I am curious. If, as David Yepsen notes, Mike Huckabee is doing well in Iowa, it might be because Iowa caucus-goers are relatively strange. We already know that Iowa GOP caucus-goers are much more anti-war than the national party. We also know that Iowa caucus-goers are more religious than the national primary electorate.

I number of people, including Richard Land, have noted that less conservative positions on economic issues, especially trade, could play well with religious voters. He said this in the context of Duncan Hunter a long time ago, but it could equally apply to Huckabee.

Huckabee clearly has winning contrasts on social issues with Mitt Romney. (and now there is an incentive for the big money candidates to make the contrast… A Huckabee win probably devastates Romney.) And Romney’s foreign policy credentials are no better than Huckabee’s. And if taxes don’t really matter… It would be hard to see how Yepsen wouldn’t be right.

Any good polling information on taxes or the priorities of Iowa caucus-goers?



sampo · October 30, 2007 at 4:08 PM

“Iowa caucus-goers are relatively strange.”

Calling them strange is putting it lightly. These guys are holding candidates for the POTUS hostage unless they agree to shower the state with billions of dollars in farmer subsidies. The ~$160 billion dollars Bush promised in 2000 and delivered in 2002 wasn’t enough. Now they’ve upped the ante to $280 billion. Woe unto the candidate who doesn’t oblige. Oh, and they’re not going to pay a dime in income tax!


Democracy in action. Democracy in action.

Brad Marston · October 30, 2007 at 10:27 PM

I am not sure how “anti-tax” the electorate is. I get the sence that regardless of the actual economics, most voters think the tax bursen is about right at the moment and are more conserned about deficits than revenues and who pays them.

Comments are closed.