emptywheel’s Quickie Analysis

Many of you no doubt disagree. But I’m not crying about an Obama victory (then again, I wouldn’t have been crying about an Edwards or Clinton win, either).

But here are the details that I think are most important.

Crazy, record turnout–reportedly well over 200,000. And reportedly, perhaps two-to-one for Dems, compared to the Republicans.

Crazy, record turnout among youth.

Crazy, record turnout among women (MSNBC just announced that Obama actually beat Hillary among women).

I don’t care who you support–this crazy record turnout is nothing but a huge win for Democrats.

(Four years later and I still sound like goddamned Howard Dean, bless his soul.)

And among Republicans? Some 45% voted against corporatist America. Add that to Edwards’ turnout, and you’ve got a solid majority sick of government by the corporation, for the corporation…

Update: One more point. It’s been decades since I took a math class. But by my calculations, 29% of 220,000 (Hillary’s results) is significantly more than 34% of 120,000 (Huck’s results), right? If my math is correct, we just elected three Presidents to one for the Republicans.

image_print
73 replies
  1. MadDog says:

    Yeah, and the Talking Heads on BBC America had what’shisname, the head of Politico.com saying that Huckleberry’s win is gonna really piss off the ERs (Establisment Repugs), that Huckleberry is a One-Trick Pony (Fundies to the Rescue) so that they’ll do a number on him real soon (i.e. New Hampshire).

    And as I said at FDL, The Talking Asses Heads on CNN, particularly David Gergen are projecting that Edwards is done for ’cause he ain’t got no money.

    And of course, we call bullshit!

    • cinnamonape says:

      Yeah, and the Talking Heads on BBC America had what’shisname, the head of Politico.com saying that Huckleberry’s win is gonna really piss off the ERs (Establisment Repugs), that Huckleberry is a One-Trick Pony (Fundies to the Rescue) so that they’ll do a number on him real soon (i.e. New Hampshire).

      Would love to see THAT! A frontal assault on Huckabee would mean the loss of the evangelical and fundamentalist storm-troopers of the party. That’s the most committed to walking precincts, and getting out to vote. I don’t think that they would take this effort sitting down. There could be massive walkouts and protests at the Convention. Big mistake, but what can they do?

      • emptywheel says:

        The thing they just don’t get is that Huckabee had an opportunity created by the fact that each of the “mainstream” candidates had a characteristic that realy depressed turnout.

        Maybe if their presume national security candidate weren’t a serial adulterer, they would have kept enough folks around to defeat Huck.

        The Republican problem is not just that they created the Christian Conservative beast–it’s that not even “mainstream” Republicans can satisfy them.

        • Neil says:

          Maybe if their presume national security candidate weren’t a serial adulterer, they would have kept enough folks around to defeat Huck.

          It’s hard to get behind a three-time loser who bunks with homosexual friends when he’s between marriages… not that there’s anything wrong with it. Seriously, is he heterosexual enough? Hiding the unauthorized security expense for his concubine “in plain view” probably didn’t help his case, either. I don’t see him challenging in South Carolina – he’s toast.

          It’s Huckabee,Romney,McCain. I wish Paul were in the mix but the establishment has banished him and so it goes. I think this comes back to McCain unless someone sticks in a shiv (metphorically speaking, of course.) Both Romney and Huckabee are both capable of doing that job. Romney may need it done sooner rather than later.

          • emptywheel says:

            One interesting wrinkle about all this is that Michigan’s (and Wyoming’s) GOP primary becomes important–even if they won’t seat all the party’s delegates. I have no insight how WY will go. But in MI, you’ll have a guy whose daddy was a popular governor, running against a guy who kicked ass here in 2000, and then the presumed primary leader. That may make for an interesting primary.

            On the Dem side, Hillary and Kooch are the only active candidates on the ballot (Dodd was on the ballot). Which might get confusing.

  2. BlueStateRedHead says:

    EW!! Youth turnout!! How do you like dem’ Dems!

    My local college radio station happened to have the 1812 overture on as Obama’s win was confirmed. Bells ringing, canons booming and visions of retreating Republicans in the snow.

    And it just happens to be his alma mater’s station.

    For once coincidences or however you spell them are now nefarious and noxious.

    Now about the AG’s push poll investigation in New Hampshire. Can you give it a sleuthy look see?

    Need Links? lady have I got links for you.

    • BlueStateRedHead says:

      That was not nefarious or noxious. Happy to hear you think that Romney’s your candidate for pushpoller of the year. I figures he was the only one with the money to do so and an interest in NH. Phred can tell us for sure, but my gut is that NH does not want to be the poster child case of electoral fraud a second time.

      • eyesonthestreet says:

        Click on the “Margin of Victory” tab, It shows the proportion of voters for each county, and also, if you hold your curser over the county, it will give you the breakdown of each county vote. I seem to remember reading that Clinton was going after the rural vote, for she only was a few votes ahead of Obama in Sioux city (in the westrern block) , and almost half as much as Obama in the other major urban centers of Iowa.

    • phred says:

      You should have heard the befuddlement on the phone when an Emily’s List fundraiser called a couple of weeks ago. You could almost hear her scratching her head in wonder that I cared more about policy than gender. Poor thing.

      • Rayne says:

        Yes, that’s a decent measure of how far we have finally come, isn’t it? That we can now concern ourselves only with candidates’ standing on issues rather than their race or gender? Only took 86 years after we got the vote.

        Senator Dodd’s dropped out. [sigh]

  3. CTuttle says:

    Siun posted this at FDL…

    212,000 voters acc to IDC in Dem caucus, with 91% counted, immense turnout
    compared with 122,000 in ’04
    R’s 120,000

  4. Rayne says:

    Yeah, I feel all Deaniac around the edges, too…Iowa Dem Party reporting at 10:39 pm EST:

    Senator Barack Obama : 37.55%
    Senator John Edwards : 29.86%
    Senator Hillary Clinton : 29.40%
    Governor Bill Richardson : 2.09%
    Senator Joe Biden : 0.94%
    Uncommitted : 0.13%
    Senator Chris Dodd : 0.02%

    Precincts Reporting: 1722 of 1781 < < less than 60 to go</p>

    (Percentages are State Delegate Equivalents.)

    Edwards’ 2nd place is a vindication of Dean’s 50 State Strategy; he went to every precinct, conceded none of them, and a number of them went strongly for Edwards.

    I want to tell HRC: Sweetie, it’s going to take a helluva lot more than money.

  5. Rayne says:

    Hey EW, give the techies a heads’ up in case they aren’t already working on it — there must be some problem right now, just got a database error followed by a duplicate message error.

    One thing that does make me sad: Biden should not have done better than Chris Dodd. No way. And Dodd deserved better, but I will not be heartbroken to have him continue as a Senator in a Democratic Majority with a Democratic President.

    • cinnamonape says:

      63% of Democrats voted against Obama.
      Clearly good news for the Republicans.

      Don’t be silly. One could say that 63% of Republicans voted against Huckabee, too.

      The problem is that Obama drew twice as many voters as Huckabee did. There was a massive Democratic caucus turnout…and the Democratic caucuses required more commitment than the Republicans “vote and go home” model.

      The bad omens are over on the Republican side where Iowa, a state with a long history of being a supporter of Republicans…have suggested that there has been a sea change in Partisan affiliation.

      • JamesJoyce says:

        Morning Ape,

        When I read post # 11, “absurd” crossed my mind….
        The poat was undeserving a response imho but your “take” on it, is correct, for sure!

      • allan says:

        In response to allan @ 11
        63% of Democrats voted against Obama.
        Clearly good news for the Republicans.

        Don’t be silly. One could say that 63% of Republicans voted against Huckabee, too.

        This was a snarky reference to Atrios’s post earlier in the evening.
        Enjoy.

  6. MsAnnaNOLA says:

    I have to agree that the record turnout is good for dems. How many were Rethugs though? I would like to know. Are they trying to corruput our race or were they just sick of their candidates (understandable).

    What do ya’ll think?

    • chrisc says:

      TPM is reporting the following turnout:
      115,000 Republicans and
      218,000 Democrats- way more than anyone predicted.

      I’ll wait for further analysis on whether or not Repugs voted for Obama.

      I’m really heartened by the larger than expected turnout. And first time voters wanting CHANGE.
      Cause, you know, some of the old timers really got it wrong in the last two elections.

      I’ve been watching the Rasmussen presidential approval poll.
      I think it tends to be more favorable to W than other polls.
      Also, W’s numbers will tank and then there will be this unexplained upswing, then he will start to tank again and then another upswing. I’ve never figured that out.

      But today I noticed a big change. Bush’s approval is at 35% (near his all time low) and his disapproval is 64% which is at or near the high mark. Nothing too exciting there. But the disapproval is a whopping 51% . Wow- that is a whole 10 percentage points higher than the December average of 41% who strongly disapprove of the way he is doing his job.

      Change- we want it and we want it now.

  7. radiofreewill says:

    The Country seems to be in full streaming flight away from all things Bush – especially the War.

    Hillary’s Lieberman-Kyl Vote seems to be haunting her…she bit down hard on RGJoe’s “Iran is the Pivot in the Axis of Evil” hook.

    Ahab going down with the Whale she pinned herself to…

    I think the Country is on-track to elect a “Reality Based/Non Establishment” Candidate this year.

  8. emptywheel says:

    More thoughts on Hillary’s speech:

    I gotta say, first of all, that her speech was gracious. For the first time, ever, I feel like I’m a member of the same party as Hillary–and that Hillary cares more about the party than Hillary (it was just a speech, I know).

    But it also sounded like an awful big concession. I think Hillary realized (and if the rumors that Penn has been fired–Pach and I tried to take him out 2 months ago!–then it’ll make sense) that Obama has expanded the scope of this election among Dems, and she had better start competing among those he has invited in.

    Most telling, though, was Bill’s face. He was hit by a truck tonight. Which, for Hillary, may well be a good thing. If anything, he’s even more determined than she.

    But they definitely realized they’ve been running a failing strategy thus far.

    • MadDog says:

      I agree that HRC’s speech was more about “party” than her own campaign. Smart move and the only folks it dissed were the Repugs.

    • Rayne says:

      Yes, the Clintons have been playing to one rather small constituency, and it wasn’t even swing voters. It was the money crowd, as if their money would buy enough votes to make up nearly a double-digit margin. The money can buy 1 or 2 percent, but not 8 or 10 percent.

      Reality check.

      I wonder if Peter Daou will be with the campaign for long, too.

    • emptywheel says:

      It’s almost all stuff I covered this PM. The news is he refers to “interrogation sites” and that he gives us a date when the CIA claims it stopped waterboarding.

    • MadDog says:

      A key member of Congress disclosed yesterday that the CIA said in February 2003 that it planned to destroy videotapes of harsh interrogations after the agency’s inspector general finished probing the episodes…

      Pincus is slow on the uptake since we caught that yesterday. That or his Editors at the WaPoo decided to get a WH blessing before running it.

  9. Sedgequill says:

    Four candidates I might have considered voting for look to soon be out of the running. At least now maybe all the experience critiquing will reduce, and we’ll get more and more detailed discussion on important issues. I hope so; I’d like to make a choice by Super Tuesday—a choice among those those left standing, that is. Oops—I’m slightly geolocating myself now.

  10. Rayne says:

    That’s all she wrote, 1781 of 1781 precincts now in, according to Iowa Democratic Party website:

    Senator Barack Obama : 37.58%
    Senator John Edwards : 29.75%
    Senator Hillary Clinton : 29.47%
    Governor Bill Richardson : 2.11%
    Senator Joe Biden : 0.93%
    Uncommitted : 0.14%
    Senator Chris Dodd : 0.02%

    (Percentages are State Delegate Equivalents.)

  11. Rayne says:

    There’s something kludgy about the construction of this bit, strained, too real politik:

    In recent public accounts about the tapes, CIA officials have said that no definitive decision was made about destroying the tapes until 2005. Beginning in early 2003,senior officials expressed an “intention to dispose” of the videos, according to a Dec. 6 statement by CIA Director Michael V. Hayden. But an internal debate over the tapes’ disposition continued for two more years, with senior CIA lawyers advising against their destruction.

    According to several senior intelligence officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the matter is under criminal investigation, the videotaping at issue was conducted at secret CIA detention sites overseas with the approval of CIA headquarters. The interrogations got underway after the administration in August 2002 authorized what Muller described in a Feb. 28, 2003, letter to Harman as a “handful of specially approved interrogation techniques.”

    Emphasis mine; why the quote marks? Why the coy “senior officials” bit? Why don’t they just spit it out?

  12. Dismayed says:

    I like these results. Hill is going to have a harder time in the future without presumed front runner status. I’m not counting her out because a few people with a lot of money want her elected, but I’m glad she took a shot in the chops. I’m also glad to see Edwards very much in this race! I can’t remember when I’ve ever been so interested in the primaries. It all comes down to this, will big money win out or will the rank and file win out? We don’t have an answer yet, but I like the look of things.

  13. watercarrier4diogenes says:

    You had it about dead on, Marcy. From Group News Blog (Steve Gilliard must be smiling down on us all):

    Total Voter Turnout (approximate)
    356,000

    Percentage of total vote

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

    • Helen says:

      So marcy as a progressive who has money to burn. I’m going this way oh did you hear? wEXLER ASKED ME TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE impeach ceheny

  14. cinnamonape says:

    Update: One more point. It’s been decades since I took a math class. But by my calculations, 29% of 220,000 (Hillary’s results) is significantly more than 34% of 120,000 (Huck’s results), right? If my math is correct, we just elected three Presidents to one for the Republicans.

    Right you are 64,000 vs. 41,000. And that’s considering that Huckabee really mobilized his forces using the churches. Three Democrats exceeded the top Republican in terms of total votes by a minimum of 61% to 39% (Clinton and Edwards). Obama had 81,500 supporters. That’s 66.5% to 33.5% (41,000). Obama had almost twice as many supporters as Huckabee! These are stunning numbers demonstrating the base of support for Democrats over the Republicans. The GOP must be quavering in their boots tonight at the numbers of Democrats and cross-overs who felt more interested in the Democratic race than dealing with the jackasses in the GOP.

    • Hmmm says:

      Interesting, DP does not see the investigation even considering legality of methods, only legality of the video destructions.

      Dang, wish we’d known in advance she was doing that — might have got in a question about remote viewing & recording, and/or how she thinks the 9/2007 videos came into being and then into the light.

    • emptywheel says:

      Here’s an interesting exchange, which either may be a slip, or a revelation.

      Arlington, Va.: Dana — are there any thoughts that there may be more CIA tapes out there, and more copies of the ones destroyed?

      Dana Priest: Lots of thoughts, no proof. I do not find it that credible that the CIA only taped KSM and Abu Zubaidah. What about the others who were interrogated? Why not them too?

      The public version, at least, is that the second tapee was al-Nashiri.

  15. AnneLaurie says:

    A frontal assault on Huckabee would mean the loss of the evangelical and fundamentalist storm-troopers of the party.

    It won’t be a frontal assault, it’ll be the classic Rovian death by a million septic paper-cuts. “They” are already whispering that Huckabee’s miracle weight loss was the result, not of work willpower & prayer, but of gastric bypass surgery, the phoney lying phoney. Push-poll phone calls are no doubt ringing phones all over New Hampshire even as we speak, asking potential primary voters whether Huckabee’s prediliction for Target over Wal-Mart will make him unelectable come November, or whether knowing that Huckabee paid ten thousand illegal jihadi immigrants to attend college in Arkansas on the taxpayers’ dime makes him more attractive to Demon-crats than true-blue redstaters. William Kristol will explain that Osama bin Laden has released a video stating that Huckabee is his personal choice for Barak Hussein’s Vice President, and Peggy Noonan will say that voting for a semi-ordained minister would be like desecrating the corpse of St. Ronnie. But it will all be phrased “More in Sorrow Than in Anger”. As our Southern cousins say, Bless their hearts!

  16. brat says:

    Yes the establishment GOP LOATHES Huckabee, but at this point, there are FAR more Protestant Right types in the GOP than the old “Rockefeller Republicans.” Hell, my elderly GOP uncle left the party 6 months ago after being a GOP member for over 60 years. He’s HAD IT and is now a proud dem.

    The numbers don’t lie. The entire GOP field got beaten like a drum in Iowa. The only GOP candidate who did will is the ANTI-Bush (check out the swipes Huckabuck made at the GOP establishment–take that Romney and Bush).

    I’m going to ENJOY watching the great GOP crack-up. The Dems have a great field, the GOP has nothing. As the late Steve Gilliard would have said, “Pass this popcorn. this is going to be FUN to watch.”

  17. BooRadley says:

    Is it worth asking Jane to suggest that FDLers call Nancy Speaker Pelosi and very politely request despite all the damage it will do to their blood pressure to allow the Democratic turnout in Iowa to fully inform her as she I hope against hope moves ahead aggressively with what you suggested here?

    Is Pelosi Planning on Picking Bush’s Pocket?

    • emptywheel says:

      I don’t know the answer to that–but one thing you wouldn’t be abel to calculate is how many people couldn’t caucus because the caucus system disenfranchises those who work nights.

      • CasualObserver says:

        I make that 8%. But that would be of total population, which isn’t appropriate. Still interested to know what % of caucus-potential pop. showed up to caucus.

        the reason I ask stems from commentary last night about the breathtakingly huge turnout.

  18. klynn says:

    EW

    Despite your years away from math, you’re still doing some great math! Love the update! Nice “math” catch!

  19. looseheadprop says:

    OK, I realize this jumps out at me b/c yesterday I postulated that MAYBE the AG specifically authorized individually, each use of WaterBoarding, but for me this the money quote

    The interrogations got underway after the administration in August 2002 authorized what Muller described in a Feb. 28, 2003, letter to Harman as a “handful of specially approved interrogation techniques.”

    • emptywheel says:

      I’m not sure what you mean. If it had said, “handful of ’specifically approved’ or ‘individually approved’ techniques,” it would be consistent with “waterboardings.” But Muller is talking about techniques, plural, not individual instances of one technique.

      I’m confused.

      • looseheadprop says:

        The thing I am looking for, it proof one way or the other that an INDIVIDUAL, a person, specifically authorized the use of torture. Not a program, not an idea, but a phone call came in “Hi, can we do X to Mr. Y on Tuesday at 9AM?” and this person said “yes”. Specific authorization to touture a particular person on a specified occassion. And I think, when we find out the details, it will NOT be supported by statute any more than the NSA spying was.

        The CIA did not volunteer to torture, it was not the CIA chomping at the bit to do it, they resisted and kept asking for legal opinions so that feild agents would not get left holding the bag. I think there is a smoking gun paper trail, and it could be THE THING that busts all of the other shit open.

        I see in these letters, breadcrumbs that we should be following.

  20. looseheadprop says:

    Re: My 56, it was supposed to be inresponse to Rayne’s link to the Pincus article about the CIA tapes.

  21. Neil says:

    Zogby Reuters CSPAN tracking poll in NH

    Clinton 32%
    Obama 26
    Edwards 20
    Richards 7
    Kucinich 3
    Biden 2

    McCain 34%
    Romney 30
    Huckabee 10
    Guiliani 9
    Paul 7
    Thompson 2

  22. looseheadprop says:

    It’s the “specaiily” Approved, that piques my interest. As in not approved in a normal way.

    • klynn says:

      LHP

      Keep following those breadcrumbs. Did you read Hmmm’s comment at 144 in the What Did Helgerson Do With The Torture Tapes?

      (Sorry I did not link. I have had big problems with getting the link to function since the new site came online.)

  23. BooRadley says:

    Hmmm January 3rd, 2008 at 9:22 pm
    144

    I’m sure this is hopelessly EPU’d by now, but I think Klynn may well have a point — IF the telcos were not merely serving as data conduits, but also hoovering-up recordings of all data transmissions (as many people suspect), and later deleted said recordings. Further, if telco immunity kills this class of suits, then it also prevents all discovery in this area, where assertion of the state-secret privilege (the fave ploy to date) is likely to carry less weight.

  24. cognitorex says:

    Your analysis that each and every Dem aspirant received at least 50% more votes than Huckabee is an enormous story.
    Money is going to flow to Dem coffers probably at the rate of five to one. The consequences for Congressional races are huge.
    I suspect that the reason the MSM is not ballyhooing this voter disparity story is because they know that if they get behind the story and really trumpet it’s likely effects those effects will increase geometrically from the added publicity.
    If the same trend repeats itself in NH with no corresponding organized evangelical vote as in IOWA the stats may favor the Dems even more.
    Some days are better than others. (Psst, tell the Press.)

  25. Redshift says:

    I would also point out that there’s been a lot of talk over the past couple of years that if we could get single women out to vote, it would be really good for progressives and Democrats. The Iowa breakdown doesn’t tell that specifically, but the high female turnout and Obama’s strength with younger women is a strong suggestion that he’s done well on that goal.

    • emptywheel says:

      Yup–that’s one of the reasons I highlighted that above. Obama succeeded (without Emily’s List’s Help, apparently) in doing what political groups have been trying to do for some time.

  26. Leen says:

    John Edwards not taking Pac Money. Hillary is Pac Woman and the rest of the candidates are all Pac Men!

    Hello New Hampshire John Edwards not taking Pac Money. This is huge!

  27. klynn says:

    BTW, I still cannot access the site with the county breakdowns. I get a failure notice. Anyone get Warren County, Iowa stats?

  28. HowlnAround says:

    EW, and others,

    “(Four years later and I still sound like goddamned Howard Dean, bless his soul.)”

    He looked like the cat that just ate the canary, all lean in his button down style. Makes you want to get out his speech about the pickup truck with the dixie flag in the window. Just listen for the back beat.

Comments are closed.