AP Projects Obama Democratic Winner of Iowa Caucus

tags: , , ,

With 97% of the Iowa precincts reporting, there finally is a clear winner;

Barak Obama 38% (16 delegates)
John Edwards 30% (14 delegates) Was John Edwards really in second place? If so, why did he end up with one delegate fewer than Hillary Clinton? Or maybe the delegates were not yet assigned as reported?
Hillary Clinton 29% (15 delegates)

239,000 people turned out for the Democrats, a historic high for Iowa Democrats -- slightly more than 10% of the state's registered voters. (124,000 turned out in 2000). Incidentally, 28% of all Democratic caucus attendees were under the age of 30, and they, along with women, made a huge difference for Obama because most of his support came from these groups.

It's amazing that a state filled with mostly white (95% versus 2% African-American), conservative people think that a black man (well, half black, half white) should be president. Does this mean that there is hope for this country afterall?

Of course, if you are a woman, you might wonder why so many people despise Hillary. I am not a fan of Hillary, but I definitely do not understand the strong adversive reactions that so many people have to her -- I mean, seriously, what's wrong with Hillary?? Why is she worse than most other politicians?

Weirdly, John Edwards said he would drop out of the race if he didn't win Iowa's Democratic nomination .. why would he base such an important decision on a relatively homogenous state's decision? It's gotta be the money issue, right? Hrm...

More like this


I mean, I haven't really figured it out, but somebody at a non-profit whose organization I won't divulge so as not to risk their non-profit status-- but a non-profit whose goals I really like-- indicated Obama as the one most likely to be sympathetic. And from my not-having-paid-enough-attention, he's my favorite.

(After all, Hillary went after CJ, and I still haven't forgiven her for that.)

You can never tell what is going to happen in Iowa. It all depends on which demographic shows up at the caucuses and this time it was the youth vote going heavily for Obama.

Hillary has never polled well there, it has too many rural and evangelistic voters and she didn't spend as much time there as Obama. So I don't see this as the end of her candidacy, she's polling well in New Hampshire, a real primary and not a caucus arrangement.

I haven't heard Edwards say he will drop out if he doesn't win Iowa, though I did hear he would drop out if he didn't do well. He's trailing Hillary by about 20% in New Hampshire polls, Obama by 10% so he needed the win to have the momentum to overcome that big a gap. If his lead tonight over her holds, that will be good enough to go on to the next round.

Obama becomes the one to beat now but does he have the get out the vote troops he needs in the other states? I expect we will see a seesaw election between Hillary and Obama for some time. I think Edwards is probably toast. I swear I'm the kiss of death when it comes to elections and football games. If I start rooting for somebody, they are sure to lose.

By carolyn13 (not verified) on 03 Jan 2008 #permalink

I mean, seriously, what's wrong with Hillary??

Of all the Democratic candidates, she's the most Republican.

By Pierce R. Butler (not verified) on 03 Jan 2008 #permalink

well, that's one reason i don't much like hillary, and thus, that should supposedly make her the MOST likable by the religious wingnuts. or so i thought ..

Hillary is thought of as a devil woman by the wingnuts, and she is constantly bashed on their talk radio. No way were the crossover Republican voters going for a Clinton.

By carolyn13 (not verified) on 03 Jan 2008 #permalink

Hillaries strong negatives should come as no surprise. The rightwing noise machine has been demonizing her for a decade and a half. Even those who logically don't think this is fair, carry the unconscious emotional baggage which has been implanted by this noise effort. I feel that at Hillary nomination would lead to a significant chance of losing the election. Although this is not Hillaries fault, the stakes for the country are too high to take that chance.

As an outsider; I also think that there is something duplicitous and untrustworthy about Mrs Clinton, couldn't put my finger on it though.

If it wasn't for Bill would she ever have been a winner of any political office?

Then again, I thought the same about Tony Bliar in my motherland. So perhaps she stands a chance of winning.

Edwards seems a nice guy, actually goes and tries to help people rather than just flapping his/her lips; but nice guys finish last, it is said.

By Chris' Wills (not verified) on 03 Jan 2008 #permalink

Re: Hillary

I'm shocked no-one has mentioned her want for using liquid coal.

By Kcanadensis (not verified) on 04 Jan 2008 #permalink

Nobody's mentioned her votes for the war against Iraq, or for warrantless wiretapping and other violations of the Constitution, or for numerous appalling Bush nominees, or all sorts of other evidence substantiating what I put as pithily as I could in comment # 3 (even Carl's list via # 7 is much too short).

For the record: Obama's almost as bad, and Edwards doesn't stack up too good either.

Rob Knop: I still can't figure out the allusion to "CJ" - a clue, please?

By Pierce R. Butler (not verified) on 04 Jan 2008 #permalink

Oh, by the way, that delegate thing is decided by which precincts a candidate carried, not the total percentage of votes from all precincts. Exactly how many delegates each precinct has is determined by voting patterns in previous elections.

By carolyn13 (not verified) on 04 Jan 2008 #permalink