I grew up on the Illinois-Iowa border, so I consider myself as much from Iowa as Illinois. I know for a fact there there are a lot, or at least were a lot of Republicans in Iowa. So where were they tonight?
From the Group News Blog (via Daily Kos):
The 2008 Iowa Caucuses
Total Voter Turnout (approximate): 356,000
Percentage of total vote:24.5% Obama
20.5% Edwards
19.8% Clinton
11.4% Huckabee (R)
I think those figures speak for themselves, so I won’t add anything else.
Well, maybe just one other thing: Go Edwards!!!
Entries (RSS)
Let’s hope this is a sign of things to come.
Maddog’s last blog post..Maddog’s Day Off
Much of the turnout being heavily Democratic is due to the more interesting line-up on that side of the ticket. Not only are the candidates themselves more interesting, but the differences between those candidates are a bit more chasmic, creating a more contentious race than on the Republican side and, ultimately, bringing out Democrats to the caucuses.
dave491’s last blog post..CD Review: Jason Quicksall’s “My Wiser Side”
Yeah Edwards!!
Kelly’s last blog post..Why it is so hard to motivate in the morning…
remember, with redumblicans (tip o the hat to queerjoe) it’s “do as I say, not as I do”.
or have they figured out they are going to lose anyway in november, so why not just stay home?
as arte johnson used to say on “laugh-in”: verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry interesting…
have a good weekend!
Woo hoo! Go Edwards!!
Okay, yes, “Go Edwards!” Kucinich and Gravel have respectable track records and both say things I’ve always wanted to hear politicians say, but neither had a chance in Hell, so “Go Edwards.”
But I have a question. Whenever anyone asks why I don’t support Clinton, I’m ready with an answer. But when they ask why I don’t support Obama, I don’t. So I’m curious: why do you support Edwards over Obama?
MikeEllis’s last blog post..So many spoofs of bad TV…
I am an old political hack and have to tell you that you should read very little into the attendance numbers. The turnout for the Iowa Republican caucuses this year was actually higher than average — and higher than the last few years. And, they are not voters per se, but attendees who fight for delegate slots. As a general rule, Democrats traditionally have higher turnout for precinct caucuses in those states that have them, but particularly in Iowa. The theory is (and holds) that Iowa’s dems are quite liberal and very involved in grassroots campaigning, which naturally would draw the hard core activists to the precincts.
The key to judging who has the electoral enthusiasm will be the primary turnout in SC and NH for both parties where people actually vote.
Dave-
Yes, but one counterbalance to that is that the Democratic caucus is a more involved and time consuming process than that of the Republicans. Casual Democratic voters are much less likely to waste their time attending. The high Democratic turnout indicates a high interest in the candidates as you said. The low Republican turnout indicates the Republicans in the state aren’t thrilled with any of the candidates and therefore might be swayed to cross party lines come November.
Mike-
I don’t believe Obama is a friend of the gay community. Every time I’ve ever heard him speak about anything gay-related, it seemed like he could barely get the words out of his mouth. Obama really pissed me off when he had that “ex-gay” preacher on his campaign tour with him and, despite protests, refused to budge on the issue. I took that as a slap in the face to our community.
Edwards, while saying he’s not a supporter of gay marriage, seems much more respectful to us. I personally think he’s more open to gay issues than he says. He may be keeping a more conservative viewpoint on the issue during the campaign in order to sway the moderates while his wife campaigns to us. One indication I had in this regard was the way Edwards said that in regards to his wife’s views on gay marriage, he “wasn’t there… yet.” That “yet” implied that he’s still open to the idea.
Granted, Edwards was not my first choice originally (Kucinich was), but I’ve always liked him. More importantly, I think he can win. I don’t think Obama stands as good of chance of winning. As much as I would love to see a black man elected president, I don’t think the country will do that. I don’t want to throw away our chances of winning just to make a point about race, nor do I support a candidate because of their race (white or black). I like to be colorblind in that regard, and as such, I like Edwards better.
I was also all over the turnout. Maybe I’m a novice, and Shawn’s insight dampens my excitement a bit, but I still remain hopeful that the Dem base will get more and more energized while the GOPs will stay unenthused, and at home.
I hope I don’t sound all bandwagon-y but I was on board for Edwards from the beginning but waned when it seemed that he was going to get eclipsed by the Obama-Clinton circus. But I am thrilled at his performance and hope it continues to grow. He is the dark horse of the race, IMHO.
David’s last blog post..Another Short Week Tent-pitch
Your comparison of Huckabee to the D’s is ridiculous. D’s voted ONLY for D’s, R’s vote ONLY for R’s. The correct thing would be to show what percent Huckabee got of the total R votes. BTW, Edwards will not get the nod. Why do libs not see him for the phony, smarmy, huckster lawyer he is?
Hillary has no credible experience like she claims. She was a First Lady of Arkansas and the US. Then a Senator for a brief period. She has never run her own business or taken a management position. She is unqualified. Obama talks nice, but has no substance, and little experience. And he isn’t black: he’s bi-racial, but his white half is mostly not talked about. I just don’t think the Dems have the depth needed. There was one: Biden, but he’s out. Unfortunately, once again we find ourselves holding our noses and voting for the least-bad person available. There are no strong, clear-cut winners in this race on either side.
I’m excited that Edwards is doing alright, because I think he has the best chance in the general election. I’m just concerned about Huckabee doing well. If I had to pick a republican, he wouldn’t be it.
Dave Vogt’s last blog post..The Greatest Headline Ever
I am not sure bi-racial is a word. If it is, I surely don’t care for it. Obama is a human and all this “he’s not black enough’ talk is really aggravating. Now that he is a serious contender, people are talking about how ‘white’ he is, isn’t or whatever???? I would rather people be openly racist than all this pretense! As for me, he would have my vote in a New York minute - I like the way he thinks.
In truth, all elections are about holding one’s nose and choosing the least possible evil. That is where we went wrong in 2004 - so many folks decided to vote their ‘conscience’ (whatever that is) and go green.
We can’t afford that luxury this time around - it will be whoever the Democrats have on offer or hello fascism, goodbye American democracy.
Huckabee has already said he will add an admendment to the constitution discriminating against us (gays). The first such admendment in the history of the US…
Keven-
Fortunately the President alone cannot add a new amendment to the Constitution. It must be approved by Congress and then ratified by the States. That’s not going to happen. Huckabee is talking about adding it in order to shore up the support of the Evangelicals.
Personally I kind of hope Huckabee does get the nomination as I now think he’s completely beatable. He’s too far right. Moderate Republicans, fiscal but not social conservatives, and independents will flock to the Democratic candidate, whomever that may be.
Shouldn’t it be “Where’re” instead of “Where’s”, since the subject is plural?
Hi Scott may your soulmate get well soon )
Wally Banners’s last blog post..Ladies did you know?