The big losers in Iowa were Hillary and the Republican party.
Obama and Clinton were polling at a tie in both Iowa and NH. Now, that it is clear that Obama, like Oprah, also appeals to white women, a NH repeat of his 8 point lead in Iowa may be conservative. If he takes her by 8 in NH, he’ll wipe her out in SC where half of Democratic primary goers are Black.
Many view Romney as a big loser in Iowa. He really never stood a chance among their evangelicals. What is surprising is how many Republican voters chose a candidate that shared their religious beliefs. Both Clinton and Obama would have had a hard time beating a qualified leader like Romney, Giuliani, or McCain. In a general election, they will have a much easier time winning against more radical Christian extremists like Huckabee.
The obvious question is, 'Why did Kerry lose against Bush?" Bush is (by European standards) as radical an evangelical as Huckabee. He was also unpopular and a demonstrated incompetent. The answer quite simply was that Kerry was less competent. As a politician, he never managed to distill his message down to the 1-2 word slogan the median American voter can remember. Obama=change, Hillary="ready to lead", Bush="compassionate conservative", Kerry='you may want to sit down; this will take a while.'
An interesting side note is the continued is the nearly even three way tie amongst Democrats. Polling has become so refined that professional politicians are able to run flawless campaigns that divide the electorate perfectly in half (or in thirds.) Huckabee was able to win because Iowa's disproportionate number of evangelicals represents a skewed sample of Americans reacting to a set of perfect campaigns.
Comments