Barack Obama

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:25 pm

Wins Iowa

Bryan Schwegler · Post by **Bryan Schwegler** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:47 pm

The problem is that Iowa is barely statistically significant for Democrats. He won, but only by 150 - 200 votes over Clinton and Edwards. From a true statistical standpoint, Obama, Clinton, and Edwards have a virtual tie.

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 10:35 pm

Bryan Schwegler wrote:The problem is that Iowa is barely statistically significant for Democrats. He won, but only by 150 - 200 votes over Clinton and Edwards. From a true statistical standpoint, Obama, Clinton, and Edwards have a virtual tie.

He won by over 183 delegates. I think that over 124,000 Democrats voted in this Caucus.

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:04 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/03/ ... index.html

The Iowa Democratic Party said 124,000 people participated in the 2004 caucuses, while the Republican Party of Iowa estimated that 87,000 people took part in the 2000 caucuses. (President Bush ran unchallenged for a second term in 2004.)

Brian Pedaci · Post by **Brian Pedaci** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:14 pm

It was a record turnout. The Iowa Democratic Caucus is claiming over 220,000 votes cast. Good news for Obama? The youth vote went decidedly in his favor, and they turned out in force. Bad news for Clinton? The female vote also went heavily to Obama.

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:19 pm

Brian Pedaci wrote:It was a record turnout. The Iowa Democratic Caucus is claiming over 220,000 votes cast. Good news for Obama? The youth vote went decidedly in his favor, and they turned out in force. Bad news for Clinton? The female vote also went heavily to Obama.

Holy Schnikey!

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:00 am

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/03/ ... cnnSTCText

DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama's victory Thursday in critical Democratic Iowa caucuses indicate voters saw him as a candidate of change, according to entrance polls.

The freshman Illinois senator was CNN's projected winner in the key early step toward the White House, with 38 percent of the vote and 97 percent of precincts reporting.

"On this January night, at this defining moment in history, you have done what the cynics said we couldn't do," Obama told wildly cheering and chanting supporters Thursday night. "We are choosing hope over fear, we are choosing unity over division and sending a powerful message that change is coming to America."

Bryan Schwegler · Post by **Bryan Schwegler** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:02 am

Stephen Eisel wrote:
Bryan Schwegler wrote:The problem is that Iowa is barely statistically significant for Democrats. He won, but only by 150 - 200 votes over Clinton and Edwards. From a true statistical standpoint, Obama, Clinton, and Edwards have a virtual tie.
He won by over 183 delegates. I think that over 124,000 Democrats voted in this Caucus.

Ooops, you're right. Sorry about that. The site I was using to look at the results had everything listed in a very confusing way.

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:01 am

Bryan Schwegler wrote:
Stephen Eisel wrote:
Bryan Schwegler wrote:The problem is that Iowa is barely statistically significant for Democrats. He won, but only by 150 - 200 votes over Clinton and Edwards. From a true statistical standpoint, Obama, Clinton, and Edwards have a virtual tie.
He won by over 183 delegates. I think that over 124,000 Democrats voted in this Caucus.

Ooops, you're right. Sorry about that. The site I was using to look at the results had everything listed in a very confusing way.

I had to Google "Iowa Caucus Democrat delegates"

Lynn Farris · Post by **Lynn Farris** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:54 pm

I think this was huge. Obama won by 7 percentage points over Edwards and 8 over Hillary. That is significant - the raw numbers are delegates which correlate more to precints that actual votes.

Obama won in a state that is almost all WASP. That is huge. Blacks in SC were waiting to see if he could carry white states. I thought before he would be our candidate - that thought was reinforced last night.

His speech was terrific. (So was Hillary's). But his was awe inspiring - made me think of Kennedy with the two young children.

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 2:00 pm

Obama won in a state that is almost all WASP. That is huge. Blacks in SC were waiting to see if he could carry white states. I thought before he would be our candidate - that thought was reinforced last night.

Only 98.7% WASP

dl meckes · Post by **dl meckes** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:17 pm

The number of Democrats: 13,416.
The number of Republicans: 117,415.

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:47 pm

dl meckes wrote:The number of Democrats: 13,416.
The number of Republicans: 117,415.

Ivor Karabatkovic · Post by **Ivor Karabatkovic** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:51 pm

I came home from the St.Joes/River girls basketball game to hear the good news.

Boy did I laugh at my dad.

Donald Farris · Post by **Donald Farris** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:34 am

Hi,
Way more people voted Democratic than Republican. The Democratic results were number of precincts won and the Republican numbers were votes per person (I think).

On Keith Obermann last night they showed a graphic of the results for both by voter and the top three democrats beat the top republican if you looked at the results by voter. It showed Huckabee had about 11% of the total votes cast. Quite shocking given Iowa is a swing state to see the highest republican candidate getting just 11% of the vote. I looked but couldn't find the link that was the source for this.