January 3rd, 2008
10:52 PM ET
15 years ago

Three-way split of Iowa's Democratic delegates

CNN is projecting this split of Iowa's 45 Democratic delegates, based on tonight's results:

Barack Obama: 16, Hillary Clinton: 15, John Edwards: 14

Filed under: Iowa
soundoff (71 Responses)
  1. JC, Topeka, Kansas

    Regardless, Iowa has in reality said very littl we other than it would appear that the top three Democratic canidates are Obama, Edwards and Clinton., and put them in any order that you wish to. Since President Clinton did not win either Iowa or NH in his bid for the nomination, I really would not read too much into Iowa other than the rest of the field can basically be ruled out of the serious contender categogy.

    January 4, 2008 10:41 am at 10:41 am |
  2. therealist

    CNN's projections are as off as it's biased political coverage..

    January 4, 2008 10:46 am at 10:46 am |
  3. Dan

    "I don't understand why Hillary Clinton will have more delegates than John Edwards when she is in third place".

    Because Clinton got more Superdelegates that Edwards did, and so gets 1 more delegate overall, vene though he beat her in the caucus.

    January 4, 2008 11:23 am at 11:23 am |
  4. Kyle M

    I'm a younger voter and this is the first political run I've actually showed an interest in. I'm assuming these delegate votes are CNN projected, not what they will actually get when everything comes down to it. And aside from being a preliminary poll for projecting the 'president'. What are the hard facts I can walk away from this with?

    January 4, 2008 11:24 am at 11:24 am |
  5. Ron Shaw

    I believe that Mitt Romney is far better equipped for the office of president than Mike Huckabee would ever be. Huckabee's liberal position on both taxes and immigration are not what our country needs at this point in our nation's history. Huckabee's record as governor certainly isn't one to be proud of.
    I believe that it's shameful that religion played its ugly role in the Iowa caucus and hope tthat Iowa's record (it supported the miserable Jimmy Carter, too!) is not one that other states will follow.

    January 4, 2008 11:28 am at 11:28 am |
  6. Tom, New York, NY

    The comments on here from people not understanding the delegate count process are obviously from people who did not take the time to understand the process....it is NOT a simple % applied to the 45 delegates... but whatever....if you don't understand how it works, then your ignorance shows when you make ignorant comments...

    And yes, even though Obama gains momentum going into the other primaries now, he got exactly ONE more delegate from all that than Hillary...at that pace.... I guess he has no chance... but we'll see... it will be interesting....

    January 4, 2008 11:33 am at 11:33 am |
  7. Margaret

    Regarding the Win of Obama, it does'nt mean much. He has no experience just a greater talker like Deval Patrick from Massachustts. (Together we Can). He is a Phony. When people gets to the Debates, he will not survive. If he is the Nominee of the Party, i will be switching over to the Republian Nominee.

    Hilary Clinton is a far better Candinate.

    January 4, 2008 11:44 am at 11:44 am |
  8. Tom, San Leandro

    To Dee Ward Mena:
    I agree with you in your assessment of CNN's pro-Obama reporting. But don't forget to include Chris Mathews, along with Jack Cafferty and Lou Dobbs, who are all completely disregarding any sense of fair, unbiased reporting. They now are, in fact, twisting Hillary's personality, experience, and agenda, to get across their hateful commentary. All the while, of course, they are giving a positive spin and inflating anything and everything that Obama does along the campaign trail. I used to rely on them to gain a fairly balanced perspective. They are blatantly biased in favor of Obama and against Hillary. How are these so-called reporters able to look at themselves in the mirror each morning before they set out to do their dirty work? What a disappointment! I just want fair and balanced news. Lord, am I going to have to tune into Fox for that!

    January 4, 2008 12:10 pm at 12:10 pm |
  9. Tony Ganzoles

    I think the only reason why Obama won the Iowa because lots of republicans voted for him. Republicans know that if he wins the democratic nomination, they will win the white house again for 4 more years. Clinton is the only one who could win against the republicans in the general election and they will do anything not to have her win the democratic nomination

    January 4, 2008 12:51 pm at 12:51 pm |
  10. Chris, Middletown, CT

    Hillary the better candidate?? (based on what...8 years as the surgeon's wife?? qualifies her for nothing...running to a state who would elect any Democrat (NY) – what has she done since she has been there...voted for the war in Iraq....then denied doing that....voted to fund the war in Iraq....then denied doing it....we want more...and deserve more

    Be a traditional Democrat – John F Kennedy said "ask not what your country can do for you…ask what you can do for your country" –

    I see nothing but promises of a socialist state from the field of Democrats – universal healthcare….800 billion in entitlement spending….gimme gimme gimme….higher taxes (and they don't even blink when saying this) – support of the country choking unions….high pay and great benefits….(and the companies they work for are either folding or moving the jobs overseas) –

    Baffling group of entitlists – go back to traditional Democrats…ASK NOT WHAT YOUR COUNTRY CAN DO FOR YOU (for once)

    January 4, 2008 01:03 pm at 1:03 pm |
  11. Lady Eagle

    This is just the first round folks! There is still the debate on Saturday. I saw an article today that saws Obama's positives is 50% and his negatives are now 47%. O well, the media gives and the media takes away.

    January 4, 2008 02:02 pm at 2:02 pm |
  12. Kevin,FL


    January 4, 2008 02:05 pm at 2:05 pm |
  13. VG, anywhere but Iowa

    I was at a Clear Lake caucus last night...WHAT A JOKE. Out of 35 people, there was a three way time but they had only 2 delegates. So they did what Iowa tells them to do....


    yes....Iowa decided presidential elections by flipping a coin and calling heads or tails....even the "chairwoman" didn't know how to flip the coin.

    IOWA IS A JOKE...Don't believe them.

    January 4, 2008 02:18 pm at 2:18 pm |
  14. PS, KC, MO

    I have really grown weary of the diatribe against the caucus process. As a former Iowan, I much prefer it to the primary elections I've participated in. Here's why.
    First, it requires people to become informed. You very rarely have people come out and caucus simply because they think it's their patriotic duty – then vote for the glamour candidate because they like the way he looks or they saw a 1 minute ad on TV. Too many primary voters have no idea where their candidates stand on the issues. Remember, it's not just your duty to vote, but to be an informed voter.
    Second, it is the most democratic of processes. People get together with their neighbors in living rooms, gymnasiums and meeting halls to discuss and choose a candidate.
    Third, you do get a 2nd choice. While some may complain about that, I like it. It means that, if I know my candidate is not going to be a contender, I can throw my support to the person whom I like next best. In a primary, you don't get that option. By the time you find out your candidate only garnered 3% of the vote, it's too late to say, "well, in that case, I want candidate x." So, in essence, you get the candidate who more closely mirrors the attitudes of the electorate.
    Last, it's not nearly as arcane or arduous as so many have made it out to be. In a nutshell, you go to your precinct caucus site (similar to going to your polling place) at a predetermined time. Once it gets under way, you stand up for your candidate. If they do not receive a pre-determined number of votes, you go to your 2nd choice or try to convince another non-viable group to join yours. Then, once all groups have that set number of voters, they take a count and you're done. If you can't follow that, you shouldn't be voting – because that's far simpler than getting a good grasp on the issues. [I know – I'll get lots of hate mail for that statement, but so be it.]
    I think where people get all wrapped around the axle is on the issue of 'viability'. That's not so complicated either. Basically, you're there to elect delegates. (Remember the national conventions – where they select the nominee?) Each precinct only gets so many delegates. So you need enough people to justify a delegate for your candidate. They've already come up with a standard formula in advance (also not so complicated) and they just apply it to the number of people present.
    Now – I haven't participated in the process since 1984. If a simple Iowa boy can remember this stuff over 20 years later, it shouldn't be that difficult for the average citizen (or newscaster) to grasp – right?

    January 4, 2008 02:49 pm at 2:49 pm |
  15. Dan, TX

    As usual, CNN is wrong. This is not the split in delegates.

    January 4, 2008 03:18 pm at 3:18 pm |
  16. Paul, Tampa, FL

    To Ike Woodbridge VA,

    Hmmmm....that would make one-half of all Democrats who have been elected president recently that has won the Iowa caucuses. What was your point?

    January 4, 2008 03:28 pm at 3:28 pm |
  17. MGS

    Iowa is for bragging rights!

    It's first, it's finicky, it's fantastic if you win,
    and it's the pits if you lose, or don't hit your magic marker!

    But it is decisive and the process hasn't changed much over
    the years. It boosts some candidacies, and deflates others,
    with little or no explanation for either.

    In 1984, when Gary Hart garnered 17% of the vote and came in 2nd
    behind Walter Mondale, he parlayed that story going into the New Hampshire

    With two weeks to work that state, Hart won New Hampshire handily
    and was photographed in a tennis outfit for the NYTimes.

    Many of the 2008 caucus voters were still in diapers
    when that occurred.

    But when all the snow melts in Iowa, the only thing on the cherry tree
    will be 16,15,14--Obama, Clinton, Edwards!

    January 4, 2008 08:26 pm at 8:26 pm |
  18. Jim

    What a waste of time to vote in the Iowa caucuses. Final delegate count is

    Obama: 66
    Edwards: 47
    Clinton: 166

    #3 vote-getter receives almost 3x Obama's delegates. How broken is that? Looks like the fix is in.

    January 6, 2008 01:13 pm at 1:13 pm |
  19. Anonymous

    Hillery is the best canadate for the jov. Obama is a breath of fresh air, but he cannot win the nomination nor can he run the oval office.

    January 8, 2008 10:15 pm at 10:15 pm |
  20. mike

    Hillary can make a real change.

    January 8, 2008 10:22 pm at 10:22 pm |
  21. Kris

    I'm glad to see that for the first time in years we have a solid selection of viable candidates. But I think there's some wisdom in what Regina has said. I see a real inclination in people to vote for Clinton because she's a woman, to vote for Obama because he's black, and the inclination to vote religiously certainly needs no publicity. Refreshingly, we have some very strong candidates for president. Let's consider them as such, rather than for their sex, color or creed. Otherwise we may wake up one day with a president whose agenda we know precious little about.

    January 9, 2008 02:55 pm at 2:55 pm |
1 2 3