Uline Moving to Wisconsin  |   Home  |   Chuck Norris!

Iowa Caucus Results

In case you didn’t hear already.

Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama have won the Iowa caucuses - the first nominating contest of the 2008 US presidential election.

Posted by Owen at 2221 hrs
Politics + Politics - General

1. Ok.  Now that we know with whom the Iowans identify, we can dump those candidates and pick someone else, right?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2008 at 2241 hrs
   
   
   

2. With so many candidates, there’s some wiggle room.Note that even though Barack got about 35% of the vote (at early count), about 65% did NOT support him.I didn’t hear the percentages for the Republican candidates.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2008 at 2259 hrs
   
   
   

3. There was a three-way scramble for third place among former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, at 14 percent, Arizona Sen. John McCain, at 13 percent and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, at 10 percent.

   http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080103/NEWS09/80103050/-1/caucus

   As a side note, Bill Clinton received very little support at the Iowa Caucus in 1992.
   http://preview.tinyurl.com/29dteq

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2008 at 2323 hrs
   
   
   

4. It’s a vote for change. We’ve had enough of family dynasties like the Bushes and Clintons. Hallelujah.

   57% of those under 30 went for Obama. It’s just the beginning. Heck, he even got 35% of the female vote (vs. 30% for Clinton).

   Romney, the great phony, is toast. He spent a wad in Iowa and lost.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 03, 2008 at 2336 hrs
   
   
   

5. Joe Jackson, the only “toast” are the handful of Democrats and few Republican candidates who were off the radar screen for the past year.  What did Iowa tell us?

   1.  Hillary has significant chinks in her armor.
   2.  The Democrat race has three, rather than two, contestants.
   3.  Both nominations are totally up for grabs.

   This will be an election of attrition.

   Many (including me) have made much of the fact that this is the first election since 1952 without a sitting President or Vice President seeking the presidency.

   I think the more significant fact is that there is not a single qualified, electable candidate.  Of course, someone will be elected.  Whoever that is will assume the presidency without a mandate or popular support; instead, he or she will be looked at as the survivor of a marathon among a very objectionable crowd.  That has not happened in more than a century.

   Perhaps the victor will be seen in the future as a great president.  Predicting greatness among any of this group, however, is bolder than a preseason Packer prediction of 13-3.

   Posted by Crocodile Cage on January 03, 2008 at 2359 hrs
   
   
   

6. I think the most interesting thing is that nearly twice as many people turned out to support Hillary Clinton, the third place finisher on the Democratic side, as turned out to support Mike Huckabee, the GOP frontrunner.
   That tells you something right there.

   Posted by Mike Thomas on January 04, 2008 at 0917 hrs
   
   
   

7. To Mike Thomas. According to MSNBC the results were very much the opposite: Iowa Results. The 6th place Republican got more than 4 times the number of votes as the 1st place Democrat. Veeery interesting!

   Steve G.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2008 at 1630 hrs
   
   
   

8. Can someone explain why the Iowa results show a total of 2500 votes for the democratic candidates and all the media has focused only on the percentages?  If these numbers are correct the media is doing a great job of slanting the story.  Barack has 944 votes and Huckabee 40,000 and Barack is going to be our next president.  What gives?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2008 at 2050 hrs
   
   
   

9. Pat R,

   Look here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-03-iowa_N.htm

   Read the left hand side bar under the title “Iowa Caucus Tabulations”

   Weird way of doing things, I say.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2008 at 2128 hrs
   
   
   

10. I followed the link - looks like the Republican results are a “head count” & the Democrats don’t do a head count, so it is an apples to oranges comparison.  Here is what is said about the Democrat totals:

    The Democrats do not report straight vote numbers but use a mathematical formula to determine support for a presidential candidate in percentages.

    For the Democrats, the district-level “vote” numbers listed above are extrapolated from the “state delegate equivalent” numbers provided by the Iowa Democratic Party. They do not represent actual votes or have anything to do with actual turnout at the caucus. Rather, they are representative district-level figures derived from the “state delegate equivalent” numbers reported throughout the night.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2008 at 2219 hrs
    
    
    

11. Thank you for the link.  This is the first link I have seen that explains the formula.  Does anyone know where I could find an actual head count?  The only numbers I have been able to find is projected turnouts.  It would seem the Democrats would want these numbers to be out there for all to see.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2008 at 0719 hrs
    
    
    

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.