I don't get Bowers argument.

He notes the percentages of Democrats in 2008 and 2004 were nearly the same, although down just a bit (76% as opposed to 79%). He then concludes, "The new voters were Democrats, not independents."

Um, no. Given the massive increase in turnout, the new voters had to be both Democrats and independents, in fact with the independents in a slightly higher ratio than before.

The same goes for Bowers "creative class" argument. Yes, Obama did particularly well with those voters. But not only those voters--he also won most other cross-tabs, with a few narrow exceptions where Clinton or Edwards won.

This is really the problem some people are having: they still think that Obama's support has to be a point on a line, or a single slice of the electorate, or so on. But the real story is how he is drawing significant support from so many different points on the line and slices of the electorate. So trying to figure out where his support is absolutely highest is missing the real nature of his support, and missing the fact that he is winning because his support is broad as opposed to concentrated.

I think he has something in believing he can duplicate this nationwide. I remember stories about him travelling around the country early in the year and drawing HUGE crowds. I recall a story where he filled a park where he was speaking to the point where people were climbing trees to watch and listen. My mind wants to say it was in Texas (of all places). So, I think he can duplicate his success nationwide if past performance is any indication.

With that and 50 cents, you can now make a phone call...

We need cross-tabs: is it true that among the self-identified Democrats Obama and Clinton were tied?

In an early poll about the gender gap when people said they were going to vote Democratic the women then said they would vote for whomever was the Democratic nominee while when the men were asked the same question some of the men dropped off if the nominee was Clinton. So I ask if this is simply a question of sexism trumping racism?

Two things. First, I agree with the commenter above who notes that independents were brought out in force, because the 20% who were independents were 20% of an electorate that was twice as large as in 2004. And Obama's argument is that he can win independents AND bring more nominal Democrats into the process who in the past have often not voted.

Second. How old are you Jane? You sound like you went to college at the height of identity politics theories of everything.

One lesson of the last few weeks is that not every rejection of Hillary Clinton = a rejection of woman, and not every rejection of Barack Obama = a rejection of blacks. They are two flawed people, so there are nonracist, nonsexist reasons for opposing them. Hillary in my opinion is more flawed, but someone with a lot of smarts and skills whom I'd support if she gets the nomination.

Chris Bowers:

Four years ago, 79% of the Iowa electorate were Democrats. This year, 76% self-identified as Democrats. The huge turnout was just about as Democratic as the 2004 turnout. The new voters were Democrats, not independents.

I told you so.

Also note that if turnout was in excess of 200k, then at least as many people stood up for Clinton and Edwards as turned out for all Candidates in 2004. So I think some congratulations are really due all around. However that probably also serves to bolster the case that at least some of the credit for last night's turn-out properly belongs to our illustrious president.

Congrats to Obama, and to Edwards and Hillary as well on great campaigns.

I think it's time we move past (sometimes hateful) characterizations of the candidates and look at what happened last night. Turnout is projected at 220,000! People were laughing at Axelrod when he projected 200,000. Obama won amongst women, men, independents, democrats, republicans, ...everybody. He turned out democrats who don't normally vote and brought in outsiders who otherwise vote in another party's primary. This was not just a win, but a statement win. It's a testament to his message and his electability, and I really wish that Hillary and Edwards supporters would step out of the bubble and look at last night objectively before they start spinning. You know, people have been talking about how Obama is using "right wing talking points" but nobody points out that Hillary, and now Edwards, are stealing Obama's talking points. Nobody was talking about "change" as a campaign theme until they saw Obama winning people over with it, and as last night shows, Obama is the only one who can win with it.

Last night really and truly changed this country and those who aren't already in love with this man and his new brand of politics soon will be. This is it guys, there's a new paradigm in place and like it or not, Obama is the best candidate in a field of great candidates.

NyDave in other thread: "I really, really hate this guy."

Aimey Mays: "This guy is like Hitler."

C'mon guys, really.

Obama surely did well enough last night to be called the frontrunner heading into NH and the Feb 5 primaries. I wonder if he will now face some tough questioning and constant nagging by the bags of hot gas that qualify as cable news pundits. Chief among them is Chris Matthews. Did any one else hear him describe Obama as having been sent to us at this time by God after giving a brief biographical account of the senator's life. I swear, Matthews was swooning to the point that I Keith Olberman kept looking down to see if Chris was going to foot tap him.

Is Obama saying that Oprah is going to throw weekend long parties for him in each of the fifty states? That's how he won Iowa . . . Just look at what the women who caucused for him stated they believe.

Wow. Some of you are really, really sick.

"Like Hitler"? Get help, and not just one session--like, a few years of help.

Then when you're better, read some history books. Watch a documentary or two. And come back and apologize for your appalling, offensive ignorance.

We need cross-tabs: is it true that among the self-identified Democrats Obama and Clinton were tied?

The cross tabs have self-identified Dems going 32% for Obama, 31% for Clinton. That means he's a significantly stronger candidate among Democrats than people have been predicting. His appeal isn't just limited to independents.

Raymond,

Iowa was not about dipping a girl's pigtails in the ink well . . . The folk did not embrace the corporate shill but they did as Oprah commanded.

Women who stated that Obama was the one who best covered the woman's issues were parroting one of Oprah's speechs. I am sure that most woman feel that providing for health of their family desire to cover 100% of their families not just 85%. I am sure that women want a President who fight for their safety AND human rights and not say that his words have no power and that show up. So while Obama is clearly not their man . . . They showed up and said he was.

Funny how they embraced Oprah over the truth.

Statistically the winner of the five of the previous six Iowa caucuses was the DEM nominee.

Clinton and Obama spent about over twice as much money to get similar results to Edwards. Oprah, a woman, made all the difference.

Seriously, folks. It is time now to really examine Barack Obama. We need to find out why, if he opposed the war, he voted to continue to fund it. We need to find out why he claims Social Security is in crisis when it is not. We need to hold him accountable for his very immature and undeveloped foreign policy positions. We need to know why he doesn't understand that universal health care is not universal if people are not obligated to participate. If Obama is to be my party's standard bearer, I need to be assured that he is more than a demogogue who will say anything to appeal to everyone. I need to know which position he'll abandon when push comes to shove. Excuse me but mindlessly repeating the word "change" is not a plan. It works for Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough but it rings hollow with me. It's time for voters and media types at TPM and the MSM to start asking less esoteric questions and really get to the heart of what this man will do. After all, Obama is now the presumptive winner.

The Hilllary supporters are now grouping and groping for a way to stop Obama's rise by:

1] renewed trashing of him [ increasing what they've already tried to do in sowing doubts about Obama], and

2] morphing Hillary's message to co-opt Obama's appeal to the energized power bloc of younger voters.

I can't say that I am surprised by these responses. Remembering how often that Obama's supporters have been labeled naive, I have to say that the Hillary camp's inability to fully appreciate what Obama has accomplished is beyond naive, it is dangerously divisive for our party's and our country's future.

Let's see if Hillary can rise to competing without dirty trick trashing and without continually remaking her 'image'. She has a very narrow window of opportunity to come to the realization that she just needs to be herself.
Thank God that the public has grown allergic to divisive politics after hard lessons learned from the machinations of Rove and BushCo.

Nickal's points above are very well taken. On politics and policy, Obama is simply unproven. He is extremely inspiring, but I'm not sure I see the intellectual gravitas and fighting toughness that Hillary has in spades.

Aimey Mays:

Setting aside your odious Hitler reference, did you really just describe Iowa as a "low-turnout caucus"?

Oh...and btw, what was that all of you were saying about the DMR poll last week?

I guess ARG should just hang it up with their candidate now.

What I'd really prefer is that the democrat candidates (and the democrat supporters, for that matter) stopped trying to be so internally divisive and emotionally bitter during this process.

As if the nation itself isn't divisive enough, we're going to compound it by hating one another on this side of the fence? Because this is a grand idea, really - let's just get so completely angry with one another now that by the time the election comes around, enough people HATE the two candidates that the majority of america stays home YET AGAIN, and allow the radically enthusiastic people to elect the candidates.

Look, everyone: support who you want to support, and in november, let's not just not vote for the "other guy"; let's vote for the person who will beat him. Until then, let's stop treating this like a football game. Whether it's Clinton, Obama, Edwards, whoever - let's just get through the process without hating each other.

awrbb wrote on January 4, 2008 11:41 AM:
Aimey Mays:

Setting aside your odious Hitler reference, did you really just describe Iowa as a "low-turnout caucus"?

-- For a caucus, it was a high turn-out event. But it is still a very undemocratic process that was affected by very motivated few. Hence, a disproportional support for the youth impacted the results so dramatically. Let's find out whether Obama can duplicate his feat there. I think not.

Donna G:
Asking Sen. Obama for some specifics is hardly "trashing" him. If he is the Democratic Party's nominee I will actively and enthusiastically support him. That said, however, I will not hand him the keys to the car until he's proven to me that he can drive and makes me confident that he knows how to take me where I wnat to go. It is now that Obama and his supporters should stop being so defensive and start being specific by answering questions from members of his own party. Heck, we should be the easiest audience with whom to level. As an aside, On Tuesday of this week I asked twelve Obama supporters just what kind of change the Senator was proposing. Not one person was able to answer me in any detail. Not one. Charisma is a good thing, but George Bush was charismatic, too. It is not enough. Obama, if he has the stuff, should not be afraid to share it with us.

This is really getting comical. I agree we have to see what happens next but Obama won Iowa decisively.

Trying to minimize that by saying this doesn't really count because it's not a real primary (you would NEVER have said that if your candidate won), or 62% of the vote was against him (forgetting to mention that means 71% was against Hillary) or somehow making it sound like bringing in tons of new voters doesn't count (huh?) - is just pathetic.

Stop embarrassing your candidate with this nonsense. Obama won Iowa. Now move on - and make the case FOR your candidate.

the levels of Clintonista bitterness and idiocy in this thread makes me think Clinton lost last night because her supporters were either too dumb to find the caucusing locations or too busy ripping her opponent's signs out of people's front lawns to turn up.

the Democratic primary isn't over, but Iowa is, and your candidate lost. grow up and get over it. maybe offer some constructive ideas as to how your candidate can duplicate what adequate numbers she had in Iowa to go on and win New Hampshire.

she needs them.

News flash: Clinton LOST. She lost women. She lost the change/experience argument. She lost the turnout/energy argument. It wasn't close. And not for a lack of trying on her part.

By all means spin yourself silly. Tell yourself that Obama is an empty suit, with no real gravitas. Nevermind that he just beat your candidate du jour, straight up. Nevermind that he's got policy papers and positions on every major issue today; that he's got a better legislative record than HRC or JRE. If you need to delude yourself about the challenge he presents to your candidate, you are doing him a HUGE favor.

HRC is missing the critical charisma factor--at least relative to Obama and to a lesser extent Edwards (he really needs to soften the Angry White Man thing (IMO)). Unless Obama starts kicking puppies in the next few days, he's going to win NH. Then what are you going to say? That NH didn't really count? That you are going to start drawing contrasts for the THIRD time? That you are going to go negative for the SECOND time?

This is going to be a dog fight until the end. I don't think Obama is under any illusion that it won't be.

i call em how i see em, chief.

guess you couldn't think of any ways for Hillary to translate her relative successes in Iowa to New Hampshire though, huh?

though i suppose it would be silly to try to duplicate relative successes from a state that "didn't really matter", according to her campaign, right?

"drawing sharper contrasts" for Clinton only means more negative campaigning, and we've seen that negative campaigning in Democratic primaries does not work.

its a reflex for her sort of politician, to lash out at the people beating them. go negative, go negative. and this time, there's nothing more to say than IT WILL NOT WORK.

the only way in which the debate will be a turning point is if one of them makes a huge, glaring mistake. even a huge, oblique mistake wouldn't really matter, because of the time between the debate and the caucus. so basically, she has to go into this weekend hoping Obama will drag a homeless Iraq Veteran onstage and beat him with Dick Cheney's rifle butt.

otherwise, i don't see how it would help.

Someone above said about Obama, "He is extremely inspiring, but I'm not sure I see the intellectual gravitas and fighting toughness that Hillary has in spades."

No intellectual gravitas from the guy who was talking in October and November of 2002 about getting caught in Iraq among Shiites and Sunnis, and not trusting Bush to properly exercise the discretion to wage war? No fighting toughness from a guy who came out of community activism and through Chicago Democratic politics?

CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE.
Did I mention change?

Let's face it, no one is really prepared to be the President until they get there. Ronald Reagan didn't have foreign policy experience before winning the Presidency. Bill Clinton didn't. Why not Obama?

Hillary represents the politics of the last three decades. I'm sick of listening to baby boomers wage proxy battles over the 60's and Vietnam. Let's talk about today and the future.

Wow, lots of sour grapes here. The voters in Iowa made it clear that what they want most of all is change.
So they voted for the 40-something, former constitutional law professor, junior senator from Illinois as most representative of change.

Change involves risk, stepping out of one's comfort zone, attempting something new or untried, even rolling the dice.

The candidate I was supporting dropped out last night. I've decided to throw my support behind my grandson's choice - Obama. I'm extremely happy when I reach back with the torch of political activism to see there is a new generation to pass it to. That's a good thing for this country.

Mary:
I was just thinking that if we were talking about HRC and not BO regarding the troop funding votes, the O camp would be accusing HRC of calculating and triangulating. When its O, he's protecting the troops. He voted that way to mitigate the potential charge of being soft on terrorism in a general election. I'm pretty sure that is why HRC voted to authorize the war, too. They should both be honest about that. Regarding social security, BO did say that Social Security was in crisis in May of 2007. It wasn't until after it was pointed out to him that this was a common Republican BS line that BO stopped repeating it. On Meet the Press on Nov 11 of'07, BO became very slippery, denying his comments made in May of that year. He went further by denying that he had said that all options (indexing, tax increases, etc.) were on the table to "save" Social Security. He stuck with his plan to increase the payroll deductions on people earning over $97,600.
Obama's health care plan leaves 15 million people uninsured precisely because not everyone is required to join. Medicare works because everyone is required to be in. Is Obama for degrading Medicare because he is in favor of freedom of choice when it comes to insurance? Or is he in favor of freedom of choice only for the wealthy who can afford to buy their own?
Now, I'll stipulate that Obama can sure talk pretty, but nothing he says has any substance. Hope, Change,great! How? Not so easy.