Iowa Presidential Results: What does it mean?

Below are the results of the nation’s first primary from Iowa. Do these results matter? Was this expected? Surprises? Will New Hampshire negate these results? Please give us your opinion.

Obama 38%
Edwards 30%
Clinton 29%

Huckabee 34%
Romney 25%
Thompson 13%
McCain 13%
Paul 10%
Giuliani 3%

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 04:04 | Posted in Measure 37 | 19 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Alan

    Look at the results. Over 70% of voting Democrats did not vote for Clinton. That says something.

  • William Neuhauser

    Common theme: populism and change — Huckabee, Edwards, Obama — away from corporatist, discredited “trickle-down” crony capitalism.

    • Anonymous

      Your analysis is as shallow Huckabee’s “every-man” persona. True, Democrats endorsed populism. That is because Democrats are a populist party, and tend to support a particularly unrealistic brand of populism which we call socialism. Huckabee drew his support from evangelical Christians who couldn’t give a hoot about fiscal policy as long as you don’t touch their fetuses. In other words, among Republicans, Huck is accepted because people don’t know about his populist views, or don’t care.

  • Alan

    Nice thing about voting is it “trickles up”. Looks like it did bump the people from the top.

  • Jeff

    It means that Thompson has a chance…. and that the Democrats are happily going to blow their entire warchests fighting each other.


      True, I read Thompson spent about 5% what Huckabee and Romney did. 3rd isn’t bad considering how late he was in announcing. Lets see what he can do NH and Florida.

      Huckabee has managed to unite the pro-immigration enforcement crowd against himself with his amnesty plan. Iowa doesn’t have a large population of illegals but he’s going to get trounced in the states that do I predict.

  • John Fairplay

    Iowa typically does not end up being as significant as its “first in the nation” status might indicate. This time around, though, it makes Huckabee a truly viable candidate. It’s meaningless to Romney as he doesn’t depend on results for funding. It helps McCain as he didn’t campaign much and is leading New Hampshire. Thompson now has to win or come 2nd in NH to be able to stay in. Obama’s for real, but we’ll have to wait and see what voters in other states think of him when they wake up and realize he’s now a real possibility as the Democrat nominee. Edwards has to win NH to stay viable. Clinton’s in trouble, but I have a sneaking suspicion she’ll recover.

    Iowa verified a 3-person Democrat race and a 4-person Republican race.

    • crawdude

      Remember what the DNC did to Howard Dean when it looked like he would upset their chosen one. I think Obama has something like that in store for him in the future!

  • Bob Clark

    I don’t see Huckabee being all that viable. He only has one part of a successful Republican platform, namely, the narrowly focused evangelicals who were able to swamp the small Iowa caucuses. He lacks the fiscal conservative theme. His Fair Tax (sales tax idea) can’t be sold, paving the way for an easy democratic victory if he is the Republican nominee.

  • dean

    From a rare Democrat on this site:

    Hill is in trouble, but has the money, smarts, spouse, and organization to recover.
    Edwards is done. Iowa was all or nothing. Stick a fork in him.
    Obama showed increadible organization and discipline for being so new nationally. The brigter spotlight may show some blemishes, but maybe not soon enough to help Hill.
    I’ll miss Biden. I’m mystified that the usually very pragmatic Iowans did not give him a better look.

    Romney is toast if he loses NH to McCain.
    Thompson is finished, but may not wake up in time to realize it in time to help McCain.
    Giuliani is hoping (not praying apparently) that no leader emerges before February.
    McCain is back in the hunt if he wins NH, but just barely since Huckabee will win SC.
    Huckabee is an interesting connundrum for the Republican party. He is basically a Democrat on fiscal policy and immigration, far to the right on social policy, and completely inexperienced on foriegn policy. That combination, as Rich Lowry has pointed out, is not likely a winner.

    If I were a Republican I would prepare myself for a decade out of national power. Your coalition, always held together by duct tape, has pulled apart and you have no one out there who can patch it back together in short order. I’m reminded of we Democrats in the 80s, when environmentalists, feminists, unions, and ethnic minorities all went separate ways with non negotiable demands. In a 2 party system that is suicide.

    The dems appear to have no splits, and will enthusiastically get behind Hill or Obama or even Edwards if he recovers. The independents are strongly leaning dem, and if Obama is the candidate they will vote for him in big numbers.

    • crawdude

      I know I’m going to regret asking this but where did you find the poll showing independants are stongly leaning DNC? If from some “Polls-R-Us” site run by DNCers, please ignore the question.

  • Bob Clark

    Business Week is predicting Bloomberg enters the race after February, and will cause the democrats to lose to McCain in November. Barring such a “miracle,” Dean seems right and the Republicans only have themselves to blame. They got corrupted by absolute power in the early parts of this decade. p.s. I’m glad if Edwards is toast because he is viewed by Wallstreet as particularly rough on business. If McCain were to win this thing, his VP choice might be particularly important because he’s getting up there in years.

    • dean

      CD…it was according to the entrance polls reported by PEW in Iowa as told by CNN pundits last night. The huge (by caucus standards) turnout was attributed in large part to independents (many young people) supporting Obama. The prediction is the same will happen in NH. In fact, I would suggest a big story in NH will be the percent of independents who vote dem versus rep, since they can go either way in the primary. I’ll bet a microbrew it is 2 to 1 in favor of dems.

      The other evidence of independents leaning dem is in the 06 congressional results and multiple major polls available on

      I’m not making this up. Thank Rove for playing to the base.

      • CRAWDUDE

        Thanks, I’ve seen some polls that match the different candidates vs each other and the independants seem to favor the DNC right now. It’s long way to nominees or the election so don’t count your chickens quite yet.

        I notice no one is talking about Ron Paul picking up 10%………not bad for a 3rd tier guy as Fox calls him. Fox really doesn’t seem to like this guy much.

        • dean

          CD…no, they don’t like Paul or Huckabee. They don’t want the libertarians or evangelicals thinking they actually can control the party, which is about power and money, not freedom and God.

          If it ends up McCain vs Hillary then independents might break to the Republican, though if enough anti immigrant Republicans stay home that might not help McCain. If it is Obama against just about anyone the independents will go with the dems. Just my opinion.

          No chickens. We raise ducks. Much better eggs.

          • Crawdude

            I still think Obama is going to be Howard Deaned by the DNC, which would be ironic since Dean is the National Chairman now. It’ll be Hillary against someone with Vilsack as a running mate, you heard it here first…….well at least the first time this morning.

            Huckabee can’t hang throughout the primary season, many of his view mirrror Guiliani and the GOP’ers are tiring of him. Paul will get enough delegates to force the GOP leadership to abandon many of its recently failed policies. Not sure who will get the nomination though.

            Keep hearing Bloomberg may jump in………..wouldn’t that be interesting? or is he lobbying for the VP slot by saber rattling?

  • mpower


    1) polling means NOTHING. 8+ months of constant landline polling, and not one pollster came close to the actual primary voting numbers. This happens EVERY election cycle, yet people insist on reporting poll results as if they were gospel… yet more evidence of our intellectually bankrupt media industry… the internet can’t displace these clowns fast enough.

    2) Iowa is a joke. A baptist minister gets every third GOP vote, and Fred Thompson finishes in double digits. ‘Nuf said.


    1) Obama is for real – expect an open Dem convention. I completely agree with the first post here: a large majority of Iowa Dems did NOT vote for Hillary Clinton… this is big.

    2) Giuliani is done… stick a fork in him. I realize he didn’t campaign much in Iowa… but it doesn’t matter. Name recognition should have placed him near Thompson, but it didn’t happen. McCain will be the major beneficiary of Giuliani’s decline.

    3) the primary system as currently constructed should be razed and re-organized from scratch. All primaries should happen within the same week/month, if not the same day. And this should happen in the late spring, not jan/feb. A 2+ year election cycle is wasteful and wholly unbearable.

    • dean

      CD…I don’t think so. The Cintons are going to keep fighting, and they have plenty of money and support. But Obama is pretty special fro many reasons and they can’t afford to seriously trash him. They will pick at him and chip at him but won’t go full bore. Whether he can sustain his effort remains to be seen. A few weeks ago I thought it was going to be a Hill-Obama ticket in that order. Now, I really don’t know. If NH goes for Obama, and then SC follows, he wins.

      I also would not count out Huckabee. The guy is an amazingly skilled politician who has a natural ability to connect in person or across the tube. They call it charisma, and it can’t be taught. The republican voters in Iowa rebelled against their money establishment, and there is no reason to think that won’t be the case elsewhere, particularly since there is just no obvious leader to turn to. Republicans without a strong male daddy leader are like squabbling children.

      mpower…I think it is overstated that a large majority of Iowa dems did not vote for Hil. They didn’t vote for Obama either. Dems voted in about equal numbers for Hil, Edwards and Obama. but Obama got a lot of votes from independents. That was the margin, and that will repeat itself in NH. Then they go to SC where the dems are 50% African American. That is why Hil is in trouble.

      If I were betting I would go with McCain for the Rs, and he is the best shot to win the independents back in November. So I hope the Rs go elswhere and continue to unravel. National health insurance and a serious alternative energy program may be just around the bend.

  • Ted Kennedy’s Liver

    Obama: Empty Suit
    Edwards: Social parasite of the lowest order
    Clinton: Vicious, hateful, spiteful, nasty lying witch. Evil in the true sense of the word

    Huckabee: Thinks the universe was created in 4004 B.C. Need I say more?
    Romney: Slick double talker
    Thompson:Lazy. Might not be a bad trait for a politician, the less they do the better for the taxpayers.
    McCain: Crazy. Amnesty for illegals.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)