The View From Iowa: One Last Look
With the Iowa Caucuses just a few weeks away, and with the final debates of both parties in the bag, it’s once again time to look at the situation on the ground here in Iowa.
As I’ve noted previously here at PJ Media, I have friends and family around the state, and I talk to them frequently about their personal impressions of the candidates and what they are picking up among their circle of acquaintances. I did the same this time, but added a new source of information: the readers at my blog.
I asked my Iowa readers to email me with info on where they lived and how the race was shaping up in their area, what they, their family, their co-workers, etc., thought, and what kind of support each candidate was getting.
The verdict: many of us who watched the Republican debate on Wednesday were unimpressed. The format was awful, not allowing for answers of any length or details, and the moderator was about as interesting as watching paint dry. Added to the fact that two very important issues were immediately taken off the table (Iraq and immigration), made for a rather unspectacular event.
I’m not going to rehash the high points and low points (virtually every right-leaning blog has talked about them in detail already) but, suffice it to say, there weren’t that many. It was the ultimate “safe” debate, where all they had to do was show up, keep their answers short and sweet, maybe “sex” them up a bit for the inevitable sound-bytes that were sure to follow, and then go back to their hotel room. Needless to say, I doubt that very many (if any) people were swayed one way or the other in this debate.
Talking to a couple of my Republican friends, I feel very confident in that opinion. Nothing was said or done in the debate to make them rethink their choice. Nothing was said or done to make them even take a second look at one of the others.
And, more importantly, nothing was said or done that increased or diminished their current level of support. In short, the debate as a whole was a huge bust. It had virtually no impact whatsoever on the race here in Iowa.
I find it hard to believe that Huckabee is actually leading in the polls here in Iowa. Every person I spoke with told me that they’re supporting Romney or Thompson and that everyone they knew or worked with (who are also Republicans) feels the same way. None of them have even considered Huckabee as a serious choice. It could be a fluke in the polling process or it could be a fluke in that I know people who are politically aligned with me and they, in turn, know and talk to others who think the way they do. Or it could be a little of both. I don’t really know for sure.
On to the Democrats. Here’s where it gets interesting.
Like the Republican debate, the Democratic debate was a yawner (a notable quote given to me was that it was “waterboarding for Democrats”…ouch!).
It didn’t really sway them, their friends, their families, or their co-workers. They have basically picked their guy (or gal, as the case may be) and they’re holding firm. In other words, just like the Republican debate before it, the Democratic debate didn’t do much of anything except give the media some sound-bytes to tinker with.
Obama and Hillary are still locked in a dead heat and that doesn’t appear to have changed.
But the direction in which they are clearly moving is that Hillary appears to be sliding and Obama appears to have the momentum going in his favor.
An example of Hillary’s slide can be summed up by one of my friends. He mentions that Hillary appears to be fading fast in Dubuque, and that Obama yard signs outnumber hers by at least 10-1. Dubuque is an average size town (as far as Iowa goes) and tends to vote Democratic, so if she’s losing (or lost) there, it could spell defeat for her next month in other similar areas.
What’s the reason behind her falling poll numbers? I’d have to say it’s because Team Hillary has been on the attack so much of late. Although they have tried to deny it or distance themselves from it, it’s still happening. It’s a trademark Clinton campaign tactic when they mention a smear of some type and then say “oops, we didn’t mean it that way” or that they were misunderstood. They know full well that once it’s out there, right or wrong, people remember the smear, not the apology that comes later.
Obama, to his credit, has responded in the best way possible, by not giving a response at all. He’s being seen as above the fray while Hillary and company are being increasingly seen as desperate.
True, that could come back to haunt him later on. Most Democrats see John Kerry’s defeat in 2004 as the result of his unwillingness to respond to any of the attacks on him. Whatever your particular belief on this subject, you have to admit that his trying to “remain above it all” ultimately blew up in his face.
Serious candidates cannot allow attacks to go unanswered for very long because, sooner or later, the public will begin to change their attitude of “he’s not going to dignify it with a response” to one of “there must be something to it, or he would respond.” Obama needs to start planning on how to smack down these attacks, and soon, or it may be crippling to him later on should he win the nomination.
To sum up, it appears to me – at this point – that we’ll see a victory by Obama and Huckabee in the Iowa Caucuses. Obama, I think, is virtually assured a victory, unless the Clinton campaign drops a bombshell on him in the coming weeks that seriously erodes his support (given how hard they’ve been trying, it’s quite possible they’ll find something that will do the trick).
Huckabee, I think, is less of a certainty. As I mentioned earlier, the people I have spoken with are supporting either Romney or Thompson, and everyone they know is doing the same thing. They have seen little support for Huckabee. Either it’s a flaw in the polls or a fluke in that like-minded conservatives tend to talk about these things with each other (“birds of a feather”, you know). Time will tell, but unless something major happens between now and January 3, I’m going to predict a Huckabee win.
Brian Pickrell blogs at Liberty Pundit.
I agree with you on the Obama prediction (i.e. that he’ll win Iowa), but he has responded to the attacks. This is not in any way like the Kerry situation. He was very clear that his PAC was a leadership fund to support democrats across the country to increase the democratic majority nationwide. He got that question on an Iowa radio program and answered it thoroughly, and his communications director has fielded that question several times as well. With respect to his so-called over weaning ambition, Hillary is quoting his kindergarten essays. What else is he supped to do but say that it’s “silly season”? In response to the Hillaryland allegation that he’s a closet Muslim, he’s said several times that he’s a Christian and the national news media has been clear on that as well. The last slur on his drug use is outrageous. Once again, he’s already talked about it publicly, and the national news media is eviscerating Hillary for “dirty politics”. Hillary is constantly throwing grenades at him for two reasons – to drive down his poll numbers and to goad him into a street fight. She doesn’t think she’s going to win Iowa, but she wants to bait him into a Dean/Gephardt takedown so they both lose Iowa, because she thinks if Edwards wins Iowa, he’ll be less able to capitalize on the win in later states (no money, less support).
When I was writing this earlier this week, Obama hadn’t been saying much of anything in his defense. He has been the last couple of days, and that’s good (not that I plan on voting for him), but he clearly needs to do a lot more. As I said, he can’t let this go on for too long, or it will eventually start to hurt him.
He needs to really, really fight back as publicly as possible. I’m sure that the average person (meaning, people who don’t follow this kind of stuff like we do) are seeing the Hillary attacks and not very many people are seeing the responses.
The reason Kerry didn’t answer the attacks is that most of them were true.
There’s still a million dollar offer on the table for anyone who can disprove the Swiftboat charges.
“The reason Kerry didn’t answer the attacks is that most of them were true.”
That is correct. John Kerry still hasn’t released his military records. The attacks on Barack Obama are rather frivolous. This is especially true of the one about his illicit drug use during his younger days. Most people like me could care less whether Obama or the current president were once substance abusers. We are only concerned about their adult lives.
Most of the attacks on Kerry were shown false by multiple sources.
The reward has not been paid because the dishonest huckster offering said reward for disproving any single charge moved the goalposts afterward and now says he won’t pay unless Kerry releases all of his military records. If Kerry were to take this entirely unnecessary action that huckster would no doubt move the goalposts again.
wait, I’m confused.
How can you say that Huckabee has no support, and then say he’s going to win. That seems slightly contradictory.
Jeb,
You mean that wasn’t Kerry filmed regurgitating Winter Soldier slander in testimony before congress about US soldiers committing atrocities “in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan”?
Thanks, but I’ll believe my lying eyes.
The “Huckster” you refer to is T. Boone Pickens, a well-known entrepreneur & energy investor from Amarillo.
Likely the reason Kerry refuses to release his service records is that he got a Dishonorable or Bad-Conduct discharge based on his criminal dealings with the Viets during the negotiations in the early 70s. This bad discharge was overturned when Carter granted amnesty to all draft-dodgers & deserters/turncoats.
He is not a fit military officer.
Very interesting anecdotal account. As to John Kerry, what got him in the end was his [almost] singular unlikability, which, by the way, he shares with Hillary Clinton.
After giving it some thought, I have concluded that HRC is the Democrat’s version of RMN. Both have the same fatal flaw to their character, an amoral need for power, without the saving social graces of WJC. WJC, while sharing the amorality flaw, had charisma. His charisma made the American people like him, so despite doing things like selling America’s national security to China for campaign contributions in order to defeat the 1996 “Republican juggernaut” (true high crimes and misdememeanors), he will go down in history as merely America’s first trailer trash President. With Hillary I can see another Watergate type incident which will be taken more seriously than, say, the plus or minus 1,000 FBI files finding their way to the Clinton White House or the GOP contributor IRS audits that occurred between 1993 and 2001 because HRC is so damn caustic, phony, and downright unlikable. Hillary’s need to undo her opponents, perceived (remember Nixon?) as enemies, will be her own undoing. Please, please, Democrats, nominate Hillary.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Giuliani supporter and would like nothing more than a matchup between my main man and the old Hil. When I moved 2 years ago and ahd to reregister to vote, I registered “declines to state” for the first time since ’76 (when I voted for Ford but was also an independent). I have voted Republican in every election since, including twice for the current Bush, whom I think has been a terrible president. His penchant for government spending is inexcusable. Bush is in danger, depending on who wins in ’08, of becoming a failed president when it comes to foreign policy because he both refused and was apparently unable to sell his agenda. GWB will go down in history as one of the worst presidents in history, not for his Iraq policies, but for allowing the antiwar movement to gain such traction and for his New-Deal/Great Society social programs.
Comes now Huckabee from the same Little Rock cesspool as Bill and Hil, with some similar baggage (political, not personal), a left of center spending history, and he appears to be winning in Iowa as a “conservative”. I don’t give a rat’s patoot (more full disclosure) about social conservative issues, and frankly find the worst of them as only slightly less repugnant than what radical Islam would impose on the rest of us. I have tolerated social conservatives as coalition partners only to further my own ends of rational fiscal policy and a strong defense, and have always recognized their inimacability toward my own social libertarianism.
All of which leads me to conclude the following: If Huckabee gets the GOP nomination, I cannot vote for him in the general election. I would rather have a bad Republican president followed by a bad Democrat president than a bad Republican president followed by another bad Republican President. HRC, I am confident, will self destruct as president, possibly even earn conviction at trial in the Senate after impeachment or, like Nixon, be forced to resign. Obama is wet behind the ears and, while charismatic and presonally likable, will hopefully be an ineffective one-term wonder (I still wonder how he hopes to “bring us together” while refusing numerous invitations to appear on Fox News Sunday). But Huckabee, that man could do some real damage: spend like a Democrat (and, it now appears, conduct foreign policy like a Democrat) while pushing religious right social claptrap down the rest of our throats. Not for me, thank you.
It will, indeed, be interesting to see what you Iowans decide to do on January 3, 2008. But so far I don’t see much thought in the process. Looks to me more like a place for the candidates to try out their acts, kind of like playing in Philadelphia (or Peoria) before taking on Broadway. And you guys are buying the acts.
I don’t get it.
You are apparently here to give us the “on the ground” perspective, and that says Romney or Thompson.
But, instead, you agree with the MSM/poll results, i.e., Huckabee.
Huh?
mockmook,
My thoughts exactly. What’s the point or value of this blog entry? Nil. Insights? None. Almost everything written was already known. There’s nothing scientific or predictive about telling us what the people you know, and the people they know, think. It may or may not be relevant.
O’Bama and Huckabee. Gee…who’d have thought it?
Appreciate the effort, but ???
mockmook and slick: Did you read the same post as me? He makes it pretty clear that his own ground-level information contradicts the polls. That’s good info, even if it leaves a contradiction.
I am one of those who imputed to Brian . He is telling it as he sees it. I too was a former Huckabee supporter but have now seen the light. I now think Thompson is our only hope. He has the message. Now he needs to get it out there.
Yes, that was my point of this article. The polls show Huckabee in the lead and I’m just not seeing it when I talk to my conservative friends around the state. And they aren’t seeing it, either.
But there is support out there for Huckabee, make no mistake. The question is, just how much support does he have? Is he really at 30-some percent, or is that bogus? Was the poll somehow flawed, or am I just getting info from people who think like me and they, in turn, get info from people who think like them? I think it may be a little of both, and that’s why I say Huckabee will prevail on Jan. 3. I don’t think, however, it will be a landslide. It will be close.
Hey Brian,
Thanks for the response; I guess its just a difference in how we weigh evidence.
If almost everyone I talked to saw a vast difference in sentiments compared to the polls (and I felt I was talking to people with a good feel for their areas), I would go with the people over the polls.