[NYTr] Iowa Caucuses: From the bureau of electoral cretinism (Bustelo)

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

Marxism-L - Jan 5, 2008
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism/2008-January/022174.html

 From the bureau of electoral cretinism: Iowa Caucuses

by Joaquin Bustelo

There were several notable things about the Iowa Caucuses:

a) Turnout was substantially higher than expected, apparently setting
records for both parties. It is true that turnout in primaries and
caucuses is ALWAYS said to be higher than expected, but this time,
numbers went along with the claims, as well as spontaneous anecdotal
statements by caucus goers and organizers about turnouts completely
exceeding their expectations, like 50 people crowded into the living
room of a house that traditionally hosted a meeting of a couple of
dozen; standing-room-only in a school auditorium that could hold more
than the 400 expected because more than 600 turned out, and so on.

b) Turnout especially among younger voters and first-time caucus goers
for the Democrats was higher than in the past, according to the entry
poll results.

c) Hillary Clinton suffered a humiliating defeat, coming in third. Her
spinmeisters point out that less than a quarter of a percent separated
her from Edwards's results, which is true. Unfortunately for her, she
was just shy of 29.5% and Edwards just over it, so the way the TV
graphics computers tell the tale, he got 30%, she got 29%, re-enforcing
her loss.

{Especially delicious --to me-- is that these percentages aren't exactly
terribly meaningful. Richardson, for example, had 7-8% support
(according to the unpublished part of the exit poll figures) but wound
up being credited with 2% in the final results (2% of what you ask? Of
something called state convention delegate equivalents, an invention of
the media cartel that decides who wins elections). The rest of his
supporters were in precinct caucuses where Richardson wasn't
"viable" (didn't have 15% of the caucus members). THEY shifted to other
candidates, mostly Edwards, but also some Obama. Edwards beat Hillary
by a hair thanks to the fact that he was the SECOND choice -- not FIRST
-- of a lot of folks.}

d) Obama's results among the younger age groups were astonishing.
Fifty-seven percent of those under 30 supported him; and 42 percent of
those 30-40. Given the demographics of Iowa --95% white-- this shows
that racist attitudes have a much reduced hold among younger people
when the media doesn't go out of its way to whip them up. Hillary had
the support of a humiliating 11% of the under-30's; and Edwards an
embarrassing 14%.

e) Huckabee won big among the creationist, flat-earth wing of the
Republican Party. Like, duh...

f) Romney, the Hillary Clinton of the Republican candidates, with
positions carefully triangulated and measured to the millimeter on the
basis of polls and political "professionals," lost big.

g) The effect of the Huckabee win is to open up the field in the
Republican contest, because only the utterly clueless or irremediably
suicidal think Huckabee can win in November, and he's taken Romney down
a more than a few notches. But he's also torpedoed Giuliani showing
that the flat-earthers do matter in Republican politics.

h) The effect of the Obama win is to put Hillary on life support.
Fortunately or unfortunately, she's got plenty of that -- money by the
trainload, and the backing of the most popular U.S. politician in living
memory, Bill Clinton. But if Obama succeeds in driving a stake through
the heart of the Clinton campaign in New Hampshire ... then it should
be a wild ride. Among those who Edwards did very well with were
--surprise-- self-described Democratic conservatives in Iowa. The
elephant in the room is Obama's "electability" ... and if Edwards is
smart, he will have his operatives deny at every turn that is the
issue, and never mention it himself, stressing differences on "issues"
and letting the TV images tell the tale.

i) Finally, IF the stories about the turnout and the youth vote turn
out to be largely true, and repeated elsewhere, we're at the beginning
of an interesting political process that may take a few years to play
out. If Obama's speech writers, spinmeisters, and image-makers HAVE
succeeded in tapping into something in the zeitgeist, an elemental,
inchoate anxiety for change, especially pronounced among younger
people, then almost certainly it isn't Obama that's created it, but by
giving it an initial focus, it MIGHT be the start of something much
bigger.

*  *  *

I wrote this in the pre-dawn hours of Friday morning, after getting home
from being involved in covering this, and after a couple of Cuba
Libres, but seeing as the caucuses hadn't sparked any discussion on the
list, I decided to follow my usual practice, and not post until I'd
looked at it in the cool light of day. I got up yesterday with barely
enough time to brew a cup of coffee (Bustelo, of course) before heading
off to work, and so I'm sending it now.

Joaquin