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
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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%.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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: 1 2 Next »
FOX called it for the jerk too.
Jay on January 3, 2008 at 9:00 PM
That was incredibly fast.
terryannonline on January 3, 2008 at 9:01 PM
MSNBC just called it also.
Complete7 on January 3, 2008 at 9:02 PM
Nooooooooooooooooooooo!!!
Splunge on January 3, 2008 at 9:02 PM
Jay Leno. . . It’s your fault
Texyank on January 3, 2008 at 9:02 PM
you can’t beat jesus!
lorien1973 on January 3, 2008 at 9:03 PM
This just in: CBS just pulled back their assessment of the results in Polk county. It’s still tight between Bush and Gore….
ScottG on January 3, 2008 at 9:03 PM
Nooooooooooooooooooooo!!!
Splunge on January 3, 2008 at 9:02 PM
———————————
http://darthno.ytmnd.com/
Texyank on January 3, 2008 at 9:04 PM
I, for one, welcome our new Democrap overlords.
Good Lt on January 3, 2008 at 9:04 PM
*faints*
JetBoy on January 3, 2008 at 9:04 PM
I don’t know why they’re calling elections. I hate that crap, and its wrong enough that they shouldn’t do it.
Bad Candy on January 3, 2008 at 9:05 PM
Those prayers went from Huckabee’s mouth to God’s ears.
Complete7 on January 3, 2008 at 9:05 PM
But Hugh Hewitt said Huck was in a death spiral!
Topsecretk9 on January 3, 2008 at 9:05 PM
Yes. Like that. Just like that. Thanks.
Splunge on January 3, 2008 at 9:06 PM
Good. I’ll be going to Best Buy tomorrow, buying a 65″ Plasma TV, paying 15% of the ticket price and calling it paid for.
MadisonConservative on January 3, 2008 at 9:06 PM
Blame Iowa.
Dudley Smith on January 3, 2008 at 9:06 PM
Me too, especially with headlines like this:
Heavy Turnout in Iowa May Delay Process…
Topsecretk9 on January 3, 2008 at 9:07 PM
lmao
amend2 on January 3, 2008 at 9:07 PM
Why on earth do “evangelicals” think that Huckabee represents them? The guy is the same as Jim Baker or other false televangelists.
He will sell them out as soon as he can.
Vanceone on January 3, 2008 at 9:07 PM
On the upside, after tonight we don’t have to suffer the children of the corn until 2012.
JammieWearingFool on January 3, 2008 at 9:08 PM
I’ll vote for hillary before I vote for that phony. I’m not lining up behind Iowa, I could care less about Iowa, they arent smart enough to move somewhere warm so I’m not trusting them to vote for the right guy.
peacenprosperity on January 3, 2008 at 9:08 PM
Heh
Topsecretk9 on January 3, 2008 at 9:10 PM
Proof positive that this whole process is bogus. Why the hell should IOWA or NEW HAMPSHIRE determine who our candidates are? Neither truely represents the national frame-of-mind (I hope).
edgehead on January 3, 2008 at 9:10 PM
Good grief.
Sue on January 3, 2008 at 9:10 PM
Same with the Fair tax people. They are nuts if they think this guy is going to do anything but raise taxes if elected. He will say paying more is the christian thing to do and it will be the end of the Fair Tax movement and the American economy.
peacenprosperity on January 3, 2008 at 9:11 PM
Malachai wants to see you in the cornfield…
JetBoy on January 3, 2008 at 9:12 PM
Look at the number of people voting, not the percentages. On the Republican side. This crap has to end. We should pick the nominee for president the same way we pick the president. On the same day!!!!!!
Sue on January 3, 2008 at 9:12 PM
Hey, the evangelicals are part of the rep party and obviously are a force to be dealt with.
Huck 31%
Mitt 23%
Fred 13%
McCain 12%
41% reporting
csdeven on January 3, 2008 at 9:12 PM
Thompson holding 3rd!!!!
GO FRED
NickTx on January 3, 2008 at 9:12 PM
Thats hilarious.
NickTx on January 3, 2008 at 9:13 PM
Oh..I am so unhappy about this..but what really surprised me was how badly Rudy lost to Ron!
Pam on January 3, 2008 at 9:13 PM
With all due respect… F You very much Iowa! Thanks for taking this election so seriously.
Sugar Land on January 3, 2008 at 9:13 PM
If Huck wins the nomination, all Hildog has to do is make sure the last season of 24 is shown during the campaign.
BDavis on January 3, 2008 at 9:13 PM
Sue
I agree.
Obama 33.88; Edwards 31.71; Some good news —>Clinton 31.45
Huckabee 35; Romney 24; Some good news —>Thompson 14; McCain 12
Topsecretk9 on January 3, 2008 at 9:14 PM
So … no enthusiasm for the high turnout on the Republican side?
J on January 3, 2008 at 9:15 PM
Jay,
Can’t we save the name calling for the general election? Guess not.
I’m not thrilled here but for different reasons than the Christ-haters who want to see the GOP turn away from the evangelical base that essentially managed to give GWB a second term despite the billions invested by the “rat” special interests (thank you John McCain).
Huckabee has, apparently, managed to tap into that constituency (I reserve some wiggle room should all these projections prove as accurate as they did in Florida 2001). To me, he gives off a Jimmy Carter vibe and he isn’t my candidate but I’ll end with this comment: Dismiss the evangelical base as “jerks” at your own risk.
highhopes on January 3, 2008 at 9:15 PM
There is no way on Earth Huck does better than 3rd in NH. No way they line up behind that fraud. I’m sure they will see right through him.
TheBigOldDog on January 3, 2008 at 9:16 PM
I doubt Huck has much of a future beyond Iowa.
I’m much more interested in what happens on the left… seeing the dirty smelly old (Marxist) hippie come in behind Obmama and Edwards. Not that it will kill her, but at least it will end her ‘inevitability’ BS.
petefrt on January 3, 2008 at 9:17 PM
Amen to that!
Pam on January 3, 2008 at 9:17 PM
Then maybe the evangelicals should pay attention to their candidates actions and not his rhetoric.
Sue on January 3, 2008 at 9:17 PM
Please, at least let Edwards come in third tonight. As Mark Steyn says, I cannot stomach a choice between Huckabee and Edwards in November.
Dudley Smith on January 3, 2008 at 9:17 PM
They don’t. It just depends on how voters in other states think and how much influence the media/pundit spin can influence them. Actually, the main benefit to the IA and NH events is to get all the dirty laundry out in the open. If the rest of the nation doesn’t pay attention, then they delegate way too much influence to the first two states.
a capella on January 3, 2008 at 9:18 PM
That is a real crappy grammatical structure.
a capella on January 3, 2008 at 9:19 PM
So since every single winner of the previous Iowa caucuses (cauci?) have gone on to win the presidency, we may as well cancel all of the primaries and get on with the general election. /sarcasm
Really, though, does what a bunch of farmers in Iowa (no offense) think have that much of an effect on the rest of the country? The only reason that I paid any attention up to now was to see how the candidates behave, check out what they say, what they say about their opponents, and how the opponents react. As for the actual results, they don’t mean squat — I place as much faith in the results as I do about the fantastic poll results that Ron Paul gets at fly-by-night-polls.com. The MSM and the blogs all love them, though, because it gives them something to talk about besides humping robots or Paris Hilton’s latest fashion faux paus. Since I’m not a mind-numbed robot, I really don’t care what the MSM or bloggers are saying about whether candidate X’s chances are (increasing/decreasing/flip a coin). I’ll make my decision at the appropriate time.
Unfortunately, my state doesn’t have their primary until very late (June, August, something like that, when there are only one or two people left, and I don’t like either one). There are still over 300 days left before the only ‘poll’ that really counts.
rmgraha on January 3, 2008 at 9:20 PM
Yeah, they dont. This is just the beginning.
NickTx on January 3, 2008 at 9:20 PM
Soooo…no humping robot?
SouthernDem on January 3, 2008 at 9:21 PM
If the Republican party nominates Huckabee, I think it’ll be time to reform the Whig party.
krabbas on January 3, 2008 at 9:21 PM
As an evangelical Christian, I am very, very
disappointed that Huckabee won.
ColtsFan on January 3, 2008 at 9:21 PM
Folks I know don’t know much about Huckabee except “he’s a Christian, so he’s our guy.” I spent half a day emailing back and forth with a friend educating her. Now she’s taking a much closer look at the others.
OH MY – Rollins just said (on Fox News) that his stated desire to knock Romney’s teeth out “was taken out of context.”
Laura on January 3, 2008 at 9:22 PM
Well, why am I teetering towards bashing the Evangelical base? Because Huck ran on one thing and one thing alone: fear of Mormonism. Oh, and he cracked a few jokes. What else does he have, except “I’m God’s candidate?” Evangelicals should see through that. Carter was Evangelical, and so was Clinton. Do the Evangelical base really not care about anything except whether their candidate is “Saved?”
Huck is Bill clinton with an R, and hopefully the ability to keep his zipper up.
Vanceone on January 3, 2008 at 9:23 PM
This has nothing to do with “Christ-haters.” I’m a Christian. Heck, I’m even a Southern Baptist, and my mother is the minister of small groups at my hometown church.
However, neither I nor my mother want to see this man represent the Republican party.
He IS a jerk. That stuff with the ad was beyond despicable. The fact that he did so while bearing the name of Christ on his sleeve like a sheild to ward off any attacks is what makes him a jerk. Actually, it makes him far worse than a jerk, but it would be rude to use those words on someone else’s blog.
Esthier on January 3, 2008 at 9:23 PM
The humping robot is busy learning to have sex with humans.
NickTx on January 3, 2008 at 9:23 PM
Come on people…IT’S IOWA….
IOWA!
It’s not like Wisconsin or anything…
I was in Wisconsin once….I got the Sh*t beat outta me.
HOLD ON FRED! IT’S IOWA!!! IOWA!!!
Scoreboard44 on January 3, 2008 at 9:23 PM
I used to think otherwise, but tonight’s outcome is making me wonder.
Esthier on January 3, 2008 at 9:25 PM
Allah, you gonna post the video (live right now I believe) of Chris Wallace roasting Ed Rollins’ nuts. After Rollins got out his “… no negatives..” nonsense, Wallace busted the overheard “go negative!” conversation he had in a restaurant… Rollins’ only excuse? “private conversation”. And they’re still battling.
RightWinged on January 3, 2008 at 9:25 PM
Rollins is a very mellow guy aint he LOL
trailortrash on January 3, 2008 at 9:26 PM
Seems like you are assuming huckleberry wins in iowa he takes the whole thing. My guess is that a win in iowa by huckster pisses off and motivates an awful lot of people and don’t be surprised if Rush breaks his oath.
peacenprosperity on January 3, 2008 at 9:26 PM
Baseball Ray….Where the memories are so fresh you have to shoo them away……BECAUSE IT’S IOWA!
ETHANOL TAKEN INTERNALLY CAN LEAD TO SLIGHT MENTAL RETARDATION.
HOLD ON FRED! IT’S IOWA!!!
Scoreboard44 on January 3, 2008 at 9:27 PM
Meaningless.
I wonder how that would add up in the general election, with conservatives voting for Hillary?
Jaibones on January 3, 2008 at 9:28 PM
Good interview by Chris Wallace. But the teeth thing, “taken out of context,” I’m still not over that. Rollins is a real piece of work. If anything happens to him, Carville would be a suitable replacement.
Laura on January 3, 2008 at 9:28 PM
Fox says Obama wins Iowa.
csdeven on January 3, 2008 at 9:28 PM
As I don’t have cable, I would love to see some relevant clips. Thank you AP.
Nyog_of_the_Bog on January 3, 2008 at 9:28 PM
Never underestimate the stupidity of the American public. How can anyone with a scintilla of intelligence vote for this Bible humping moron.
pjf626 on January 3, 2008 at 9:29 PM
its OBAMA! FEAR OPRAH! FEAR HER!
zane on January 3, 2008 at 9:30 PM
Its okay…we can convert them to Fredism if we just get through tonight.
NickTx on January 3, 2008 at 9:31 PM
scintilla
Ten point word.
Nice.
Scoreboard44 on January 3, 2008 at 9:31 PM
If these Hokies don’t get back into the Orange Bowl, then combined with Huckamania, I’m going to be pretty dissapointed going to sleep tonight.
krabbas on January 3, 2008 at 9:31 PM
Just watched that tiff between Rollins and Chris Wallace on Fox. Rollins must be naive or stupid (and with his experience its hard to see him as either) to think that ANY conversation he has right now in a public restaurant during Caucus day could ever be construed as “private”.
At least he didnt back away from anything he said. Looks like he is eager for a fight with Rudy, huh.
Be careful what you wish for, Ed.
Always Right on January 3, 2008 at 9:32 PM
I recall this site I visit once in a while: Pastors4 Huckabee or something like that. The entire premise of the site? How evil Mormons are and Huck is the only thing to save the country from some Satanic Mormon in the white house. Seriously, the site has far more attacks on Mormonism than supporting Huck.
If that is what the evangelical preachers are going on about, then this campaign is beyond ludicrous. Huck has galvanized the Evangelical preachers to go on about how bad Mormons are, and that’s the sole reason he is winning. In this mindset, Romney would be more dangerous than Osama.
And if that is really the evangelical view (or the large chunk voting for Huck) then the base deserves all the names it is called.
In my opinion, at least.
Vanceone on January 3, 2008 at 9:32 PM
GO FRED GO!
I hope he wins SC.
I’m pretty much done voting for Republicans if Fred doesn’t stay in.
msipes on January 3, 2008 at 9:33 PM
This just makes me want to eat.
Depressing. Of course, I live in Michigan. It’s Winter.
I should eat.
HOLD ON FRED!!!
Scoreboard44 on January 3, 2008 at 9:33 PM
Question: Can we blame Rudy for the Huckaboom?
At the beginning of this race, Rudy was dominating everywhere despite disenfranchising evangelicals. Perhaps Iowa Christians are indirectly backlashing by voting for an Evangelical (Huck), instead of voting for Mitt or Fred.
Possible?
HYTEAndy on January 3, 2008 at 9:36 PM
On that front, let me point out that the evangelicals are split 50/50 with Huckabee. The southern baptists are not that thrilled with him. So please do not generalize all evangelicals as nuts or idiots. Im an evangelical and Im going for Fred.
JVelez on January 3, 2008 at 9:38 PM
Wow. Fox News seems desperate to spin Romney’s loss as a win for him. It’s very interesting to see how little support they’re giving Huckabee, the clear winner here. I’ve said this before: like him or hate him, he is a force.
fourstringfuror on January 3, 2008 at 9:38 PM
highhopes
I am a Christ hater for not liking Huck? Really? Because he is not Christ..I’m just saying…
Pam on January 3, 2008 at 9:38 PM
Rudy actually did better than I expected in Iowa. Beating Ron Paul and possibly even McCain.
Rudy is spending money wisely, in the bigger states.
James on January 3, 2008 at 9:39 PM
HOLD ON HOKIES!!!
krabbas on January 3, 2008 at 9:39 PM
Rudy has always been a non-factor in Iowa. Barely campaigned there. So how could Iowa evangelicals voting for Huck be a backlash against Rudy.
A more plausible argument is that the evangelicals are voting against THE MORMON GUY…. coz they seem to revile Mormonism.
And the Mormon was strong in Iowa from the git-go.
Thats my theory.
Always Right on January 3, 2008 at 9:39 PM
That’s ideas been floating around for a while, in fact, I even did a post a while back stating about as much, I think it explains the trench mentality of Huck supporters too.
Bad Candy on January 3, 2008 at 9:40 PM
This just in. . . .
AllahPundits fervent attempt to save the rubes of Iowa from the subliminal symbols embedded in the Huckster’s ads failed completely.
/Don’t go apoplectic…its a zinger penned in jest, ok?
/too much? feel free to boo!
Personally, seriously the huckster has the same effect on me as the Clintons.
rockhauler on January 3, 2008 at 9:40 PM
According to the CNN site, there are 2,054,843 registered voters in Iowa, 30% of which are registered Republicans. That works out to 616,453 registered Republicans. When I tally the number of votes cast (with 65% reporting), it comes to 75,083 votes, or 7.25% of the registered Republicans. Allah, are you really calling “Game over” because 4% of the registered Republicans in Iowa voted for Huck? Remember the HHGTTG: Don’t Panic!
rmgraha on January 3, 2008 at 9:41 PM
I don’t see how Fox is spinning FOR Mitt at all. I don’t care to watch the other channels.
I just don’t think I could vote for Huck in the general. I might even vote for McCain over him, and that’s saying something!
Darksean on January 3, 2008 at 9:41 PM
Obama 36.30; Edwards 30.50; Clinton 30.21
Two-thirds of Dem activists send a message: Nyet, Hillary, nyet!
petefrt on January 3, 2008 at 9:41 PM
You’re not taking national attitudes into consideration, that has an influence, and that would explain HYTEAndy’s hypothesis.
Bad Candy on January 3, 2008 at 9:42 PM
JVelez, I hope I don’t sound like I’m blaming all evangelicals. It’s true only half of them are going for Huck in Iowa.
But who else is?
Practically every traditional conservative organ has come out against Huck. National Review, Rush, AmSpec…. the guy is a disaster.
I feel like I’m watching a train wreck. And next is New Hampshire, where Huck won’t be in play, but McCain is surging. What’s left of a conservative movement?
Vanceone on January 3, 2008 at 9:42 PM
Fox said that in the rural, heavily evangelical areas they were really getting traction with a group called “Redeem the Vote”, like “Rock the vote”.
“Jerk” is so offensive to you that you immediately complain about “name calling”? I wonder if the Puritans were that persnickety. By the way, I’m a Christian and I have come to loathe Huckabee. Does that make me a “Christ hater”?
That sort of talk just could create a backlash against Evangelicals. I don’t see it as a very wise way to Evangelize, but maybe I’m missing something.
I don’t deny that there are malignant Atheists out there who loathe Christianity even more than I loathe Huckabee, but you’re not going to find them here, so I don’t see what point there is in venting like that in this particular forum.
You whole tone comes across as quite threatening, almost like a form of blackmail. Don’t cross us or you’ll be sorry! Seriously, is that the image you want to present to the American people?
Agreed.
Buy Danish on January 3, 2008 at 9:42 PM
Juan Williams is calling this an historical night. He’s going on and on about how well Obama did. I think he might wet himself.
fourstringfuror on January 3, 2008 at 9:43 PM
I’ll second that! No pun intended here but the elephant in the room is that the evangelical movement is fluid (unlike Hillary’s supporters). They vote on principle not “electability.” That’s why the last-minute smear job of GWB’s DUI made a difference in 2000. A (not unexpected win) of Huckabee in Iowa doesn’t mean those of us who think faith matters will support him in the end.
Personally, I simply don’t think Huckabee is the Christian he claims to be. That doesn’t make him a bad person- just not the person I want leading this nation.
highhopes on January 3, 2008 at 9:43 PM
I would like at least 2 more percentage points for Fred over McCain please. Thank you.
Nyog_of_the_Bog on January 3, 2008 at 9:44 PM
And now Edwards is spinning his loss as a win against Clinton. What a spinster.
fourstringfuror on January 3, 2008 at 9:44 PM
18% would be nice.
fourstringfuror on January 3, 2008 at 9:45 PM
How come their husbands didn’t make them vote for Romney or Fred?
krabbas on January 3, 2008 at 9:46 PM
I would like to see Hil chances crash and burn, but it will really make my life great if Edwards chances slowly burn away like a pig in a luau
JVelez on January 3, 2008 at 9:47 PM
Ignoring the fact that Williams is a rabid liberal idiot- he’s right.
I suspect this is the first time that a black man has actually won a political primary (outside results from places like the DC primary).
highhopes on January 3, 2008 at 9:47 PM
The Fox panel just can’t get over the Huckabee win. Brit referred to him as “fringe candidate.”
fourstringfuror on January 3, 2008 at 9:48 PM
Here comes Politico.
fourstringfuror on January 3, 2008 at 9:49 PM
Enough beta-ization of American masculinity to affect the Iowa Caucuses?
HYTEAndy on January 3, 2008 at 9:49 PM
What he meant to say was that he wanted to knock his socks off?
I hope Allah posts this. I’m fighting for TV time with my kid who is watching the kick off to the PGA Tour.
Buy Danish on January 3, 2008 at 9:50 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »