Edwards actually only tied with Hillary Clinton in the Iowa Caucus.

He only squeeked over by a hair! .25%! Not a real lead at all.



Edwards 29.75%....with Hillary Clinton at 29.47 %

http://www.iowacaucusresults.com/



Senator Barack Obama : 37.58%

Senator John Edwards : 29.75%

Senator Hillary Clinton : 29.47%

Governor Bill Richardson : 2.11%

Senator Joe Biden : 0.93%

Uncommitted : 0.14%

Senator Chris Dodd : 0.02%

Precincts Reporting: 1781 of 1781

(Percentages are State Delegate Equivalents.)

:grr:

The Hillary fans are in full spin mode.

It's fun to watch.

:crazy:

29.75 and 29.47 are not equal, so therefor ... no they didnt tie.

as much as you want it to not be so, thats technicalities for ya

It takes 2025 delegates to get the nomination. It does not matter what the vote count nor the percentage is......it is the number of delegates won. Period. Dot com.

:bounce:

no matter that the delegate count is almost equal - the perception is that Hillary took a BIG hit coming in third which is what she did - Obama took a big gain winning by 8% - and according to MSM John Edwards almost doesn't exist.

What is really frustrating is that in numbers the actual people voting is this:

Obama about 91,000 votes
Edwards about 71,000 votes
Clinton about 70,000 votes

What concerns me is that the total Dem vote was less than 1/10th of 1% of the US population - Obama's vote was about .033% of the population - but even with these minuscule numbers Obama has huge momentum from this victory. Perception perception perception

If I were Queen of the Forrest no candidate could announce before January 1 of the election year - there would be one nationwide primary in June and the general election in November. Also no polling allowed - to get rid of that horserace feeling and from people voting for the winner instead of on issues and public financing.....

to do.

Everything you say has happened, I do not dispute your figures.

How ever in the scheme of things.......wouldn't it be more reasoned to look at the actual result of Iowa vs. what the media wants?


If we look at the actual,then we have the process in perspective, and then each state can be free to vote at their time the candidate(s) they wish to vote for.

As long as the M$M media and it's followers set the agenda, then the process can not possibly keep a perspective.

And the media's agenda is to select the candidates, fund the polling companies, and make the statistics of the vote larger and more important than the constitutional result.

but thanks for calling me a lovely parrot - YOU COMPLETELY MISSED MY POINT

I said it is the perception because it IS - I didn't say it SHOULD BE

Why do you think I went into the whole if I were Queen of the Forest primary idea - and why do you think I talked about the minuscule Iowa numbers having such a big impact - I mentioned it BECAUSE I THINK IT IS EFFING RIDICULOUS....but it is what it is and until somebody figures out a way to stop the MSM it will stay that way....

Because of her superdelegate commitments I guess.

http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections/state?state=IA


edit: I see, cnn has your numbers. Hmmm.

:hi:

spin, spin, spin.

Clinton was third - ie votes count.

... it doesn't matter if it is by one point or a million, a win is a win.

Hillary did not tie Edwards. That would be like claiming that Gore tied Bush in FL.

Edwards supporters (and the candidate himself) tout a 1/4 of one percent lead as a "big" win over Hillary.

And elsewhere, they're saying that a 13-18 point deficit in New Hampshire is a strong third!

Go figure.

Neither here nor in real life.

What I have heard was that it was a big gain for him from his polling numbers, and that for him to have finished ahead of Hillary was a big victory. Perhaps that's what you're thinking of?

I think it was on MSNBC, to Keith Olbermann....He said he had a "Strong Second Place Lead" going into New Hampshire next. I noticed it because I had the tally in front of me as he spoke. It comes from the website I gave as the link in the OP. Straight from Iowa Democrats.

made in the post I replied to.

I've not seen anyone here say that and almost all the Democrats I know are Edwards supporters and none of them have said that either. So, unless I've been missing something that his supporters have been saying here, I thought perhaps the poster was confusing Edwards with his supporters.

noise.

Consider Iowa an inning.

At the end of the Iowa inning the score (constitutionally) was as follows.

Obama won 18 delegates
Edwards won 17 delegates
Clinton won 16 delegates.

Iowa was Iowa......now on to New Hampshire.


I don't know how to make it any more clear.

C'mon. He beat her. By a slim margin, granted. but he did beat her.

- as

DU threads I start! Jeepers, this fraction of a percent is nothing to brag about...I can say he appeared to maximize his standing.

AND HE STILL BEAT HER.

You see, it's not the margin that is "big", it's the fact that it happened at all. When you outspend your opponent that badly and they still beat you, even if by a single vote, there is something terribly wrong with your campaign.

Edwards was there in Iowa, day-in-day-out since the end of 05 just after Katrina. Maybe he spent more money than we realize if you take into consideration he started 10-14 months before Hillary Clinton.

This Iowa caucus doesn't really matter.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If you were my daughters math teacher, I'd want you fired.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The Clinton corner of the Rutherford B. Hates Junior High library only had store bought cookies, and the Edwards side had old lady Tousaint's blondie rum-brownies. That, and the fact that Clinton is the devil, tipped Iowa to Edwards.

Cuz she love them store bought brownies.

Right?

:)