, federalism etc.

It's hard to believe that the party that still likes to portray itself as champions of adherence to the text of the Constitution would nominate a guy who supports a federal abortion ban on the basis that you can't have something be immoral in one state but moral in another but as I've said, that's what the Republican party has become.
1.4.2008 2:38am
Mark Bahner (www):

He's the logical inheritor of what the Republican party has become - consumed with a few hot button social issues and almost totally oblivious to fiscal discipline, limited government, federalism, the rule of law or virtually anything else that conservatives used to care about.



Cornellian, that is a bit harsh about Huckabee, if not about the Republican party. He seems like a nice person, if a bit extreme on certain views and wildly contradictory on others.


Anyway, you can be nice and still completely unconcerned about fiscal responsibility, limited government, federalism etc.


Exactly. The Republican Party (and the Democratic Party, for that matter) should not be nominating a presidential candidate on the basis of whether he (or she! ;-)) is a "good guy." They should be nominating a presidential candidate on whether he/she will best perform his/her only real function, as stated in the Oath of Office (which the Founders thought important enough to even include the exact wording in the Constitution):

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Mike Huckabee (even more than other Republican candidates) is clearly ill-suited to that task. (Although he probably will perform the task to the "best of my ability"...about like a car mechanic would perform brain surgery "to the best of my ability.")

Here is a complete quote on the abortion issue to which Cornellian referred:


Q: Thompson and McCain both talk about leaving abortion to the states, the way it was before Roe vs. Wade ever became the law of the land in the first place. Why isn't that good enough?

A: Well, it's the logic of the Civil War. If morality is the point here, and if it's right or wrong, not just a political question, then you can't have 50 different versions of what's right and what's wrong. Again, that's what the whole Civil War was about. Can you have states saying slavery is OK, other states saying it's not? If abortion is a moral issue--and for many of us it is, and I know for others it's not. So if you decide that it's just a political issue, then that's a perfectly acceptable, logical conclusion. But for those of us for whom this is a moral question, you can't simply have 50 different versions of what's right.
Source: Fox News Sunday: 2007 "Choosing the President" interviews Nov 18, 2007


Mike Huckabee on the issues..."no states rights for moral issues like abortion"

From that quote alone, I don't think there's any mystery to why the VC folks could not find any "libertarianish" law professor who supports Mike Huckabee.

P.S. There's a bit more mystery why they couldn't find a "libertarianish" law professor who supports Ron Paul...but that's another story! ;-)
1.4.2008 8:41am
njones:

The evangelicals took over the Republican party of Iowa long ago, marginalizing anyone that was not anti-abortion.


Speaking of conspiracy theories...

You'd have to show me a poll showing most GOP Iowans are pro-choice before I believe this.

My hunch is that pro-choice Iowans in the GOP marginalize themselves by holding a position most people in their party reject.

So is it really a "take over" if one faction that happens to represent a majority view in the party controlls most of the party organs? Now if the pro-lifers "took over" in a New England state, I'd agree with you that it was probably a "take over" but IOWA?
1.4.2008 10:12am
Cornellian (mail):
My hunch is that pro-choice Iowans in the GOP marginalize themselves by holding a position most people in their party reject.

My hunch is that there are quite a lot of pro-choice Iowa Republicans (or at least somewhat pro-choice) but abortion isn't what motivates their political decisions. They're Republicans despite the party's position on abortion, not because of it.

Or to be really cynical, they know that Republicans like to campaign against Roe v Wade but don't actually want to see it reversed as it's been a cornerstone of Republican fund raising for many years.
1.4.2008 11:17am
Hans Bader (mail):
The people who voted for Huckabee shot themselves in the foot.

Huckabee will appoint liberal, big-government judges. As he has often said, his favorite judge is 8th Circuit Judge Lavenski Smith, whom he wants to appoint to the Supreme Court, but who was described even by a (liberal) Minnesota bar publication as a moderate-liberal based on his record on the Arkansas Supreme Court.

Smith is also described as liberal by others, such as Matthew Friendly, who pointed to his liberal rulings (on the federal 8th Circuit Court of Appeals) on social issues and against employers in race cases even where the evidence against them was quite weak.

Huckabee will appoint Smith because he harbors racial guilt feelings, and Smith is black.

In the Frye case, Smith ruled that non-intrusive anti-abortion speech can be restricted.

I don't want to ban all abortions, and am not a social conservative, but even I wouldn't let anti-abortion SPEECH be restricted. Even if abortion should be legal (as I think it should be in the first trimester), speech protesting it should be legal, too.

That's what free speech is all about.

Do anti-abortion social conservatives really want to give away their free speech rights by voting for Huckabee?
1.4.2008 11:23am
Dan Weber (www):
The people who voted for Huckabee shot themselves in the foot. Huckabee will appoint liberal, big-government judges.

Well, maybe that's what those voters want.
1.4.2008 11:32am
ChrisIowa (mail):

You'd have to show me a poll showing most GOP Iowans are pro-choice before I believe this.


So I take it you've not been to a Republican convention in Iowa? I have. 1972, 1976, 1984, 1992, 2000, 2004.

There aren't a majority of pro-choice people in the Republican party in Iowa because they have been marginalized and forced out through the years, starting in the 1980's. And also as the former leadership retired. A Republican convention can be a very unpleasant place to be if you're pro-choice.
1.4.2008 11:43am
ChrisIowa (mail):

My hunch is that there are quite a lot of pro-choice Iowa Republicans (or at least somewhat pro-choice) but abortion isn't what motivates their political decisions. They're Republicans despite the party's position on abortion, not because of it.


There are some, I would say not a lot. There was a poll mentioned last night that said that 60 per cent of those attending the Republican caucuses were evangelicals. Those who are pro-choice pick their issues and stay in the party due to the stance on economic and defense issues. Roe provides cover by limiting the scope of any anti-choice legislation. The election(s) following the overturning of Roe will be an electoral disaster for the Republican party.
1.4.2008 11:52am
annon6:
Someone mentioned the Saturday Wyoming caucus for the republicans. Why isn't that getting any press? There are 14 delegates at stake, one more than Huckabee won last night.
1.4.2008 11:57am
Alan K. Henderson (mail) (www):
Fred Thompson is the candidate to watch on the GOP side. With scarcely any active campaigning he edged out John McCain, who was all over the campaign trail and the news. Just think of the results he'll get when and if he starts putting up a real fight. He's gonna have to start putting some real plans on the table if he wants to make it.
1.4.2008 12:06pm
bittern (mail):
ChrisIowa,
Curious about what you mean by "forced out." I heard someone on the news suggesting that non-Huckabee Republican votes were suppressed due to this takeover of the Iowa party by the social conservatives. Is there a social dynamic which would actually prevent those people from voting in the Republican side, which I understand to to be by secret ballot?
1.4.2008 12:07pm
ChrisIowa (mail):

There are 14 delegates at stake, one more than Huckabee won last night.


The dirty little secret is that no national delegates were chosen in Iowa last night, for either party.

Both parties chose delegates to 99 County conventions. The County conventions will meet in March to select delegates to the District and State conventions. One set of delegates meets first in district conventions then at a state convention. The Delegates to the National convention will be selected at the District and State conventions. This is true for both parties.

For the Democrats, the delegates advance depending on their commitment to the Presidential candidates, so the strength of the candidates will be proportional to what you saw in the results last night. The Republican delegate selections are unrelated to presidential candidate preference.
1.4.2008 12:12pm
Thorley Winston (mail) (www):
Huckabee will appoint liberal, big-government judges. As he has often said, his favorite judge is 8th Circuit Judge Lavenski Smith, whom he wants to appoint to the Supreme Court, but who was described even by a (liberal) Minnesota bar publication as a moderate-liberal based on his record on the Arkansas Supreme Court.


I wouldn't read too much into that. During the 2000 GOP primary, one our local talk show hosts (Jason Lewis) read a report about how then Governor Bush's judicial nominees were also considered to be a "moderate to liberal" by the bar association.
1.4.2008 12:22pm
ChrisIowa (mail):
bittern

Curious about what you mean by "forced out." I heard someone on the news suggesting that non-Huckabee Republican votes were suppressed due to this takeover of the Iowa party by the social conservatives. Is there a social dynamic which would actually prevent those people from voting in the Republican side, which I understand to to be by secret ballot?


It's nice to hear that someone else has observed a similar dynamic to what I have observed and expressed.

The balloting last night in the Republican side was secret so certainly that is not where the problem is: anyone could sneak in and vote. The problem comes from later in the process. The caucus in just the beginning of the selection of the party apparatus. With a large number of very passionate single issue voters, any platform discussion that differs from their view can get to be unpleasant for those who do not share the views. In the selection of leadership, anyone who does not agree with their view on that single issue will not advance and will not be part of the party leadership. The party leadership recruits candidates for legislature and other local offices so they will all agree on the single issue. After years of this (and it started in Iowa in the 1980's) those who disagree on the single issue will tend to eventually leave or become inactive.

Sort of a Darwinian process.
1.4.2008 12:34pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
There aren't a majority of pro-choice people in the Republican party in Iowa because they have been marginalized and forced out through the years, starting in the 1980's. And also as the former leadership retired. A Republican convention can be a very unpleasant place to be if you're pro-choice.
Part of the problem is the absolutist nature of labels like "pro-life" and "pro-choice." Most people -- not most activists -- want abortion to be legal with significant restrictions. By the time that filters up through activist groups, parties, and politicians, that becomes "never legal except in cases of rape and incest" vs. "always legal if the woman can dig up a doctor to say it's needed."
1.4.2008 12:35pm
bittern (mail):

With scarcely any active campaigning [Thompson] edged out John McCain, who was all over the campaign trail and the news. Just think of the results he'll get when and if he starts putting up a real fight.

How's that go? If I had a potato, I'd make potato soup. If I had a pot. How's that quote go, anyone?
1.4.2008 12:42pm
Bob from Ohio (mail):
Let's ask President Pat Robertson what he thinks about Iowa determining the nomination?

And how did the 1981-1989 Bush presidency go?
1.4.2008 2:51pm
ChrisIowa (mail):

Let's ask President Pat Robertson what he thinks about Iowa determining the nomination?


It's common knowledge in Iowa that Iowa doesn't determine who will be President but rather who won't.

Just ask Senators Dodd and Biden. And also Rep. Tancredo.
1.4.2008 3:13pm
Hans Bader (mail):
Huckabee talks about being the true conservative in the race, but being "conservative" apparently doesn't include opposing judicial activism, even when that activism trashes fairness (and, at the same time, family values).

The Arkansas legislature passed a clear, unequivocal law against paternity fraud.

In a fit of judicial activism, Huckabee's appointees to the Arkansas Supreme Court gutted it and declared it didn't mean what it unequivocally said -- over a dissent largely by Clinton appointees. See Martin v. Pierce (2007). They forced a man to pay child support for a child who was not his, according to DNA evidence, and thus encouraged adultery.

In terms of judicial appointments, Huckabee isn't any better than Clinton. Indeed, in terms of fairness, his judicial appointees may be worse.

(By the way, I'm not divorced, have no kids with anyone other than my wife, and have no close relatives who are divorced).
1.4.2008 4:50pm