« All you need to know: 3rd January 2008 | Main | All you need to know: Evening of 4th January 2008 »


Paul D

Any chance of a simplistic "what this all means" for those of us who don't follow the nuances of the early race in the US?

i.e. so Huckabee and Obama won Iowa - in the grand scheme of things what does this mean? Is it one state, one vote - i.e. they need a majority of the 50 nominations to win it, or is there an electoral college as in the actual presidential election itself and Iowa's worth (say) 3 votes to Florida's 27? Or does the raw number of votes get carried forward and all the votes from the 50 states are totalled to give a winner?

How exactly will this result, in isolation (as opposed to "momentum", affect the overall outcome?

Tony Makara

One can't help but think that Hillary has become over exposed and has shot all her bows far too early. Nontheless Obama would be a disaster for America, if this man were ever to become president it would expedite America's decline a superpower. Obama would be good news for the Republican's though, he is a man they could beat if they play him right.


"Rudy Giuliani (3%) effectively skipped the Iowa caucus"

Anyone know why?

Paul-D As far as I can see each state elects a certain number of delegates to a national convention. Last time around Iowa had 45 delegates. The winner Kerry got 38% of the vote and 30 delegates. Edwards got 30% and 10 delegates and Dean 18% and 5 delegates. So it isn't proportional, but nor is it winner takes all.

By comparison the winner in California got 288 delegates, and in New York 174 so Iowa appears to be momentum rather than actual voting rights.

I know our system is far from perfect but at least I can understand it!!!!!

(wonders how many americans fully understand the system)


You use an image of a burning blimp to describe Hillary's campaign.

It reminds me of the another blimp currently flying around the US



Thanks Comstock for responding to Paul D.

Jon Gale

Anyone reading the above could be forgiven for thinking McCain came first rather than fourth!

Ron Paul supporter

Unlike the other GOP candidates, the Editor call Ron Paul by his surname only. More bias! National Review Online tried to claim that Ghouliani got 13% to place him above Ron. Pathetic!!

Ron Paul supporter

"McCain is on the phone to Mike Huckabee congratulating him on his victory in New Hampshire."

Huckabee won in IOWA. More sloppy reporting on this site!

Andrew Ian Dodge

Thompson tied with McCain...Ron Paul was no where.

Rudy skipped Iowa because the Republicans there are dominated by happy clappy fundies who loath him. He is concentrating on Florida and Super Tuesday on the 5th of Feb. (22 states).

Iowa have proven how irrelevant they should be. NH will hopefully return the race to sanity.

Huckabee is the Democrat's wet dream as a Republican nominee.

London McCainiac

McCain will be first in NH next week Mr Gale!


Thank you Ron Paul supporter. I've now corrected my error.

Nicholas Bennett

The founding fathers would have been proud of the process in Iowa last night.

Real grass roots democracy. Although the numbers voting will only be around 20% of the electorate it is heartening to see people prepared to turnout to 1800 venues on a cold January evening to debate and vote on the merits of each candidate.

Ron Paul supporter

Paul was only 3% behind Thompson and McCain and 7% ahead of Ghouliani. That is not "nowhere", Mr Dodge!

Andrew Ian Dodge

Another thing to remember is that 60% of the Republican electorate in Iowa is evangelical/fundie while less than 20% is in NH. That will make a big difference for the race.

I have taken the liberty to make up some t-shirts anti-Huckabee.

Paul is however is in 5th place ahead of someone who didn't even campaign in Iowa.

Malcolm Dunn

Good to see Hillary losing and also Mitt Romney. It was obviously a bad night for those politicians who don't believe in anything other than winning power.


Good to see Barack doing so well. I reckon he could win this, and if he does he could well be walking down the lawn of the White House in 12 months time.

I don't know if Obama is left wing in any sense I would recognise but he is a fresh young face with the promise of change.

Tony Makara

I can't believe that people can't see how naive Obama is, seasoned political operators on the global stage would make mincemeat of him. Look carefully at the content of he speeches, they are empty rhetoric. This man is all packaging and no product. I have to say that in general the standard of presidential hopefuls is particularly scant this time around. There seem to be plenty of Dukakis types and no-one of Kennedy/Reagan stature. This I believe reflects a general lowering of standards in political candidates across the western world.


Barack is gonna win the big one in November. Although we Conservatives have normally gone for a Republican, there is something about this guy that feels good. In any case, he can hardly be any worse than Bush.

Ron Paul supporter

Paul has come from "nowhere" to being a serious candidate. In the last few months, he has raised more money than the likes of McCain and Thompson. He performed well in Iowa despite the media, especially that owned by Murdoch, denying him coverage.

The neo-cons know that Paul is resonating with Young Republicans. In attracting young GOP support in Iowa, he was close to Romney and well ahead of McCain, Thompson and Ghouliani.

Paul can be a big player in taking the Republican away from big government imperialism back to its small government, non-interventionist roots. That's why neo-con sites like Townhall and National Review Online are smearing Ron Paul.

This is battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party, not just a Presidential nomination contest.

Andy Peterkin

Writing off Hillary is ridiculous at this stage. She has a good chance to win in New Hampshire, and lock the "inevitable" idea back in.

A good job too, because she'd be the best Dem candidate from a GOP point of view.

Paul is an absolute crank who will be gone post NH, or Michigan at the latest.

Tony Makara

Personally I'd like to see Edwards take the prize because to me he looks the most steady ship if a democrat were to become president. Obama would be a disaster for America. Hillary would be playing to the gallery all the time and in an era of international uncertainty the last thing we need is a president who showboats. John Edwards may yet prove to be the ideal compromise candidate, a safe captain at the helm, Obama and Clinton are too unpredictable.


Edwards populism and saccharine presentation must grate even on Americans. Solid analysis at http://www.newstatesman.com/200801040001 - also notes why Romney really bugs a lot of voters..

Julia Manning

Fascinating result! Having seen the YouTube live Democratic debate in the summer, I'm not totally surprised at Obama's success. He was by far the most poised and repeatedly responded with the 'If I were President I would...' line which gave him gravitas and meant everyone pictured him in the role. However Tony M at 1.09pm sounds a credible warning. What does he really believe in [not withstanding the great 'CH Worldview' series!]? Meanwhile in the GOP, Huckabee is stirring up interest across the US precisely because we DO know what he believes in....


"Personally I'd like to see Edwards take the prize because to me he looks the most steady ship if a democrat were to become president." What? I guess if you mean the HMS Titanic!

Malcolm Dunn

Tony. You say Obama is 'all packaging and no product' well that may be true. It was also true of Tony Blair in 1997 and 2001 and it worked for him! By the time people found out what Blair was really about it was too late.
I cannot believe Obama would be one tenth as bad as Blair, at least he (Obama) appears to have some principles.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad


  • Tracker