Iowa Caucuses vs. Iowa County Assembly Totals

Today's Iowa county assembly results side by side with caucus results are here (pdf).

Since the MSM seems only to report how Obama did, I'll take a look at how Hillary did.

In the January caucus results, Hillary had 29.47% of the vote. Today she got 32.08%

Out of 99 counties, Hillary gained in almost all of them. She lost more than one delegate in only these 4 counties:

  • Woodbury (lost 4)
  • Scott (lost 8)
  • Marshall (lost 1.5)
  • Cerro Gordo (lost 2)

Hillary gained more than 4 delegates over her January numbers in these counties (there are too many counties to list where she won between a fraction of 1 and 3 more delegates):

  • Dubuque (won 11)
  • Polk (won 6 1/2)
  • Webster (won 4 1/2)


She won more new delegates than Obama in Johnson County where she gained 2, Obama gained 1 and Edwards won a portion of a delegate more today than he had in January. No more than 1 Edwards delegate went to Obama there.

This is not to say that Obama didn't win more delegate in Iowa today, only that Hillary didn't lose any, she gained as well, just not as many.

Edwards share of the vote in January was 29.75% to Hillary's 29.5%. Today, Hillary rose to 32%, Edwards dropped to 15.5% and Obama rose to 52%.

< Obama Pitches Independents and Repubs to Register as Dems in PA | Final California Delegate Numbers Out >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    In other words (none / 0) (#1)
    by digdugboy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:35:31 AM EST
    Clinton lost a good deal of ground to Obama today in Iowa. What was Obama's percentage before he rose to 52%?

    I provided the link (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:40:43 AM EST
    It's on page 4. He had 38% in January. As I said, he won by a larger margin today than she did, but it's worth noting that she didn't lose any of her delegates, she gained as well -- both in her total number of delegates and her percentage of the total.

    I went to a party tonight (none / 0) (#8)
    by digdugboy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:21:41 AM EST
    A retirement party for a man who just left the military after 29 years, including tours in Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan. Almost everybody (including the retiring soldier) is a democrat and plans to vote for either Clinton or Obama.

    We all talked about the election. People connect emotionally with one candidate or the other in ways that few connected with John Kerry in 2004 or even Al Gore in 2000. I can appreciate how hard it must be for people like you who support Clinton to see her chances to win the nomination become more slender with each primary or caucus that passes.

    I've never heard Obama say we need an African American president, but I've heard Clinton say we need a woman president. I don't know exactly what she means by that. I think it has an appeal to women who've banged against glass ceilings for most of their lives, but I don't think it is particularly meaningful in terms of those stereotypical characteristics that are often associated with women (e.g., empathy, less aggression). Hillary doesn't reflect any of those stereotypical characteristics.

    We need both glass ceilings broken. Since I'm neither a woman nor an African American, I don't really have a horse in that race. For years I couldn't understand the widespread antipathy toward Hlllary. But I think I understand it now, and I confess I feel it too. Her negatives are high for a reason, and it is not all about sexism.

    Your client is probably not going to prevail. I don't see hardly a dime's worth of difference between the two of them on most of the issues, and so I think this race is mostly about emotional connections. Obama creates them and inspires far more voters than Clinton does. The glass ceiling that may mean most to you probably won't be shattered this election. I hope you can, at least, rejoice that somebody else's glass ceiling may be.

    I think it was Brandeis who wrote, in the Harvard Law Review article "The Judicial Method," that judges make decisions on emotion and then craft logic to support those decisions. We seem to support our candidates the same way.


    Link? I have faithfully followed (none / 0) (#12)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:35:44 AM EST
    anything I could find of what Clinton says, and I never have heard her say that we need a woman president.

    So please provide a link, or a date and site of such a speech that you heard in which she said this -- as I doubt it.


    She did not say it (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:01:23 AM EST
    People have a bad habit of making sh*t up.

    Is this close enougn? (none / 0) (#33)
    by digdugboy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:08:52 PM EST
    I don't know whether we're ready or not for voters to elect a woman president, the Democratic senator from New York tells Steve Inskeep. But I think at some point we need to try. Other countries have beaten us to the punch. And I don't think there's any place in the world where it's better to be a woman, with more choices and opportunities, than in 21st-century America.

    No, this isn't close enough at all (none / 0) (#35)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:32:56 AM EST
    "At some point" is not at all saying "Now" and "Me."

    It's saying we had 43 presidents of the same gender as well as the same race, and let's not do that for the next 43. . . .  Or perhaps you think it's fine to have only white men for the next several hundred years or so?


    We can't even have (none / 0) (#24)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:46:38 AM EST
    the glass ceiling to ourselves anymore?

    Here you go (none / 0) (#27)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:50:46 AM EST
    She said it in Mississippi last week....

    What I said is what I learned is that neither Iowa or Mississippi had ever elected a woman statewide and I referenced the fact that I was the first woman elected statewide in New York and I told the Iowans that they had a chance to try to change that and now in Mississippi giving Mississippi voters a chance to change that," Clinton said in the radio interview.

    Where does she say (none / 0) (#28)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:55:40 AM EST
    what you accuse her of saying?

    I didn't accuse her of anything (none / 0) (#30)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:03:11 AM EST
    but if you wish to not see what that quotes says, there is no point in me trying to explain it to you.

    Talking about Iowa and Mississippi (none / 0) (#36)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:33:58 AM EST
    state offices is far from what you say she said.

    If you can't tell the difference, that is far more telling about you.


    It's not glass ceiling (none / 0) (#14)
    by dianem on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:39:52 AM EST
    Not for me, anyway. That's a very insulting suggestion, by the way, like implying that the only reason Obama's supporters are voting for him is that they want a black man in the Presidency. I think most of them have other reasons.

    I want Clinton because I think she's the best option we have to win the election and to accomplish something real in the next 4 years. She's a doer, not a dreamer. She doesn't inspire, she just goes out and accomplishes things. She's honest, and hard-working, and smart, and politically connected. She has been vetted by the right so long and so hard that they are going to have to fight very hard to find a new vulnerability. She might not be able to win the Presidency, but Obama certainly can't. His negatives are about the same and Clintons, and the right hasn't even kicked in their attack machine yet.

    A woman president would be nice.  A minority president would be nice. But what is really important is that we have a competent president who understands economics and international politics and can help undo some of the damage of the last administration. That won't happen because we hope it will. It will happen because somebody is knowledgeable and experienced enough to know who to hire and how to cut through the crap being spread by people with a horse in the race. It won't be somebody who trusts a slum landlord because he says there is no problem and he has been a friend for a long time. Clinton is cynical. We need cynical.


    Sigh (none / 0) (#22)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:55:11 AM EST
    Yes, if only Hillary had some empathy!



    Vice Versa (none / 0) (#31)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:28:14 AM EST
    First off.... 'Your client,' is a condescending, depersonalizing statement. It is Senator Clinton.

    .....'characteristics that are often associated with women (e.g., empathy, less aggression).'  Based on your post, I get the feeling the stereotype has not held for you.

    ????  'For years I couldn't understand the widespread antipathy toward Hlllary. But I think I understand it now, and I confess I feel it too'.... based on your post, you felt it all along.  It isn't even slightly believable you just came to this decision.  If you did, prove it.  Provide some links where you spoke in positive terms of Clinton.  Provide some links that show a compare and contrast of how you have compared the campaigns and what led you to the decision that she is a flawed human being.  If Clinton is so flawed, why is the vote so close?

    'Her negatives are high for a reason.'  They are high because some are unable to separate themselves from right wing media spin.  You are aware Obama's negatives have climbed are only a couple of pts from Clinton's?  You are aware that exit polls have more Clinton supporters refusing to vote for Obama than Obama supporters refusing to vote for Clinton?  

    No, we don't 'seem' to support our candidates the same way.  I began a year ago with a spreadsheet of all candidates, Dem and Rep.  I picked 6 issues that were important to me.  I looked up voting records, positions and flip-flops.  I then watched all of debates, took notes, then reviewed who actually answered questions and whether I agreed with them.

    The majority of discussions on this site are substantive not emotional or personal.  You are choosing to focus on the personal.  You also have the choice of not participating in the personal threads and only participating in the objective ones.


    I meant to say "candidate" (none / 0) (#34)
    by digdugboy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:10:52 PM EST
    Proofreading after a party is never a good thing. I meant no insult to Jeralyn and apologize if any was taken. My error.

    How (none / 0) (#29)
    by Deconstructionist on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:59:28 AM EST
     would there have been any prospect of her losing delegates she already had? In the absence of a complete meltdown of her candidacy was that outcome even conceivable?

      You love to spin,  but you need to work on it. If the best thing you have to say is essentially  that she was not betrayed and abandoned by people already pledged to her you don't much help her.

      It seems to me that the bottom line is that Obama not only gained in terms of absolute number of delegates but that he won a greater relative apportiornment of the delegates up for grabs yesterday than he did of the delegates up for grabs at the caucus.  



    Of course, this still is only another step (none / 0) (#3)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:55:08 AM EST
    and keep in mind that these are delegates to only the state convention, still -- when the process repeats again, and could change a lot again (especially with Edwards so close to falling below the requisite 15% threshhold), before national delegates to the nominating convention finally are picked in June.  And that is the calendar for most caucus states.  

    So all the media's vaunted delegate counts are unreliable now -- but especially soft for the candidate most reliant on caucus states.


    Wishful thinking, I'm afraid (none / 0) (#9)
    by digdugboy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:30:30 AM EST
    The delegate projections are accurate enough to conclude that Senator Clinton's journey is uphill and steeply so.

    Read again re the process (none / 0) (#10)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:33:55 AM EST
    a lot of things can happen between now and June.  Until then, the caucus counts remain unknown unknowns.

    Keep the faith. (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:34:53 AM EST
    We're not supposed to be talking about (none / 0) (#17)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:51:02 AM EST
    the pertinent faiths and who is keeping to them these days.

    She won't win the delegate count (none / 0) (#15)
    by dianem on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:45:02 AM EST
    It would be nearly impossible, even with Florida and Michigan. But the caucuses tended to be low turnout and highly biased in terms of delegates awarded. She might very well win the actual vote count, even if she is behind in the delegate count. I can see her pulling off the primary win in two ways:

    1. She wins enough of the popular vote to argue that the voters have spoken and the superdelegates should vote for her. People, and even some Obama supporters, would support that. She might not be able to pull it off if Florida doesn't have a re-vote, though. On the other hand, she might.
    2. Obama implodes through some kind of scandal. There were two issues this week that should have serious implications for his candidacy. Whether they will take off or not is to be determined, but  if he does implode, or even seem weak at the time of the convention, then superdelegates might be persuaded to take the heat and go for Clinton.

    Of course, then we have to win the election. I still think that the only way that will happen is a Clinton/Obama ticket, and I don't think he'll do it. Time will tell.

    I think you are right (none / 0) (#32)
    by zyx on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:22:17 AM EST
    that Clinton will not win the nomination.

    And I think Obama will lose the General Election.

    That is what I think about the math and about the voters.


    I am confused (none / 0) (#4)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:58:51 AM EST
    between these delegates and  the so called "pledged delegated"

    Before today; Clinton was reported to have 15 and
    Obama 16 (CNN) Today RCP says Obama has 23 (I guess his 16 + 7 from Edwards) but it says Clinton has 14 How come she lost 1? I don't understand...


    18 vs. 20 (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:10:56 AM EST
    USA Today:

    Obama now has 20 Iowa delegates while Clinton has 18. Those numbers account for the percentage of pledged delegates they earned on caucus night and the number of superdelegates who have endorsed them. Iowa has 11 Democratic superdelegates, a select group of elected officials and party leaders who will be seated at the Democratic National Convention in August in Denver.

    also pledged isn't really pledged (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:12:12 AM EST
    in Iowa, same article:

    Saturday marks another step in the process of determining Iowa's final delegate count, which will be decided this summer. Until then, delegates who advance in the process are not bound by decisions they make along the way.

    the total number of delegates was firm (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:20:01 AM EST
    before the Iowa caucuses.  The apportionment between the candidates changed today, due to county conventions.  State convention may cause another change in apportionment.

    Interesting. I read that the number (none / 0) (#13)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:39:51 AM EST
    of delegates decreases at each stage -- from the initial number of delegates picked on January 3 for county conventions today to go to the state convention, and then fewer again will come out of the state convention to actually be the delegates to the national convention.  I really don't understand, with the number of delegates that Iowa gets to the national convention, how the number could be a constant.  Explain?

    Please don't force me to wade through (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:49:21 AM EST
    those Iowa Dem. party rules again.  You may very well be correct.  

    Okay (none / 0) (#18)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:52:01 AM EST
    I understand this. Thanks.

    This is (none / 0) (#19)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:57:25 AM EST
    very different from RCP; they separate the "pledged" ones from the "superdelegates".

    Iowa seems to have 45 "pledged" and 11 "superdelegates".

    They write 23-14 (out of 45 "pledged")

    The 18-20 must have been without Edwards 7 ?
    (but including superdelegates as you say.)

    I thought RCP was more or less reliable; maybe they haven't updated yet...


    I don't understand. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by mm on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:43:49 AM EST
    This is what they're reporting in the Washington Post this morning.

    CHICAGO - Sen. Barack Obama picked up nine more pledged delegates in Iowa, state Democratic officials said late Saturday night, as thousands took part in county conventions.

    All but one of the delegates had been among the 14 won Jan. 3 by former senator John Edwards, who has since dropped out of the Democratic presidential race. Election-night projections showed Obama getting 16 delegates and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton 15.

    With the other six standing firm for Edwards at the county conventions, Obama's camp claimed 25 delegates from Iowa to 14 for Clinton.

    "This is a very significant improvement for us," Obama campaign manager David Plouffe told reporters of the Iowa result. "We both fought as hard as we could here."

    Plouffe said Obama's gains included blue-collar counties where he had finished third in the January caucuses.

    Is this what they mean when they talk about people in smoke filled rooms overruling the votes of the people?


    Latest update via Politico (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by magster on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:39:31 AM EST
    10 net delegate pickup for Obama since yesterday in Iowa.

    (Compared to nine delegate win for Hillary in Ohio).


    Apples in Ohio, oranges in Iowa (none / 0) (#37)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:41:23 AM EST
    In Ohio, from a primary, these are delegates to the national party convention.  In Iowa, from only the second step of several in a caucus process, these are delegates to the state party convention, so ten of those may be about the same as less than one to the national convention.  Or not, as it could change again.

    You really don't know the difference?  This must be causing you much, much confusion.  Search files here for explanations, many times, of the caucus process.


    Iowa is but one (none / 0) (#25)
    by Deconstructionist on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:34:52 AM EST
    example of one point on which I think every single person, regardless of policy or candidate preference, would agree.

      The nominating process is horribly flawed.

      From that point though we venturte back into dissagreement as to what are the flaws, their relative importance and desirability of various measures to "correct" the flaws.

      Also, we have the reality that it's not simply a matter of dictating "fixes." We have issues of state autonomy both in terms of the "philosophical" desire for states to be free to arrange their affairs as they choose and the "legal" in that state laws which must be enacted by legislatures and approved by governors can and do limit the ability of a party organizations to align with national party proposals.

      Given all of that (and more, really) what would be some of the most desired changes in your minds?

      -- All delegates apportioned proportionally based on popular vote totals in closed primary elections?

       If so, (and if not feel free to offer other suggestions) What about scheduling? in wat order should the states hold primaries? Who should decide that? what should be done about states that due to either state party or legal actions attempt to ignore the established schedule?

       Additionally, what should  be the procedure with regard to delegates being bound to vote for the candidate to which they were allocated by the primary? should they be categorically bound through the first ballot at the convention? Should they be subject to trading/assignment by the candidate to which they are allocated if that candidate drops out and looks to do a litle horse trading? should they become "free agents" if their candidate withdraws? etc.

    This is like a lawyer (none / 0) (#26)
    by fladem on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:38:21 AM EST
    making an argument and forgetting which side of the case they are on.

    Obama picked up 9 delegates, and will net 11 out of Iowa according to the Washington Post (which is more than Hillary netted out of Ohio).  The additional Obama delegates were the result of Edwards delegates supporting Obama.

    Obama also picked up 5 more delegates out of California (versus 2 for Clinton).    

    Comparison of Iowa and Ohio is silly (none / 0) (#38)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:56:26 AM EST
    In Ohio, from a primary, these are delegates to the national party convention.  In Iowa, from only the second step of several in a caucus process, these are delegates to the state party convention, so ten of those may be about the same as less than one to the national convention.  

    Or not, as it could change again.  This clearly is causing you much confusion.  Think of it this way:  Caucusing starts over at each step, with more steps to come in Iowa and other caucus states.  So Obama's count, more reliant on caucus states, is "softer" and less known than Clinton's count.