Ok I’ve upgraded my state of mind on the November 2008 election from apathetic to ambivalent. There is a difference. And while I’m happy the Iowa Caucus is over, the results were quiet interesting to me. Before I launch into some opinions, and citing some fascinating poll stats, let me provide some caveats, mainly for the benefit of readers like Catskill Commentator. Which, by the way Catskill, citing Obama’s full name (which happens to include Hussein) is a nice touch on your nutjob website. Anyway, I’m the product of 12 years of private/parochial education, and then 4 more at a private liberal arts college. I’m not a product of a “liberal public school education” which you deem useless. I hardly think a public education is a useless or a bad thing *at all*, and it does not invalidate a person’s opinion. I just went to school where my parents sent me. And I do bathe regularly. And I also shave my armpits. Some of the polling stats I picked up for this blog I read on CNN.com. I like their fact-driven and concise reporting. I also read the round-up over at foxnews.com, just to make sure there was not too much skewed reporting going on. And while I don’t care for Fox’s more touchy-feely, narrative approach, the messages were for the most part all in-line so there is no “damn that liberal cnn.com” business to be had here.
Anyway, I was not surprised Huckabee won Iowa. I was surprised that Clinton lost, and by almost a 10% margin to Obama. Iowa is just one of many indicators still to come before the primaries, but some of the poll stats gleaned were what interested me most.
On the Huckabee win, entrance polls (stats courtesy of CNN.com) cited 3 out of every 5 Republicans were self-described born again or evangelical Christians. Huckabee beat Romney by better than 2-to-1 in this voting bloc. Among the rest of Iowa’s Republican electorate, however, Huckabee finished a distant fourth behind Romney, McCain and Fred Thompson.” This explains Huckabee’s win. Fox News gives credit somewhat to the Christian voting right on Huckabee’s wine and also attribute it to his charisma as well. What charisma they might be referring to is still up for debate.
On the Obama-Clinton front, entrance polls (stats again courtesy of CNN.com) show “that the New York senator was the top choice of women over 60, while Obama was strongly preferred by women between the ages of 18 to 59.” Which helps explains Obama’s Iowa win. Knowing several women over 60 and 18-59, I will say I would have expected just the opposite. I would have thought the 60+ age group would vote against Clinton, and the 18-59 age group for Clinton. Perhaps the skew here can be attributed to lingering racial issues in the 60+ generation – granted I grew up south of the Mason-Dixon line but my mom (and her friends, and my relatives in this age group) would rather see a female president than a black president. And unfortunately she tends to look not much farther beyond those things. Fox attributes Obama’s win more to his message of hope. Again with the touchy-feely.
Another thing to note was the increased voter turnout. It will be interesting to see if the trend continues. Attendance was way up in Iowa. Perhaps a sign that the country is ready for change one way or the other. Or perhaps not. One candidate having won Iowa in the last 30 years has gone on to be president- Jimmy Carter. Which of course begs the question – is this Iowa stuff simply much ado about nothing?
