QandO

January 20, 2004

Thoughts on Iowa ...
Posted by McQ

Obviously the first question is “What the heck happened to Howard Dean?”

A lot. First it seems Iowans, at least those Dems who participated in the caucus, have essentially rejected his anti-war message. Only 14% of Iowans participating in the caucuses saw Iraq as the most important issue. That being the center-piece of his campaign rhetoric, he’s left with little to differentiate himself from the others. Second, it seems that Iowans have rejected the “outsider” image Dean has tried to project. Apparently they don’t feel as comfortable with and “outsider” as they do an insider, ala Kerry (and Edwards). And he didn’t do himself any favors as a supposed “outsider” by pandering for endorsements from every Democrat “insider” he could manage.

Which brings me to another point: talk about a list of losers! Gore, Brown, Bradley, Carter?!?! My guess is that with each endorsement 5% of his support flew out the window (OK maybe only 2 ½% with Carter, since his wasn’t a “REAL” endorsement). All Dean needed was a Dukakis endorsement for total destruction.

Question: Does Dean now modify his message? Let’s face it folks, if the results are any indication, it damn sure didn’t play well in Des Moines. It also seems the Dean campaign lost focus in Iowa near the end. He apparently began to believe his “front-runner” status, bestowed by the media, allowed him such an ability. Will they repeat the mistake in New Hampshire with Dean gallivanting off for “almost-endorsements?”

Kerry: No surprise that he won, he had indeed worked Iowa hard and paid the price in terms of time in the state, but the margin was a huge surprise. We went from a “statistical tie” yesterday, per the polls, to a good old fashioned butt-kickin’. Of course, old “Mo” is now on Kerry’s side going into New Hampshire.

What does this bode for Clark in New Hampshire? Clark too projects an “outsider” sort of populist image, but anchors it with solid foreign policy/military/security credentials. But so does Kerry. Will New Hampshire also reject the “outsider” in favor of the insider?

I have to admit the Edwards showing came as a complete surprise. Again, focus, hard work and a unique “positive message” seem to have been the keys. But frankly I’ve always thought that Edwards was essentially running for VP with an eye toward a presidential run later on. And, of course, as a potential VP candidate (and now a very viable one) he’s the “southern connection” the Dems so badly need.. A good finish in New Hampshire will probably cement the VP nomination for him as I don’t see him quite having enough to pull the presidential nomination out of the bag.

Gephardt: Again, a surprise ... not that he ended up losing, but that he lost so badly. It points to a couple of things. A) Union support isn’t what it used to be, that is, a solid bloc vote. 29 unions endorsed Gephardt. But, per exit polls, among union households who participated in the caucuses, Gephardt was only able to pull 22% while Kerry gathered 29%, Edwards 22% and Dean 19%. B) Gephardt is seen as “old news” to most Dems. He’s tried this before and he’s been unsuccessful. While a nice guy, he’s not seen as someone who has what it takes to unseat Bush. That was the message his 11% gave. One has to wonder if the same message won’t be given to Lieberman in New Hampshire.

The fun is just beginning, folks and New Hampshire is only a few days away.

TrackBack