Iowa Results Scare GOP

[Neil D]

From the Seattle Times, a notably [color:#990000]liberal newspaper from a notably progressive state

ON DEADLINE: Iowa Results Scare GOP

By RON FOURNIER

Associated Press Writer

Before we put Iowa in our rearview mirror, let's pause to consider what the caucus results might mean for Republicans across the country: Trouble.

Already worried about November's elections, Republican operatives found more reason for alarm in Thursday night's turnout figures in a bellwether state.

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois tapped into a hunger for institutional change and helped produce a record-shattering turnout for Democrats _ an estimated 239,000, compared with the previous high of 124,000. Republicans didn't do half as well, drawing about 115,000 people to its caucuses.

"November could be dark," said Republican strategist Scott Reed.

The reason for concern is that political strategists don't view elections in a vacuum. They realize that what happened Thursday in Iowa could be part of a national phenomenon favoring change, which scares the party now holding the White House.

Iowa's results also could reflect widespread GOP voter discontent, which could portend disastrously low turnout in November elections.

And this didn't just happen anywhere. It took place in Iowa, the quintessential swing state that Democrat Al Gore won in 2000 by 4,144 votes and Republican George W. Bush won four years later by 10,059 votes.

In 2006, Iowa voters overwhelmingly elected Democrat Chet Culver governor and gave Democrats control of both chambers in the state legislature, the first time in 42 years the Democratic Party has held the troika. Iowans also ousted two GOP congressmen.

Republican consultant Sara Taylor said she doesn't read too much into the recent developments, other than the obvious fact that Iowa will be a battleground state in the upcoming general election. "It's just one caucus," she said.

But several fellow Republicans look at the Iowa results with grave concern.

"It says we have a huge challenge ahead of us not only to nominate a strong candidate but to be in a position to be competitive in November," Reed said. "It boils down to the nominee and his ability to re-brand the Republican Party for a post-Bush era."

Indeed, many Republicans seem to be anxiously awaiting the post-Bush era.

According to polls of Republicans entering the Iowa caucuses, a remarkable 31 percent said they are dissatisfied with or angry at President Bush.

National surveys consistently reflect disappointment among Republican voters about federal spending, ethics in Washington and the government's handling of immigration.

Only 21 percent of Republicans and GOP-leaning voters have a "very favorable" impression of their own party, according to the latest AP-Yahoo poll. Another 61 percent have just a "somewhat favorable" impression of the GOP.

The AP-Yahoo poll indicated 40 percent of all voters said they would vote Democratic in November while just 27 percent said they would vote GOP. The rest were undecided.

In the Iowa campaign's final days, even second-tier Democratic candidates Joe Biden and Chris Dodd drew larger audiences than GOP front-runners Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney.

Democratic presidential candidates are raising tens of millions of more dollars than their closest GOP rivals.

"On the one hand, part of what we're seeing often occurs every eight years in office _ that there is more energy in the party that hasn't had the Oval Office than the party that has had the office," said former GOP chairman Ken Mehlman. "In the case of Iowa, you had on the Democratic side more resources spent, which also has a way of turning people out. Those two factors explain part of this."

"But I do think when you consider the numbers in terms of fundraising (and) voter identification ... Republicans ought to be concerned, and need to have a nominee who can deal with these problems," said Mehlman, who ran Bush's 2004 re-election campaign. "To those who say there is no reason to be concerned, my answer is I would rather be concerned now before it is too late."

It certainly isn't too late. Once the nomination fights end, both parties will have new leaders who will shape the GOP and Democratic images.

A polarizing Clinton or liberal Obama may change the public's perception of Democrats. And no pollster can predict how voters really feel about the prospect of electing the first woman or first black; latent prejudices could change the political landscape.

Predictably, the drumbeat against Obama began as soon as the caucuses emptied.

"Obama won't have appeal to Republicans," said Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, chairman of the GOP campaign committee. "What you're seeing now is the politics of personality. This idea that he is a centrist who can bring us together is going to be hard to sustain."

Still, the congressman said the results in Iowa increased his concern that independents are favoring Democrats.

"If I were a Democrat, I'd be very pleased with the turnout," he said.

They are. And they're hoping that what happened in Iowa doesn't stay in Iowa.

[Dr. Shane]

I think a little investigation will show that Democrats spent more money in Iowa than Republicans. If someone wanted to SPIN a story in a different direction than Ron Fournier is SPINNING it, they could point out that Democrats may be spending too much money in the primaries and may not have as much to spend in the general election.

[carolaa]

I think a little investigation will show that Democrats spent more money in Iowa than Republicans. If someone wanted to SPIN a story in a different direction than Ron Fournier is SPINNING it, they could point out that Democrats may be spending too much money in the primaries and may not have as much to spend in the general election.

Shane, that is so interesting, because as I recall, Iowa is a strong Republican state, and it goes to show that Democrats CAN do well if they spend enough money. Hmmm, maybe there's hope for Texas, after all. Seriously, I have only voted in one election since moving to Texas because I feel like it's a waste of time. Before that, I don't think I ever missed a chance to vote.

[Woody]

Carolaa ... Call Shane - maybe he will provide transportation so you can vote this year.

[carolaa]

Carolaa ... Call Shane - maybe he will provide transportation so you can vote this year.

Well, ok, but I think he's about 7 hours from me....

[Guest charis]

Don't you have to vote in your own district anyway? That's how it was here in Oregon until they started the vote by mail program.

[Dr. Shane]

The Democrat choices are more exciting and they are spending more money. That itself provides a logical explanation why record number of Democrats went to their caucus. I have worked in numerous campaigns and the key to winning is a get-out-the-vote organization. What that means is that candidates need to identify those that are going to vote for them and then make sure they get them to the polls. That takes money. The more money one spends, the better it is done. From the Republican numbers, it looks like no Republican was spending money on that in Iowa. It clearly appears the Democrats were.