Interesting Numbers from the Iowa Caucuses


This is absolutely incredible.

This was sent to me in an email so I do not know the source. I went to my own source to research the accuracy of these numbers. See below for the results. Please see the last comment from ‘thegreatgeno’ for an explanation of these results and my comment to him. Thank you ‘to ‘thegreatgeno’ for educating me on the delegates vs. the actual votes.

Here are some interesting numbers from the Iowa Caucuses.

If you listened to the Main Stream Media, there was a TERRIFIC TURNOUT

for Democrats at the Iowa Caucuses AND MAJOR CHANGE is in the wind.

All FOUR of the TOP Republican Candidates EACH

exceeded the TOTAL NUMBER OF VOTES CAST for

ALL Democrats.?

In fact, it appears that NO Democrats even bothered

to show up in Nine of the 1781 Iowa Precincts.

All 1781 Precincts reported Republican votes.?

THERE WERE ALMOST 9 TIMES THE NUMBER

OF VOTES CAST IN THE REPUBLICAN CAUCUSES

VERSES THE DEMOCRAT CAUCUSES.

Democrats Republicans

Obama

4688

Huckabee

40841

Edwards

4194

Romney

29949

Clinton

4089

Thompson

15904

Richardson

298

McCain

15559

Biden

147

Paul

11817

Dodd

4

Guiliani

4097

Kucinich

0

Hunter

524

Gravel

0

Tancredo

5

Total Votes

13420

118696


WHY DIDN’T THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA REPORT

THESE NUMBERS? THEY WOULDN’T BE BIASED

WOULD THEY? THEY WOULDN’T BE AFRAID

THIS WOULD MAKE DEMOCRATS LOOK BAD

WOULD THEY?

These are the results from the NYT 2008 Results

I’m not sure I understand but, the Republican Results are exactly the same as posted in the email I received above! Hmmmmm?!

Results

Democrats

45 pledged delegates, 12 unpledged
Candidate Vote % Delegates
Barack Obama 940 37.6% Delegates will be decided
April 26 – June 14.
John Edwards 744 29.7
Hillary Rodham Clinton 737 29.5
Bill Richardson 53 2.1
Joseph R. Biden Jr. 23 0.9
Uncommitted 3 0.1
Christopher J. Dodd 1 0.0
Mike Gravel 0 0.0
Dennis J. Kucinich 0 0.0
Others 0 0.0

Republicans

40 unpledged delegates
Candidate Vote % Delegates
Mike Huckabee 40,841 34.4% Delegates will be decided
June 14.
Mitt Romney 29,949 25.2
Fred D. Thompson 15,904 13.4
John McCain 15,559 13.1
Ron Paul 11,817 10.0
Rudolph W. Giuliani 4,097 3.5
Duncan Hunter 524 0.4
Tom Tancredo 5 0.0

98% reporting | Updated 1:34 PM

AddThis Feed Button

Advertisements

9 Responses to “Interesting Numbers from the Iowa Caucuses”

  1. thegreatgeno Says:

    I’m not sure how you arrived at those numbers, since you didn’t cite any sources. However, they don’t make sense for three reasons. First, the Democratic caucuses don’t report vote totals, they report delegate totals, so it’s hard to tell how many people voted for each person. Secondly, according to the official Iowa caucus webpage (http://www.caucusiowa.com/index.php/caucus-results/), 38% of the delegates voted for Obama but your vote totals only show less than 35%. Finally, also according to the official Iowa caucus webpage, at the same web address, about 346,000 voters participated in the caucus, less than half your total amount.

    So absent any citation on your part, your numbers are illogical at best and just plain made up at worst. How could that happen? You wouldn’t happen to be biased, would you??

  2. Interesting Numbers from the Iowa Caucuses Says:

    […] Political Buzz wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptInteresting Numbers from the Iowa Caucuses Posted by scrappingal on January 25, 2008 This is absolutely incredible.     Here are some interesting numbers from the Iowa Caucuses. If you listened to the Main Stream Media, there was a TERRIFIC TURNOUT for Democrats at the Iowa Caucuses AND MAJOR CHANGE is in the wind. All FOUR of the TOP Republican Candidates EACH exceeded the TOTAL NUMBER OF VOTES CAST for ALL Democrats.? In fact, it appears that NO Democrat […]

  3. Sheree Says:

    Yes, and who can be surprised. They will steal it at all cost. There is far going on here that what it looks like 🙂 Both Clinton and Romney- and maybe Obama – are not going to EVER act in the best interest of this country.

    It’s the end times, thank god.

    🙂 now we can move on.

  4. scrappingal Says:

    You are absolutely correct. This came to me in an email. I will contact the person that sent it and ask him about the sources. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Me biased? Obviously you are. Thanks for you comment “Thegreatgeno.”

  5. scrappingal Says:

    Hi Sheree,
    Thanks for your comment. You are so right. We cannot be surprised.
    Take care,
    Scrappingal:)

  6. wordforit Says:

    Personally, I think if the media would step back and look at how much they are stirring up strife…who am I kidding? They wouldn’t care as long as people listen and believe. We read it in blogs, then hear a completely insane spin on the “news”.

    When I taught school (a brief, but strenuous effort), I could not believe what qualifies as textbook material. Beside the fact that a lot of kids think Joan of Arc was a lady married to Noah…

    I have been reading a lot of what the MSM accuse as being ‘conspiracy theories’ in dumbing the public down (international, not exclusive to USA) and there’s a lot of historians and respectable scholars with websites loaded w/ info. (I will advise to be cautious of “sensationalism sites”.)

    It’s an embarrassment, this election season.

    Thanks for the info, scrappingal!

  7. thegreatgeno Says:

    My “biased” comment was a slight on the way you ended your post, and was not meant to be an insult. I am biased though. I tend to believe factual evidence, and rather militantly at that.

    Since you’re not sure what those numbers mean (and you’re certainly not alone), here’s how the Iowa delegate system works for the Democrats. You go to a caucus in a precinct, and that caucus is assigned a certain number of state delegate equivalents. That number depends on the precinct, so let’s say caucus “x” has 20 delegates. Everybody backs the candidate they want to vote for. All the candidates who don’t have 15% of the backing of the precinct caucus are considered “non-viable” and thereby eliminated from the precinct caucus, and the supporters may change to another candidate (like a run-off election) if they choose. When all the candidates are supported by at least 15% of the precinct caucus, then the delegates of that caucus are awarded proportionally. So if Edwards, Clinton, Obama, and Richardson all get 25% of that precinct, they are all awarded with five delegate equivalent votes from that precinct.

    So the total delegates awarded are not a representation of the total amount of people who showed up for the caucus, but rather a representation of the proportion of people who voted for a particular candidate after all “non-viable” candidates are eliminated.

    Now, the Republican’s rules are more, how do you say, logical. They present actual vote totals, usually based upon a straw vote. Much better system, I’ll admit. But the numbers cannot be compared to the delegates given out by the Democrats in any way.

    Now, there were obviously 118,696 people who voted in the Republican primary in Iowa, since their totals are based on head-count. Based upon Iowacaucus.com, which was linked to on Iowa’s Secretary of State website, about 346,000 people showed up total. (Remember, you can find that number here: http://www.caucusiowa.com/index.php/caucus-results/ and you can read how the caucus works on that site, as well). So that means almost three times the number of people showed up for the Democrat caucuses than the Republican caucuses.

    So the argument that more people voted in the Democrat caucus than the Republican caucus is based upon factual evidence, not a pre-conceived media bias.

  8. thegreatgeno Says:

    As if I didn’t write enough . . .

    You probably called me biased because you think I am obviously a liberal and am therefore going to consistently side with the Democrats. That’s a fair assessment. However, I do try to make objective decisions, and not just take whatever stance the Democrats are asking me to take. For example, I’m pro-life and really don’t see myself voting for Billary Clinton if they get the party nod.

    That being said, the facts are that a bunch of people voted in the Democrat caucus, and many more than in the GOP straw poll. I do not believe that’s a position that’s open to dispute based upon where in the political spectrum you lie.

    Also, I forgot to thank you for letting me speak my peace. Since you have to approve comments on this site (which I am eternally grateful for) it would be real easy to just deny opposing viewpoints. So you deserve a huge kudos for keeping an open dialog. I do truly appreciate it.

  9. scrappingal Says:

    Thegreatgeno,

    Agreed. Thank you for your educational reply. I believe that ‘knowledge is power’ and I do not like things I don’t understand. That makes much more sense to me now. Then the person that wrote the email I received did not understand the results any better than I did. We all need to keep the TRUTH out there and be very careful about being ‘biased’.

    Take Care,
    Scrappingal


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: