What happened in Iowa yesterday (w/ maps)

"Respect, Empower, Include." -internal Obama campaign slogan

As you may know, the Iowa Democrats held their county conventions yesterday and the result was a big bonus for Senator Obama in the projected delegate count, changing the media projection of Obama 16, Clinton 15, Edwards 14 to Obama 25, Clinton 14, Edwards 6.

It should be noted, however, that like the previous projection, this one is not permanent.  It may be closer to the final count, but like the previous projection, it depends upon delegates showing up and staying by their current choice.  I have long been saying that Edwards's 14 Iowa delegates had not materialized yet, and truly, the same is true about the current 6.  The process is far from over.  It will continue through the April 26 district conventions and the June 14 state convention.

I personally attended my convention, the Poweshiek County convention at the Malcom Community Center, as a delegate for Senator Obama.  The convention started speeches by Ed Fallon, Leonard Boswell, and several local politicians running in the June primary.

On January 3, Poweshiek County elected 150 county delegates: 65 for Obama, 52 for Edwards, 27 for Clinton, and 6 for Biden.  However, these counts did not hold yesterday for a couple reasons.  The first was that the Biden delegates and a significant number of Edwards delegates shifted to the Obama preference group.  The second was that in filling in delegate slots with alternates, the Clinton group fell 4 alternates short.

In the end, the delegate count was 77 for Obama, 34 for Edwards, and 23 for Clinton.  Since there were 17 district and state convention delegates to be determined, the final delegate count out of my county was 10 for Obama, 4 for Edwards, and 3 for Clinton.

This trend of Edwards delegates moving to the Obama camp and the Clinton delegate count stagnating was repeated in numerous counties throughout the state.  In contrast to the "state delegate equivalent" count used as a basis for determining the results of the Iowa caucuses, which stood at

Obama 940 (37.59%)
Edwards 744 (29.74%)
Clinton 737 (29.47%)
Richardson 53 (2.12%)
Biden 23 (0.92%)
Uncommitted 3 (0.12%)
Dodd 1 (0.004%)

The actual elected state delegate count turned out to be

Obama 1299 (51.96%)
Clinton 802 (32.08%)
Edwards 388 (15.52%)
Uncommitted 11 (0.44%)

At the county level, the shift is rather pronounced, especially in the Edwards-dominated rural areas.  Here's the state colored according to delegates elected on January 3:


And here's the coloration based upon delegates elected yesterday:

So, why did Obama make such gains from Edwards delegates when Clinton gained to nothing?  Since Poweshiek County is only one of 99 counties, and not one where Senator Clinton was particularly popular at that (she wasn't viable at my caucus), I can only speculate, but I think that in a large part it comes back to the slogan I put at the top of this diary.

"Respect, empower, include." was an internal slogan repeated to Obama staff members here in Iowa.  They were encouraged to make community bonds, respect the people of the state whether they be supporters of Senator Obama or otherwise, empower people to take ownership in the campaign, and to be as inclusive as possible.  I think that this general attitude earned the Obama campaign a great deal of support among those who didn't caucus for him on January 3.

The Obama camapaign strategy has been very successful in the Midwest.  Here's a comparison of the area using the results from the caucuses and the results from the county conventions

Clearly the result conform with those seen in surrounding states, so perhaps this shouldn't have been surprising, but it certainly clarifies Iowa's preferences, and provides a great boost for Obama's delegate count (a net gain of 10 yesterday compared with Clinton's net gain of 9 in Ohio on March 4)

•  Tips for change in Iowa n/t

  by Meng Bomin on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:10:01 PM PDT

  •  Love the maps!

    by Compostings on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:12:28 PM PDT

•  This shows me that voters don't care

  nearly as much about the all of the so called "scandals " in the media nearly as much as the talking heads do.   Delegates with no ties to either campaign got to cast their vote yesterday, and they voted overwhelmingly for Obama.

  by smash artist on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:11:38 PM PDT

•  but, but, but the media says delegates

  and the media is never wrong, right?

  No national convention delegates have yet been selected, and these kind of changes as the caucus proceeds towards their selection is not at all unusual.   Far too many people do not understand the process, so their commentary is totally offbase.

  Thanks for a diary that helps provide clarification.

  by teacherken on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:14:19 PM PDT

  •  I believe caucuses should not be used

    for presidential selection purposes, because the ultimate delegate count can be far removed from the popular will.

    I also think that if the Edwards delegates had shifted to Clinton yesterday, a lot of Obama supporters would be screaming about how unfair the whole process was.

    by desmoinesdem on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:21:59 PM PDT

    •  No...

      They'd be complaining about how badly the Obama camp was doing in attracting those delegates.

      That's what happened in Colorado where Clinton picked up a bit.

      by dmsdbo on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:25:03 PM PDT

    •  i think there would have been kvetching

      but the screaming would have happened only if obama delegates would have been going to hillary. edwards' dels are fair game IMO.

      by wu ming on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:29:47 PM PDT

  •  Note, though,

    ...that Iowa is somewhat of an aberration compared to other '08 caucus states regarding the size of the swing that is reasonably possible there. While there will certainly be minor changes in the projected vs. final delegate counts in other caucus states (CO, TX, etc.), the magnitude of the swing in Iowa is almost certain to be much more significant for one obvious reason: Edwards (and to a lesser exent Biden, Richardson, etc.) got a significant proportion of the district-level delegates in Iowa.

    Almost all of the change in Iowa delegate projections came from Edwards losing projected delegates to Obama. That "other candidate" delegate pool just isn't going to be available in other caucus states. As a result, it seems clear that alterations in caucus-state pledged delegate numbers will be minor from now on.

    No?

    by Rieux on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:54:07 PM PDT

•  here's a question for Obama supporters

  I view the role of Edwards delegates in Iowa as comparable to the role of superdelegates in the nominating race.

  Neither Clinton nor Obama had enough support on January 3 to claim a majority of Iowa delegates. However, the elected Edwards delegates could choose whomever they wanted, and while about half of them stuck with Edwards, the other half moved overwhelmingly to Obama. That was their choice.

  This meant that in Appanoose County, where Obama was a distant third on January 3, Obama was able to come out of the county convention yesterday with a majority of delegates.

  All of this is perfectly in accordance with party rules, just as DNC rules allow superdelegates to choose whomever they like.

  But I repeatedly hear from Obama supporters that it would be "cheating" or "stealing" if Hillary ended up with a majority of DNC delegates because of the superdelegates.

  What is the difference between Edwards delegates in Iowa doing whatever they want, handing Obama a majority in some counties where he finished behind Clinton on January 3, and superdelegates doing whatever they want, potentially putting Clinton ahead of Obama in the nominating race?

  I should add before I get flamed into oblivion that I believe that if Obama is leading the popular vote and the pledged delegates after all states have voted, I think superdelegates should give him the nomination.

  However, I do not think it is "cheating" or "stealing" for superdelegates to decide to vote for Clinton under those circumstances. The DNC rules clearly allow this behavior. We may need to change the process before the next presidential election cycle, but that's a whole different argument.

  by desmoinesdem on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:19:55 PM PDT

  •  Here's some considerations

    Precedence - it has long been common for the delegates of early dropouts to shift to another candidate based on their own will.  The superdelegate system is a different situation.

    What also may be extrapolated (although not firm) is the splits of a number of these delegates may reflect the general feeling among Edwards backers.

    There are also few "conflicting interests" among these delegates -- they don't really owe the candidates like many superdelegates may.

    By NO MEANS conclusive, just some food for thought.

    by dmsdbo on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:24:03 PM PDT

  •  I agree

    A win of the nomination using superdelgates would be perfectly within the rules and wouldn't really be "cheating" or "stealing" the nomination.

    However, I don't really think of Edwards county delegates as superdelegates.  For one thing, they as individuals, are much less powerful than superdelegates.  For another, they are caucus-goers that were elected by their fellow caucus-goers.  While obviously not necessarily the case, they should be a pretty good representation of the thoughts of pro-Edwards caucus-goers.

    The results of the county conventions suggest that if Edwards had not been in the race on January 3, Obama would have likely won by an even greater margin.

    Obviously, there are many more factors that influence this, including the nature of those voters who wanted to be delegates and how the news since January has affected their decisions, but I do think that this has a bit more correlation to the will of the voters than the decisions of superdelegates.

    If Edwards delegates acted more like super delegates, then the post-county convention map of Iowa would look more like Montana did for the Republicans (same scale as the maps above except red is McCain, blue is Romney, and green is Huckabee):
    
    (New Montana Log Cabin Republicans logo?)
    There was a much smoother, more continuous trend in Iowa, which reflects that the results are still a reflection of the will of the people rather than those of previously elected officials.

    by Meng Bomin on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:40:01 PM PDT

    •  Just a clarification on Montana

      The reason it looks it does is that the voters in the Montana Republican process for nominating a presidential candidate are a set of pre-ordained "party leaders", which are similar to the Democratic superdelegates (democracy is not the strong suit of Republicans).  Since it isn't about the will of average Montana Republicans, the result looks like a patchwork, as the results of a single county are determined by the whims of very few powerful party leaders.

      In Iowa, those that determine state delegates were themselve average Iowan caucus-goers who were elected by their fellow caucus-goers, and the difference in trends is quite pronounced, with a much smoother, more even trend in Iowa and a very patchy trend in the Montana Republican contest.

      by Meng Bomin on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:00:57 PM PDT

  •  Don't worry about it

    The idea that enough superdelegates could tip the nomination to Clinton is a pure hypothetical. Sure, it is within the DNC rules, but the delegate math favors Obama. Once you add in a reasonable projection of the remaining contests, AND the add-on delegates (which are pledged, but are included in the superdelegate numbers), Clinton is likely to end up close to 250 pledged delegates behind Obama. While it will possible for the supers to give Sen. Clinton a majority, it is unlikely that there will be enough of their votes left to do that.

    by fighting centrist on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:46:02 PM PDT

    •  what worries me

      is the inflammatory rhetoric from Obama supporters about Clinton "stealing" the nomination.

      I agree with you that this outcome is very unlikely.

      But if it happens, it will be important for the winner to be seen as legitimate in the eyes of the loser's supporters.

      It is not "cheating" for the Clintons to be seeking support from superdelegates, especially since she is not that far behind in the pledged delegate count.

      by desmoinesdem on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:00:13 PM PDT

      •  Just because she is trying to steal it

        does not mean that she will succeed. She will try to rewrite rules, do over primaries, pretend that the states she lost are insignificant and so on. Just have to wait her out. She won't concede, she will lose in the end. Obama just has to do what he has been doing.
        It is  working.

        by organicdemocrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:04:17 PM PDT

        •  but appealing to superdelegates

          is not rewriting rules. The rules allow the superdelegates to vote however they want.

          I agree with you that it is highly unlikely that superdelegates would put Hillary over the top. My point is that if that unlikely event occurred, it would not be "stealing" the nomination. It would be taking advantage of a very flawed nominating process.

          If you are referring to MI and FL, then Obama is also trying to rewrite rules by calling for delegates to be split 50-50.

          by desmoinesdem on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:07:48 PM PDT

          •  There's no advantage in that "advantage."

            It would be taking advantage of a very flawed nominating process.

            Flawed, indeed--flawed in a way that will prevent any such result from being accepted as legitimate by a large proportion of the electorate.

            Indeed, this is precisely why superdelegates have so consistently and broadly shouted that they will not overturn the result of the pledged-delegate race. They recognize that, rules or no rules, an outcome decided entirely by superdelegates will be rejected by the very voters Democrats need in order to beat McCain.

            So, for the purposes of the real elections taking place between now and November, the rules argument you're pressing is meaningless.

            by Rieux on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:15:22 PM PDT

          •  that is not where she is stealing

            Superdelegates are not the problem. She will lose there
            eventually. She is trying to steal the election by getting pledged Obama delegates to switch; by asking for do-overs in states that were disenfranchised by her own flaks (Ickes and MacAuliffe), by filing bogus protests stopping the TX conventions. This is the political hack's equivalent of the kitchen sink strategy.

            But it won't work. She can still win by actually getting a massive vote in the few states she is still able to contest. But it is very hard and most likely
            she will lose. Bitterly, and with no grace.

            Obama just has to keep his cool. He is ahead. Wait her out. Keep asking  her where those tax returns she promised are.

            by organicdemocrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:15:58 PM PDT

            •  Well, if she is actually making an effort to go

              after pledged delegates, or what would be more likely, the caucus delegates that then go on to elect those pledged delegates, then I think that she's got an uphill battle on her hands.  Those elected from caucuses are elected by their fellow caucus-goers for the express purpose of representing their preference group.  Unlike superdelegates, these delegates come with a very strong bias toward a particular candidate.

              "Stealing" those delegates is no easy task and devoting significant resourses to trying seems to me to be a foolhardy endeavor.  If there are any delegates that Clinton is going to sway to here camp, it's going to either have to be from the pool of Edwards delegates in Iowa and Nevada or from the pool of superdelegates, because it will take quite a bit to sigificantly chip away at pro-Obama pledged and caucus delegates.

              by Meng Bomin on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:43:15 PM PDT

              •  She will try. But she will lose

                She will try to steal the primary delegates, the caucus delegates, everything she can. It wont work. Then she will argue that the popular vote should decide the whole contest, no matter the rules. That won't work. Then she will say that Obama is unelectable- which is code word for you know what. And  that won't work. Then she will try to have caucus votes suppressed because of imagined improprieties. Se will be overruled there. In the end she will lose, crying foul and be carried from the Dem convention kicking and screaming. That is how she will lose the nomination.

                But the super-delegate tack  is not working that is for sure.

                by organicdemocrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:00:06 PM PDT

      •  Tough.

        But if it happens, it will be important for the winner to be seen as legitimate in the eyes of the loser's supporters.

        But the reality is that she won't be. If Clinton uses superdelegate votes to overcome a substantial lead in pledged delegates, that will not be seen as legitimate by a huge proportion of the electorate. The "DNC rules allow it..." defense is, and will continue to be, a weak rejoinder that will cut no ice with said broad swath of the polity. We will not take kindly to having our sweat, funds, and votes overruled by the DNC House of Lords, process arguments be damned.

        As a result--as countless posters on this site have pointed out--barring a miraculous comeback in the pledged-delegate race, there is no way Hillary Clinton can win the nomination without dooming the party to defeat in November. Gesticulating at DNC rules on this issue is pointless.

        by Rieux on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:10:14 PM PDT

        •  do you think Appanoose County voters

          should accept as legitimate that Obama walked away with more than half the county delegates yesterday, even though on January 3 he won only 10 percent of the county delegates, a distant third?

          by desmoinesdem on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:30:12 PM PDT

          •  "Should," schmood.

            Forget normative ("should") arguments; I'm pointing to the positive point that's brutally obvious on the facts before us: a huge number of Democrats (and interested others) obviously will regard Clinton as illegitimate if superdelegates take this race out of the voters' hands.

            
            In January, Edwards supporters in most (all?) of Iowa's counties elected delegates to represent them at the next level of caucuses. I suppose that some of those people might be miffed that the delegates they elected threw their support to Obama in March. If so, oh well--that's how caucuses work.

            If the "I voted for you in my caucus to support Edwards, not that Hussein guy" sentiment were a widespread complaint among voters that Democrats need in November, it would indeed be of serious concern for the same reasons as the legitimacy issues posed by a superdelegate mutiny.

            But in reality, I don't think minor changes to the pledged delegate count in one state's contest pose any real risk. There simply aren't very many people in Appanoose County (or in all of the figurative Appanoose Counties in the caucus states); Edwards, Biden, Richardson, and company didn't win very many votes before they dropped out of the race; and given the way that Clinton supporters now (as ever) tend strongly to be low-information voters, I highly doubt that very many "Appanoose Countians" have any idea that the events you're pointing to have even happened.

            In short, no, I don't see any reason to fear a legitimacy problem there.

            by Rieux on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:46:34 PM PDT

    •  Anal technicality

      AND the add-on delegates (which are pledged, but are included in the superdelegate numbers)...

      No, the add-on delegates are considered superdelegates precisely because they aren't pledged. They have no obligation under DNC or state-party rules to support any particular candidate.

      It's only in pragmatic reality in which we can treat add-ons as if they were pledged. It's theoretically possible that add-ons could vote for someone besides the candidate they've promised to support (and again, unlike pledged delegates, they wouldn't be violating any rule if they did so). It's just not practically possible for this to happen, because the people chosen to fill the add-on spots are specifically chosen by the campaigns for their loyalty to one candidate or the other.

      An add-on delegate is an unpledged/"super" delegate, but by virtue of the way she's chosen she's just vanishingly unlikely to betray the campaign that chose her.

      by Rieux on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:00:56 PM PDT

      •  unless there is some bizarre event

        like a candidate getting caught drunk driving or paying for high-class hookers to come to a hotel.

        Only something like that would cause add-on delegates to switch camps.

        by desmoinesdem on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:03:31 PM PDT

        •  I suppose so.

          But that emphasizes the similarity between add-on delegates and the rest of the supers: the only way they're going to (or ever should) overturn the result of the pledged-delegate race is if there's some kind of unbelievable political disaster ("Client No. 9" probably would qualify) that destroys the chances of the popularly chosen candidate.

          Of course, I suppose even plenty of pledged delegates would abandon their candidate in that case--so the hypothetical situation may not have much utility here.

          by Rieux on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:21:53 PM PDT

  •  The delegates were elected by Edwards supporters

    with the express purpose of representing them at the conventions. The people at the caucus who voted for them were voting for the people who they thought would best represent them and make the right choice specifically yesterday. In other words, these people were selected to select a nominee.

    Superdelegates were not selected to select our nominee. They just weren't.

    I don't see how anyone can make a comparison between people who were selected to select a nominee and people were were not selected to select a nominee.

    by dawnt on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:52:50 PM PDT

    •  they are given a vote in the nominating process

      and they are not restricted in how they may use that vote.

      The DNC created the superdelegates for a reason. Otherwise they could have set up the nominating process like the Republicans do, with no superdelegate element.

      I'm not buying what you're selling.

      by desmoinesdem on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:58:33 PM PDT

      •  You missed the point

        Superdelegates are not selected by the people for the purpose of selecting a nominee. That role was given to them by party insiders years and years ago, and most people don't even know what a superdelegate is or what it means. Or at least they didn't until this news cycle...

        Contrary to that, the delegates selected at the Iowa caucuses are selected with the express purpose of representing those voters wishes in selecting the nominee in the next round (and that round was yesterday).

        by dawnt on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:03:17 PM PDT

        •  Whoops!

          Guess my 3:23 comment below is a twenty-minute-late echo. Sorry.

          by Rieux on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:24:21 PM PDT

      •  Not the same thing.

        Edwards delegates were elected precisely to participate in the selection process. Superdelegates were not. That is a fundamental disparity.

        by Rieux on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:23:16 PM PDT

  •  We shouldn't worry too much about superdels

    Obama is even with Clinton on elected superdelegates ( Congressmen etc.) Hillary's slim lead on superdels (about 37 by her count, 21 by NYTimes count) is from  party hacks. Recall that her people controlled the party until Dean, and still are in many of the committees. The remaining superdels are mostly elected politicians. They know who will help them win in the `insignificant' states most of them represent. And they remember triangulation, the strategy by which the Clintons got reelected while losing Congress. In the end they will vote for Obama due to their own self-interest.

    The only way for Clinton to win is to win massive
    (70% or more) victories in the remaining primaries and have do-overs in states which were disenfrachised by her own people (Ickes and MacAuliffe). Very hard to do, but then she is the one in the `solutions business'. Let us see what she comes up with.

    Stay calm and wait her out. Don't over-react. Let the kicthen sink fly by.

    by organicdemocrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:01:46 PM PDT

    •  Easier said than done! n/t

      by Rieux on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:25:05 PM PDT

      •  True. But Obama is a cool personality n/t

        by organicdemocrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:00:56 PM PDT

    •  Clinton's got several of the "honorary" ones, too

      Former holders of high office:

      Jim Wright, Bill Clinton (duh!), Tom Foley, Walter Mondale, Dick Gephardt.

      Tom Daschle has starting doing media appearances for Obama, but he's the exception.

      Uncommitted amongst the "old guard":  Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, George Mitchell.

      As past head of the DNC, Terry AcAuliffe gets a vote, too.  Fred Harris, another past chair, has declared for Obama.  (Roy Romer and Bob Strauss are uncommitted at present.)

      by Land of Enchantment on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:58:53 PM PDT

      •  She is ahead with the party hacks.

        Obama leads in elected delegates. Number of states won.
        In the popular votes, even counting the fraudulent MI and suspect Fl primaries. In elected super-delegates he is even with Clinton. Sen. Clinton only leads (by a slim margin of 37) among the unelected super-delegates; i.e., party hacks. That includes Wright (he of the book sale fame) Bill Clinton (remember him?) Foley (he is still alive?) , Gephardt(an honorable man: what is he doing in this crowd?) and Clinton' role model  Walter `Lansdslide' Mondale (Ferraro's running mate )

        Clinton can keep that bunch. Except for Gephardt. Hope he will switch.

        by organicdemocrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:07:16 PM PDT

  •  the problem with your whole line of reasoning

    is the relentless assumption that in fact the superdelegates are going to break or are currently breaking for hillary, when in fact since 2/5 it's been nearly 5-1 for obama.

    while i find the existence of superdelegates irritating and have for years, the fact of the matter is that hillary's fantasy scenario where the party breaks hard for her just isn't happening. to the degree that the party is closing ranks, it's against the clinton campaign.

    they're toast. best to start coming to grips with it, lest you get taken by surprise.

    by wu ming on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:32:14 PM PDT

    •  on the contrary, I don't assume that

      at all, but every day I see angry or panicked Obama supporters writing diaries threatening to rain down hellfire on the Democratic Party if the superdelegates let Hillary "steal" the nomination.

      I think it's highly unlikely that the supers will break to Hillary.

      At the same time, I find the inflammatory rhetoric from some Obama supporters to be ridiculous.

      by desmoinesdem on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:29:29 AM PDT

•  Poweshiek County

  is not exactly representative of Iowa as a whole. Kucinich got 7 percent of the county delegates in 2004. I would be shocked if Clinton did well in that county. Also, her campaign's drive to discourage out of state students from caucusing couldn't have helped in a county dominated by Grinnell.

  In general, I think that Edwards delegates moved to Obama yesterday because the kind of activists who want to take part in county and district conventions are the kind of people who never were considering Hillary in the first place.

  I doubt that 90 percent of caucus-goers who supported Edwards would favor Obama over Clinton, but among those who would seek to be elected as county delegates, I am not at all surprised.

  by desmoinesdem on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:25:45 PM PDT

  •  Trust me, I know Poweshiek County is not

    representative.  I believe I noted that above in pointing out the disproportionately bad performance that Clinton had here.  But that's because of Grinnell College.  Most of the Edwards delegates here came from outside of Grinnell.

    by Meng Bomin on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:42:35 PM PDT

    •  off-topic question

      how strong is Ed Fallon's organization and volunteer base in Poweshiek County? I would imagine pretty strong.

      by desmoinesdem on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:02:06 PM PDT

      •  There were quite a few people at the convention

        with Fallon literature and bumper stickers.  However, I think it will be a bit of an uphill battle for him.  One of the first things Boswell did was greet the presiding officers by name and talk about Don Smith (the convention chair) for a while.

        Their talks were a bit different too.  Fallon was more wonkish and criticized Boswell for his campaign practices, while Boswell basically said "we're doing good stuff in Congress", largely ignored the fact that Fallon was in the race, and then made some comments about Nader and "What if Gore had been President?" (a veiled reference to Fallon's support of Nader in 2000).

        I suspect that Fallon will have support among students, though not unanimous support.  Alec Schierenbeck, one of the leaders of the Grinnell Campus Dems and leader of the Iowa College Democrats, was wearing a Boswell button.  He said he was still open to the idea of supporting Fallon and agreed more with Fallon's policies, but thought that he would get killed in the general election.  I think that, among other things he said to some of the other student delegates, may end up dampening Fallon support at Grinnell.

        by Meng Bomin on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:18:05 PM PDT

        •  kind of hard to get killed in the general

          when no Republican has even filed for the district.

          If someone tried to jump in after Fallon won the primary, he or she would have a lot of work to do raising money and putting together a campaign operation with only four months to go.

          by desmoinesdem on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:32:04 PM PDT

          •  True

            but since one of the leaders of Grinnell Campus Dems is supporting Boswell and made arguments in that regard in front of the student delegates at the Poweshiek County  convention (who are among the most active Democrats on campus, then I doubt that there will be as vigorous a Fallon campaign as there otherwise would be.

            by Meng Bomin on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:03:29 PM PDT

•  Apparently calling a state umimportant...

  Doesn't make them want to vote for you.

  by rdxtion on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:28:29 PM PDT

  •  Who knew? n/t

    by organicdemocrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:06:14 PM PDT

•  "important states"

  Clinton dissing Iowa after losing there and her dissing of the caucus process are doing her no favors. There is a difference between delegates switiching because of their own volition and the Clinton (or Obama) camp actively trying to get delegates to switch.

  by hasdrubal on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:33:16 PM PDT

  •  Hey, though,

    When we're talking about Edwards (or Biden, Richardson, etc.) delegates in the later rounds of the Iowa (or Nevada, etc. (?)) caucuses, I don't think there's anything scurrilous about trying to convince them to join the Obama or Clinton camp.

    Obviously there are delegates who prefer to stay with Edwards right now, and there's no problem with that; it's certainly a defensible position. But other Edwards delegates might think (indeed, they demonstrably do think) that crossing over for Obama at this point is more in line with what the Iowa Edwards voters whom they represent would want them to do.

    That's simply how caucuses work, and there's nothing dirty or scandalous about it.

    by Rieux on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:30:57 PM PDT

•  Meng, you do outstanding work

  with those maps! Thanks again. Best diary I've seen all day.

  by fcvaguy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:46:58 PM PDT

•  Excellent stuff

  thankyou..a pleasure to read.

  by ohcanada on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:23:27 PM PDT

•  the shift on the missouri border for hillary

  also conforms with the way things have gone in the midwest. fascinating stuff as always.

  by wu ming on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:28:38 PM PDT