All you need to know: Morning of 4th January 2008

A big win for Barack Obama in the Democrat race:

• Barack Obama 37.6%, John Edwards 29.8%, Hillary Clinton 29.5%

A very comfortable win for Mike Huckabee in the GOP race:

• Mike Huckabee 34%, Mitt Romney 25%, Fred Thompson 13.4%, John McCain 13.2%, Paul 10%
• Rudy Giuliani (3%) effectively skipped the Iowa caucus

[For the uninitiated, the Iowa caucuses are just stage one in the presidential nomination process.  The victors of Iowa hope to receive momentum - in terms of fundraising and publicity - for the battles ahead but nothing is in the bag yet].

OUR CANDIDATE-BY-CANDIDATE GUIDE TO WHAT HAPPENED LAST NIGHT...

First the Democrats...

Hillary Clinton: A short time ago her candidacy was, the pundits thought, inevitable.  No longer.  She even lost amongst Iowa's women.  She still has enormous resources at her disposal but the momentum is now with Barack Obama.

Peggy Noonan: "She had the money, she had the organization, the party's stars, she had Elvis behind her, and the Clinton name in a base that loved Bill. And she lost."

Mark Steyn gets it right: "We shouldn't take away from the Senator [Obama]'s achievement tonight. He's made history. And the problem for Hillary is that, for those Democrats who want to cast a history-making vote, he's a much more appealing figure than she is."

Graphic from RedState.

John Edwards: "He needed to win here and he was a distant second. He won't quit immediately but he faces almost impossible odds.  The next big question for him is when to pull out and to whom he should throw his valuable support." - Gerry Baker

Barack Obama: If you want to know why Obama won simply watch his victory speech.  His optimistic, let's-bring-the-nation-together message is potent (warning... it's fourteen minutes long):

"Obama is now not only the favorite to win the Democratic presidential nomination, he's the candidate in either party with the best chance of becoming the next president."  Who said that?  Andrew Sullivan or some other Obama cheerleader?  No.  The Bush-supporter Fred Barnes at The Weekly Standard.  John O'Sullivan also says Obama must now be favourite.

There are also signs the Democrats are much more energised than the Republicans.  Two-thirds of the people who voted in Iowa voted for Democrat candidates.

Senators Dodd and Biden have quit the race and there will now be a scramble for their endorsement.  It can't be long before Bill Richardson calls it a day too.

AND THE REPUBLICANS...

John McCain: If you want to know if McCain is pleased at this result just look at the photograph on the right (hat tip to the Green Mountain blog).  McCain is on the phone to Mike Huckabee congratulating him on his victory in New Hampshire (corrected... Iowa!).  Romney is McCain's principal rival for the votes of New Hampshire and Romney now goes into New Hampshire a lesser figure.  McCain's latest (six day) tour of NH is reviewed here.

Mitt Romney: A big loser. If he'd won tonight (and he spent $10m of his huge personal fortune trying to do so) he would have had momentum for New Hampshire.  According to the American Spectator he spent $322.58 for every one of his projected 31,000 votes; Mike Huckabee spent $47.44 per vote for a projected 42,160 votes.  Here's why many don't like Romney:

"Mitt Romney represents everything Americans hate about politicians: the empty man hungry for power and willing to say anything to get it, the privileged man who thinks he can buy an election without actually standing for anything."

James Forsyth: "It is very hard to see how Romney now holds off a surging McCain in New Hampshire and if he loses both early states it is all over for Romney."

Rudy Giuliani: He didn't contest Iowa which many have always thought a big mistake.  He'll be glad that Romney has no momentum.  He'll hope that McCain doesn't win big in New Hampshire.

Mike Huckabee: He's still unlikely to win the Republican nomination but he's now the most important Christian conservative politician in America and may well be McCain's running mate.  He's also very likeable.  Explaining his decision to go on Leno rather than stay in Iowa he said: "People are looking for a presidential candidate who reminds them more of the guy they work with rather than the guy that laid them off."  And that's Mike Huckabee (and Romney is the guy that laid them off).

Watch Huckabee on Leno here.

Ron Paul: No big breakthrough for the libertarian, anti-war Republican.

Fred Thompson: He came third (just). He'll stay in the race for now.

Yesterday's All You Need To Know.

Comments

[Paul D]

Any chance of a simplistic "what this all means" for those of us who don't follow the nuances of the early race in the US?

i.e. so Huckabee and Obama won Iowa - in the grand scheme of things what does this mean? Is it one state, one vote - i.e. they need a majority of the 50 nominations to win it, or is there an electoral college as in the actual presidential election itself and Iowa's worth (say) 3 votes to Florida's 27? Or does the raw number of votes get carried forward and all the votes from the 50 states are totalled to give a winner?

How exactly will this result, in isolation (as opposed to "momentum", affect the overall outcome?

[Tony Makara]

One can't help but think that Hillary has become over exposed and has shot all her bows far too early. Nontheless Obama would be a disaster for America, if this man were ever to become president it would expedite America's decline a superpower. Obama would be good news for the Republican's though, he is a man they could beat if they play him right.

[Comstock]

"Rudy Giuliani (3%) effectively skipped the Iowa caucus"

Anyone know why?

Paul-D As far as I can see each state elects a certain number of delegates to a national convention. Last time around Iowa had 45 delegates. The winner Kerry got 38% of the vote and 30 delegates. Edwards got 30% and 10 delegates and Dean 18% and 5 delegates. So it isn't proportional, but nor is it winner takes all.

By comparison the winner in California got 288 delegates, and in New York 174 so Iowa appears to be momentum rather than actual voting rights.

I know our system is far from perfect but at least I can understand it!!!!!

(wonders how many americans fully understand the system)

[rich]

You use an image of a burning blimp to describe Hillary's campaign.

It reminds me of the another blimp currently flying around the US

http://www.ronpaulblimp.com/

[Editor]

Thanks Comstock for responding to Paul D.

[Jon Gale]

Anyone reading the above could be forgiven for thinking McCain came first rather than fourth!

[Ron Paul supporter]

Unlike the other GOP candidates, the Editor call Ron Paul by his surname only. More bias! National Review Online tried to claim that Ghouliani got 13% to place him above Ron. Pathetic!!

[Ron Paul supporter]

"McCain is on the phone to Mike Huckabee congratulating him on his victory in New Hampshire."

Huckabee won in IOWA. More sloppy reporting on this site!

[Andrew Ian Dodge]

Thompson tied with McCain...Ron Paul was no where.

Rudy skipped Iowa because the Republicans there are dominated by happy clappy fundies who loath him. He is concentrating on Florida and Super Tuesday on the 5th of Feb. (22 states).

Iowa have proven how irrelevant they should be. NH will hopefully return the race to sanity.

Huckabee is the Democrat's wet dream as a Republican nominee.

[London McCainiac]

McCain will be first in NH next week Mr Gale!

[Editor]

Thank you Ron Paul supporter. I've now corrected my error.

[Nicholas Bennett]

The founding fathers would have been proud of the process in Iowa last night.

Real grass roots democracy. Although the numbers voting will only be around 20% of the electorate it is heartening to see people prepared to turnout to 1800 venues on a cold January evening to debate and vote on the merits of each candidate.

[Ron Paul supporter]

Paul was only 3% behind Thompson and McCain and 7% ahead of Ghouliani. That is not "nowhere", Mr Dodge!

[Andrew Ian Dodge]

Another thing to remember is that 60% of the Republican electorate in Iowa is evangelical/fundie while less than 20% is in NH. That will make a big difference for the race.

I have taken the liberty to make up some t-shirts anti-Huckabee.

Paul is however is in 5th place ahead of someone who didn't even campaign in Iowa.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Good to see Hillary losing and also Mitt Romney. It was obviously a bad night for those politicians who don't believe in anything other than winning power.

[Comstock]

Good to see Barack doing so well. I reckon he could win this, and if he does he could well be walking down the lawn of the White House in 12 months time.

I don't know if Obama is left wing in any sense I would recognise but he is a fresh young face with the promise of change.

[Tony Makara]

I can't believe that people can't see how naive Obama is, seasoned political operators on the global stage would make mincemeat of him. Look carefully at the content of he speeches, they are empty rhetoric. This man is all packaging and no product. I have to say that in general the standard of presidential hopefuls is particularly scant this time around. There seem to be plenty of Dukakis types and no-one of Kennedy/Reagan stature. This I believe reflects a general lowering of standards in political candidates across the western world.

[Cliff]

Barack is gonna win the big one in November. Although we Conservatives have normally gone for a Republican, there is something about this guy that feels good. In any case, he can hardly be any worse than Bush.

[Ron Paul supporter]

Paul has come from "nowhere" to being a serious candidate. In the last few months, he has raised more money than the likes of McCain and Thompson. He performed well in Iowa despite the media, especially that owned by Murdoch, denying him coverage.

The neo-cons know that Paul is resonating with Young Republicans. In attracting young GOP support in Iowa, he was close to Romney and well ahead of McCain, Thompson and Ghouliani.

Paul can be a big player in taking the Republican away from big government imperialism back to its small government, non-interventionist roots. That's why neo-con sites like Townhall and National Review Online are smearing Ron Paul.

This is battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party, not just a Presidential nomination contest.

[Andy Peterkin]

Writing off Hillary is ridiculous at this stage. She has a good chance to win in New Hampshire, and lock the "inevitable" idea back in.

A good job too, because she'd be the best Dem candidate from a GOP point of view.

Paul is an absolute crank who will be gone post NH, or Michigan at the latest.

[Tony Makara]

Personally I'd like to see Edwards take the prize because to me he looks the most steady ship if a democrat were to become president. Obama would be a disaster for America. Hillary would be playing to the gallery all the time and in an era of international uncertainty the last thing we need is a president who showboats. John Edwards may yet prove to be the ideal compromise candidate, a safe captain at the helm, Obama and Clinton are too unpredictable.

[Sophie]

Edwards populism and saccharine presentation must grate even on Americans. Solid analysis at http://www.newstatesman.com/200801040001 - also notes why Romney really bugs a lot of voters..

[Julia Manning]

Fascinating result! Having seen the YouTube live Democratic debate in the summer, I'm not totally surprised at Obama's success. He was by far the most poised and repeatedly responded with the 'If I were President I would...' line which gave him gravitas and meant everyone pictured him in the role. However Tony M at 1.09pm sounds a credible warning. What does he really believe in [not withstanding the great 'CH Worldview' series!]? Meanwhile in the GOP, Huckabee is stirring up interest across the US precisely because we DO know what he believes in....

[S_baker]

"Personally I'd like to see Edwards take the prize because to me he looks the most steady ship if a democrat were to become president." What? I guess if you mean the HMS Titanic!

[Malcolm Dunn]

Tony. You say Obama is 'all packaging and no product' well that may be true. It was also true of Tony Blair in 1997 and 2001 and it worked for him! By the time people found out what Blair was really about it was too late.
I cannot believe Obama would be one tenth as bad as Blair, at least he (Obama) appears to have some principles.