(CNN) - When it comes to the winners of both party's caucuses tonight, it's an age revolt for Democrats versus a religious revolt for Republicans.
The exit polling shows an enormous generational divide between supporters of Obama and Clinton. Fifty-seven percent of those under the age of 30 went for the Illinois Democrat. But Obama won significantly smaller proportions of each successive age group. Forty-two percent of 30-44 year-olds went for Obama. That number drops to 21 percent among 41-64 year olds, and only 18 percent among voters 65 and over.
On the Republican side, exit polling shows a great divide between those voters who highly valued a candidate's religious values and those who did not. Huckabee won 56 percent of those who said religious values matter a great deal. That number drops to 30 percent who say religion somewhat matters, 15 percent who say religion doesn't matter much, and only 5 percent among those who say religion does not matter at all.
– CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider
You can lose Iowa and still become President. You can also win Iowa and not become President. I appreciate that Huckabee won after being outspent, but I don't see Huckabee lasting very long. McCain or Rudy will come in now and first push out Mitt and then Huckabee. I think Mitt had a chance until he turned negative with his ads which is too bad. I now view him as being cast in the same mold as Hillary.
Let's celebrate the maturity the U.S. displayed in Iowa. Once again, the pundits, (not "pundints" that I hear the commentators repeatedly saying!) have underestimated reason and moderation as points of view. The fringe is called that for a reason; they're out there on the fringe!
Congratulations to us, all, that we may be heading toward a progressive, hopeful future rather than more of a frightening status quo.
Listen to the people, really listen. Just like the professional salesperson learns, that when you listen, the people will tell you what they want.
I sincerely believe that my generation will take over politics during this election cycle. It is our time, and our fight, and our future.
Also, may I REMIND everyone that out of the top three democrats, Barack Obama has been an elected official for the longest amount of time. The "experience" argument is complete nonsense.
keep an eye on the delegate count. Let see what Wyoming will do for mitt.
For Mike: Yes, it's the youngest voters that are getting killed in Iraq to please and enrich an older President and his cronies. Another reason they relate with your 'inexperienced' candidate maybe.
To the other Mike –
Maybe the younger voters are supporting someone who isn't part of the older generation of politicians for reasons other than lack of experience. Just a thought but the past two generations of politicians have done a wonderful job of making my future more difficult in order to pay for their generations mistakes and excesses. Is Obama the candidate that can start to attempt to fix the mess that has been left for my generation? I honestly don't know if I believe that, but I sure as hell know Clinton isn't the solution.
To Buddy Vail –
Trolls belong under bridges and in dark places, not in forums where people are at least trying to understand issues. Just an observation, but what you read in random emails from people isn't always true.
... Mike didn't even realize the writer's strike wasn't over when he appeared on Leno ... he may get the nod from God in Iowa but its a big, wide world out there – lots and lots of people who don't believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old, that women should graciously submit to the husbands, that saying you aren't doing a negative ad, then showing it to the Press and running it on at least 3 Iowa stations is ethical and who are afraid that you will impose your "holier than thou" way of life on the rest of us. By the way – middle class people will not benefit from your 23% flat tax – no matter how many pie charts you hold up.
If Mike thinks Mitt was "going negative" by asking the tough questions on immigration, pardons, and raising taxes, you haven't seen anything yet!
Oregon, It looks like a lot of people support a candidate who looks for God's perfect guidance rather than man's flawed guidance. I say that is just what this country needs.
Evangelicals thought they were voting for a 'pastor-in-chief' rather than for a President. The events in IA come off as quite sad in describing how bigoted the American public can be on matters of religion. But TIME magazine posing the question: "Romney on the Ropes?" is laughable. Huckabee doesn't have the evangelical base in NH he did in IA. Romney finished 2nd with twice as many votes as McCain. Romney on the ropes? That makes no sense at all. The man is better poised than any of the other candidates to go on and win it all.
Iowa the same place Pat Robertson won. Hopefully soon there will be intelligent people voting who will look at issues. And lets talk about values, Huck ways he is honest and said people responded to his positive campaign. Positive is calling your opponent dishonest, having your campaign guru say he wants to knock out his teeth, your facelifted b-list celebrity say he wants to choke your opponent. Values like attacking the religion of Romney and Brownback. Values like having more ethical violations in Arkansas than Clinton. A flat tax that will make the poor people pay almost a dollar more a gallon for both milk and gasoine.
Huckabee wants to tell me what I can and can't do with my body, and who you should be free to love, and what you should do in your bedroom. He also wants to make sure that my children don't learn how the world was made, and that if they have a genetic disease, they will surely die from it instead of benefiting from stem cell research. He can go straight to the hell he is so fearful of, as far as I am concerned.
agree that Iowa made a mistake. Huckleberry should be scrutinized a bit more now. he is such a weak candidate. not well educated compared to the others, his aw-shucks demeanor is ridiculous, and policy wise, he's terrible. I may consider myself religious but no way would I consider him. he's bigoted and just doesn't get the seperation of church and state. I love God and all, but the constitution should be revered a little more than it has been lately. and Huckleberry is just not presidential material.
For the Republican side, one of the lessons that I can see is that Romney's connection to the Latter Day Saints Church (Mormons) can be a turn off to some people. If Romney is to earn the votes of those people, something more substantial needs to be done to convince them. He will do better in New Hampshire if McCain doesn't wipe Romney out. People may have voted for Huckabee because they could relate to the commonality of religious views; for some people, that is the only way they look at things with religious/Christian glasses.
Democrat side, things are a little bit different to me; organization in getting people out to caucus. This is something that needs to be learned and completed by the campaign of the nominee. No matter who it is, the nominee needs to get people to the polls. Clinton might come across as not friendly enough no matter what she does.
Why is it that dems have no religous values??
Not 'generational' vs 'religious' vote.
Merely a response to two things.
1. America is gripped in a 'throw the bums out' mentality.
2. Americans of all stripes are gripped with a need to be lead by a person living a solid moral life with keen desire to improve the lot of the folks.
Both Huckabee and Obama go a long way to satisfying these to mainstream needs.
America has a chance to experience one of the finest, closest races to the White House in decades if the race comes down to these two. If Hillary, Edwards, Romney, Giuliani get into the picture the race will get downrigtht nasty. (The nastiest with Hilliary, as she is a truly nasty, win at all costs lady).
All of the presidential candidates have no experience in foreign policy. No hands-on, no- on-the-job training knowledge to deal with the fact that the world is running out of oil and 60% of our imported oil comes from the Middle East. The fact that we are in Iraq and the Middle East to secure our supply of oil, to keep the wheels of our capitalistic industry turning. Wake-up Americans, and elect our next president who has lived in the Middle East for at least ten plus years, a candidate with experience and knowledge from the world to govern the world. Who is this person? Where do we find him? Definitely not the present candidates. The American people should manage their own destiny by advertising on the web and newspapers for the candidate with 10 – 25 years of experience in the Middle East. Otherwise, the United States is pursuing the same destiny as the illiterate failed Roman Empire, destruction from within. Do we repeat history and become one of the failed Empires?
The only time jesus prayed in public was during his execution, he did not want religion to be used as a tool. Jesus knew that men would misuse his teachings, that is hy he always urged people to pray in private. He did not want his religion spoiled by the government.
Republicans, specialy the ones that USE (yes USE, MISUSE and ABUSE) God, turn my stomach.
Be careful what you wish for, religion should stay OUT of the government, not because the religion would destroy the government, but because the government would destroy religion.
By the way, if you think Jesus would approve these new neo-christian mega-churches, think again, Jesus preached in the open, out in the fields, in his dusty robes, not in thousand dollar suits, multi-million dollar houses, and private jets. He threw those people out of the Temple.
Some vote for religious reasons, others vote for a strong welfare state because they do not want to earn it for themselves or belive in socialism like the liberal elite, while others vote for fiscal reponsibility by picking the lesser of two evil spenders. Myself, my criteria is a strong defense /national security and after 20 years in the US Navy I know about the Post Viet Nam Era Democrats that run the Party and the Congress and they may "Talk the Talk, but they do no Walk the Walk" when it comes to a strong defense. Since the dems would never nominate a true moderate like former La. Senator John Breau they will have a hard time getting my vote.
In analyzing the statistics as to the age discrimination statement. I believe that younger people are thinking of their future and who can best straighten out the mess the current administration has put us into; and especially the younger generations into. They are the ones who are going to have to bail the US out of debt; as it will take many years to overcome the astronomical debt Bush and company has created to support his war ambitions. The older generations are less interested in change, as they are more comfortable with "the status quo". It's no surprise that they would want someone more familiar with Washington to be their candidate of choice. Putting their votes into the hands of someone "viewed" as less experienced is more uncomfortable to older folks. I do use the word viewed loosely; as I don't agree that Clinton has more experience, but I do believe she has managed to convince some that electing her would give us experience and get us back to the glory days and economy of the Clinton years. It's really too bad that people don't understand economics. Our country is headed towards a recession larger than what we experienced in the 80s. The next president will not have the glory days of the Clinton years to bask in. They are going to need to find a way to work together for the good of all of the population. I don't believe that Clinton is capable of bringing us all together.