Obama's coalition... (4.00 / 1)

The movement that supported Iowa was composed of young voters and  Democratic Liberals along with Independent and Republican moderates in more diverse states he will also carry the African American vote.  This is a very strong coalition that will do very well for Obama and for the democratic party in the  general election.

Obama did the impossible and drove up the turnout and he did it by reaching out to everyone.  This was a more decisive victory than I expected.  I think that Clinton may still win Nevada, but New Hampshire and South Carolina are now easily predicted for Obama.

My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama

---

by: Luam @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 13:10:15 PM CST

Back To Earth (4.00 / 1)

Obama did the impossible and drove up the turnout and he did it by reaching out to everyone.

These figures show a massive increase in turnout for Democrats across the board.  Sure, Obama did very well.  But if Obama alone had driven the turnout, then Clinton and Edwards would have gotten about half they vote totals they actually got--in line with the 2004 Democratic caucus turnout.

Thus, what Obama did was not just impossible, this year, it was commonplace.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:56:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

well... (0.00 / 0)

Obviously it wasn't actually impossible, he did it.  All of the campaigns improved turnout but Obama did it better than the rest.  Folks were saying that the projections that had him ahead had over 200,000 caucus attenders as a way to discredit them.  Those projections were right.


My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama

---

by: Luam @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 20:52:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Three way of 1988 (0.00 / 0)

The three way Democratic caucus battle of 1988 (Gephardt, Simon, Dukakis) helped to turn Iowa into a swing state and one that leans Democratic on the Presidential level (Democrats won in 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2000 and Republicans won in 2004).  That, in fact was one of the highlights of the general election that year for Democrats.

It makes sense that a similar caucus would have a similar effect on the state, moving it leftward for the next 20 years or so.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 13:10:41 PM CST

You're Forgetting Jackson (0.00 / 0)

Jackson came in fourth with 11%, if memory serves me, but before the caucuses, he was drawing massive crowds, much larger than any of the other candidates, and he was striking a powerful populist theme.  There was one cartoon I remember, of two good old boys talking.  I remember there being a pickup truck in the picture, but that could just be my imagination.  Being a writer, however, the thrust of the words remain vivid:

Good Old Boy #1:  But Jackson?  He's black!

Good Old Boy #2:  So?  The banker who took my farm is white!

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:00:54 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Here is another way of looking at it (0.00 / 0)

This was posted on Dkos front page:

Total Voter Turnout (approximate)
356,000

Percentage of total vote

24.5% Obama
20.5% Edwards
19.8% Clinton
11.4% Huckabee (R)

Notice any of our candidates would have beat Huckabee?

As for the moderate and teenybopper vote - neither are a new phenomena. Moderates and teeny's voted overwhelmingly for the Democrats in '06 also. So this is just an extension of what started 2 years ago.

Now considering the moderate vote - their overwhelming support just shoots all kinds of holes in the progressive blog narrative that the Democratic Party sucks and will lose the vote in '08 for not (fill in the blank). Obviously the moderates who are helping decide this election disagree with progressive blogs about Democrats.

A note to Chris: So you were 18 in 1992 when Clinton was inaugurated. That puts you at 34. No longer part of the youth movement. Don't you remember in your 20's that the mantra was you can't trust anyone over 30? LOL

---

by: progressivesouls @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 13:19:09 PM CST

OK, I'll bite (0.00 / 0)

First, the overwhelming opinion on blogs is that Democrats are heading to large victories in 2008. Certainly, there are concerns that Dems might blow it, and people are working to make certain that doesn't happen. However, what would you prefer: an unending stream of triumphalism stating that there is no way Dems can blow it and anyone who questions their strategy can go suck it?

Second, Clinton was inaugurated in 1993. Third, the slogan of the youth movement to which you are referring was of a generation than my own.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 13:25:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Just so Chris.... (0.00 / 0)

...........the 'youth' you're talkin' about who didn't trust anyone over 30? That would be me not Chris. There were good reasons for that slogan. It has lost almost all it's relevancy today as the times they did change. See Bob Dylan. Ever hear of him?

You'd know this if you knowledge of history wasn't so weak. And you know what they say about that don't ya?

Google: 'George Santayana' another figure now lost in the mists whose writing and thinking was popular with some of my generation.

heh....

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 15:08:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh Come On! (0.00 / 0)

The blogs have been full for the last year plus of people  saying that the way the Dems are governing is going to lose them not only the WH but congress. Not only that many have been saying that they won't vote for the Dems because they were pissed. On top of that many have said if Clinton wins the nomination they won't vote for her either.

As for Clinton - OK he was elected in '92 and inaugurated 20 days after that year ended. But thanks for splitting hairs. When people start doing that it is because the years are no longer sneaking up on them but that the years are beginning to pass by rapidly. 33? 34? what's the diff? You are getting old man and you are no longer in that 17-29 teenybopper category and every additional year you are getting further and further away from it.

Pretty soon with years of experience under your belt it will start to scare the hell out of you that someone who has barely scratched the surface experience wise can negate your well earned 15 - 20 - 25 more years of experience that you have and dictate from a position of relatively no experience how your life and country will be run.

As for the mantra you are splitting hairs again. Ask any 19 or twenty year old today if they think 30 is old in comparison to themselves. They will say yes. And at twenty they would be right given that a 30 year old is 50% older than a 20 year old having lived half a lifetime more than a twenty year old.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 16:30:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Speaking as a twenty year old (4.00 / 2)

I think you're full of it. Sure, somebody who is 30 is older than me, but that does not mean I perceive them as being old. To a greater or lesser extent I share certain cultural identifiers with them. Whereas somebody who is 40 belongs to a whole other generation. Hell, it's not like age is generally perceived as being the crucial element in whether one is old or young - attitude also plays a significant role.

Also, that's an exceptionally lazy use of "the blogs". We're talking about an organism congenitally incapable of agreeing amongst itself, with a tendency towards pessimism. We're talking about a time when there's a fairly vicious primary battle going on, where it might make sense to make such claims. Finding the prophets of doom isn't hard, but in general I think you'd find the consensus opinion would give Democrats an advantage in 2008. You'd also find a consensus to the effect that Harry Reid is a worse Majority Leader than Bill Frist, but his incompetence isn't likely to swing the presidential election.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 18:05:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Full Of It? Your Are Right (0.00 / 0)

Full of experience and wisdom that your young twenty years can't provide.

Let me guess, at 30 you will be no wiser, no more experienced, no smarter than you were at twenty. And the same hold true for  40 - you will be no wiser, no more experienced, no smarter than you were at twenty.

Let me tell you something - every twenty year old thinks they know it all. I did. Everyone I know older than twenty thought the same. But then 5 or so years down the road people (except you) through time and experiences realize that they didn't no shit at twenty.

As for age being an attitude, that is half right. But there is no getting away from how years of experience brings wisdom that only experience can bring. And there is no getting away from your body and sometimes your mind aging. That's just physics you can't get away from. But then a twenty year old who is one year removed from being a teenager never thinks they will age. What a rude awakening you have to look forward to.

As for blogs - it's all subjective so there is no need to argue that point. We have people who like me try to keep the emotion out of it - and then we have twenty year olds like you who just can't wait to exercise your perceived power and hit the troll button on people who are not even addressing your personally which is a huge sign and proof of a twenty year olds immaturity.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 21:32:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thank you for your bad ad hominem (0.00 / 0)

I had a big detailed reply to that, before I exercised a little bit of this "wisdom" of which you speak so highly and realised that neither you nor I really care about the reasons why I reject your argument utterly.

Long story short, I realise how little I know. As I've aged my personality and outlook on life has changed in subtle ways. But I didn't troll rate you because of anything to do with me being twenty. If I saw a message like that in two decades time, I'd act the same way. Why? Because I'll still be short-tempered and I still won't have any respect for idiots who try to patronise an entire group for no good reason except the fact that they disagree with them.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 16:18:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well no (4.00 / 1)

Basically none of your conclusions make sense. Getting more votes in separate elections doesn't correspond to head-to-head victory by similar margins. And moderates voting in the Democratic primary doesn't mean that moderate politics trumps progressive politics.  Not only is it a silly application of logic, it totally misses the long-view perspective of movement building.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

---

by: Lucas O'Connor @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 13:26:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I have no idea (0.00 / 0)

whose post you are responding to. I certainly did not say moderates voting in the Democratic primary means that moderate politics trumps progressive politics.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 16:32:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Don't Trust Anyone Who Says "Don't Trust Anyone Over 30" (0.00 / 0)

A note to Chris: So you were 18 in 1992 when Clinton was inaugurated. That puts you at 34. No longer part of the youth movement. Don't you remember in your 20's that the mantra was you can't trust anyone over 30? LOL

There never was a generational slogan "Don't trust anyone over 30."  There was one handlettered sign, among a sea of similar self-made signs, that was picked out in a photograph in one of the national newsmagazines.  It pierced to the heart of the Versailles press of the day, which, naturally, considered itself both eminently sensisble, and quite liberal.  And they went nuts over it.

This was sometime in the 1967-1969 timeframe.

Martin Luther King had turned 30 in 1959.

Malcolm X, assasinated in 1965, had turned 30 in 1959.

Senator William Fulbright, who published The Arrogance of Power in 1966, and held a series of nationally televised hearings that galvanized opposition to the war that same year, turned 30 in 1935.

Howard Zinn, then a leading figure in the New England peace movement, turned 30 in 1952.

Radical anti-war priests Philip and Daniel Berrigan who were on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted List turned 30 in 1953 and 1951 respectively.

Lenny Bruce, who had died in 1966, turned 30 in 1955.

Allen Ginsberg also turned 30 in 1955.

Jules Feiffer turned 30 in 1959.

John Coltrane, who had died in 1967, turned 30 in 1956.

Sun Ra turned 30 in 1944.

The list goes on and on and on.  No one who knew anything at the time would have said such a stupid thing, except to mock establishment fears, or convey some other ironic message.

Anyone who took it seriously was hopelessly marked as utterly clueless.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:37:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Sure It's Still a Swing State (0.00 / 0)

It's just that 2008 has the potential to be a landslide year for Democrats where we win all the swing states handily because George W. Bush has been a singularly bad president.  I expect the Republicans to rebound somewhat when Bush is firmly in the rearview mirror (so Democrats should play the Bush card for decades to come in the way that conservatives cite the spectres of Carter and McGovern).  Unless there is something truly transformative going on, I suspect that 2008 (or possibly 2012) will represent a Democratic high water mark.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 13:38:32 PM CST

Rural Voters (0.00 / 0)

Rural: Republican 53%--47% Democratic

The rest is certainly significant, but this is what stuck out to me. Sure, the GOP still got a slim majority of rural caucus-goers, but the result is still phenomenal. As a rural Democrat, I'd love to see these kinds of numbers.

If Democrats can pull close to even in rural areas, we win with ease. If we can beat the Republicans in rural areas nationwide, we get an Electoral College landslide and a solidly Democratic Congress.

---

by: Fitzy @ Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 14:26:34 PM CST