Fox News, CNN call it for Huckabee; Update: Fred third with 40% reporting; Update: Evangelicals were a majority of GOP caucusgoers
posted at 9:00 pm on January 3, 2008 by Allahpundit
With only 15 percent reporting thus far, too. Looks like those prayers were answered.
Update: NBC’s also called it. The question now is how bad it’ll be for Romney and where he finishes vis-a-vis McCain. If it’s a blowout for Huck, he’s obviously in trouble.
Update: “You know, this is uh, let’s see, it’s the first inning in a 50-inning ball game. So you know you want to get on base in the first inning, but we’re planning on doing well.”
Update: Carl Cameron by way of Jonah Goldberg says evangelical turnout was twice what it was for Bush in 2000.
Update: CNN’s got Fred neck and neck with McCain, Giuliani, and Paul, but holding steady at third with 13%.
Update: Astounding.
Evangelicals constituted the majority of Republican caucus goers (60 percent), and our entrance polling shows Huckabee won 45 percent of that group. Mitt Romney, who has heavily courted social conservatives only drew 19 percent of those voters.
Huckabee also overwhelmingly won the female vote, picking up close to 45 percent of women, to only 23 percent for Romney.
Update: With 65% reporting, Fred’s actually picked up a point and is steady in third place with 14%. McCain’s right behind him, then Paul at 10%.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
I think that is the key vote. Not only the evangelicals, but the woman vote is key
JVelez on January 3, 2008 at 9:50 PM
Anybody wonder how the Republican caucuses would turn out if they had the same rules as the Dems? Who would benefit the most?
HYTEAndy on January 3, 2008 at 9:50 PM
And of course they’re knocking Thompson again. He said there are four Republicans with a shot, and Thompson is not one of them. Hello?! He’s in third place.
fourstringfuror on January 3, 2008 at 9:51 PM
And Politico is spinning McCain’s loss as a win.
What is with the spinning tonight? It’s making me dizzy.
fourstringfuror on January 3, 2008 at 9:51 PM
Hang on Fred!
Huck is a fraud.
Dirthead on January 3, 2008 at 9:51 PM
I believe Juan Williams said Jesse Jackson won South Carolina. I think they are referring to the fact that a “white” state voted for a “black” man. It wasn’t blacks or hispanics in Iowa.
Sue on January 3, 2008 at 9:52 PM
It is sad that somebody like Huck who..
1.) misinterprets Scripture
2.) confuses, blurs, and then eliminates the God-ordained, Biblical distinctions between the kingdom of man (government/state sphere) and the kingdom of God (church)
3.) then Huck applies this resulting confusion to politics by using loaded, vacous terms like “compassion” to increase our taxes in order to pay for his left-wing programs, and release convicted murderers, and then reward people who break our laws.
And church-going folks are actually buying this bad theology.
How tragic!!!
ColtsFan on January 3, 2008 at 9:52 PM
fourstringfuror,
I was noticing that, Fox news really has been knocking him along with Politico. Whats the deal? WEll maybe if he does great in the debate with no Ron Paul, some more will notice
JVelez on January 3, 2008 at 9:53 PM
Nina Easton is a tool. She blames Romney’s loss on “evangelicals.”
fourstringfuror on January 3, 2008 at 9:53 PM
In regards to Huck’s “woman voter” turnout:
Sounds a lot like my mother. She teeters between Mitt and Huck but more towards Huck. Her answer, always, is “I like his morals!”
Morality is important to me as well, but I try and factor all issues in besides just social issues. I think women have more trouble with this. They tend to be more emotional and family-oriented (Translation: social issues… Huck’s key planks).
HYTEAndy on January 3, 2008 at 9:53 PM
What bothers me listening to the Radio Coverage from Fox is all the spin McCain is getting for trailing Thompson who one supposes should just do Carl Cameron and the rest over there a favor over there, get out of the race right now.
Nyog_of_the_Bog on January 3, 2008 at 9:55 PM
There it is again! “Here comes this preacher out of nowhere . . . ”
They just can’t admit Huckabee won.
fourstringfuror on January 3, 2008 at 9:55 PM
Actually he hardly mentioned mormonism at all during his time in Iowa. Most of the time he was talking about the Middle Class.
Keljeck on January 3, 2008 at 9:57 PM
ColtsFan on January 3, 2008 at 9:52 PM
The thing that upsets me is how defensive evangelicals get in terms of people questioning their faith, yet do the same with Romney.. I went to FL for 2 weeks for vacation. The fun ended in 1 day when my momma and I got into it regarding Huck.
HUCKABEE RUINS FAMILIES…AND VACATIONS
JVelez on January 3, 2008 at 9:58 PM
Yepsen seems like a stand-up guy. Certainly more objective than anyone on the Fox panel.
fourstringfuror on January 3, 2008 at 9:58 PM
SECOND LOOK AT THE WHIGS!
(Obviously the Huckster already has the Know-Nothing vote locked up.)
ReubenJCogburn on January 3, 2008 at 9:59 PM
Yepsen is real stand up.
JVelez on January 3, 2008 at 9:59 PM
Can’t help ya on the clip (maybe Allah will dig it out if he finds it worthy of posting), but here’s what put Chris Wallace on the line of questioning that you could see made Rollins furious, and again Rollins wasn’t going to deny it and get busted lying so all he could do is say that it was supposed to be a private conversation…. It’s MKH’s partner in crime Amanda Carpenter (the “blogger” Wallace refers to in the interview, without naming her)
http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/13a3122e-dfd6-4d8a-81a3-bc8c6e11f550
RightWinged on January 3, 2008 at 9:59 PM
There goes Wallace again, reminding us that Huckabee is a Baptist and an “evangelical.”
fourstringfuror on January 3, 2008 at 9:59 PM
You know, this whole Huck-wins-Iowa, puts me in the mood for a long thread about how Mormons are a cult…
Or Rudy is a Gun-grabber…
Or Fred! is lazy…
Screw you Bible thumpers, screw you.
billy on January 3, 2008 at 10:00 PM
My admiration and respect for MKH aside, I thought it was kinda sleazy to capture a private conversation and put in on the net. Maybe I’m missing something.
fourstringfuror on January 3, 2008 at 10:01 PM
I couldn’t agree more. The people I grew up with are far more intelligent than this. If they aren’t, then… I don’t know them as well as I thought.
Esthier on January 3, 2008 at 10:01 PM
Thanks for your objective analysis, billy.
fourstringfuror on January 3, 2008 at 10:02 PM
Right.
Keep telling us that and we might eventually believe it.
billy on January 3, 2008 at 10:02 PM
Anyone besides me think that this could actually help Rudy?
Dirthead on January 3, 2008 at 10:04 PM
Thank you.
I think I summed up my feelings as succinctly as I could under the circumstances.
billy on January 3, 2008 at 10:06 PM
What upsets me most about Huck’s win is the fact that he really has no chance to win the nomination. Neither does McCain.
I fear that, in the Mitt vs Rudy race that this is, McHuck is tearing Mitt up enough to indirectly hand Rudy the nomination.
So, in backlashing against the “Screw you, Evangelicals! Vote for Rudy!” crowd, IA Christians may very well have missed their chance to actually keep Rudy from winning.
Wonderful. (/sarc)
HYTEAndy on January 3, 2008 at 10:06 PM
I guess Fox will end up right in cutting out Paul
JVelez on January 3, 2008 at 10:07 PM
I’ve been saying that in a few different ways/posts tonight.
HYTEAndy on January 3, 2008 at 10:07 PM
HYTEAndy:
Sorry, I joined late. Although, Unlike you, I am not sure that is the worst thing in the world. Not optimal, but….
Dirthead on January 3, 2008 at 10:09 PM
And according to Fox News, McCains doing great, but Thompson’s doing very badly.
So, I guess up is down over at Fox News, too, huh?
jdawg on January 3, 2008 at 10:10 PM
If you hate Bible-thumpers so much, who would you rather see get the nod?
fourstringfuror on January 3, 2008 at 10:10 PM
Hmm. You wouldn’t have happened to have written a certain UK Newspaper headline back in 2004? You know, the post-election one about how can that many Americans be so stupid?
Bible thumping, or humping? :S
Reaps on January 3, 2008 at 10:11 PM
Funny how that works isn’t it?
Gatordoug on January 3, 2008 at 10:12 PM
I think so. They can’t accept it.
fourstringfuror on January 3, 2008 at 10:13 PM
The flags behind Edwards are hung improperly. Anyone else see that?
fourstringfuror on January 3, 2008 at 10:15 PM
I wonder how they will feel about our future muslim masters?
peacenprosperity on January 3, 2008 at 10:16 PM
I hope Evangelicals are smart enough not to vote for someone who is obviously only telling them wnat they want to hear.
Gatordoug on January 3, 2008 at 10:18 PM
What’s with the sudden emergence of the Huckabeeite’s?
Here’s the deal: Nothing against their religion (though if anyone has a legitimate beef with Evangelicals, it is the LDS), but Huck is a fraud.
There is more to life than Social Con. I’m darned if I’m gonna support some dude who claims to be socially conservative and raise my taxes to support his ideas.
Basically: the “Bible Thumpers” means this–these twerps vote for Huck because he sleazily says, “Vote for me, I’m Saved! Never mind anything else!” Smart Evangelicals look at history and Huck’s record and realize that he’s nothing more than Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Jimmy was elected by Evangelicals too. Now, a really significant portion of them want to repeat their mistake. And this time, it will rebound on the Republican party. What happened to Carter? It launched the Reagan revolution. Huck would prevent that.
Vanceone on January 3, 2008 at 10:18 PM
Thompson.
Guiliani.
Romney.
Hunter.
I don’t dislike Huck because he is a SB, I dislike him because that is all he is; he trades off of his confession to achieve his political and financial successes.
billy on January 3, 2008 at 10:22 PM
Don’t look now, Fredheads, but with 76% reporting, the Maverick is only 180 votes (0.2%) behind Fred and has been closing for the past hour. If the trend continues, Fred is going to finish fourth.
cool breeze on January 3, 2008 at 10:22 PM
current totals:
Huckabee 25,510
Romney 18,668
Thompson 10,308
McCain 9891
Paul 7674
Rudy 2708
Afterimage on January 3, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Edwards is a socialist and stands against everything America is about.
fourstringfuror on January 3, 2008 at 10:25 PM
Go Fred! Keep digging!
fourstringfuror on January 3, 2008 at 10:26 PM
It’s a fair criticism. I’m a Thompson support myself, but I don’t hold the vehement dislike of Huckabee that you do.
fourstringfuror on January 3, 2008 at 10:28 PM
According to the CNN site, there are 2,054,843 registered voters in Iowa,
WTF??? There are only 2.9 million people in the WHOLE STATE.
FishFearMe on January 3, 2008 at 10:28 PM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/520tlxdq.asp?pg=1
Listen, I’m not for Huckabee. I’m also leaning toward Fred. But I have not seen enough evidence to believe that the reason he won was that he offhandedly said, “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers?”
In fact, when you look at his interviews it seems he prefers to skirt the issue. It’s the media that continued to ask him questions regarding Mitt’s religion. And for the most part, other than that one comment, he brushed it away. He wasn’t stumping throughout Iowa saying that they can’t allow a Mormon in the White House, he was stumping around Iowa talking about the plight of the middle class, the fair tax, energy independence, ect. Things that Iowa voters like to hear.
Is it possible aversion to Mitt’s religion played a role? I’m not doubting that. What I do doubt is that it’s the main reason for the turn out. And that Huckabee purposely manipulated the public into voting against Mitt because he’s a Mormon.
Face it, the guy’s the purest evangelical the Republicans have run since Pat Robertson (who also had a strong showing in Iowa if memory serves). And he’s very charismatic and likable on top of that.
Too bad he’s not a pure conservative.
Keljeck on January 3, 2008 at 10:29 PM
It’s Hillary’s turn to spin her loss.
“Change,” “change,” “ready to lead,” “Democrat in the White House,” “change,” “change our country,” ad nauseum.
fourstringfuror on January 3, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Huck haters, fresh meat coming up!
fourstringfuror on January 3, 2008 at 10:38 PM
After this, I’m convinced that the Iowa caucus goes are a bunch of idiots. What I saw:
1) They complained about Romney’s negative (i.e., factually correct statement of Huck’s positions), but didn’t even mention Huck’s cynical, opportunistic, hypocritical ad shown to the press and, eventually, on television
2) GOP voters like to mock the single issue identity voters among Democrats. And the majority of GOP voters in the Hawkeye cauci voted for the Huckster because he’s an Evangelical. Funny, but I don’t remember that comment when they voted for G.W. Bush who, by the way, is a born again Evangelical Christian. Like the Huckafraud, it’s the rest of his positions and actions that aggravate me.
Both Reagan and Clinton finished 3rd in Iowa their first go round. So the Hawkeye state is as reliable a predictor of a president as my Magic 8-Ball.
Which reminds me: Will Huckabee win the presidency? ::shake-shake::
A: Time to up your meds, you freaking idiot.
I’ll interpret that as a No.
Physics Geek on January 3, 2008 at 10:41 PM
This isn’t true.
Reverend Huckabee set his sights on Mitt’s religious beliefs and opened fire.
And it has got him all of 35% of the Iowa Republican caucus vote.
Conservatives have been trashing our candidates solidly for the last few months for whatever imagined failings and now we have the Reverend Mike Huckabee covered in glory to show for it.
Yay!
billy on January 3, 2008 at 10:46 PM
I haven’t heard him fire on Mitt’s beliefs at all. Am I deaf? I just remember that one comment regarding an element of Mormon theology.
Since when was he firing on all cylinders against Mitt’s religion?
Keljeck on January 3, 2008 at 10:54 PM
This is another reason not to have so many debates during the primary…The Huckster can work a room and won too many debates.
d1carter on January 3, 2008 at 10:59 PM
Bright points of humor on an otherwise dark day:
That’s right ladies of Iowa, Huck is NOT Christ. Shame on you for being “so spiritually minded you’re no earthly good”.
I don’t think Iowa will ever live this ignominy down. Some better, tougher state better kick their ass and take center stage in 2012.
“Children of the corn” wins the thread, IMO.
Redhead Infidel on January 3, 2008 at 11:02 PM
Huckabee 35,257
Romney 25,995
Thompson 13,786
McCain 13,473
Afterimage on January 3, 2008 at 11:02 PM
Christopher Hitchens is rights. The Iowa caucus is ridiculous, and we should refuse to say its results mean anything. And that does mean that we can’t write Hilary out of the race if we want Huckabee written out also. And I do want Huckabee written out. I’m also not at all clear why we would want to run the risk of a Obama presidency more than run the risk of a Hilary presidency. Obama seems clearly worse to me.
thuja on January 3, 2008 at 11:07 PM
Damnit, I think I double posted… Sorry.
Keljeck on January 3, 2008 at 11:13 PM
4% for America’s Mayor… Paul got 2.5x more than him. It goes to show how little this Iowa caucus is a representation for the other states. 4%???
And by the way, GO FRED GO!!!
AlexB on January 3, 2008 at 11:23 PM
I forgot to mention elsewhere… bass players always and I mean always want to be the bandleader… and are very seldom capable of doing so.
Griz on January 3, 2008 at 11:49 PM
“Giddy” Lee.
geckomon on January 4, 2008 at 12:06 AM
SECOND LOOK AT IOWA!!
Uhmmmmm, how ’bout – no.
juanito on January 4, 2008 at 12:11 AM
Au contraire, mon frère. I have never, and I mean never, wanted to be a band leader. I’m happy to do the real work, pounding out infectious grooves.
fourstringfuror on January 4, 2008 at 12:11 AM
Reach out your hand….touch the screen and be heeeeeeealed brother….
DfDeportation on January 4, 2008 at 12:39 AM
Hey, did I win the prediction? That clip up there looks kinda familiar. :D
ReubenJCogburn on January 4, 2008 at 1:22 AM
Here’s my thought after Fox News called it for Huck:
If you think “Bushitler” was bad, can you imagine what it’s going to be like with a Republican president named Huck?
It won’t be pretty.
Dr. Mercury on January 4, 2008 at 8:16 AM
Fredalanche©
TheSitRep on January 4, 2008 at 8:26 AM
I third that ColtsFan and highhopes.
As an Evangelical Christian, I am very, very disappointed that Huckabee won.
Yay! Fred made third!
craig on January 4, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2