Presidential Race Heating Up In Iowa
After reading the most recent CBS/New York Times poll, I think it’s time for an update on what is going on here in the great state of Iowa.
First, let’s look at the Democratic candidates. The current poll shows that Hillary Clinton has a slim (25 percent to 23 percent) lead over John Edwards, with Barack Obama trailing both at 22 percent. While these numbers are slightly off from the Real Clear Politics average, they’re not so bad as to warrant ignoring the poll as a whole. For example, it does reinforce the fact that Hillary is leading here in Iowa, albeit with a slim majority. It also reinforces my personal impression (having talked to several Democratic friends around the state) that John Edwards is the second place candidate.
Now, let’s move on to the Republicans. The CBS/NY Times poll shows that, once again, Mitt Romney has a pretty good lead over the other candidates here in the state. He’s currently at 27 percent. But what is most interesting is the recent “surge” of Mike Huckabee.
Huckabee had been polling in the single digits here for some time, but ever since the Straw Poll his stock among Iowa voters has been rising. So much so that he’s taken the second place position, ahead of more “top tier” candidates such as Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and John McCain. Again, while the CBS/ NY Times poll is a little different from the Real Clear Politics average, it’s pretty close.
Why is the Hawkeye State being watched so closely by the media? Well, Iowa is about as evenly divided as a state can get. It is neither a red nor a blue state, and it hasn’t had a remarkable bipartisan history. Yes, there are certain portions of the state that are solidly red or blue, but overall the state is a pretty good litmus test of how well (or how poorly) a candidate can expect to do in the campaign proper. Historically, if a candidate can win Iowa, then he or she stands a pretty good chance of swaying voters who are on the fence.
But that is a theory that’s being put to the test this campaign season. As the CBS/NY Times poll suggests, the first choice by voters isn’t necessarily the one they think is the most electable. For example, on the Republican side, most Iowans are backing Romney. Yet they clearly don’t think he could win the general election. They see Giuliani as the most electable candidate. The same holds true on the left, where Clinton is looked at as the most electable of the top three, but Obama and Edwards having more to offer regular Iowans. Whether that is true or not remains to be seen, but it shows you that voters are, for the most part, putting ideology first and realism a very close second.
One more thing of interest to note in this poll is the number of people whose minds aren’t made up. Normally by the this time in the campaign season I’ve made by decision months beforehand. That’s not been the case this time around: I’ve only just made up my mind in the last few days. But reading this poll, it’s pretty clear that I’m not the only Republican in Iowa struggling with the decision. Among likely caucus-goers, 57 percent say it’s too early to say who their choice will be.
Finally, the issue that is highest on the list for Republican voters is illegal immigration, the very thing so many pundits said would not be an issue this election. Well, trust me, it’s going to be a big issue, no matter who the nominees are. Iowa has been having some serious illegal immigration problems over the last few years, and it’s quickly reaching a tipping point.
I know a lot of people say that those opposed to illegal immigrants are xenophobes or racists, but that’s not the case here at all. Iowans don’t have a problem with immigrants in the least. We are a state that is extremely hospitable, almost to a fault. We gladly welcome virtually anybody who comes here. But we won’t roll out the welcome mat it if they’re breaking the law and putting a strain on society. Iowans want to see people fill out the necessary papers, go through the process legally, and then come to the state. If they do that, we’ll be glad to call them “neighbor.”
We’ve got about 50 days to go until the caucuses kick off, and I can’t recall a campaign season being this close. The results of the caucuses may very well end up coming down to which candidate can get the most grassroots supporters to the individual caucuses around the state and sway voters on the spot. It should make for some interesting stories as the campaigns continue to unfold.
Brian Pickrell blogs at Liberty Pundit.
This comment has more to do with Brian’s support of Fred Thompson than the gist of his Iowa post:
All of you who are hung up on conservative ideology need a reality check!
Choosing who you’ll support based on a conservative “purity test” will mean NOTHING if your candidate can’t beat the Dem nominee in November.
So for all of the intellectual posturing on “who is true to traditional convservatism, and how should we interpret their position papers, etc.” — at the end of the day, Hillary gets elected and we end up with another Ruth Bader Ginsberg on the Supreme Court, and more intrusive government progams!
My point is: Great if your mantle is true Conservatism, but start thinking strategically! We better get behind a candidate who has a strong showing in the general election, or none of the hair-splitting will mean a thing.
After all of these years I’m still not sure I understand the Iowa caucus process, but I do resent the early states having so much influence over the rest of us.
Sure hope Iowa Republicans will use their brains.
Well, I’ve never been one to look for just the “who can get elected” factor. I look primarily at the ideology and beliefs of the candidate. If they’re something I can’t support, then sorry, that person won’t get my vote. Personally, I’d rather stand on principle and lose the election than compromise my beliefs and elect a sub-par president who goes against most of what I believe in.
I’m also with Fred. If Rudy gets the nomination I will vote for him happily even though I disagree with him on a number of issues. My #1 issue is the GWOT and that’s why.
It’s more important to me that the Republicans retain the WH than that a candidate who best matches my ideology gets the nomination and loses. I want Fred. I also think Rudy would absolutely eviscerate Hillary!. (Well at this point I think PeeWee Herman could eviscerate her; she is ready to crack.)
Brian: I challenge you or anyone else to explain to me how allowing a Hillary (or Obama or Edwards) victory next year would be preferable to a “sub-par” Republican. If you truly are conservative, seems like half-a-loaf would be better than none.
And Peg: The GWOT is my #1 issue also. I do appreciate that you’d support the Republican nominee, even if it’s Rudy. I’m guessing Brian would too — but it’s not you guys I’m worried about.
In the general election it’s that “mushy middle” (voters without clearly defined ideologies) who can decide an election. If we don’t consider nominating a candidate who can charm them, then they’re liable to (and probably will) swing the election the other way.
And I don’t share your wishful thinking, Peg, about Hillary self-destructng. At this stage we can’t afford to be over-confident.
Don’t count Fred Thompson out just yet!
Remember Fred’s Giving Day on Nov 21, 2007
It’s our message of thanks to Fred Thompson!
Please spread the word:
http://www.blogsforfredthompson.com
I would support Rudy if he’s the eventual nominee. I’d support just about anyone, actually (except McCain or Ron Paul…I’d sit this one out before voting for either one of them).
Anyone of the candidates would be better than a Democrat, in my opinion. But my preferred guy right now is Thompson, and he’s who I’ll be backing in the Caucuses.