Th day after the Iowa Caucuses, there’s obviously a whole lot we don’t know about how the presidential nominating contests, much less the ultimate election, will proceed.
On the Democratic side, in the short term, we obviously don’t know the size of the “bump” Iowa will give Barack Obama going into New Hampshire just four days from now, though my guess is that it will catapult him into a clear lead. We don’t know exactly what Hillary Clinton’s campaign will do to mount a comeback in NH, though the time frame makes any negative tactic that requires voter reflection exceedingly difficult. We don’t know if the supposed populist fire set by Edwards in Iowa can strike sparks in NH, or if he will essentially disappear in the Obama-HRC crossfire. And will also don’t know if the fierce competition among Republicans in NH will deprive Obama of the kind of voter/media buzz and appeal among independents that he would need to replicate his Iowa win.
In the longer term, we also don’t know if this is going to be a two- or three-candidate race after NH, just as we don’t know whether Clinton’s national lead can survive losing in both IA and NH. We don’t know how seriously the media will take the Nevada Caucuses on January 19, or if the state could produce a saving win for Clinton or (less likely) Edwards. We do know that if Obama wins NH, he’s likely to be an overwhelming favorite in SC, where John Edwards’ campaign will probably die (ironically, in his native state) unless the dynamics fundamentally change. And most of all, we don’t know if Clinton is willing or able to pull a Giuliani if she can’t win before February 5, and has enough residual support and money to muddy the waters with a big delegate haul.
On the Republican side, things are even more muddled. A big Iowa Bounce would still probably leave Huckabee running behind McCain and Romney in NH, and he’ll have to get through a probable loss in MI before getting to favorable terrain in SC. But perhaps the biggest imponderable is whether the GOP/Conservative Establishment, panicked by Huckabee’s Iowa win, moves quickly towards former pariah McCain to kill off the Arkansan, or gives Romney another chance.
But here’s what we do know:
1) In terms of participation, the Iowa results were vastly more positive for Democrats than for Republicans. Check out Chris Bowers’ summary of combined Repubican and Democratic data from the Iowa entrance polls. Dems not only attracted about double the number of participants as Republicans in what had been a narrowly divided state. They attracted 75% of independents; 88% of self-identified “moderates”; and roughly three-fourths of voters under 45.
2) For all the talk about the Iowa winners, Obama and Huckabee, as “outsiders” or “upstarts,” they are polar opposites in terms of broader appeal. Obama won Democrats as well as independents, and liberals as well as moderates, and clearly helped produce a vast uptick in first-time Caucus participation in both categories. Huckabee won with disproportionate support from a narrow and controversial category of conservative GOP voters, conservative evangelicals. Even if elbows get sharp in the next couple of weeks, Democrats remain highly unified on most policy issues, and there’s nothing about Obama in particular (who attracts the most liberal voters while constantly reaching out to indies and even Republicans) that is likely to make him a divisive nominee. Republicans appear headed for a very divisive nominating contest that could produce a controversial nominee and resentment among his rivals.
3) As Democracy Corps and others have constantly reminded us, Democratic prospects in 2008 depend heavily on their ability to maintain their 2006 status as the party of change at a time when “wrong track” sentiment is extremely high. Iowa confirmed that 2008 is developing into another “change” election, made most obvious by the fact that the Republican candidate identified most with “change” in the past, John McCain, could well be the establishment candidate in the end. At the end of the George W. Bush era, Democrats will have a structural advantage in a “change” election, particularly if its candidate appears to personify change.
4) The issue landscape also continues to benefit Democrats. Much was made by pundits in recent weeks about declining public interest in Iraq, which was supposed to benefit Republicans by reducing the weight of that millstone around their necks. But aside from the fact that the Iraq War remains highly unpopular, with the two parties completely polarized on how to proceed in a way that favors Democrats, the emerging issues of the economy and health care probably favor Democrats nearly as much.
To sum it all up, the Iowa results provided a lot of good news for Democrats whether or not they support Barack Obama. At this admittedly early point, Democrats are united, change-oriented, highly attractive to independent and first-time voters, and favorably positioned on most key issues (with the arguable exception of immigration).
We’ll see how things shake out, but as a Democrat, I’m feelin’ pretty good at present.

Turns out my microexperience in Des Moines Precinct #19 was pretty representative of the Iowa Democratic Caucuses as a whole, at least in terms of the amazing turnout. The semi-final numbers showed 236,000 Democratic participants, nearly double the levels of 2004 (and about double the levels of Republicans tonight, who also exceeded expected turnout). Going into the Caucuses, people who said turnout might reach 200,000 were considered hallucinatory.
The Entrance Polls for the Democrats were quite interesting. Because they represent first rather than final preferences, they show HRC doing significantly better than Edwards, and Obama a bit below his final levels. Participation by independents was pretty much where it was in 2004 (about 20%), and though Obama won heavily among them, he also narrowly carried self-identified Democrats as well (and–mirable dictu–women). Despite the heavily left-bent nature of Edwards’ closing pitch, and the rapidly spreading stampede of progressive bloggers from Obama to Edwards on grounds that Obama was sounding like one of those damned centrists, Obama won decisively among those calling themselves “very liberal,” and by double digits among those calling themselves “somewhat liberal.” Meanwhile, Edwards romped among the small number of self-identifed conservatives, and his best income category by far was those earning more than $100,000.
The most astonishing entrance poll figure involves age: as high a percentage of Democratic Caucus participants (22%) were under 30 as were over 65. Since Obama won 57% in the former category and HRC won 45% in the latter, the relatively young age distribution was probably the single biggest factor in the outcome.

Courtesy of C-SPAN, I did get a little hint of what the Iowa caucuses were like. I certainly appreciate the argument that the Iowa caucuses are no way to run a Democracy, advanced by Larry J. Sabato and others. Yet, I felt a twinge of envy towards Ed for being there. It just looked like a fun night out, if somewhat exhausting — hanging out with fellow supporters of your candidate and others, making new friends, hashing out issues with all the media attention and knowing that your little vote probably means a hell of a lot more than that of the average citizen in any other state. I imagine the Obama afterglow party was a blast. His victory speech was excellent. No wonder Iowans love their crazy process.
I clicked on over to C-SPAN2 for a little while, where a GOP caucus was being spotlighted, and watched a young girl singing a slightly off-key version of that “I’m proud to be an American” song, while Republicans who could have been lifted out of a Norman Rockwell tableaux looked on. The GOP caucus process appeared to be a good deal more orderly and a lot less fun. I tried to imagine the Huckabee victory party. Back to C-SPAN1.
I get the critique of the Iowa caucuses not providing a representative reflection of the states’ voters as a whole, with such a small percentage turning out and no secret ballot etc. But there is something to be said for the human interaction you get with the Iowa caucuses — citizens coming together, boldly declaring their preferences and arguing and negotiating their way to a fair ballot count. It gets at the spirit of democracy from another angle. Still, after the elections the Democratic Party should move towards allowing all states to take turns as the first primary/caucus. No one state should have a hammerlock on first-in-the-nation.
For addressing the lessons learned and questions raised by the Iowa caucuses, the CNN entrance poll findings referenced by Ed are a great place to start.

Returning from my own Caucus Adventure, I discovered that the deal had already gone down statewide, with Obama winning by a healthy seven percent over Clinton and Edwards, who basically tied, and Huckabee croaking Romney by a very surprising nine percent.
Haven’t seen anything about total turnout, but I’m guessing the Democratic turnout must have been very high. Going back to the key question about media spin that Chuck Todd discussed this morning, the gut-wrencher now is whether Clinton and Edwards are deemed as having tied for second, or one is adjudged as beating the other. This might, for example, be the difference between faint hope and extinction for Edwards, and if it goes the other way (as appears likely), the media hype over Clinton finishing last in the Big Three could be damaging if not deadly.
As for Huckabee–well, it will be most interesting to see what kind of post-Iowa bounce he gets in later states. Romney’s now on the ropes, and before long, we could have the strange spectacle of conventional conservatives flocking to John McCain.

The “persuasion period” in Precinct 19 is coming to a close, and since participants are literally scattered out of the room and into the lobby, even Edwards supporters are “lobbying.” There’s lots of cheering as people join the viiable groups. It looks a little like some sort of fraternity or sorority rush.
The final count: 156 for Obama. 78 for Edwards, and 69 for Clinton (a handful of Biden people refused to regroup with another candidate, so virtually nobody left between the first and second vote).
By simple math, Obama gets 4 delegates, Edwards 2 and Clinton 2. Thus, to be clear about how the statewide count works, in this precinct, Obama got 50%, and Edwards and Clinton each got 25%. Nothing else that happened here tonight counted.

Precinct 19 is relatively large, and thus elects eight delegates to the county convention (the actual object of the Caucuses). According to my best informant, another seasoned Iowa pro, projected turnout tonight was 179–based on an assumption of a statewide turnout of 150,000–and the official count is 319! A women near me said it looked like at least three times the number of folks who were here in 2004, which was itself a high turnout Caucus.
According to the arcane rules of the Caucuses, 48 votes will be necessary to establish a candidate as “viable” in the precinct. Supporters of non-viable candidates will regroup with viable candidates in a second preference round.
An initial show of hands seems to indicate that Edwards is close to the viability threshold, with Obama and Clinton well above it and the others well below it. The precinct captain is now trying to figure out how to physically separate the preference groups for the official count. Usually there’s enough space to let them go to different corners of the room. Not tonight.
HRC’s supporters are filing past me, and appear to be 90% female.

Obama won big in the first round with 138. Clinton at 60 and Edwards at 57 met the viability standard. Richardson was at 30, Biden at 23, Kucinich at 4, Dodd at 3, and 4 uncommitted. The precinct will now have thirty minutes for the campaigns of the viable candidates to make their pitches to the supporters of those who didn’t make the cut.

I’ve arrived at the Democratic Caucus for Des Moines Precinct #19, at Monroe Elementary School, in the Beaverdale neighborhood of the city, with my friend Mike Klosterman, a registered voter here. The room is already overpacked, and an adjoining precinct meeting in the same school has 500 people still in line. Everyone seems to be blown away by the attendance.
By total coincidence, this precinct is being worked by Jackie Norris, Obama’s state director (along with her husband, John, who ran Kerry’s 2004 Caucus campaign). But there are plenty of Edwards and HRC staffers here as well.
They’re doing the preliminary announcements right now, but people are still outside the door signing in. It’s pretty cool.

I’m blogging from the Polk County Convention Center, where the Results/Media center for the Iowa Caucuses has been established, and am getting used to the pre-chaos. Upon arriving in Des Moines earlier today, there were few if any signs that the whole hep political world was focused on this cold and windy city–other than, of course, the Ron Paul billboards and yard signs that you see across the country in that campaign’s odd tribute to the politics of the pre-electronic age.
Lunching with friends at Palmer’s, a popular near-downtown deli, I saw not a single political bumper sticker in the vast and packed parking lot. But sure enough, a bunch of cameras soon entered, and there amongst us was Ron Paul himself, surrounded by an entourage that appeared largely pre-voting age.
Here at the PCCC, I’ve seen Biden and Richardson wander in, presumably to do interviews, but the crowds are mainly media types warming up for the big event in a few hours. I saw one foreign TV reporter announce that there was a sense of electricity here in the convention center, which gave me a good laugh since I was at that moment searching in vain for a power outlet for my PC.
The few non-campaign-worker Iowans I’ve talked to since arriving have generally suggested that among Democrats, Edwards and Obama have had the Big Mo of late. But the more animated talk was about the ulltra-saturation level of ads and especially calls from all the campaigns. Politically-involved Iowans often approach Caucus Night with a mixed sense of relief and sadness, recognizing that the massive attention the state’s been receiving is about to evaporate for a long time. Today there doesn’t seem to be much sadness that the Circus is about to strike its tents and leave town.
If turnout tonight doesn’t meet the very high expectations most observers have set, I suspect campaign overkill may be to blame.
The closest I’ve come to an inside tip so far was from a local pol who noted that Obama is going to be holding his Caucus Night party at the same Hyvee Hall digs where Howard Dean’s infamous “Scream” took place four years ago. The acoustics, she said, are so atrocious there that Obama might be vulnerable to the same kind of incident if he tries to get heard in the room.
I’ll probably check in next from an actual precinct Caucus, assuming my wireless card cooperates.

Well, after what seems to have been an interminable period of time, the appointed day is finally here, and at least some actual voters will begin to have a say about the 2008 presidential nominations. And according to most expectations, that say will be concluded within about a month (a month and two days, to be exact).
In Iowa today, the weather will be clear, windy, and reasonably mild by that state’s winter standards, with high temperatures reaching 30 degrees this afternoon as the campaigns go through their final paces. The actual Caucuses begin at 7:00 p.m. CST, and results should begin pouring in by 8:00.
I’ll have a later dispatch from Des Moines, but for now, suggest you read Chuck Todd’s summary of what the MSM is going to say tonight based on the most likely scenarios in both parties. The most intriguing issue may turn out to be how a “victory” is defined on the Democratic side, as opposed to a “tie.”

Pollster.com‘s Mark Blumenthal muses soberly, and at length on what the Iowa polls do and do not show.
The Wall St. Journal is getting a little nervous about the ‘populist’ tone of some of the candidates in Iowa.
WSJ’s Amy Chozick reports on the Dems’ surge in rural IA.
In addition to the DMR poll, Open Left‘s Chris Bowers sees increasing signs pointing toward an IA win for Obama
WaPo‘s Dan Balz says the Dems’ contest in IA is a battle over tone, as well as issues and direction.
John Zogby believes that there is a good chance of a three-way tie in the Dem caucuses.
The Politico‘s Roger Simon argues that media buzz may doom 3rd, or even 2nd place candidates.
ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper debunks the myth that IA Dems don’t vote for women.
Larry J. Sabato has a bit of a raspberry for the whole Iowa thing.