Edwards Won Among Returning Caucus-goers, Obama won among 1st timers...LINK

The huge turnout in caucus-goers obviously was the difference in sealing the Obama victory in Iowa. However, among those who caucused before and returned to caucus this time, Edwards won handily. The second choice votes went to Edwards by a large margin according to 'entrance polling.'

The real question to be answered in New Hampshire is will there be a 'huge' turnout of first time voters at that primary who have to comply with more stringent voter registration requirements than Iowa?

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/entrance_poll_obama_won_on_high_turnout_and_edwards_lost.php

Entrance Poll: Obama Won On High Turnout — And Edwards Lost
By Eric Kleefeld - January 4, 2008, 1:44AM

"Here's another figure from the entrance poll: An astonishing 57% of caucusers were first-time participants. And how did they vote? Barack Obama carried them with 41% of the people going in and before second-choice reallocations, followed by Hillary Clinton at 29% and John Edwards at 18%."

"And among the returning caucus-goers? Edwards was carrying them with 30%, with Obama at 26% and Hillary with 24%."

"This tells us two things. First, Obama's strategy of bringing in new caucus-goers worked, the first time in recent history where such a strategy actually did so in the caucus. It's a big change from when Howard Dean tried it with less than impressive results. As for Edwards, his problem was that he fought the last war — if the caucus' turnout had been more like 2004, he may well have been the winner."

He had the support, by a far larger margin, of conservative voters.

If we're going to change this country, we have to change the voters, too: the same old voters have not gotten us very far. It is incredibly encouraging that so many people are standing up to be counted. Rather than abandoning the political process they think is broken, they are finally saying, let's get involved and change it.

Edward's whole candidacy has based on themes and strategies of the past. This is one of those remarkable moments when the country seems to be saying it wants a new way forward.

That is my interpretation, at least.

I'm all for bringing into our Democratic Party new younger voters, but let's not become irrational by painting the great majority of Democrats as somehow out of step.

You just might need the 'other 93%' if you expect Obama to be elected to anything.

... Edwards may end up being the victim of his own last active campaigning for Veep last go-around.

If he turns this into a real horse race in any of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries%2C_2008#Phase_two:_January">the January races, he may have little or no choice but to pick Obama as his running mate, should he secure the nom.

- Dave

Obama won by huge margins in the 17-44 year old range, which represented 40% of the caucus goers. (17-29 year olds were 22% of the voters, which he won by 57%; 30-44 year olds were 18% of the voters, which he won by 42%)

In the fourth category of voters, 45-64, which represented 38% of the caucus goers, the vote was much closer: 28% Clinton, 31% Edwards, 27% Obama). So Obama is not so very differently perceived by this group of supporters.

In the oldest group of voters, 65 and over, which represented 22% of the caucusers (note, this is the same number as 17-29 year olds), Clinton showed great strength, winning 45% to Edwards and Obama's 22% and 18%.


No candidate showed strength in all of these groups at once: Clinton is strongest with older voters, Obama with younger, and Edwards sort of maxes out at no more than 30% with any of these groups, and very much lower in the younger and older categories.

For statistics:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#IADEM