In the Aftermath of Iowa

Were you surprised that Barack Obama won in Iowa? Or that Mike Huckabee won on the Republican side?

Neither outcome really surprised me. The caucuses are held with different rules in Iowa, rules that seemed to favor each winning candidate.

For the Democrats, it seemed fairly obvious that money would be a key factor, so it appeared likely that one of the two best financed candidates, Obama and Hillary Clinton, would be at the top.

Things are done in a very public manner in caucuses. In Democratic caucuses, "viability" as a candidate is rewarded. If a candidate fails to get 15% support in a caucus' first round, that candidate is eliminated and his/her supporters are encouraged to line up with their second choice from among the surviving candidates.

For example, Candidate A receives 12% in the first round. Candidate B receives 27%, Candidate C receives 26%, Candidate D receives 24%, Candidate E receives 6%, and Candidate F receives 5%. Candidates A, E and F are eliminated and only Candidates B, C and D will be considered in the second round.

The supporters of A, E and F must choose a candidate to support in the second round. And their support will be critical, since they represent nearly a quarter of the vote in this hypothetical scenario.

The second vote is taken, and that outcome is what is reported.

Clinton's problem was that too few Democrats considered her to be their second choice. Hence, she lost some caucuses she might have won. The results suggest she was only able to hold on to her base in the caucuses, and that may indicate that Clinton has more of a problem with her well publicized "negatives" within her own party than her campaign has been willing to acknowledge.

If Clinton wins the nomination but can't build a coalition of Democrats, she isn't likely to win independents or make a dent among Republicans.

Obama reveled in the victory. "They said this country was too divided, too disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose. But ... at this defining moment in history, you have done what the cynics said we couldn’t do."

But, although the victory was significant for Obama, it is a sign of his inexperience in national politics that he doesn't appear to realize that winning tends to subject a candidate to renewed scrutiny. If he is perceived as the front-runner now, everything will be under a media microscope.

That's a lesson that Huckabee's campaign has been learning following the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

But it remains to be seen if the Iowa caucuses mean anything. Caucus winners don't always win the nomination or the presidency.

Officially, on the Democratic side, Obama received 38%. John Edwards finished second with 30% and Clinton was third with 29%.

The Republican caucuses are similar, but there is no viability threshold. Republicans vote once and that outcome is what is reported. So it's closer in that regard to a primary. One gets a truer picture of the support for each candidate.

As was anticipated, the activist social conservatives turned out to support former Baptist minister Huckabee, who received 34%. Mitt Romney was second with 25%. Fred Thompson edged out John McCain for third; they both finished with about 13%.

Twenty years ago, another evangelist, Pat Robertson, made headlines by finishing second in the Iowa caucuses. Bob Dole won in Iowa that night, but Vice President George H.W. Bush went on to win the nomination and the presidency.

Romney's campaign is wounded but it has little time to lick its wounds. In a few days, voters will go to the polls in New Hampshire, where McCain is perceived as a legitimate threat to Romney.

It was to be expected that each candidate would put the best spin possible on the outcome.

"The one thing that’s clear with the results in Iowa tonight is the status quo lost and change won," Edwards proclaimed.

Acting more like a winner than the third-place finisher, Clinton told her supporters, "We are going to have change, and that change is going to be a Democratic president in the White House in 2009."

David Brooks, in The New York Times, calls the victories for Obama and Huckabee "the two earthquakes" that rippled through American politics last night.

"I’ve been through election nights that brought a political earthquake to the country," Brooks writes. "I’ve never been through an election night that brought two."

The Los Angeles Times suggested the Iowa results would help to "narrow the field," which seems to be happening. Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd apparently are dropping out of the Democratic race.

New Hampshire's voters go to the polls on Tuesday.