Iowa Primary Results

[Gregory_de_Bois]

Okidoki. Since no one as of yet has posted anything, I guess I'll do this thing. As of 7:40 MST (9:40 pm EST) here are the results:
Democrats (with 86% reporting):
votes
Obama 731 37%
Edwards 602 30%
Clinton 598 30%
Richardson 40 2%
Biden 19 1%
Dodd 1 0%
Gravel 0 0%
Kucinich 0 0%

Here (http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections/state?state=IA)is the link for the results.

[Gregory_de_Bois]

Republicans (with 66% precincts reporting)

Huckabee - 26,054 - 34%
Romney - 19,186 - 25%
Thompson - 10,536 - 14%
McCain - 10,192 - 13%
Paul - 7,864 - 10%
Giuliani - 2,779 - 4%
Hunter - 328 - 0%

[Gregory_de_Bois]

One thing I don't get is how did the Republicans have over 75,000 votes, and the Democrats had around 2,000? I mean something must not be right there. Can anyone help me?

[Gregory_de_Bois]

Here (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2008/primaries/states/iowa_results_1-3.html) is PBS' coverage, a little smoother.

[HarmlessEccentric]

I want Huckabee to win the Republican nomination, because he's such an ardent fundamentalist that I think that even moderate Republicans will reject him, leading to a Democratic victory. That's a heck of a gamble on my part, though, because if he actually wins the election, then we're all in deep trouble, and I'll have to seriously consider the Netherlands. It's beautiful there, you know. Excellent cheese.

In my own party, I've been torn between Clinton and Obama... I'm still not sure which I will vote for in my own primary.

[Zerbie]

One thing I don't get is how did the Republicans have over 75,000 votes, and the Democrats had around 2,000? I mean something must not be right there. Can anyone help me?

Perhaps someone will correct me if I've misunderstood, but I thought I heard it explained that the democratic votes were counting delegate votes, but the republican votes were counted in real numbers. ??? Is that correct? Anyone?

[andrewlittle]

When in Iowa, we lived in three different counties. In each of those counties neither Obama nor Clinton won the Democratic delegates, it was Edwards - the WHITE MALE. Now, usually, I would just say that's the luck of the game - except for the fact that in the last town we lived in, the local Democratic leader said publicly (in a crowded restaurant), "It'll be a cold day in hell when we have a ni--er or a c--t as a presidential candidate."

You just have to love the political armpit of the world - rural Iowa.

[BruceChris]

Disclaimer upfront: Hilary has had my attention since the days of the first Clinton administration, and I know that she will keep right on pushing!

As one pundit said earlier, the Democrats have an embarrassment of riches, and the Republicans, merely an embarrassment.

Harmless: If we can push Mike far enough to the Right, maybe he'll end up on a Third Party ticket, and they'll ALL go down together!

(Any resemblance to outrageous partisanship here is purely coincidental!)

Zerb: 239,000 Dems, 108,000 Republican'ts

P&L, BC

P.S., Yeah, Harmless, my father was born there. The Netherlands are more than Gouda-'nuff for me.

[Vanessa White]

Can I just speak out loud my conflicting feelings about this? I know that Iowa sets a deep tone for the future of the election, and Barack Obama being victorious there is a surprise to me. And, I find him to be quite likeable and passionate about his service to his country as a politician. However, I think the person whom seems most honest and consistent and supportive of the gay and lesbian community is John Edwards. So, I would like to see him win for that reason, for the support of us factor. However, I have always liked Hillary as well and find her to be very consistent in her doing what she says she will, in terms of advocating for those that are most powerless in our nation.

Anyone have any thoughts that might assist me in my confusion? I really am conflicted about who to actively support......:confused:

[pnggrad79]

In my mind it is disturbing that Huckabee won the primary. I think if the Republicans put him up there there is no way he will win. He strikes too many nerves in the minds of fair minded Americans who believe in the separation of church and state.

My question is this-How is that an ultra conservative Muslim country like Pakistan elect a WOMAN twice to be their leader and a progressive country like the US has yet to do it? What is up with that?:rolleyes:

[Erik]

When in Iowa, we lived in three different counties. In each of those counties neither Obama nor Clinton won the Democratic delegates, it was Edwards - the WHITE MALE. Now, usually, I would just say that's the luck of the game - except for the fact that in the last town we lived in, the local Democratic leader said publicly (in a crowded restaurant), "It'll be a cold day in hell when we have a ni--er or a c--t as a presidential candidate."

You just have to love the political armpit of the world - rural Iowa.

Suddenly, I don't feel so bad about all the Iowa jokes I've told throughout my life.

[ken_himalayas]

i was drinking coffee and munching toast as the results came in this morning...since my time zone (india) is half a day ahead of the US. to be very honest, i was snickering and a little giddy about the whole thing. maybe it sounds a little cliche, but the clintons seem to think they have this "in the bag", but i think there are plenty of indications out there that they absolutely do not. obama is inspiring and new and different, but in my opinion, he is unseasoned, and it shows. edwards, although a proponent of gay rights, etc etc etc, is not the leader that i would look to for the millions of other things a president needs to be.

on the republican side...rudy took a pass on iowa. mccain kinda did too. thompson seems like he doesn't even care. romney's hair is plastic and he seems too scripted for me to be interested in. and then there's huckabee.... he kinda has the "X" factor, despite his arkansas-isms and evangelical-isms. i thought he was amazing on leno the other night.

i predicted at a US embassy party here in delhi on 8 december that huckabee would go the distance. not saying i am thrilled about that...but his realness stands out, compared to the rest of these packaged candidates.

now shoot me.

[tdogg]

I don't get that Edwards is so pro-gay. The others have indicated equal 'civil union' rights for GLBT and an end to DADT, while saying they personally don't feel anything is wrong or bad about GLBTs. However, Edwards says he is for civil unions while professing a personal belief that GLBTs are wrong/not natural. Am I missing something here? That's what I've gotten out of all the debates so far anyway.

The were only 2 candidates for full and equal 'marriage' rights for gays and lesbians, Kucinich and another (Dodd?).

[Vanessa White]

I assumed he was not that gay friendly either, and then, I went to his website for his campaign, and it seemed very supportive re: civil unions, and some prominent persons in the gay and lesbian community are backing him because he seems willing to go beyond civil unions, possibly. I was very surprised also, and I guess we never know for sure, and my concern about Obama was having the notable african american ex-gay person backing him so openly. :confused:

[tdogg]

Thanks for the tip Vanessa, I'll definitely be checking out all their websites. Who is the ex-gay person supporting Obama? I knew when Oprah hopped on that one it would really help his support grow. I'm at the point where, if the person I want to see in office doesn't make it, at least let it be a Dem (except not too sure about Richardson...).

[snuka12000]

Chris Dodd is not for full marriage for gays. Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel were the only 2 democratic candidate that were for full marriage rights.

Barack Obama is a good candidate for us and he is the right candidate.

You all need to understand that Barack Obama has to win the general election in November. Barack needs independents and some Republicans to vote for him to do that. Barack can't come out in support of full gay marriage. You need to understand that and give him a break.

Barack would be the president of ALL of the people and not just some of the people, so, so what if the "ex-gay" guy supports Barack. That "ex-gay" guy is African-American and maybe he is supporting Barack because he would be the first African-American president. Barack does not share the views of the that "ex-gay" guy.

[tdogg]

Thanks for the info (yup, it WAS Gravel!) and your opinion Snuka. Of course, your opinion won't be shared by everyone (so far I'm a Clinton fan though it could change). While I don't agree with everything about Clinton, I agree with a lot and the long line of male presidents indicate, I feel we are ready for a woman to take charge. Oh, and it doesn't hurt that she's confident and looks great in a suit! :D

[snuka12000]

Thanks for the info (yup, it WAS Gravel!) and your opinion Snuka. Of course, your opinion won't be shared by everyone (so far I'm a Clinton fan though it could change). While I don't agree with everything about Clinton, I agree with a lot and the long line of male presidents indicate, I feel we are ready for a woman to take charge. Oh, and it doesn't hurt that she's confident and looks great in a suit! :D

Well, there has been a long line of White male presidents. I think that it's time for a non-White person to take charge.

[pnggrad79]

How about a woman-white, black, Hispanic, native American? I don't really care as long as a woman is given the same respect that men get.

[Gregory_de_Bois]

Perhaps someone will correct me if I've misunderstood, but I thought I heard it explained that the democratic votes were counting delegate votes, but the republican votes were counted in real numbers. ??? Is that correct? Anyone?

Yep, that's how it works. The Democrats use caucuses the Republicans don't. CNN explains it quite well.