Two states, each more than 95% white . . . this is where MILLIONS of dollars are spent to assess the first pulse of the "United States" as regards "our" probable choice for our next President.

And this process, the timing of these events, and the states selected to "go first" is clearly controlled by the major parties . . . evidenced by all the coverage of each party imposing severe penalties (forfeiture of delegates at the conventions) on states who may have the audacity to attempt to change this order.

Riddle me this - why would especially the Democrat Party which views itself as such a "party of ALL the people" protect a system so zealously which holds two states which are so unrepresentative of today's USA diversity?

I am as white as Iowa or New Hampshire, and as conservative as Ronald Reagan . . . and in some folks' prejudices, I shouldn't give a whit about this, but I do. The primary system should be modified to hold primaries first in Michigan, Florida, New York, Texas and California to achieve a much better initial assessment of not only the cultural, geographic and ethnic diversity of the US but also get it from states with substantial electorates & electoral votes . . . and not from two states with very little of either.

That tearful scene with Clinton at the diner was completely a staged, rehearsed event. There were no real tears.

If Hillary doesn't get the nomination, then I'm voting Republican… It's frustrating that a few states basically determine the outcome of a party candidate. I'm disillusioned by the media hype having such a large impact on the candidates. They are twisting words and drowning out the candidates!

Andy ,
I concur. I believe if Hillary Clinton does not get the democratic nomination the Clinton voters will vote republican. It is about experience and change. Why not vote for someone with both qualities.

I think it would be very interesting to see the breakdown of total votes counted before the caucus members shifted to their sencond choice candidates. To me this shows the true commitment of caucus members to their original choice of candidate.
I don't think this will be revealed because the media is being biased and that it the report will show or paint a different picture of the candidates.

As I have placed in another blog its like this if Hillary clinton dosen't gain the nomination and if John Mccain continues to be in the race for president then the hispanic vote will probably go republican again and support him because it seems like these 2 are the only ones who will speak out for them and if you watch even today the rallies that Obama and Edwards have there are maybe 1 or 2 hispanics and maybe 1 or 2 asians ! again I ask you why is that ?

I agree that maybe we should have all the primaries on one day. Give the the ones wanting to run for office three months to show the American people who they are, what they stand for, and how they stand on policies, war, the budget, taxes, etc. Then let them have free two hours of TV time to tell about their polices, taxes, the budget, war, international relations, borders, and their values as an American Citzen. Let us see them as the Average American sees them. Do the people care how they smile, how expensive their clothes are, how many kids they have, or how many homes they have? The Americans I know want to see their direction for America and how those will stand up for the average American. We forget that the average American has made lots of sacrifices for this country. Those that are leading the country need to know that while they are making sacrifices in many ways, the average and below average Americans are making sacrifices and some of them are because the people in Washington are making decisions that discriminate against some. How about Social Security? How about teachers and that they aren't able to draw both Social Security and their retirement. They can be married for 40 years and their husband can draw his social security and his retirement, but not teachers. Why do we have so many seniors still working into what should be their golden years? What about medicare? What about changing laws on domestic violence? What about child support? What about the children of domestic violence? What do they know about that? What about higher education for those of domestic violence and their children? We talk about how foreign countries treat their children and the women….then lets talk about America and how the smallest of society is treated. Let's hear talk from our people in Washington about protecting those that aren't able to protect themselves. Not everyone has the opportunity to go to Harvard, Columbia, or SMU, but that doesn't mean that they can't succeed. We should be able to help those down below to look up and those at the top and in charge to look down. Look down at the Americans that need hope, they need answers, they need to see what the furure is going to look like. They need to have a vision. They need to hear from these canidates what plans of actions do they really have. They need to get out of their Ivory Towers and get on the road and roll up their sleeves, and meet the people that really make up this country of America. I am proud to be an American and I feel it in my heart and soul. Let us really hear from the ones wanting their offices where their heart and soul is and not so much about how much they have to spend to get elected. Let us hear the MEAT of their reason for wanting to be an American. Let us see them salute the American flag with tears in their eyes that know the sacrifices of all the Americans. Let's us hear what they are going to do to help this country to become the best country in the world. It is better than most countries, but if we leave the seniors, the babies, the infirmed, the beaten, and those without a voice behind then are all Americans living the best? Let's dream big for all Americans? Let's really be a country that treats all with equal respect and not just a few chosen. Let's hear from the people that are wanting the highest position in American so the American people will really know who they are and what their plan is for America. Let us hear it from their heart and not just from their lips. Let us see it. Treat us with respect no matter what our social status is. Let them be a true American. We want to hear more than…When I am president…let'ls hear about them as they are now.

so it looks like the american ppl are being fooled again the only source they have is media such a shame that they only go for ppl with celebrity status who is supporting them ..and here i thought you guys could think for your self! while rudy is away from iowa ready to hijack this election like a terrorist the rest of the pack is just switching back n forth. im just wondering when ppl are going to listen to the message and not the polls and analysis from media outlets..i geuss we all need our 15 min of fame! im canadian and you might say well you have no bussiness on this blog but i really do your foriegn policy and hijacking personal libertys affects my country among other things ..just what i like to hear..NOT!! so im hoping you all realize its not about the party dem, rep, ind…its about the message and what a candidate has to offer yourself or your family but i geuss your attention span left a while ago after reading first sentence…RON PAUL and OBAMA after listning to their message is who i would vote for …greetings from canada!!! i love you krazy guys!

My good neighbours to the South have a plate full of problems that need good old fashioned sacrifice. Which of the contenders is really going to tackle real issues and balance that against self-interest groups. Which man or woman do you trust to be honest with you? That seems to me the only real ?. I would roll the dice with Mr. Edwards. But I still would love to see Ralph Nader in there. He is one of the most dedicated Americans with no political agenda to serve and he has already served his country well and that was as a private citzen. Good luck neighbour.

Example, Iowa has 2,054,843 total registered voters, and less than 100,000 of those people voted in the caucus. that's less than .05 percent, not even 1% or the people voted, so how exactly do we seem to have such a clear picture of what the people think, if less than half or 1% of them even vote?

The truly ridiculous thing in American politics is that so few people vote.
It should be absolutely mandatory, that all people vote! However, the Republicans are not in favor of this, because they would hardly ever be elected, if all people voted. We are a Democrat nation. And the vast majority of people under 50 are at the very least, somewhat liberal. The Religious right all show up at the polls, about 95% of them, so we think that they have greater numbers then they do. But most people in this country are NOT religious, certainly not fanatical about it anyway, and definitely not bible beaters!

ALL PEOPLE NEED TO VOTE! There should be a fine for people who do not show up! And we should be allowed time off from work to cast those votes. AND all votes should be counted!!! IT IS FAR TOO IMPORTANT, We need to STOP making these blue haired blunders!

Change? Yeah, Probably from bad to worse. I do not see any candidate ready for the most powerful position in the world. Just imagine any one of them with their "finger on the trigger". And…Keep politics out of religion.

Sorry for the bad grammar in my previous post! Just woke up! Go Dems!

Well, I don't know if speak on behalf of other Garden State Voters, but us here in NJ never even get a chance to have a part in the primary decision. Why is this? I'll never know.

I find it troubling that about 45% of the country gets to decided our candidate before it even gets to us, rendering our primary elections a moot point. How is that democracy.

Do em' all in ONE day!

I keep hearing change..change, change …from what to what? They are all like a bunch of people going down the highway in their different vehicles. They are weaving in and out thru traffic…hurrying on down the freeway. 1.Do any of them really know what direction they are going…2. Do any have any idea what t heir final destination will be 3. Do any really know the minds of the people they are wanting to represent? 4. Do any know where they need to exit or where to enter to get to the proper ramp. Change…????Change to what…? I hear ME>>>ME>>>>ME>>> but I don't see the whole. I see that they all want to be president. I don't hear a plan of action. We need clear definite purposeful messages telling us exactly what they hope for a clear vision of where America is headed and how to help direct America to the right path. We don't need big smiles, families beside them, beautiful coffed hair, nicely dressed with superior style. Maybe some need t o get out their jeans and work clothes and go to where the average American is. Do they know the average American? They have put too many soap boxes on top of each other and can't see the people…but they had better watch out are they are going to find themselves t oppling down into the masses asking serious questions about the future of the average American and the working American. People want to know where we are headed…Do they know?

Anyone can see the stark contrast in the two parties. The Democratic nomination is nationally wrapped up if you just ignore the EARLY states which is pre-2007 wisdom!!! SUPER DUPER TUESDAY February 5th 2008, will decide the nominee with 24 states voting.

The Republicans are still looking. After the 2006 midterm election, I think Hillary couldn’t choose a more perfect year to run for president. The whole country is now leaning toward Democrats. People are just so unhappy and fed up with the Republican Party which has controlled the country for almost 8 years now. Any Democrats (yes even Hillary) has better chance to win 2008 presidency than any republican.

I don’t see all these unhappy Americans who clearly want a change in direction in 2006 would vote for another republican again over Hillary.

In 2006, we all saw a lot of good republicans lost their seats to some never-heard-before Democrats because of this effect.

Go Hillary44 08! http://hillaryis44.org/ http://facts.hillaryhub.com/ http://www.hillaryhub.com/
For a little election snapshot: http://uselectionatlas.org/2008.php

I DO NOT LIKE THE OBAMA WIN, THE FACT IS HUCKABEE A REPUBLICAN WILL WITH THIS ELECTION. NO CLINTONS!!!

It appears that Americans or at least Iowans are not ready yet for a woman president.

It is also apparent that Americans will again elect a president based on likeability and not for demonstrated ability.

It is also apparent that Americans, at least the liberal democrats, have a short memory of 9/11 and its perpetrators: Osama and the islamic extremists. It will be a matter of time (perhaps just before the general election) when Osama prepares a new video expressing his jubilation and at the same time declaring that Obama's conversion to christianity was anti-islamic and is punishable by death.

It aslo appears that Americans have a tendency to go for the glossy cover of the book than its content. It is also apparent that the win by Obama last night was based on nice-sounding sound-bites like "change". Change for better is good but change for worse cannot be that good.

The more I watch the news the angrier I am getting. I am a women of average intelligence. It is really making me very angry that women are being lead around by their nose.
Come on! Wake up! The Democratic race is not about a black and white issue. It is not about Opera standing behind an individual. It is about how men have screwed things up for too many years. Come on ladies! Just because that individual stands behind Barack Obama does not mean he is the correct candidate.
Was that individual there for you while you were a single parent raising your child? Was that individual there for you as you seen your child go off the war? Did that individual build a school for your children?
The Dixie Chicks were not wrong. People should have listened the them. Do the right thing! Men are born with a suit of armor on. Women can handle that armor and then some! 
ANGIE

I wounder why hispanics are left out in this cold country of our's ! I guess we dont count due to the illegal immigration ? but most hispanics support hillary! so bash me ok i m mexican! and!!

People, polls and pundits have unfairly exaggerated the importance of the IOWA caucuses with its, first choice, non-viability and second choice and artificially early state poll results. Also the caucus was an OPEN poll but the general election will be a secret ballot where all sorts of racism will be let loose by the GOP propaganda / personality destruction machine that will have Obama for breakfast. Then all the Obama-Oprah rallies will not be able to put Obama-together-again!

Super Tuesday is all that matters. Why do all the pollsters behave as if 2008 cycle is like any other? It is NOT! Super Duper Tuesday is different this time and organization and money will matter. Hillary has BOTH on her side and she is doing well nationally so:

Go Hillary44 08! http://hillaryis44.org/ http://facts.hillaryhub.com/
For a little national election snapshot: http://uselectionatlas.org/2008.php

Hey, Richardson got more votes then Giuliani

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I did not like the victory of Mike Huckabee but I'm glad that Obama won. The fact is that the Democrats will win this election and as long as it is not Hillary Clinton I'm happy.

Romney an openly BUSH Jr. supporter LOST!! Says something about Bush Jr., Bush Jr. Administration and Bush Jr. policies and his standing with American public today.

Yes 43rd President Bush Jr. has cause for concern:
Having cheated in two elections. First in 2000 from Al Gore who later got the Noble Peace Prize (just in case people do not keep up with the news!) through the Supreme Court then through rigging and SWIFT BOATING (it’s a verb: unfairly depicting someone) war decorated veteran John Kerry in 2004!

With all the anti-Bush Jr. rhetoric that has helped Huckabee must be a DISASTER in the making for Bush Jr. if he is to venture to work for Republican candidates in 2008 election cycle.

Romney an openly BUSH Jr. supporter LOST!! Says something about Bush Jr., Bush Jr. Administration and Bush Jr. policies and his standing with American public today.

Go Hillary44 08! http://hillaryis44.org/ http://facts.hillaryhub.com/
For a little national election snapshot: http://uselectionatlas.org/2008.php

To Bob in Seattle:

I agree that all things being equal, a larger sample would give you a somewhat better error range.

However, all things _aren't_ equal. The Iowa population is (according to the Census Bureau) much more homogeneous than the country as a whole - much more rural, white, monolingual, non-immigrant, (evangelical) Christian, etc., as well as having an economy that is more agricultural and low(er) tech industrial. This is especially true when it is compared to the most populous states. It is certainly reasonable to assume that since the people in Iowa are not particularly representative of the country as a whole, their issues of concern, and especially their views of those issues may be different than those of the country as a whole. Given that, the large sample pulled from a small but not representative universe is quite likely _less_ apt to give you a meaningful view of what Americans as a whole feel.

Corrected:
If Huckabee continues onward then it would seem the radical Chistian right have taken over the Republican party. For me the strength of American is diversity and freedom of religion. As a country we have more in common then not. Emphasis should be on these factors and not on religion.

There were more than 239,000 came to caucus for democratic candidates.
With the 100% reporting

Obama got: 39% — 93,210
Edward got 30% — 71,700
Hillary got 29 % — 69,3100
Richardson 2.2% — 5258

These are huge numbers compare to republican side over 125000.
Democrats and independents are fired up!

Caucuses in the 'smaller' states are a good thing; because it allows at least some Americans to be familiar with the candidates up and personal.

Only, there should be a mix and match of small and large states having primaries at the same time.

And the groups of small-large states should rotate from election to election; so that different groups of large-small states can have a 'first out the box' in the primary elections from time to time.

If Huckabee continues onward then it would seem like the the radical Chistian right have taken over the Republican party. For me the strength of American is diversity and freedom of religion. As a country we have more in common than not. Emphais should be on these factors and not on religion.

When you steal someone else's business model and try to implement, you might do some things the right way but might not work for you. That is what is happening in this campaign. Clintons, go figure!

When Obama talk of change it really resonates with the people. When Clinton say it, it is like a stolen slogan. She has stolen every style that Obama is running with and that is why she is not origina!

*High 5* @ JT Spangler!! LOL

Anonymous January 4, 2008 11:34 am ET

How many voters equal a 1% difference in Iowa. How large is the entire population of New Hampshire ? Neither state's outcomes should be given the media coverage that has been blasting at us continuously on the news.
Those outcomes are just data points not decision points for anyone who thinks for themselves.
Lets put this into perspective and develop a rational system with meaningful coverage not just irrational hype about change—of course, after the current presidency, change is imperative but I still don't have a clue about whose best to accomplish anything in our current system—a Democrat or Republican, an insider or outsider a man or a woman, a Christian or not. We are heading into dangerous territory when none of the candidates say anything of substance for fear of alienating a voting block.
*****************************************************************************************
You must be a clinton supporter. What it is for the media is that they have done their analysis to know after Obama wins Iowa, 4days to newhempshire, wins there and goes to s. Carolina, then this elections are over with the Clintons!
So, please stop diminishing the credibility of his win. First African American to win in Iowa?, to me he didn't even get the media that he deserved!

Betty Kelso-Clough January 4, 2008 11:13 am ET

Iowa Caucus–whats the big deal with Obama winning the Democratic vote? He got just over 900 votes while Huckabee got about 40,000. Although it was shown on the TV screen, I didn't hear any news comments on the difference in the number of votes. Looks like Huckabee was the really big winner with 97% more votes than Oba
***************************************************************************************

I disagree with you. I think Obama win came a time we needed change in a desperate way. Look, it is like we don't have a president in united states. We watched the elections, so please stop posting what is not over here!

Was Jan 3rd wasn't meant to block Obama from students who were backing him up in Iowa in huge numbers? Now let us see when school opens on jan 14th what will happen!

Iowa can go back to obscurity for four more years knowing that both of their caucuses winners will not lead their parties into the general election.

You're absolutely right James,
Illinois, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and NJ should be included in what I wrote before.

to Betty Kelso-Clough - I see that someone has explained that Democratic numbers are delegates not number of votes. I trust this shows that Obama really did pull off a great feat with approximately 80,000 votes. We shouldn't detract from his win by trying to compare him to another candidate in the republican party as both caucuses have different sets of rules.

A sad day for republicans…

IOWA - Red State but more democrats turned out for the caucuses…

For Democrats, in the prevoius years, the over 65 voters outnumbered 18-30 voters by 5:1….

…BUT NOT YESTERDAY……NOT ANY MORE ……SUCH A TURNOUT FOR DEMOCRATS…….

……….if this is the trend for this year Democrats will not only get a Democratic president, but over 60 majority in the senate.

If young people come out and vote, these homophobic, women hating, bible thumping, shove my faith down your throat old geezers, would never get elected.

I might actually thank president Bush, thank you for destroying the republican party, and good ridence to both of you in 2009…oh yeah take Cheney with you too, don't care to see him ever again either.

Why a Caucus?
Why only 347,000 voters?

Growing up in Iowa and even attending a Caucus or 2 while I was in college in Iowa, it was amazing to see all of the national attention which every 4 years would bring to the state. But as I have grown older and moved around not only the country but the world and still a registered voter in Iowa, I have grown some serious concerns on how we as a country go about picking our next Presidents.

In this day and age, why does any state still have a Caucus to select delegates for Presidential candidate? I know first hand the wrangling that takes place in a caucus room and how meeker individuals are talked into joining a group which they had no intention in joining when they first arrived and the pull that goes on by the other larger groups to support their candidate. Unless you have gone through this process and witness it first hand, one can not understand the tug of war that takes place inside the Caucus Room. We are not talking about folks you don’t know, as these caucuses are based on your voting precinct, so it will be among people you know whether they are friend, family or neighbors. Could you put yourself in there place on voting day that when you close the curtain and there are a couple of folks you know questioning your ballet selections before you cast your vote? That is what is amount too.

It was reported that only 347,000 voters attended last night? Now how is it that the mass media think that 347,000 can speak for the rest of the voters in this country in selecting the party’s candidate for President? I totally don’t get this one. Why do we not as a country have one day which we walk to the polls to vote for the person we want to run for our parties nomination? Why are only 347,000 people allowed to have the opportunity to do that for the rest of America? By the time Super Tuesday comes about, how many of the candidates will have dropped out of the race by then? If it would be someone I was interested in, how unfair is this system we select our highest National leader without the chance to cast my vote for the person I want?

Then it comes to November and time to vote for the next President and we all hear the same question or concern most of us ask ourselves, “Who we came up with these 2 bozo to pick from?” One could blame the voters in Iowa or New Hampshire, or we could blame our selection process in picking the party’s nominee. Either way, most of us will only have the 2 who other select left to pick from.

THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE SHOULD NOT START TWO YEARS BEFORE THE
ELECTION,IT IS TWO LONG ,BESIDES THE CANDIDATES SHOULD BE MORE INTERESTED IN PERFORMING THEIR DUTIES AS CONGRESSMAN,SENATORS,
AND GOVERNORS, AS THEY WERE ELECTED FOR,RATHER THAN RUNNING
TWO YEARS AHEAD OF TIME.

THIS COUNTRY SHOULD BE REPRESENTED FULL TIME NOT PART TIME.

THANKS,
RICHARD M MITCHELL

I really don't care who gets the votes to be our next Demoratic President, As long as it's not A Republican.You'd have to be totally stupid to not see what the Republicans have done to this country. I think Obama would be fine . If Sharpten and J Jackson and A few others keep there big mouths shut. for A change, There not even close to his league as far as Gentlemen go.and Leadership. Terry K.

CNN did not explain that they were showing delegate totals for the Democrats and total votes for the Republicans last night - apples and oranges. Therefore, it appeared that Obama won with less than a thousand votes and that the Republicans had many more voters than the Democrats, even though the commentators kept talking about the remarkable Democratic turnout.

Even if the total votes in the Iowa Caucus last night reached 300,000, it is only a drop in the bucket of their 2 million or so registered voters.

It is ridiculous to let a small, motivated subgroup such as the handful of Americans who participate in the Iowa Caucus dictate who is In and who is Out so early in the game.

In my opinion, all of the primaries and caucuses should be held in the same month, if not on the same day, so that a truer picture of nationwide support for each candidate becomes clear right at the outset. Why should this decision be skewed by the early caucuses in one or two states?

It's certainly time for change, all right. How about shaking up the process a little bit more. During every presidential election a drawing should be held, to determine which state holds the first caucus.

Betty-Obama didn't receive 900 votes. He received 900 state delegates. There's a big difference between the two. Besides, almost twice as many Democrats than Republicans came out to vote. So pay closer attention.

If the NH primary were to be a bone chilling day, Obama will win again with his young energetic followers. That's what happened to Huckabee. The religious people love to take little challenge from God when the weather is bitter cold. But Huckabee is not electable nationwide, because he is more interested in God's business than people's. If Huckabee were to win the Repulican nomination, the Dem will take the White House. The only candidate that can stop this is Dr. Ron Paul, running as an Independent.

Will some one please tell Betsy Kelso-Clough that Obama didn't get 900 votes and he did not have 97% less than Huckabee. The Democratic vote was not counted by actual votes like the straw poll vote used by the Republicans in this process. I just want to know, were you not paying any attention at all!

Betty Kelso,

The Democratic caucus doesn't post actual votes, those are numbers determined by a formula calculation so 900 doesn't represent 900 people, while the Republicans use a straw vote system (one person, one vote). The truth is that Democrats showed up for the caucuses in Iowa nearly 2 to 1 over Republicans. And since Iowa has never elected a black man or woman to any position, the fact that Obama won the Dem's caucus IS much more the story than an evangelical preacher winning in a bible belt state.

At one time I heard a suggestion that seemed to make sense. That was there should be 3 or 4 primarys, grouping the states by size with the smallest states having their primary first followed a week or two later by the moderately small states followed by the larger states followed by the largest states. At no time should a candidate be able to reach the needed delegate total until the largest states weighed in. Mathmatically that may mean just three primaries.

Betsy, pay closer attention…

I certainly hope the rest of the country has more sense than Iowans…I really thought we had more on the ball than to be able to be swayed by either a pretty face or 'good-ol-boy' questionable humor.

To Betty Kelso-
The Democrats use a system of delagates. Republicans use a more direct one-vote approach. While we can never be sure about the exact number of votes places for Barack. Percentages indicate that he received approximately 92,000 votes or 2.5 half times the number of votes cast for Huckabee.

Betty -
Read the key at the bottom of the chart. You are comparing apples to oranges. The democrats do not report the number of votes for each candidate but rather the number of delegates to the state convention that each candidate received. The fact is that way more democrats came out to caucus than republicans, so if the democrats reported the raw votes, Obama would have received more votes than Huckabee.

THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE SHOULD NOT START TWO YEARS BEFORE THE
ELECTION,IT IS TWO LONG ,BESIDES THE CANDIDATES SHOULD BE MORE INTERESTED IN PERFORMING THEIR DUTIES AS CONGRESSMAN,SENATORS,
AND GOVERNORS, AS THEY WERE ELECTED FOR,RATHER THAN RUNNING
TWO YEARS AHEAD OF TIME.

THIS COUNTRY SHOULD REPRESENT THE PEOPLE FULL TIME NOT PART TIME.

THANKS,
RICHARD M MITCHELL

Betty Kelso-Clough you miss understood the numbers. Nearly 200,000 voters turned out for the democrats, while a meager 87,000 for republicans.

Betty Kelso-Clough

The numbers for Huckabee represent individual votes, while the numbers for Obama represents the number of delegates that he received. The way the Iowa caucus works is the Democrats get together and split up into groups of whichever candidate they are supporting. That candidate then needs to have at least 15% of the caucus goers in his or her group to be viable. If a candidate isn't viable the supporters have to join another candidates group, or go home. There are a set number of delegates each precinct is assigned, so after all the viable candidates have been recognized they divide up the number of delegates each candidate will receive based on the number of supporters they have.

It sounds much more confusing than it actually is.

The Republicans go to their polling place and cast their vote by private ballot, and their votes are counted individually.

Betty,

Obama did not get 900 votes. He got close to 35% of the approximately 250,000 democratic caucus votes, 900 is some state delegate count.

To the early comment by Betty - you were reading the vote totals incorrectly - easy thing to do on the TV stations I saw - the 900 was probably for delegates to the county conventions. We had nearly 300 votes for Obama in our caucus alone. Well over 200,000 Democrats participated - I am guessing Obama received more like 75,000 votes. The Democratic total was nearly twice the number of Republican voters who showed up. The energy and enthusiasm for Obama is unlike anything I have seen since the Kennedys. At our caucus, he brought in a large number of new voters of every ethnic background, income bracket, many, many young voters - it was remarkable….and I was a supporter of Joe Biden.

Iowa does not have the pulse on the rest of America. What does it say when you vote for a person like Huckabee..give me a break this man is a joke. As for Obama he is not the person to run our country. Just listen to him sometime he wants to be friends with everyone…no spunk..what about Iraq when are our boys coming home.. no one wants to discuss Iraq…McCain..he needs to retire saying our troops will be there for over a 100 years and he agrees.. McCain is Bush junior and nothing will change.

I still say Hillary is the one to lead our country out of this mess.

Betty Obama got 900 delegates to the Iowa state election. He also got 33% of the popular vote (about 80,000) votes) in Iowa. The Republican caucuses work completely differently than the Democrats. Also, the Republicans have a winner take all system while the delegate count for the Democrats is proportional. Not only is Iowa different from most states, but the two major parties in Iowa are different. I don't see a problem with the compressed primary schedule. I do have a problem with the issue that these candidates can't do what they're supposed to because it's so early.

To Betty Kelso-Clough

What Obama got is number of delegates and Huckabee is vote. If you tranfer 38% into vote Obama got ~90000.

just FYI

Ak

Betty–you are wrong about the number of votes… Republicans count by individual votes and Democrats count by elected delegates…so those were the numbers you saw on your TV screen. Obama probably had well more than 40,000 votes because almost twice as many democrats participated in the caucuses as Republicans.

Well, America here we go agiain. How is it that the focus is on your favorites and not about the clear winners. Not to sound overly confident this early; but why not give some rhetoric on Obama rather than speak of Romney or downplay his historical accomplishment(Black Male) to the Iowa Caucus. See, that's why I feel Obama is in touch with all,all Americans. He has the empathy to know what and how things effect us internally and not just superficially.

Betty Kelso-Clough and Roy, do you guys seriously believe Obama got 900 votes and Huckabee got about 40,000 votes yesterday? Talk about being un-informed!!! May I suggest that you go back and educate yourselves on how the Democrats and Republicans tally their votes in the Iowa Caucus!

I would like to see the primaries handled like the general election–everybody voting on the same day. That way everybody's vote would be relatively equal.

Can somebody explain why it isn't that way?

Dear Betty:
Republicans held essentially a straw poll, and about 120,000 voted.
Democrats chose county delegates, which is what matters to eventually choose the actual national convention delegates. 227,000 people voted in the Democratic caucuses. The raw vote is not reported.
About 40,000 voted for Huckabee, but it appears that at least 80,000 voted for Obama. (You didn't really believe that only 2,000 people voted for Democrats, did you?)

Betty, the way the Democrats and Republicans tally votes is different for each side. The Democrats don't post the raw vote numbers, they use a formula to come up with the lesser number. The percentages are accurate, pay attention to those numbers not the raw vote count as we will never know the raw Democratic vote.

I think it's ridiculous that Iowa and New Hampshire get to set the tone of the primaries and elections. Iowa and New Hampshire hardly represent the diversity of America. I think the political parties ought to pick a day in January, a day in February, and a day in March for a single primary. Divide the primary elections among the various states so smaller (population) states and larger each get to influence. If you cluster a number of small states together on the same date then that is a more accurate sense of the direction of the election say Rhode Island, Nevada, New Hampshire, Kansas, Hawaii. This ought to give you a wide range of issues, perspectives that the candidates would have to address. Then on another day have NY, California, Texas, Illinois, Florida & Pennsylvania (or states like that) go - this would force the candidates to distribute their campaigning more evenly among the various states. I think the current primary system is out dated and unequitable.

Politically, the Nation is somewhere between the extremes of Christian farmers in Iowa and liberal woodsmen in New Hampshire. There is thus no reason why rational voters in that vast middle ground would be influenced by IA or NH. But if we picked Presidents rationally, we wouldn't have W, would we?

Lev Klineman - very good comment. If you want to have a beer with somebody, just go have a beer. Running the country is the same as running a mega-business. Also keep religion out of politics.

the two party system is clearly broke its time for america to think outside of this box and look into different partys or people who choose no party at all

The problem is that so many of the politicans from the "small states," as someone referred to them, like to be able to have some say in this nomination process. I wish there was some conference among all the states so that we can put together a system where all of the states can have a chance at being first. I heard something mentioned on NPR a while back and can only remember that there was the idea that each section of the country would be first ever 16 years.

There needs to be a way for all of the states' population to have some say in it. I prefer that we move the earliest caucuses and primaries to starting in April. That gives everyone a chance to raise some money and get some recognition.

Lev…good comments

but you forgot about Illinois, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and NJ.

Still the current process forces the candidates to present themselves to the people in IA and NH with retail politics, and not a national tv campaign fueled by money and name recognition.

I'm not sure a national primary is best, but i'm not sure this system is best either..

One of the pros of our early election process is to give obscure candidates such as Obama or Huckabee a chance to present themselves to the voters. For example, it's long enough to show how they can deal with foreign affairs as foreign events occur.
Had it been a short election period, Hillary would have a greater name-recognition over Obama.

The cons for an early election process are that much less gets done in D.C. or in the jobs held by these candidates; and the whole country acts more divided than normal during this period. Also, election is a factor in policy-making till it's over.

Now, here we are, talking about the process of voting, instead of the issues that each of these candidates stand on.

Here we have in Iowa two winners, who are two candidates who have zero experience in national defense, going up against a rising Russia, international terrorism, unrest in Africa, and a UN that is basically a figurehead for bad diplomatic relations.

CNN talks about process. I keep coming back to this website in the hope that one day, I might actually be gobsmacked by something resembling journalism.

We truly do get the government we deserve; fed to us by a media that couldn't stay focused enough to inform the people.

I am ashamed to share oxygen with people in this country who are "burnt out" from the presidential race already. If anything, this process needs to be LONGER.

But I guess many people don't care about anything more important than their ballooning waistlines and the latest "American Idol".

IOWA caucuses are an exceptional format and a great sampling of American current thought.

Where else is a citizen asked to spend a reasonable lengthy amount of his personal time in a 'give and take' format. A format where his identity is known. His views are known.

In what other format is a citizen given a chance to express his point of view with a very real chance of actually influencing someone else with a result that is immediately evident? In this format, a citizen actually has to 'defend' his point of view among other 'studied' participants. Most of the caucus goers have actually 'done some research'. One would hate to go to one of those caucus meetings ill prepared.

So, would you rather believe a poll of 700 to 800 random folks (with a statistical error factor of +/- 3%) or do you think that you would get a better feel of what Americans think from a sampling of 350,000 folks that, by the very nature of the format, have had to spend a reasonable amount of time researching and participating in a give and take format before giving their answer?

I hope IOWA always remains up first in the primaries. They have earned it and they do a fantastic service to America.

Thank you IOWA.

Ok lets get back to the Iowa caucuses. I think that how they vote for a canidate is ridiculous. When a person makes up ther mind who they want to vote for should stand, why have other people convince you to change over and vote with them to another canidate. To me that;s like invading someone's pricacy.

Ok you vote once, and if the other group is short votes they try to convince you to go to there group?

For example you vote for one canidate and your friend votes for another. Then the second session of voting your friend tries to convince you to go on her/his side. What do you do if they are you best friend? Do you want to loose your best friend over a vote? or be bought to vote for there canidate? And they say that politicians buy votes!

Well the caucuses is over and now the primaries starts.

GOOD LUCK CANIDATES!!!!!

I think the those early states are not bad. It set the stage for the primaries. It make stronger candidates to lead their parties in the National election…

Roy January 4, 2008 11:21 am ET

Good points, but Rebecca check your spelling. LOL not trying to be mean, but I thought journalist are suppose to spell check.

Actually, spell checking is the responsibility of the editor, or (in the case of web sites) the webmaster or whoever is given responsibility for inputting the text.

Besides, even if Rebecca ran spell-check on this article, the one spelling error I found ("jut" in place of "just") spells a legitimate word, so it would pass spell-check. Computers are good, but they're no substitute for the trained eye of an editor or webmaster.

Spelling errors are quite common on news web sites nowadays - not just CNN. (I've seen numberous mispellings on Fox News, for example.) I think the pressure to get stories out there fast has resulted in compromised quality.

I agree, why is it that we should allow Iowa to have such a dominant impact. Every US citizen deserves an equal vote in choosing their candidate. How is it that Huckabee got 36% of the vote in Iowa but barely makes the radar of acknowledgement in other states? Something is messed up with this picture.

I know that "little" states like I owa and New Hampshire want to feel important, but the first primaries should be held in New York, California and Texas. We cannot let "little" states determine the future of the US.

Why?

Because without the 3 states I mentioned above (plus Oregon, Washingtion and Massachusetts) the US would be nothing but a 3rd world central American country.

I'm just sick of people who "would like to have a beer with the next president", choosing these nitwits like Bush and Huckabee, neither of whom I would trust to run a gas station, let alone a country.

Yes, I live in PA and the primary races are usually decided long before we get a chance to vote. So alot of people don't bother going to vote, because their vote doesn't matter. Some of that also carries through to the general election. I personally think this is a bad thing, because when feel as though their vote doesn't count they won't vote. I don't understand why all the states can't vote at once, like we do in the general election, so everybody feels like their vote counts. Instead, we have an ongoing primary circus that excludes alot of people and seems to go on forever.

America wants change. Obama and Ron Paul are the only ones offering that…

It is a little early. Besides ruining the holidays with incessant telemarketing, this is not the best time of year to be flying around in small planes in Iowa. Early primaries/caucuses give the pundits way to much time to blather on an on about what it all means. The post caucus comments last night pretty much gave the election to Huckabee and Obama. They both had impressive victories, but Clinton and Edwards, while they have their work cut out for them, have not been blown out of the water yet. And, all the candidates have ideas that must be heard so that the debate continues. It's even more important that the rest of the nation exercises their civic right/duty.

The outcry over Iowa' s first in the nation status is overblown as well. It's the start of the process, not the end as the pundits would have us believe. In Iowa, we picked delegates for the county/state conventions, not the electoral college…end of story.

I participated in my first Democratic caucus last night…I was a non-Born again Republican who thinks the party has lost its way. The Democratic candidates are more in touch with the issues that really matter and are about hope, not fear. I'll take 'tax and spend' over 'borrow and spend' any day.

I supported Richardson last night and he showed well based on the amount of money he spent in Iowa.

How many voters equal a 1% difference in Iowa. How large is the entire population of New Hampshire ? Neither state's outcomes should be given the media coverage that has been blasting at us continuously on the news.
Those outcomes are just data points not decision points for anyone who thinks for themselves.
Lets put this into perspective and develop a rational system with meaningful coverage not just irrational hype about change—of course, after the current presidency, change is imperative but I still don't have a clue about whose best to accomplish anything in our current system—a Democrat or Republican, an insider or outsider a man or a woman, a Christian or not. We are heading into dangerous territory when none of the candidates say anything of substance for fear of alienating a voting block.

Good points, but Rebecca check your spelling. LOL not trying to be mean, but I thought journalist are suppose to spell check.

Iowa Caucus–whats the big deal with Obama winning the Democratic vote? He got just over 900 votes while Huckabee got about 40,000. Although it was shown on the TV screen, I didn't hear any news comments on the difference in the number of votes. Looks like Huckabee was the really big winner with 97% more votes than Obama.

Compressed primary calendar? I am just about burned out already, as this thing started so early!