Obama, Huckabee Need To Hold Leads In N.H.

Despite opinion polls suggesting that the two campaigns had tightened in the final days, Sen. Barack Obama, D.-Ill., and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee won the Democratic and Republican Iowa caucuses, respectively, by clear margins:

Democratic outcome : On the Democratic side, Obama secured 37.6% of the final vote, compared with 29.7% for former Sen. John Edwards, D.-N.C., and 29.5% for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D.-N.Y., the national front-runner.

Republican results: Among the Republicans, Huckabee took 34.3% of votes cast, easily defeating former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who won 25.3%, while former Sen. Fred Thompson, R.-Tenn., and Sen. John McCain, R.-Ariz., were essentially tied for third place with approximately 13% of the vote. Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, by contrast, finished sixth with 3.5% of the vote, albeit in a state which he essentially ignored.

Obama and Huckabee appear to have benefited from historically high turnout levels (especially on the Democratic side) and particular sources of support that will be challenging to duplicate in upcoming state primaries:

--Obama's support was concentrated in the youngest section of the electorate--those under 30--where exit polls imply that he took nearly six in 10.

--Huckabee's base was among white evangelical Christians. Again, a strikingly high 60% of all Republican caucus attendees were willing to accept such a designation, and almost half of evangelicals backed the former governor.

--Romney's Mormon religion may have been a major handicap in Iowa.

The Iowa result will have the greatest impact on the Democratic party's nomination battle:

Obama challenges Clinton. Obama's triumph offers him the prospect of momentum entering New Hampshire--which he can leverage, crucially, with deep financial resources and a strong campaign organization. It would be very surprising if he did not secure a major bounce in New Hampshire from the publicity that his Iowa win generates. Moreover, with only five days until the New Hampshire ballot, that surge in support is unlikely to fade.

However, if Obama is to topple Clinton, he needs to at least run her a very close second in New Hampshire, if not defeat her again. If he falls short there, then the Iowa effect will have been eclipsed by the time that the larger states enter the primary picture on Feb. 5. Nevertheless, Obama appears likely to transform the race into a pitched two-person battle throughout the course of January and into early February.

Edwards' fading bid. Edwards must come in second in New Hampshire to remain credible moving forward, especially in the Democrats' South Carolina primary on Jan. 26, which is now unambiguously a"must-win" prospect for him. However, the chances are that Edwards will place third in New Hampshire, in effect bringing his bid to a close.

The Iowa result complicates, rather than clarifies, the Republican race:

Pressure on Romney. The outcome raises the stakes in New Hampshire for Romney. Although Huckabee will enjoy a much more modest bounce there among Republican voters than Obama can expect among Democrats, it would be surprising if there were no impact at all. Were Romney to finish behind Huckabee again in New Hampshire, the effect on his campaign would be disastrous. However, Romney has been fortunate in three respects:

--The media is likely to regard Obama's win (and Clinton's third-place finish) as the most important "Iowa story," and this will moderate the beneficial effect that Huckabee's victory in the Republican caucuses will have on the New Hampshire primary contest.

--Huckabee does not have the financial resources (or the time to raise them) to boost his momentum in New Hampshire with new, paid television advertising.

--Finally, Romney would have been more badly damaged if McCain--his main competition in New Hampshire--had secured a strong third-place finish in Iowa, instead of virtually tying with Thompson.