There are only three “trends” emerging from the results of the first two primaries (if you can even call results from two of the 50 primaries to be held “trendworthy”).

First, turn out is up … way up. This makes quite a bit of sense given that we American citizens are not satisfied with our President or his policies, nor are we satisfied with the still-new Democratic Congress elected with the hopes they’d somehow be able to at least put the brakes on said President. Add to this sentiment the fact that the Oval Office seat is “open” as the incumbent President is term-limited and the incumbent Veep doesn’t want the promotion — he could make more money back at Halliburton anyway. ;)

Second, nothing is inevitable and no one is invincible. Mitt Romney’s money has yet to buy him a victory (unless you count Wyoming, which apparently no one is — sorry Cowboys). Hillary Clinton stumbled out of the starting gate. Barack Obama was declared near-invincible on the basis of only one win and a few (hindsight is 20/20) erroneous polls based on bad data. For all those declaring the eventual Dem nominee a lock to win in November … take note. Nothing is assured in a vibrant, active democracy. Any office to be won must first be earned.

Third, the Republican base at this point is clearly unmotivated and unimpressed. Even despite lacking a “gold medal” (as his Olympic allusion goes), Mitt Romney is still progressing well having earned two solid second places. Mike Huckabee took the Iowa win on the strength of evangelical political activism and John McCain just won New Hampshire on the strength of his familiarity.

But, despite the interesting chess match being set up between the pachyderms, no Republican has placed higher than a distant third when looking at total votes in a primary. To wit:

Iowa total caucus “votes”
(based on total turnout of approx 356,000 caucus goers for both parties combined)
Turnout was about 67% Dem versus 33% Repub of total caucus attendees, a surprisingly lopsided 2:1 advantage given the Republican caucus process is actually easier and less time-consuming…

  1. (D - Dem winner) Obama 24.5%
  2. (D) Edwards 20.5%
  3. (D) Clinton 19.8%
  4. (R - GOP winner) Huckabee 10.4%

New Hampshire total primary votes
(based on total turnout of approx 517,000 voters for both parties plus independents combined, 99% precincts reporting 1/9/08)
Dem ballots pulled totaled 284,000 versus Repub ballots numbering 233,000 in a state with more registered GOPs than Dems…

  1. (D - Dem winner) Clinton 112,238 = 21.7% total votes
  2. (D) Obama 104,757 = 20.3% total votes
  3. (R - GOP winner) McCain 88,447 = 17.1% total votes (nearly 24,000 votes behind Clinton and more than 16,000 behind Obama)
  4. (R) Romney 75,202 = 14.5% total votes
  5. (D) Edwards 48,666 = 9.4% total votes
  6. (R) Huckabee 26,760 = 5.2% total votes (Iowa winner is a distant 6th in overall voting)

Certainly, any reasonable Republican partisan would have to look at those numbers and furrow their brows in consternation. Their only solice at this point, as noted earlier,  is that nothing is “inevitable” in a democracy.

Well, that and the curious fact that so few in the supposedly “liberal” (not) media are actually looking in depth at these very lopsided voting totals. The Republican candidates can say the word “change” til they’re blue (or red) in the face… but as of now it seems clear the voters realize change isn’t really going to come without a change in parties at 1600 Penn.