The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Regarding Republican versus Democrat turnout: the Iowa Republican "caucus" is a simple vote - show up, state which candidate you prefer, and leave. The Democratic caucus requires a time commitment of two to three hours, during which "non-viable" candidates (less than 15% of the caucus-goer's support) are eliminated. It's time consuming and tiring, which tends to reduce turnout. Also, not everyone who would like to be involved can afford to take the time from work or the time away from their children.

So when you see that despite the significantly greater effort required, Democrats still turned out 2 to 1 over Republicans, it's pretty clear that it should be kesac and his people who should be in shock.

@sheltraw: "the most criminal government our country is likely to ever see." We can only hope. Say what you will for the evangelicals and the chuclkeheads who've been leading them 'round the last few decades... I for one have learnt the hard way never to say "things can't possibly get any worse." God - by whatever name you know Him - has far greater resources than I can even conceive of, and He does not take personal challenges lightly. :-P

More info on Iowa. 576,000 registered Republicans; 606,000 registered Democrats; 742,000 registered no party (independents). 18.5% of all registered voters turned out for the caucus. Estimated 30+% of registered Dems attended.

Iowa has around 1.8 million registered voters of which around 526,000 are registered as Democrats.

So around 5% of elibible voters and 17% of registered Democrats turned out for Obama. The total turnout for both R and D was around 20% of registered voters which is high for this sort of event catering to hard core activists.

As kec132 and hisroc pointed out, we political junkies tend to make too much out of these early events. But hey, it's fun.

This is really bad news for McCain. McCain won New Hampshire in 2000 largely on crossovers and independents voting in the Republican primary. What's quite clear is that the independents are going to Obama this year, and they're showing up for him in a big way. With the Evangelicals coalescing around Huckabee and Mitt burying him in attack ads, McCain will have a tough time winning in NH, and he lacks the resources to compete in the multistate primaries. By the first of February, the GOP race is likely to be three way - Huckabee, Giuliani and Romney.

d.vanderschaaf,
That is about the normal turn-out proportion for D's and R's in Iowa. Before the caucuses last night, they were expect 160,000 to 200,000 D's and 65,000 to 90,000 R's.

Be aware, as other posters have noted, that the Iowa caucuses are open to both Independents as well as cross-overs on caucus night. I wouldn't put too much stock in Republicans being in trouble in Iowa any more than I would believe that Mike Huckabee is going to be the Republican nominee. Don't forget, even Pat Robertson finished a close second there in 1988.

240,000 people attended Democratic caucus, 115,000 attended the Republican; Republicans could be in big trouble in Iowa in 2008.

Ok - time to get a grip.

239,000 democrats turned out - that's not even 1% of population - and 38% of that 1% voted for Obama so thats about 91,000 people.

108,000 republicans turned out -- that's not even 0.5% of population....

We're a long way from over and long way from picking a president and there is no clear winners yet folks.

GET A GRIP!!

The revolt of the Walmart Republicans is nothing less than the beginning of the end of the Rove coalition.

It would be nice to see the percentage of eligible Iowa voters who attended the caucuses in a story like this. I'm guessing 10%...? (I heard recently that 6% was average). Just to put the final numbers in perspective.

Huckabee may have received all this attention by garnering the proven support of something like one percent of eligible voters in a small state.

A record number of Democrats turned out to caucus -- more than 239,000. By contrast, 108,000 Republicans caucused on Thursday. That should settle it.

Huckabee's rise is the GOPs demise. The moderate and socially liberal conservatives have deserted the GOP after seven years of the most criminal government our country is likely to ever see. All that is left is religious nuts and the they can't carry an election. By 2010 there will be no GOP.

daveharmeyer,
Why is it that anytime the Republicans win an election, such as POTUS in 2004, they stole it with rigged voting machine. However, when the Democrats won control of Congress in 2006, it was the will of the people? If the Republicans could rig the 2004 vote, why didn't they do the same thing in 2006?

You sour grapes types need to get a grip on reality.

BTW, I'm an Independent who voted for Clinton twice, so save me your Rush Limbaugh/Fox News rant.

I believe the Republicans want Clinton to win. Clinton comes with a built in 40% negative rating country wide. The Rove attack machine has had 15 years already to practice their diatribes against her. Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly et. al. have all their talking points against her laid out already.

Obama is a much more difficult candidate to "swift boat".

Normally, reporters would state what percentage of registered voters actually voted. Here we just see numbers as compared to past years. Of course, in these caucuses, there are no absentee voters, which keeps numbers down. Although the war in Iraq was a big issue, Iowans fighting there did not have the right to participate in the caucuses. Yesterday´s event was important only because it was first.

the BRILLIANT kesac wrote: "239,000 people turned out, 940 voted for Obama, and his people are bragging? They have a long way to go. Huckabee got 40 times as many votes. Hillary's people should be in shock."
________________

Oh, dear. Obviously, considering the Dem turnout was over twice the Republican turnout and Obama won with 38% among the Dems vs. Huckabee's 34% for the Republicans, it should have been clear to you as you were typing that your numbers are impossible! Huckabee supporter, perhaps?

Here are numbers even you can understand:

Of ALL the caucus voters:

24.5% Obama
20.5% Edwards
19.8% Clinton
11.4% Huckabee (R)

So, Obama got over twice the number of votes as Huckabee, and he got far fewer than even the Dems 3rd place. Oooops!

If you're a Republican who wants to "stop Hillary," wouldn't you be better served by voting for your GOP candidate of choice in the primary, hoping she makes it to the general, and voting against her then?

Kesac is a poster child for why education is a critical problem in this country! Especially math and logic. Doh!

Yes, but the republicans and their voting machines will be doing the counting in November, so does it matter who shows up to vote? Four more years will be the death of our beloved Republic.

MagicDog, as I understand it there are about 2 million registered voters in the state, the largest group of which is independent. And I believe the D/R split is pretty even with this being one of the most 'purple' states.

However, people are allowed to register or change party affiliations at the caucus sites.

I believe that a lot of independents and quite a few Republicans chose to attend the Dem caucuses by simply signing in as Dems that night. A large bloc then voted for Obama not so much because they like him or hate the GOP, but because they wanted to stop Hillary. Just my $0.02.

The chart is misleading. Obama got 940 convention delegate votes. The Republican column uses the number of voters that turned out on Thursday night. The Democratic turnout was actually much higher than the Republican turnout.

Thanks, aaronspooner. I was puzzled by the different figures and could find no explanation in the NYTimes.

kesac,

The Democratic and Republican caucuses have different procedures and record votes differently. Republicans hold a straw poll that counts individual's votes. Democrats caucus to assign delegates to the state convention, which will then assign delegates to the national convention. In other words, a lot of people voted and assigned a total of 940 delegates to Obama.

I notice that twice as many people showed up for the Democratic caucuses as showed up for the Republican caucuses. Is this usually the case, or might this be a sign of things to come?

Kesac, you dummy... it's not 940 people who voted for Obama... It's 940 separate caucuses that voted for Obama-- 940 separate groups of people-- groups each of which numbed in the hundreds. So add at least two zeros and a multiplier to the 940 to know the true number who supported Obama.

239,000 people turned out, 940 voted for Obama, and his people are bragging?
They have a long way to go.
Huckabee got 40 times as many votes. Hillary's people should be in shock.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.