Kerry Takes Iowa; Dean a Distant Third

[MavKikiNYC]

Dean Lags Far Behind Edwards; Gephardt Finishes Fourth
By ADAM NAGOURNEY

Published: January 20, 2004


ES MOINES, Jan 19 — Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts won the Iowa caucuses here Monday, brushing aside the insurgent candidacy of Howard Dean with an appeal that he would be the strongest candidate the Democrats had to beat President Bush.

Senator John Edwards of North Carolina came in second, captapulting him into the first tier of contenders in a showing that ended up pushing Dr. Dean into third place.

Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri appeared headed for fourth place in his second bid for the presidency, a devastating showing that Democrats said would almost certainly force him out of the race.

Dr. Dean conceded even as Iowans were voting, and when less than half the vote had been reported.

"I'm delighted to finish in the top three," Dr. Dean said in an interview with Larry King on CNN. "On to New Hampshire."

With more than 90 percent of the precincts reporting, Mr. Kerry had almost 37.5 percent of the delegate support awarded in the caucuses. Mr. Edwards had 32 percent, Dr. Dean 18 percent, Mr. Gephardt 11 percent and Dennis Kucinich 1 percent. More than 113,000 people had participated.

The victory by Mr. Kerry would seem to validate the thoroughly unconventional campaign tack he took: to come to Iowa to replenish a candidacy that had been languishing in New Hampshire, and use an unexpected victory to power him back to life in his neighboring state. By every measure, his showing here gave him a huge lift as he headed back to New Hampshire to confront the candidacy of Gen. Wesley K. Clark, who skipped the Iowa contest.

The day also delivered a huge and unexpected victory for Mr. Edwards, who seemed delighted if a bit surprised by the outcome tonight.

"My message is finally coming through," he said. "In the end, the caucusgoers heard it. That's the reason for this momentum and this surprise."

The result was a serious setback for Dr. Dean, who had campaigned intensely across this state for more than a year. It was a clear disappointment to a candidate who just a week ago was confident of victory here and in New Hampshire. Surveys of voters entering the caucus sites suggested that what was Dr. Dean's central appeal — his opposition to the war — had done him little good on Monday night. Instead, the issue that Democratic voters here and in New Hampshire repeatedly said was a top priority — finding a candidate who could beat President Bush — weighed heavily upon them, to Dr. Dean's disadvantage. Among the more than a quarter of voters who called electability their top priority, Mr. Kerry won by a ratio of almost two to one.

Dr. Dean was on a plane Monday for Manchester, leaving little doubt about where this battle is about to turn: to the state with the first direct voter primary.

"I'm looking forward to the primary," Dr. Dean said. "It's a new day, a new state."

Iowans who voted in the caucuses were far more likely to cite health care and the economy than the war in Iraq as their most pressing concerns in this election, even after a year in which the war in Iraq significantly shaped the Democratic presidential contest, according to a survey of voters entering caucus sites.

The survey found that the caucuses, the most competitive Democratic contest this state has had in at least 16 years, produced a spike of new interest, with about half of caucusgoers saying they were attending their first caucus. At the same time, the survey confirmed what voters here and in New Hampshire have repeatedly said from the start of the year: That defeating President Bush was a top priority for Democratic voters this year.

More than a quarter described it as the key consideration in casting their votes.

Three in 10 said the decisions were based on the candidates' taking strong stands on issues.

In a sign of how the climate here has changed over the last six months, barely 15 percent said the war in Iraq had shaped their final decision, even though 75 percent said they opposed the war. Dr. Dean, the former governor of Vermont, emerged as a major contender here in large part by opposing the war in Iraq, drawing a sharp contrast with three opponents who voted for the war while in Congress: Mr. Gephardt, Mr. Kerry Mr. Edwards.

Dr. Dean won barely half the support of voters who called the war in Iraq their top priority. And opponents of the war split almost evenly between Dr. Dean and Mr. Kerry, who voted for the Iraqi resolution in Congress, a position for which he was repeatedly lambasted here during this campaign.

The survey also suggested that the central theme of Mr. Gephardt's appeal -- pledging to fight against overly liberal trade agreements -- did not fare well. Barely five percent of voters named that as their top issue; and he won the support of just one-third of union households.

Among elderly voters, a key contingent in Iowa, and another target of Mr. Gephardt, Mr. Kerry won the support of about one-third, compared to about one-quarter for Mr. Gephardt. The elderly made up one-third of the electorate.

The poll also reflected the extent to which the election shifted in the final week: almost half of Mr. Kerry's supporters and half of Mr. Edwards' supporters said they decided to support them in the last week. By contrast, just a third of Dr. Dean's supporters made their decision in the final days of the campaign, suggesting the extent to which Mr. Edwards and Mr. Kerry won the undecided vote.

The poll was conducted by by Edison/Mitofsky for the National Election Pool of the networks and The Associated Press with 1,064 participants as they arrived Monday night for the caucuses in 50 precincts throughout the state. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

As the caucuses opened, some of the sites were packed, with some voters saying they had not quite made up their minds about what to do, reflecting what many Democrats have said was the extraordinary volatility of this contest.

In Waukee, a Des Moines suburb, Terry Meyer, a retired computer systems analyst, said as he walked into his caucus site that he was leaning toward Mr. Kerry, that he thought Mr. Kerry had the best chance of defeating President Bush.

"Really, the man whose ideas I really like and who I was torn between is Kucinich," he said. "But now that he's not really so much of a factor, I think I might go over to Kerry."

"I just think that Kerry has more experience and the better chance," he said.

In Indianola, Larry Buttrey, 62, a retired machinist, said he was leaning toward Mr. Edwards, citing the very thing that Mr. Edwards had emphasized to differentiate himself: that he was trying to avoid attacking his opponents.

"He's the only one I heard so far who hasn't blasted the other candidates," Mr. Buttrey said. "I don't want to hear what the other guy's doing. I want to hear what you're going to do."

With the Iowa voting completed, the candidates move into an exhausting sprint of primaries and caucuses that party officials say should determine a nominee by the beginning of March. It starts with the vote in New Hampshire next Tuesday and continues the following Tuesday, when there are contests in seven states.

And the nomination battle is about to effectively gain two more contestants; General Clark and Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut. Both men skipped the Iowa caucuses, instead spending time in New Hampshire.

With the caucuses starting at 6:30 p.m., the campaigning went on until the last minute. The candidates traveled across the state, restating the appeals that got them here, urging voters to turn out and stopping off to attend celebrations marking Martin Luther King's Birthday.

Campaign headquarters here were bustling with energy and tension, as the campaigns began executing the plans they had put into place long ago to turn out their voters.

"Go out and get more votes — we need to win this place," Joe Trippi, Dr. Dean's campaign manager, said to a volunteer as he bounded out the door of campaign headquarters. Dr. Dean's headquarters was elbow-room-only: a blur of orange, yellow and red caps. The color of the cap signified the rank of the worker.

As the 6:30 hour approached, volunteers at Dr. Dean's headquarters, many of whom had flown in from out of the state to help out, were assigned to work the telephones, knock once more on doors and drive voters to caucus sites.

Up Locust Street, at Mr. Kerry's campaign headquarters, staff members and workers toiled in the midst of pizza boxes and campaign signs, watched over by an inflatable George Bush doll adorned with a flight suit and a Pinocchio nose.

Mr. Gephardt said he was counting on support from union leaders to drive him to victory this time, as it did when he last ran for president, in 1988.

[Psychedelic Fuzz]

Kerry and Edwards 1 and 2, kind of surprising.

[Max Power]

I also heard that Gephardt dropped out of the race.

[sike]

Originally posted by: Max Power
I also heard that Gephardt dropped out of the race.

and cried like a baby....pretty funny
john stewart had some funny crap on the daily show last night on this....anyone catch it?

[MavKikiNYC]

Dean has always struck me as a bit of a fake. But tonight, after the results of the Iowa caucuses were announced, for the first time he came off as genuine--a genuine loon.

I know it's an emotional time for him, with a lot of disappointment to suppress, but he sounded like a man on the verge of coming unhinged, screaming at the top of his lungs some babbleish about retaking the country and never quitting and yada yada yada. Dean is on a bit of a joy ride, with a gaggle of pie-in-the-sky, head-in-the-clouds, naive Gen Xers holding their feet to his metal.

In the unlikely event that Dean ascends to the Democratic nomination, Republican strategists need do no more than snag a copy of the live feed off of C-Span, and no sane American would ever consider putting this man in charge of anything.

On the other hand, maybe the Dems will decide to de facto concede to Bush before the actual elections, and they'll offer up Dean as a paper mache candidate, choosing not to sully the careers of any of their real guns.

There are legitimate issues that the Democrats need to engage the Republicans on. Let's hope they can find a legitimate candidate to make the case.

[Nash13]

I'd rather have Kerry as president.

Edwards can barely keep it together here as a Senator, so i wouldn't trust that many with the country.

[Psychedelic Fuzz]

I'm really not a dem...really not a republican, but then really not a centrist in that certain views I have might seem to lean a fair distance in either direction...but it seems to me, that the Democrats, and especially Dean, need to build a platform other than We're not Bush.

[mercury_rev]

Yup, I had believed Dean would maintain first place, but he's kept shooting himself in the foot the last few weeks. Capturing Saddam was one of the worst things that could happen to his anti-war position.

One of Kerry's campaign organizers, Michael Whouley, is considered a brilliant strategist. His helicopter idea must have worked!

New Hampshire should be interesting....

[OutletPass]

That's a VERY interesting result...for Edwards...

I don't have an invested interest in any of these guys...I'm an independent.

Kerry is a one note player ..."I served in Vietnam" and not much else.
Dean is just odd. Tremendously odd.
Gephart is just old...and too midwest...and too "old guard"

If any Dem can win...and that's a VERY open question...they have to be able to take the south..Look at history...LBJ...Carter..and Clinton...all from the South..JFK in 60 was the last Dem president from outside of the South. Edwards placing is significant...very interesting...

Gephardt is gone.

Lieberman will drop out soon...Sharpton and Kucinich, too. That's just 3 with no message and no money.

Kerry will get his butt kicked in the South in 2 weeks...and who really knows about Dean... I wish the Dems could get a coherent message, as Kiki said, but I don't know that it will happen...The right wing web sites are just eating Dean alive tonight...

Wes Clark has had Madonna...but who hasn't. Dem's won't ever elect a general...Does Edwards have game ? In this race, among the Dems only, he may not need it. After all, he's the only southerner....

[veruca salt]

What's classified as a Southerner?
I always thought that Arkansas was Southern..but my US geographic isn't always the best.

Oh now, i look at it, you made reference to Clinton being a Southerner...
Clark is also from Little Rock.

[OutletPass]

Yes, J, Clark is from Arkansas...but the Dems won't elect a military general....

I just watched Kerry's "victory speech" on CNN...and it was a joke...

It was "I saved two guys in Vietnam".....and "I don't really know what to say beyond that" ...but I can BEAT GEORGE BUSH...

The ONLY way that KERRY is ever described is as the "Vietnam Vet" .....

Iowa is very different from the other primaries...they use a very antiquated "Caucus" system, J . I promise you, Kerry won't survice in the south.

One thing was pretty clear, though....most participants were more concerned with the economy and jobs...than with the war.

And that's where the Dems have to go....Clinton ran against Bush on the "It's the economy, stupid" platform. They're going to have to do it again. Even my best Republican friends admit that our economy and job situation just suck.

[Nash13]

My family are democrats. I think i'd consider myself a demo, but I would vote for Bush if he was the better candidate over whomever the demo candidate is.

[MikeB]

Mad

I only believe what I see. I know that there is propaganda for both sides/all sides going 24/7. 99% of it is BS meant to scare people into doing whatever the propaganda is supporting. I don't listen to the garbage. I do however know the very real problems of finding worthwhile employment in the Dallas area. That is MY hot topic...not Iraq, not athletes and steroids(what was that sh*t about anyway? I mean in the State of the Union...kinda creepy)....I need to know that they have a plan and what it is so I can see if I believe it to be worthy...then I will support that candidate.

[u2sarajevo]

Originally posted by: MikeB
Mad

I only believe what I see. I know that there is propaganda for both sides/all sides going 24/7. 99% of it is BS meant to scare people into doing whatever the propaganda is supporting. I don't listen to the garbage. I do however know the very real problems of finding worthwhile employment in the Dallas area. That is MY hot topic...not Iraq, not athletes and steroids(what was that sh*t about anyway? I mean in the State of the Union...kinda creepy)....I need to know that they have a plan and what it is so I can see if I believe it to be worthy...then I will support that candidate.

The State of the Union address is not just another candidate address to the public vying for votes for an election. The State of the Union address is a speech given every January to the House regarding the issues (key word here, issues... not issue, but issues) that will be focused on that year by the President of the United States of America. I found the statement on athletes and steroids rather nice. It's about damn time it is addressed. Was that the only part you listened to? Because if so, that is sad. He gave a damn fine speech about his agenda for the coming year. The President made me proud last night. You obviously missed that, and that's sad.

[madape]

Originally posted by: MikeB
Mad

I only believe what I see. I know that there is propaganda for both sides/all sides going 24/7. 99% of it is BS meant to scare people into doing whatever the propaganda is supporting. I don't listen to the garbage. I do however know the very real problems of finding worthwhile employment in the Dallas area. That is MY hot topic...not Iraq, not athletes and steroids(what was that sh*t about anyway? I mean in the State of the Union...kinda creepy)....I need to know that they have a plan and what it is so I can see if I believe it to be worthy...then I will support that candidate.

Good point. I thought the president did a very POOR job of communcating an optimistic message on jobs. Clearly it is an area of concern for a lot of Americans. There are plenty of exciting economic numbers released over the past few months that show the job market is improving. I would have liked to have heard Bush convey a positive outlook on jobs. At least he should have shown some empathy towards those frustrated American still looking for work. Instead, I fear his glossing over the issue will continue to frustrate out of work Americans. To them, it is not good enough just to hear Bush say that the job market is improving. So many people have been fed left wing lies about the job market, and have been told repeatedly that it is George Bush's fault they don't have jobs. These people feel like the victims of corporate greed, and they see Bush as catering too much to big business. They just don't trust him. If Bush wants to regain the support of these people, he's going to have to convince them that his tax package is creating jobs. He also needs to instill in them a sense that he is working hard to get them their jobs back. I don't think he did anything to help himself in his SOU.

However, November is just under a year away. There will be plenty of time in the coming year for Bush to convey his message on jobs. More importantly, there will be plenty of time for the job recovery grow into a full fledged job BOOM!

[madape]

I watched the Democratic response to Bush's State of the Union. I must say that it reminded me of one of those boring rides at Disney World. You know, the ones in which animatronic dummies sing happy songs about fairies or pirate ships or some shit. I don't know, something about Pelosi and Daschel's corpse-like makeup, their wide eyed emotionless stares, and how the rest of their faces didn't seem to move when they talked.

I could just imagine those two robots singing "It's a world of corruption. It's a world of fear. Haliburton, Enron make it clear. 500 soldiers dead. Something's wrong with his head. It's a failed administration after all"

(just made that rhyme up, maybe I should register at democraticunderground.com!)

[u2sarajevo]

Originally posted by: madape
I watched the Democratic response to Bush's State of the Union. I must say that it reminded me of one of those boring rides at Disney World. You know, the ones in which animatronic dummies sing happy songs about fairies or pirate ships or some shit. I don't know, something about Pelosi and Daschel's corpse-like makeup, their wide eyed emotionless stares, and how the rest of their faces didn't seem to move when they talked.

I could just imagine those two robots singing "It's a world of corruption. It's a world of fear. Haliburton, Enron make it clear. 500 soldiers dead. Something's wrong with his head. It's a failed administration after all"

(just made that rhyme up, maybe I should register at democraticunderground.com!)

You know what ape? That Pelosi chick... she actually stated in her part that WE were bearing the brunt of the casualties now in Iraq. I didn't think that was true... Do you know if it is? Not that it matters, because the less dead the better, but for her to bring that up as a talking point blew my mind. She is scary.

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally posted by: u2sarajevo

You know what ape? That Pelosi chick... she actually stated in her part that WE were bearing the brunt of the casualties now in Iraq. I didn't think that was true... Do you know if it is? Not that it matters, because the less dead the better, but for her to bring that up as a talking point blew my mind. She is scary.

Pelosi was hilarious. Really unfortunate for her that the lights were too bright, and she was caught looking like a deer in the headlights. I hardly remember a thing that she said, only that she looked almost as manic as Dean. The comments on C-Span afterward were pretty tacky, though funny--everything from speculation about a bad batch of botox, to a botched facelift.

RE: her casualites comment, although I think she was saying that the U.S. was bearing the brunt of the casualties among COALITION forces, which is almost certainly true, what's her point? Would the deaths be more tolerable to her if the casualties included more French and Germans, and fewer Americans? What a cynical, fraudulent, hypocritical hussie.

The United States is involved in a war, which entails casualties. All of those casualties are regrettable, and deserve the respect for those who sacrifice their lives in the service of their country, and the greater security of the world. I am equally sorry for the casualties suffered by the British, the Spanish the Japanese and all of the other nations participating in the coaltion effort, as well as the deaths suffered by innocent Iraquis, killed in their own country by terrorist from Iraq and other Islamic nations. For that wide-eyed, wild-eyed bitch Pelosi to try to poltiicize ANY deaths to capitalize poltically is the depth of craven demagougery.

[OutletPass]

Actually, U2, you missed my point completely...I'll try again.

1) The "War" issue clearly isn't that important to Americans in terms of this election...so I don't think the Dems are gaining anything by belaboring that.

2) As in most elections, the domestic economy is the big issue.

The point is: If the Dems are going to make this a race...they need to talk about THE important issue...and leave the peripheral issue aside.

In any election, if you don't address what's really MOST important to the American people, you have no chance whatsoever....and that was my point.

[u2sarajevo]

Originally posted by: OutletPass
Actually, U2, you missed my point completely...I'll try again.

1) The "War" issue clearly isn't that important to Americans in terms of this election...so I don't think the Dems are gaining anything by belaboring that.

2) As in most elections, the domestic economy is the big issue.

The point is: If the Dems are going to make this a race...they need to talk about THE important issue...and leave the peripheral issue aside.

In any election, if you don't address what's really MOST important to the American people, you have no chance whatsoever....and that was my point.

I got that OP. I was just wondering outloud here on the board whether or not that would be the smartest issue for the Dems to focus on.

[kingrex]

Dean may have just sealed his fate with one overly-emotional speech. Instead of sounding commited to his campaign, he came across as someone that should be commited. What a meltdown. Very funny though. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]