WHY OBAMA’S WIN IS BIGGER THAN YOU THINK...

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=265730

WHY OBAMA’S WIN IS BIGGER THAN YOU THINK...

Des Moines -- Barack Obama's decisive victory in the Iowa Caucus is probably even larger than most people realize. In a battery of national polls -- often inaccurate but relentlessly pitched as self-fulfilling media predictions -- Clinton led by an average of 21 points just last week. As the Clinton Campaign used to emphasize, she also led in December polls from every upcoming primary state, from Iowa to Nevada. She spent about $7 million on over 8,000 television ads in Iowa, plus at least another $10 million on outreach in the state, and stood on the shoulders of Democratic giants, from President Clinton to Michael Whouley to a sizable chunk of the liberal policy establishment.

Barack Obama battled an expectations game stacked against all challengers; a metric of experience discounting work beyond Washington; and an unknowable question about the relevance of his skin color, swirling around his candidacy alone. Last night, Iowans did not simply accept Obama's masterful ability to clear those hurdles, they rushed to support him in an unprecedented coalition within record-breaking turnout. Over half of Democratic attendees were first-time caucus goers. Obama tapped the largest share of the new participants, who compromised 41 percent of his support. Youth turnout jumped 5 percent from 2004, thanks to Obama, who drew a whopping 57 percent of voters under 30. (Edwards and Clinton netted 13 and 11 percent, respectively.) Obama won more support from women voters than Clinton, by five percent. And he bested Clinton and Edwards by a solid 7 percent – roughly 25 percent of their totals.

Republicans saw 108,000 people caucus last night, while the Democrats drew a record-breaking 239,000 caucus attendees -- a gain of 115,000 from 2004. In today's New York Times, Adam Nagourney depicts the Democrats' "huge turn-out" as a demonstration of "the extent to which opposition to President Bush has energized Democrats." Not quite. Bush was easily as big an energizer in 2004, when he was actually on the ballot and Democrats were eager to battle an incumbent who had never even won the popular vote. Something else is at work here: a strong Democratic field with several compelling candidates; a sense that this is a rare and epic intramural battle that can set the party's course; and, apparently, a hunger for an Obama candidacy that is as adamant about transcending Bush Republicanism as it is about vanquishing Clintonian politics.

just about taking the WH back. It's about a different kind of politics.

have won...Edwards would.

about all those bussed-in students? I have not seen a single one. Youth voting was up by only 5%. Youth (read as ages 17-29) represented 22% of the total Democratic caucus goers. Obama won by more than 7% of the TOTAL vote. Your accusations make no sense, even mathematically.

And even if students were aided in returning to their rightful, legal caucus precints, what of it? Are you saying that legally registered voters should be denied the right to vote?

Nice going, vote suppressor.

P.S. Does this explain Obama's current 10 point lead in New Hampshire polls?

does her candidate no good with the venom oozing out of every pore.

Bullshit.

they bussed in 16,000 students?

that's a lot of busses.

:thumbsup:

The Nation.

"Barack Obama battled an expectations game stacked against all challengers; a metric of experience discounting work beyond Washington; and an unknowable question about the relevance of his skin color, swirling around his candidacy alone. Last night, Iowans did not simply accept Obama's masterful ability to clear those hurdles, they rushed to support him in an unprecedented coalition within record-breaking turnout. Over half of Democratic attendees were first-time caucus goers."

But it's not a hopeful big..

it's a great win for religionists,
rightwingers, and corporations
who need a Dem puppet.

When are the pundits going to start confronting the issue of how the primaries being front-loaded favors the previously well-known contender -- the one who was considered the presumptive nominee when the process started -- over ANY possible challenger or upstart, even one that might be at least somewhat well-known before the campaign began?

The way I see it, Obama could very well demonstrate his superior strength AS A CANDIDATE, with voters who are familiar with the candidates and have heard a lot (both + and -) about them -- winning not only Iowa but New Hampshire and South Carolina as well. This is not a far-fetched prediction, and indeed, Obama may be at least an even bet to do just that. (Of course, the results in MI, FL, and NV are another matter).

But then comes Tsunami Tuesday ("TT" I like to call it for short). Here, the inertia of the campaign is given full swing, and even the momentum built up by Obama with three major victories in the heavily campaigned-in states would leave him at a disadvantage in what amounts to essentially a national primary.

Curiously, the circumstances in MI and FL, the two LARGEST states to vote before TT, is such as specifically to PRECLUDE major campaigning on the part of any candidate that doesn't want to outrage the Democratic Party establishment; hence they are more like the TT states than the 'big three' of January. ALL OF THESE FACTORS SEEM TO FAVOR THE CANDIDACY OF HRC, ALMOST INSURMOUNTABLY, AND ALL ARE PREDICTABLE RESULTS OF THE WAY THAT THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY SET UP THE ELECTIONS.

It's time for the grass-roots and net-roots Democrats to start SERIOUSLY grappling with this issue. If this setup insures an HRC nomination, as it seems clearly to have been intended to do, AND THEN SHE LOSES, I think that progressives will REALLY have to think seriously about completely overhauling the Democratic Party. And no more dancing to the tune of the DLC and their 'why doesn't the Democratic Party dump its pro-choice platform?'(Al From) after the 2004 elections.