Most are calling it for Huckabee. There is a huge turnout, and the Dems aren’t done entirely, but Hillary, at this point, is in third, but it’s really a three-way tie-Winfrey, Edwards, Clinton.
Sheesh. And frankly, disgusting. I’ve just ordered pizza. Talk amongst yourselves.
As of 6:11pm PT:
Repubs:
Huckabee 36%
Romney 23%
Thompson 14%
McCain 12%Dems:
Obama 33%
Edwards 32%
Clinton 32%
Richardson 2%
6:30pm PT:
Fox just called it for Barack Winfrey.
BTW, I’m sure the Huckabee win is less about votes for Huckabee than votes against a Mormon. And just to give you some perspective about whether or not Iowa is relevant, here’s a list of the Iowa caucus results from 1972. The argument is that it *is* relevant works more for the Repubs, less so for the Dems. The ultimate party nominee is in bold. Note 1992 when Bill Clinton came in 4th.
Democrats
* January 19, 2004 – John Kerry (38%), John Edwards (32%), Howard Dean (18%), Richard Gephardt (11%) and Dennis Kucinich (1%)
* January 24, 2000 – Al Gore (63%), Bill Bradley (37%)
* February 12, 1996 – Bill Clinton (unopposed)
* February 10, 1992 – Tom Harkin (76%), “Uncommitted” (12%), Paul Tsongas (4%), Bill Clinton (3%), Bob Kerrey (2%) and Jerry Brown (2%)
* February 8, 1988 – Richard Gephardt (31%), Paul Simon (27%), Michael Dukakis (22%) and Bruce Babbitt (6%)
* February 20, 1984 – Walter Mondale (49%), Gary Hart (17%), George McGovern (10%), Alan Cranston (7%), John Glenn (4%), Reubin Askew (3%) and Jesse Jackson (2%)
* January 21, 1980 – Jimmy Carter (59%), Ted Kennedy (31%)
* January 19, 1976 – “Uncommitted” (37%), Jimmy Carter (28%) Birch Bayh (13%), Fred R. Harris (10%), Morris Udall (6%), Sargent Shriver (3%) and Henry M. Jackson (1%)
* January 24, 1972 – “Uncommitted” (36%) and Edmund Muskie (36%), George McGovern (23%), Hubert Humphrey (2%), Eugene McCarthy (1%), Shirley Chisholm (1%) and Henry M. Jackson (1%)[9]Republicans
* 2004- George W. Bush (unopposed)
* 2000- George W. Bush (41%), Steve Forbes (30%), Alan Keyes (14%), Gary Bauer (9%), John McCain (5%) and Orrin Hatch (1%)
* 1996- Bob Dole (26%), Pat Buchanan (23%), Lamar Alexander (18%), Steve Forbes (10%), Phil Gramm (9%), Alan Keyes (7%), Richard Lugar (4%) and Morry Taylor (1%)
* 1992- George H. W. Bush (unopposed)
* 1988- Bob Dole (37%), Pat Robertson (25%), George H. W. Bush (19%), Jack Kemp (11%) and Pete DuPont (7%)
* 1984- Ronald Reagan (unopposed)
* 1980- George H. W. Bush (32%), Ronald Reagan (30%), Howard Baker (15%), John Connally (9%), Phil Crane (7%), John B. Anderson (4%) and Bob Dole (2%)
* 1976- Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan
7:05pm PT:
Some bottom lines: Worth repeating, the Huckabee win is less about votes for Huckabee than votes against the Mormon. As in the past, this also becomes a test of who can survive.
Barack wins as the recipient of the anti-Hillary vote. A friend of mine noted Iowa was really the primary to determine who would be Hillary’s competition. I wouldn’t be surprised, even with a tie for second, if Edwards drops out. It’s still possible that McCain could overtake Thompson. If that happens, look for Thompson to drop out if he slips to 4th. However you look at it, he’ll be in a tie for third with Thompson, which isn’t bad, especially for the architect of the amnesty bill. No wonder he has contempt for the people–he insults us throughout the summer, ignores our opinion, and still seems to be relevant in this race. Amazing.
Giuliani essentially ignored Iowa, so his abysmal showing isn’t surprising. He has spent more time in New Hampshire and was in Florida today as well. Interestingly, Giuliani is now on Fox doing a big pitch. He sounds good, and he’s still my guy.
8pm PT:
Final talley:
Dems:
Obama 37.53
Edwards 29.88
Clinton 29.41Repubs:
Huckabee 34
Romney 25
Thompson 14
McCain 13
Paul 10
Iowa is finally over. Huckabee and Obama win. Essentially, Edwards and Clinton tied for second. Thompson and McCain tied for third.
The winnowing has begun as well. Dodd has announced he’s dropping out.
8:11pm PT:
Wow. Huckabee? That is very depressing.
I second your disgust, Tammy. I just opened a hearty cabernet and pulled out a VERY big glass.
Try to enjoy the pizza.
I don’t think it has to do with Romney being a Mormon, I think most folks just don’t care one way or another. I think Romney’s big problem is that he comes across as a “silky pony” very much like Edwards.
Before everyone starts binge eating & drinking, there are a couple of good points to report.
First: Thompson placed third with almost no media coverage compared to the Iowa frontrunners (and what little there was was bad press). He beat McCain, which shows there is still a rejection of McAmnesty.
Second: Related to the first point, McCain not finishing a strong 3rd hurts him in New Hampshire. Meaning it helps Romney. And Romney winning New Hampshire hurts Huckabee.
I do have to give credit to Dick Morris who months and months ago predicted Edwards finishing strong in Iowa and said before the “Huckaboom” even started that Huck was going to rise in the polls and that he could win Iowa. Everyone laughed at him when he said Huck would break 10% in the National Polls.
Now hopefully the party will come to its senses.
This is only the beginning. Hold on to your caucuses.
It sure didn’t have to do with spending, Romney outspent Huckabee 20 to 1.
I would say it has more to do with the FairTax than anything personal or religious.
Huckabee is the only candidate that is running on it (Ok, Hunter supports it too, but hasn’t gotten the press for it) and the voters respond to it.
It’s certainly my only issue this time around.
Both Giuliani and Romney have made misstatements about the FairTax meaning they either don’t understand it or they are just plain lying about it. Either way it hurt them.
I was a Thompson supporter before he decided to be such a disappointment, but as long as HR25 is Huckabee’s platform, I’ll support him.
I hope Huckabee enjoys tonight. It’ll be his only night of victory.
(That’s one down)
I could care less that McCain will once again! do well in New Hampshire. What else is new? He’ll only win NH and then fizzle soon after.
(That’s two down)
I’m tired of Romney saying “I’ve run things.” So what. He’ll win Michigan (maybe) and get tired of spending his own money.
(That’s three down)
Fred will not drop out. He’ll win SC and do well in the others before Super Tuesday when he and Giuliani will be the top two.
(Last man standing WINS!)
I’ll take a Giuliani/Thompson or Thompson/Giuliani ticket.
They seem to the most sure and steady, a good match I think.
Tink, I’ll be praying every day that you’re right about that, because Huckabomb has to be stopped before he kills the GOP.
And I assure you, the day the GOP runs a Bible thumping, big government, tax and spend, unscrupulous (Rollins is nothing but a thug, a “Republican” version of Bugsy Beckle) liberal for prez, is the day the GOP joins the Federalists, Whigs, and Democratic Republicans on the ash heap of history; this is the kind of guy who’ll kill entire state tickets.
For now, my only source of relief is my jumbo sized bottle of Pepto…
I do not trust the Huckleberry Huckster. While he may profess support for the fair tax, it is merely to garner votes. Given the low probability of passing the fair tax, he doesn’t even have to do much to undermine it while pretending to support it.
It’s even worse than Ron Paul’s habit of packing pork for his district and then voting against the overall budget, all the while knowing that the budget will pass without his vote. He can then quietly take credit with the pork’s beneficiaries at reelection campaign contribution time while pretending fiscal responsibility to the usually clueless voter.
Our politicians are pretty much a gang of corrupt scoundrels who work to further their own self interests while pretending to work for the public good. We put up with them only because total anarchy is not an option.
To get a handle on how they will behave in the office they are seeking, we have to look into their past behavior and character rather than just believing their current campaign promises.
Look at Huckster’s ten years in Arkansas. Don’t fall for campaign promises.