January 7, 2008
The Straight Story: From Iowa to Wisconsin
By George Lightbourn
The
results of the Iowa caucus sent a shock wave through the political world
and could wind up at the steps of the Capitol in Madison.
Leathered, battle-tested strategists are coping to understand the Obama phenomenon. This fellow from Illinois, whose only significant political accomplishment was backing into a vacant Senate seat, seems to be part Mick Jagger and part Syd Finch. No one quite seems to know what to make of the Senator with the smooth delivery and the rather large ears. He of the vague experience and even more obscure positions on issues has been gaining high marks on his political acumen from all corners including some of the more respected conservative voices.
We should be cautious about reading more into the Iowa caucus than is really there. After all, two leading Republicans, Giuliani and McCain, only gave Iowa token attention. And, as any road-tested political junkie will attest, campaigns are a series of battles, no two of which are alike.
However, it would be foolish to ignore the turnout that Obama generated and the implication for races across America. In Iowa, turnout at the Democratic caucus was up 78% over the 2004 turnout. Part of that elevated turnout is no doubt a reflection of the widespread rejection of the sitting President, but part is almost certainly driven by an enthusiasm for the candidates. Voters seemed comfortable in breezing past the issues in this visceral election.
It is doubtful that the same passion carried over to the Republican caucuses except among more religiously oriented voters who found their guy in Governor Huckabee. Meanwhile, other Republican voters were left with pulling the lever for the candidate that might be closest to the candidate they really wanted. Unlike Iowa Democrats, Iowa Republicans settled.
True, turnout at the Republican caucus was up 30% over 2000, the last contested election. That provides little consolation to Republicans elsewhere that might be facing the prospect of running in an election that includes Obama at the top of the Democratic ticket.
By one tally, here is how the 356,000 Iowa votes spilt among the top vote-getters:
Obama 25%
Edwards 20%
Clinton 20%
Huckabee
11%
It’s now old news how the Obama camp was able to mobilize young voters, that group that has been thought of as too self-absorbed to connect with the collectivism of politics. These new voters were mobilized over a holiday to show up and actually talk politics with their neighbors. Amazing. The fact that this took place in Iowa, a swing state (favored Bush in ’04 and Gore in ’00) is not insignificant. This holds the potential of being a phenomenon among young voters that has not been seen since the 1960s. That period too was fueled by a reaction to a war, although back then the draft made that war much more likely to touch the young voters.
So in the short term, Wisconsin’s politicians have to factor in how to deal with the potential of an election that involves a large block of voters that hasn’t been a factor for decades. Iowa gave us tangible evidence that this could be a tough year for Republican candidates.
In the longer run, it will be interesting to see whether these new participants in democracy stick around. Are they simply showing up because there is something glamorous about participating in the Obama campaign, because Will Smith and Oprah think it’s cool? Or might they actually engage, not just in this election, but in other elections to come? After all, those youthful voters of the 1960s didn’t stop with driving LBJ out of office. They gravitated to state and local elections as well as dozens of other movements. Can that experience be repeated? The odds makers would call it a long-shot at this point, but then the odds makers had Hilary winning Iowa and John McCain resting comfortably in Arizona by now.