I was skeptical, but clearly the strategy of focusing on first-time caucus-goers paid off in a big way for Barack Obama.
Turnout in my precinct went from 175 in 2004 to 293 tonight. That was way more than I ever imagined possible.
We had first-timers in our Edwards group, and so did Hillary, and for all I know Richardson and Biden did too. But there’s no question that the Obama group had the most first-time caucus-goers.
After the first division into preference groups, we had Obama 86, Edwards 83, Clinton 63, Richardson 28, Biden 24 and Dodd 9. To be viable, candidates needed 44 supporters.
After the second division into preference groups, Edwards had 115, Obama had 103, and Clinton had 72, but unfortunately, the math worked out to 2 delegates for each candidate.
In retrospect, the Edwards and Obama groups would have been better off helping Richardson to be viable. Then the delegates would have been split 2 Edwards, 2 Obama, 1 Clinton and 1 Richardson. But there was no way to know that, and during the realignment of course the Edwards and Obama groups were focused on attracting enough supporters to win that third delegate.
It’s very similar to what happened in my precinct in 1988. The delegates split 2-2-2 despite a fairly large difference in size between the largest and the smallest. That’s the caucus system for you.
By the way, the Richardson precinct captain confirmed that the campaign was advising people to go to Obama. However, a lot of them came over to Edwards anyway. The Biden precinct captain told me he did not receive any similar instruction from that campaign.
5 Comments
Thanks for all your hard work
I think everyone who worked for Edwards really deserves a round of applause. A tsunami hit tonight and you guys rode the wave well. I’m looking forward to seeing what happens in NH.
katerina Thu 3 Jan 11:51 PM
everyone said Edwards' only hope
was a low turnout with very few new caucus-goers.
He ended up with nearly 75,000 Iowans standing in his corner. That’s way more than the number he had in 2004 and more than the total number of Democratic caucus-goers in 2000.
I give full credit to the Obama campaign for turning out so many new supporters. But Edwards also inspired a lot of new people to come out for him, and given the disparity in the campaigns’ spending, I think he held his own.
desmoinesdem Fri 4 Jan 1:04 AM
Strategy
You are right that Obama brought many new caucus-goers to the caucus. I am just not sure that classifying it as purely strategy is accurate. It would appear, just as it does for Edwards, that the focus is not just on strategy, but on the authentic goal of change. Obama naturally appeals to first-time caucus-goers because his goal is to unite the country in terms of red and blue, as well as black and white. Clearly, as evidenced in the Iowa caucus, change is on the way.
I look forward to seeing Obama carry his message to the national stage. This is an important moment for our country and Barack Obama has demonstrated that he has the best values for curing a politically distraught country.
drinksgreentea Fri 4 Jan 4:28 AM
Join us to put Barack Obama *AND* John Edwards in the White House!
Hi, I’m Mark Kraft, a progressive Democrat who supports Barack Obama, but is not directly affiliated with campaign or any kind of political organization. I wanted to share some of my views with you, a John Edwards supporter, about our candidates, our similarities, and how I believe that we, as progressives, should work together to change this nation.
In 2000, Al Gore, a progressive in moderate’s clothing, lost the US presidential election, in large part because another progressive, Ralph Nader, insisted on staying in the race rather than throwing his support to Gore, because, he said, there wasn’t a difference between Al Gore and George Bush.
We all paid for that decision, which did irreparable harm not only to democracy in this country, but to the reputation of Ralph Nader amongst the general public.
Now it’s 2008, and we finally, finally have a chance to elect a progressive candidate who stands for issues we all believe in. Campaign finance reform. Combatting special interests. Helping those who are less fortunate due to no fault of their own.
There are two excellent, inspiring Democratic candidates who stand for these issues. John Edwards and Barack Obama. Unfortunately, they both can’t win… and the longer that they oppose each other in the race, the larger the chance will be that big money politics and strong vested interests will once again rob us of a progressive, reformist victory.
But there is good news. Yes, both Barack Obama and John Edwards can win. Together. And so can every American who is fortunate enough to have them together, representing them in the White House.
Now, I’m not saying that John Edwards isn’t a great candidate, with great positions on the issues. His positions — and those of Barack Obama — are sharply different than those of Hillary Clinton, who believes that big businesses who buy influence are “real people” who deserve to of free speech rights
I know that it’s still early in the election, but let’s face the facts. In just five days, voters in New Hampshire will be going to the polls, voting for someone to represent them in that state. According to the latest polls, Hillary Clinton is leading Barack Obama, 34 percent to 30 percent, with John Edwards at 17% in the polls. And, unlike the Iowa caucus, Obama cannot bring independents and disillusioned Republicans into our party, because they aren’t registered Democrats. While I think it is likely that he will win New Hampshire anyway, I expect that victory will be similar to his victory in Iowa, where he beat Hillary Clinton amongst registered Democrats by only 1%.
That’s an awfully small margin for error, especially when his victory or defeat in New Hampshire could decide victory or defeat for all progressive Democratic candidates in this election. Indeed, it would be a disenfranchisement of what most Democrats believe, because the policies of Obama and Edwards are widely supported, not only within the Democratic Party, but throughout the country.
I think it’s important to ask yourself as a John Edwards supporter, is is likely after coming off a second place finish in Iowa that his campaign will have the momentum to gain 17% in four days of campaigning, to give him the win? Or is it more likely that Edwards voters and Obama voters can score a big win for progressive Americans if they work together?
We need Barack Obama and John Edwards together when we go up against the Republican nominee, and we Need Barack and John together in the White House.
I believe in this so strongly, infact, that I just set up a weblog at http://obamaedwards.blogspot.com. I welcome hearing from others who might like to participate in it.
Why Obama/Edwards? Let’s look at the strength of both candidates.
In the oftentimes dirty world of American politics, John Edwards is a breath of fresh air. He inspires and unites the Democratic Party in a way that’s reminiscent of Robert Kennedy. Although he sometimes has difficulty connecting with moderates — perhaps in part because he comes off to a somewhat jaded public as almost too good to believe — he is, in many ways, the heart and the moral compass of the Democratic Party, pointing the way forward.
If Edwards, as he has suggested in his speeches, represents the heart and feelings of the Democratic Party, Barack Obama represents its intellect.
Indeed, Barack Obama has excelled and succeeded at everything in his life he has put his mind to, from graduating magna cum laude at Harvard Law School and being the Harvard Law Review’s first black president, to being a lawyer, a community organizer and powerful advocate for the disposessed and underrepresented in our legal system.
But as bright and gifted as Barack Obama obviously is, he clearly does possess a lot of heart, and has clearly conveyed a message of hope and change that has resonated with Iowa’s voters.
By all admissions, Barack Obama’s commanding victory in Iowa was something that Iowa simply hasn’t seen before, bringing home results that defied even the most optimistic of polls.
His campaign brought out record numbers of Independents and disillusioned Republicans to wait in lines in freezing weather, in order to help nominate a progressive, reform-minded Democrat. He beat Hillary Clinton amongst Democrats 32% to 31%, and clobbered her amongst independents (44% to 17%) and disillusioned Republicans (41% to 10%). He beat her among people making less than $15,000 (37% to 30%) and more than $100,000 (41% to 19%). He beat her among health-care voters (34% to 30%), and suburban voters (30% to 25%). He even beat her amongst women voters by five percent!
Most impressive, however, he helped bring out record numbers of voters for the Iowa Caucus, which rose from 124,000 in 2004 to over 230,000 in 2008, with a huge, unprecedented level of participation by independents. 57% of these voters had never caucused before. His campaign registered and brought out record numbers of new black voters. And, amazingly, as many people under thirty showed up to vote — overwhelmingly for Obama — as senior citizens.
What this portends for Obama as a national candidate is something truly special. And with John Edwards as our Vice Presidential candidate, our party would be unstoppable. Strong in the North and West. Strong in the South. Strong in the Midwest. Able to unite this country with a positive, populist message, to cut through partisan politics, and to unite the nation with a message of change and promise for the future.
That is why I say to you now… we already stand for the same things, if not the same candidate, so lets win together… for the entire country!
I promise as an Obama supporter to do everything I can to urge Barack Obama to make John Edwards not just his running mate, but a true partner for this country, and his “go-to man” for issues such as election reform, for combatting poverty, for education, and for social justice.
I want John Edwards to be a true partner to Barack Obama in what I hope and believe will be the most popular, least divisive, most honest presidency that America has seen in modern history. I want to see Barack Obama and John Edwards leading this country, and I honestly believe that when President Barack Obama leaves office as one of its most beloved presidents in 2016, John Edwards, the experienced, trusted, 63-year-old statesman, will become the 45th President of the United States.
John Edwards is a great man, and a true fighter for the people and issues that he believes in. But often, as we have seen in the past, the best way to fight for what you believe in is to stand united, for the cost of defeat is far too high. As Ben Franklin once said, “We must, indeed, hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
Even now, Republican strategists are looking at the outcome of this race, and shaking their heads. Their pundits and pollsters know that fundamentalist Christians in the Republican Party might be forcing their party too far to the right to win in a national election. They believe that their best bet and hope in the upcoming election is not Mike Huckabee, but Hillary Clinton. No other candidate is capable of unifying and mobilizing the Republican Party to such a degree.
And should Mrs. Clinton win the Presidency, it will be along sharply divided ideological lines. We know that many in the Republican Party will do their best to make Hillary Clinton look tired, evasive, and corrupt, even before she’s in office, and once she’s there, their leadership will do their best to “patriotically resist” her policies until 2010, at which point they will quite possibly regain control of Congress, and we’re left with a lame duck, possibly one-term presidency, incapable of addressing the urgent needs of our country.
We cannot afford to lose this once-in-a-generation chance for true change. For reform. For restoring our Constitution, and bringing integrity back to the White House. Can we trust Hillary Clinton to do this? Even as First Lady, her behavior was divisive and ethically questionable. It should not be forgotten that she, as First Lady, got the entire travel staff of the White House fired, saying “that action be taken to get ‘our people’ into the travel office”. Hillary Clinton was the only First Lady ever subpoenaed for possible obstruction of justice, and was found to have records in her possession that were subpoenaed by a grand jury two years prior, stored away in her private offices.
Admittedly, there may have been extenuating circumstances, but if we want to concentrate on correcting the damage the Bush administration has done to our Constitution, reforming our system of goverment, addressing the need for national health care, social justice, and numerous other vital issues, we cannot afford for our party to be sidetracked by partisan attacks and allegations of corruption.
We can do better. And if John Edwards becomes our next Vice President, he could do better as Barack Obama’s Vice President than he could if he stays in the race, splits the moderate vote, and, unfortunately finds that Hillary Clinton’s corporate donors and political machine win her the nomination.
While Democrats will always owe a debt of gratitude to the accomplishments of the Clinton administration, it’s hard not to view the Clinton presidency without regrets for what might have been, if their actions had been more honest and ethical and had not brought what they stood for into disrepute, tarnishing by association a talented, dedicated, promising man like Al Gore.
If John Edwards becomes Hillary Clinton’s Vice President, he could find his ideas, his energy, and his integrity sadly wasted, as Hillary turned to her husband, to lobbyists, to the Democratic Leadership Council, to pollsters, and to the same old tired advisors for advice. As Vice President to Hillary Clinton, he could unfortunately find the constant attacks that we can reasonably assume she will be under start to damage his reputation, to the point that when he finally does have a good shot at being President, he finds himself in a situation unfortunately similar to that of Al Gore… damaged by association.
If you love what John Edwards stands for, then you should value his issues and beliefs first and foremost, regardless of who puts them into action. Yes, you should definitely want him to become President one day, but you should also want him to shine brightly should he choose to accept the offer of becoming the next Vice President, and want that position to be John Edwards’ catapult to the presidency one day.
Ultimately, it doesn’t matter that much whether John Edwards becomes the next President or the next Vice President. What matters far more is that he is given the freedom necessary to stand up for the issues that matter to Americans, the power to make his promise of badly needed reform and change a reality, and the opportunity to bring trust and respectability back to the White House, so that a young, talented man like John Edwards can go on to even greater accomplishments — the kind we all believe he is capable of, if he is one day given a chance.
Some people in the 2000 election said that they might as well support Ralph Nader, because there was no difference between Gore and Bush. They were wrong. Some people in this election will also be saying that they should stick with a great candidate like John Edwards, even though he has little chance of winning, because there isn’t a difference between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. They’re wrong too.
There is a difference. That difference is the potential for real, meaningful change. A restoration of our Constitution and a rebirth of our country’s core beliefs, and of all that is best about America. Change is the difference. And, with your support, it’s the kind of change that can help put both John Edwards and Barack Obama into the White House.
We stand for the same things, but in order to win, we must stand together. Please, join us… and let’s take back the White House!
http://obamaedwards.blogspot.com
It’s time to start believing in America again.
markkraft Fri 4 Jan 8:11 AM
I hope you people are right about Obama
When I listen to my liberal friends who support Obama, I often wonder if they have been watching the same campaign I have.
Frankly, the more I see of Obama’s campaign the less I am convinced that he is committed to progressive values. He seems to be focused on building the Barack Obama movement and governing as a leader who stands above parties and promotes a compromise agenda.
If he wins the nomination, I will be 100 percent behind him, and I really hope that I turn out to be wrong about him. But I just don’t seem his commitment to fighting for the Democratic agenda.
desmoinesdem Fri 4 Jan 9:38 AM