The Only Way Barack Can Lose Iowa

Sen. Barack Obama, much to my dismay, looks poised to win the Iowa caucuses on January 3.  The big "Mo" (momentum) is on his side and he is leading in many recent Iowa polls.  Clinton and Edwards appear to be stuck in second and third place respectively, but with such a tight race and the volatile nature of the Iowa caucus, there is something that works to the advantage of Clinton and Edwards.  This same thing is the one and only way I could see Barack Obama losing Iowa.  So what is that "thing" of which I refer?  It's the youth vote, of course.

Sen. Clinton and Edwards have the top two traditional caucusing groups on their side.  Sen. Clinton has the 40+ women vote, which traditionally shows up in strong numbers on caucus night.  Edwards also has an important and consistent caucusing group---the labor, or union, vote.  And Barack's support.....the youth vote.  

Polls show Obama to have a tremendous amount of support among college students and other voters in the 18-34 demographic.  If Sen. Obama can get his many young supporters to show up, he will surely win.  The problem is that history is not on his side.  Only 10% of all caucus goers in 2004 were under the age 35; Obama draws much of his support from those same people.

We all remember what happened to Howard Dean in 2004.  At this point in 2003, with just 3 weeks until the caucus, Howard Dean was still the clear frontrunner.  The problem for Dean on the night of the caucus was that his core support consisted of voters under the age of 35 and they simply did not show up to caucus as the polls had suggested.  

As can be seen, the youth vote if far from reliable.  Many young voters show up at rallies for a candidate and even tell pollsters that they are "likely caucus attenders".  Yet, when the night of the caucus comes, the youth simply don't show up in big numbers.  Sadly, they often get distracted.  It should be noted that a big distraction for many young voters, particularly male, this year could potentially be the Orange Bowl, which will begin at about the same time as the caucus.  

Obama and his supporters have promised that this year will be different.  They say that the youth will show up and caucus.  Talk, however, is cheap.  Howard Dean and his campaign claimed the same thing in 2004 as did candidates in previous years.                                                                                                                               

My point: Obama is in the prime position to win the Iowa caucus, but he's not inevitable.  With a large chunk of his support being from younger voters, Obama leaves himself vulnerable.  If he can truly, as he says, bring in youth voters as has never been done before, Obama has this caucus in the bag.  But if only 10%, or even 15%, show up, Obama could be in deep trouble.  With the race so tight in Iowa, Obama, or any candidate for that matter, can not afford to not have their core supporters show up.  As Dean learned in '04, it's one thing to have supporters, it's a completely different thing to have them actually show up on a cold winter night to stand in a room for hours and caucus for you.  

Clinton and Edwards have reliable supporters who are traditional caucus goers; they should have no problem getting their people out.  The race in Iowa, and possibly the nationally, depends on how many of Obama's youth supporters actually show up.  If he gets them out there, he'll win.  If he doesn't, he could be the Dean of '08.  Only time will tell.  

Afghanistan: Failing Because of Iraq

The United States invaded Afghanistan over 6 years ago.  That was the right decision because Bin Laden's operations and training camps were there and were supported by the Taliban.  After the tragic events of 9-11, the people of the U.S. supported that operation as did most world leaders.  Our military leaders were convinced that we had Bin Laden trapped on several occasions, but we failed to capture him.

 

As of this writing Bin Laden is still at large.  The U.S. has approximately 26,000 troops in Afghanistan and NATO has about 28,000.  The U.S. has about 160,000 troops in Iraq.  Does that make sense when we knew Iraq was no threat to the U.S.?  Everyone knows who struck the U.S. on 9-11.  Our resources were and still are committed to the wrong war.

 

Yesterday, the Washington Post reported that Defense Secretary Gates is blasting NATO for not doing enough in Afghanistan and that Gates wants to overhaul the alliance strategy in Afghanistan.  Violence is on the rise and the U.S. strategic goals for Afghanistan in 2007 have not been met.   In fact, senior administration officials have gone as far as saying that the country is backsliding.  

 

The bottom line is that we have not been fighting the war on terrorism.  We have turned that over to NATO and our rhetoric is hollow.  Our resources have been wasted in Iraq.  The President's self serving statement, "the War on Terror is centered in Iraq," is purely false.  The War on Terror can not be won when you have a faulty foreign policy.  The next President has to have the wisdom to recognize the real threat that terrorism poses, and have a foreign policy that deals with that threat.  Iraq is not a threat; Afghanistan and bin Laden are.