Democrats dominate battleground state of Iowa 2 to 1

[Thorgrim]

Total Voter Turnout (approximate)

356,000
Percentage of total vote

24.5% Obama
20.5% Edwards
19.8% Clinton
11.4% Huckabee (R)

Over 200,000 people voted for a Democrat, only around 100,000 voted for a Republican

Independents can vote in this caucus

Talk about one side having a tremendous advantage in energy and numbers, and technically this is a red state if you factor in that Bush won it in 2004

I certainly have a great many problems with Obama running, but if people are that psyched about Democrats and that disheartened with the GOP...maybe it doesn't even matter who we nominate

[JaJae]

This is scary for the Republicans.. especially if they nominate a Huckabee who has no national interest. The smartest thing for the Democrats to do is not polarize this election with a garbage candidate and let the numbers do their own work.

[kinggovernor]

"Caucusing" and voting are two different things. I don't know if I would be willing to commit 1.5-2 hours to vote in a primary.

[Ardentfrost]

I don't see this as any sort of advantage to democrats come November when Iowa will probably go red.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I don't see this as any sort of advantage to democrats come November when Iowa will probably go red.

It shows the energy of the parties.. Democrats are excited about their candidates, Republicans are not.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by motivez

It shows the energy of the parties.. Democrats are excited about their candidates, Republicans are not.

hmm.. I dunno, seems weak. I mean, it ALWAYS polarizes once the candidates are selected.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

hmm.. I dunno, seems weak. I mean, it ALWAYS polarizes once the candidates are selected.

They're dangerously walking the line between excitement and polarization now.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by JaJae

They're dangerously walking the line between excitement and polarization now.

All I'm saying is that Obama, Hilary, and Edwards are each really close to about 1/3rd of democratic voters. Even though voting numbers were up in Iowa's primary, all those people are either going to vote for the one that ends up winning the nomination or not voting at all. Their excitement in Iowa isn't going to change the red of the state. Primaries ONLY matter to this selection, NOT in what happens in November.

I'd be singing a different tune if Obama had garnered 50% of the vote with the increased numbers. That would mean he is personally getting people excited which COULD translate to November numbers. But since it's evenly matched, it'll evenly dwindle after selection.

And all that (what I just said and what everyone else is saying) ONLY matters in Iowa anyway. Obama still could be the one getting people who normally don't care to get out there and vote. That would make a huge difference come November and could potentially get him a landslide victory unless republicans can get someone nominated who is equally as exciting to independents and people who don't normally vote.

[Thorgrim]

People aren't voting for Obama because they don't think he could win, same with Edwards

On the internet, it seems that doesn't apply to Hillary, but the same "talk" I hear about Hillary is the talk people said about Dean/Kerry after Iowa "If Dean loses to that stupid Kerry, I'm not voting for him!!!!"

They all turned out for Kerry, but the energy is DOUBLE that in 2004, and guess what, Iowa hasn't doubled in population in 4 years

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

People aren't voting for Obama because they don't think he could win, same with Edwards

I don't get this statement. Of course they're voting for him because they want change. But it's more than JUST change in the white house, it's change IN the democratic party. Clinton is the establishment candidate, edwards and obama are anti-establishment. All that added support over 2004 came from people who want change even IN the democratic party.

That's good for democrats... as long as Hilary doesn't win. If she does the chances of a Republican winning in November, even if the nominee is someone horrid like Romnabee, is greatly increased.

I think the only thing Iowa has REALLY shown us is that independents are going to make ALL the difference this year, and any candidate getting the nomination who can't cater to those people is just spinning their wheels.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I don't get this statement. Of course they're voting for him because they want change. But it's more than JUST change in the white house, it's change IN the democratic party. Clinton is the establishment candidate, edwards and obama are anti-establishment. All that added support over 2004 came from people who want change even IN the democratic party.

That's good for democrats... as long as Hilary doesn't win. If she does the chances of a Republican winning in November, even if the nominee is someone horrid like Romnabee, is greatly increased.

I think the only thing Iowa has REALLY shown us is that independents are going to make ALL the difference this year, and any candidate getting the nomination who can't cater to those people is just spinning their wheels.

I just don't see Obama beating McCain is all, and that looks like the most likely show down

How do you have a Senator of how many decades, bipartisan with Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy...he was a hero POW...been on the armed services committee forever during our "time of war"...has experience out the wazoo

Compare that to some 46 year old fad of the year with no executive or military experience

2004 Bush won because people thought it was the "security" choice, while McCain can't run on 9/11, that wasn't his thing and he doesn't have to...he can point to Pakistan, North Korea and Iran and scare everyone...and sadly, in my opinion it will work

People like motivez well rightly point out that McCain sold out his principles to be in this position, but the average voter isn't swayed by "well this politician...you see...he's not the maverick he used to be" look how much Bush lied in 2000 about what his presidency would be...barely anyone called him on that...it has to be black and white like "I voted for the funding before I voted against it" and McCain doesn't have those statements yet, and if he can survive the primaries without making them...looks like he'll be good to go

McCain would appoint justices from what his political party and advisors made a list from...and that list would be the same list that appointed all 3 GOP judges on the Court of Appeals that made a unianimous decision that an American citizen has no right to a hearing even if habeas has not been revoked, as long as the president thinks so...it's one step towards fascism

The same list that appointed judges like Alito and Thomas who argued the president had near unlimited executive power

The same list that wants to overturn Griswold v. Conn and take away ANY right to privacy, the government will be free to install cameras everywhere and track your every movement if you say the slightest thing

It's the road to 1984 and I'm not going to take it

And I don't think much of anyone who thinks universal healthcare is a greater danger, and as we know, McCain would be generous with illegal immigration and who knows he might sign universal healthcare in his own right

So really, the "who is going to hurt us the most" is McCain by leaps and bounds...and I don't think Obama can beat him, so I have to lean towards Hillary

[Ardentfrost]

I really think McCain's flopping since 2005 would make him easily drug through the mud by either Obama or Hilary. But I'm also hoping his flopping has alienated a lot of independent voters, making him far less viable even in the nomination process.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I really think McCain's flopping since 2005 would make him easily drug through the mud by either Obama or Hilary. But I'm also hoping his flopping has alienated a lot of independent voters, making him far less viable even in the nomination process.

Rasmussen had everyone in the high 40s low 50s in negatives...McCain was the exception at 24%-something

it's that whole PoW thing, people really love that stuff

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

hmm.. I dunno, seems weak. I mean, it ALWAYS polarizes once the candidates are selected.

Yeah, but the fact that Democrats turned out 2 to 1 and in record numbers no doubt says a lot IMO.. I think there are a lot of people who want to overplay the "anti-Hillary vote" .. the people I know who are excited about Obama or Edwards aren't active to vote against Hillary, it's because they're genuinely excited about Obama and Edwards..

And of course, there are a lot who are excited about Hillary as well

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Rasmussen had everyone in the high 40s low 50s in negatives...McCain was the exception at 24%-something

it's that whole PoW thing, people really love that stuff

It might have to do with his bipartisan activities