Amadeus Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Obama, Huckabee win Iowa caucuses Barack Obama has won the Iowa Democratic caucuses and Mike Huckabee has won the GOP race, the Associated Press estimated Thursday night. With 41% of precincts reporting, Huckabee had 31% of the GOP vote, followed by Mitt Romney with 23%, Fred Thompson with 13%, John McCain with 13%, Rudy Giuliani with 11% and Ron Paul with 10%. On the Democratic side, with 75% of precincts reporting, Obama had 36% of the vote, followed by John Edwards and Hillary Clinton with 31% each. Bet Hillary isn't happy - probably not the sort-of start she imagined... Obama still 6/4 to be Democrat candidate on Betfair - dropping sharpish now, though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollag Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 I wonder if the USA is ready for a black/female President, personalities apart i dont think either is that different. the Black / female thing may just give the Reps the edge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Just went through Obama and Clinton's policy positions on wikipedia, and reckon Obama is the most favourable candidate. Didn't think there was much point going through the Republican ones. I think the whole 'is America ready for a Black President?' thing is completey absurd on the basis that Obama's mother was white, so on the basis of this bizarre criteria, he is as much black as he is white, clearly showing that judging anyone on such a basis is utterly ridiculous. Not that I think everyone will realise or accept this, in America at least. Its really hard to say after just Iowa which way it will go, if not because it wasn't very representative at all of the Republican race. McCain and Gulliani didn't campaign there, and the large number of ultra-conservative Christians was always going to favour Huckabee over Romney, who is to many evangelicals a heretic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Going sideways on this, I watched the news and it struck me that americans in general seem much more willing/eager to engage in their political process. Was this just my impression or is the average american in the street more interested in the whole democracy thing than we are? Seems to me that we have a lot of cynicism/disinterest and actually can't be that bothered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Going sideways on this, I watched the news and it struck me that americans in general seem much more willing/eager to engage in their political process. Engaged or not they still voted for a retard at the last two opportunities. Lets face it - black, woman, mormon, they aren't really going to care too much as long as its not a member of the BUSH family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alias Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Election fightout! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Going sideways on this, I watched the news and it struck me that americans in general seem much more willing/eager to engage in their political process. Was this just my impression or is the average american in the street more interested in the whole democracy thing than we are? Seems to me that we have a lot of cynicism/disinterest and actually can't be that bothered. Its a different system and a different culture. In the Isle of Man, or the UK, we only elect a representative to the Legislature, not a national leader. Senior politicians in the UK are usually in safe seats anyway (ie Tony Blair was never, ever going to lose Sedgefield), so there is really no motivation for a super-competitive election like there is there. There is also the cultural thing. It is difficult to see British or Manx people being very tolerant of being called up to be asked to vote for Douglas Alexander, or Bill Malarky. I've noticed that elections tend to be more intense where there are major, major issues or social problems involved. Whilst far from perfect, neither Britain or the Isle of Man have problems on anything like the scale of America or Kenya. I know a lot of people adovcate more intense political participation, but why? If things get really bad, then people will respond to that by being more interested, but when the issues are 'civil servants allowed to work until they are 65' or 'Steam Packet's exclusive use of the linkspan continues' then we have it pretty good. Contrast that with 'the richest country in the World' where people are forced to either work a bad job (ie pays less than subsistance wages) or get no unemployment benefit, or where abortion clinics are bombed or you have churches pressing for the teaching of creationism alongside evolution, or where there are 200 million guns, then you can see why Americans might feel somewhat more compelled to go to the ballot box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollag Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Just went through Obama and Clinton's policy positions on wikipedia, and reckon Obama is the most favourable candidate. Didn't think there was much point going through the Republican ones. I think the whole 'is America ready for a Black President?' thing is completey absurd on the basis that Obama's mother was white, so on the basis of this bizarre criteria, he is as much black as he is white, clearly showing that judging anyone on such a basis is utterly ridiculous. Not that I think everyone will realise or accept this, in America at least. Its really hard to say after just Iowa which way it will go, if not because it wasn't very representative at all of the Republican race. McCain and Gulliani didn't campaign there, and the large number of ultra-conservative Christians was always going to favour Huckabee over Romney, who is to many evangelicals a heretic. Err that really was my point! Just a later point as to the Guardians perception of Obama "They said this day would never come," said the Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama at the outset of his barnstorming victory speech on Thursday night. But as he arrived in New Hampshire early yesterday, Americans woke up to the historic possibility that the day when they might have a black president was closer than they thought - not just within their lifetime, but within the year." Despite the fact that his racial status should not be an issue, the probability is that it most likely will be, absurd or not. As we remember the disenfranchising of thousands of mainly black voters in Florida occured quite recently, this is the way of US politics, with large blocks of votes on racial lines. Ditto the gender issue, I would love it not to be important, it never was with Maggie, but again im not so sure with the Yanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Flynn Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Iowa is not representative of much of America. I know it well - a farming community - corn and hogs, black soil, very conservative church going community. The candidate will need to do well in the big states such as California,Florida, Ohio, New York, Texas to win. Everybody seems to be focusing on the states with the least delegates right now, but the primaries will really be decided on February 5. However this result will cause Hillary Clinton real worries about her campaignbut she is a tough cookie with plenty of funds behind her. New Hampshire will give us further clues on how it is going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Riverside Iowa, birthplace of Captain Kirk - or will be Energise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted January 8, 2008 Author Share Posted January 8, 2008 New Hampshire's turn today - Obama in the lead. USA Today has a good poll tracker: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/elec...oll-tracker.htm thread renamed btw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Bill Clinton never won in the Iowa caucuses and went on to be elected twice - there is still a very long way to go with all of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*daniel* Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 I wonder were those votes done with the electronic voting booths Some quite scary reports on them, mind you I suppose you can't expect an election to be completely fair and truthful can you.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 I wonder were those votes done with the electronic voting booths Some quite scary reports on them, mind you I suppose you can't expect an election to be completely fair and truthful can you.. These are the primaries, not an election. There is nothing inherently wrong with electronic voting, and we all know what happened with the punch card ballots in Florida in 2000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Perhaps its all a bit more open than it seemed at first? Independent Article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.