Iowa Caucus Sees Record Turnout for Dems

Get your news from a source that’s not owned and controlled by oligarchs. Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily.


I wrote this week that the Iowa caucuses were a 120/135/150 game. If 120,000 people showed up, it would be heavy on Edwards’ hardcore supports. If it was closer to 135,000, you’d have the hardcore plus Clinton’s older voters. And if it was 150,000 or more, Obama got the youth vote out.

The Iowa Democratic Party just released this one-line email:

“With 93.5 percent of the precincts reporting we are seeing record turnout with 218,000 caucus attendees.”

By now you probably know that Obama won Iowa, and won big. He may have won amongst the old, the white, the female—he may have won on other people’s turf tonight. We’ll find out soon. But what we do know is that he dominated on his turf. The Des Moines Register gets it right again.

Update: New email. “With 96 percent of the precincts reporting we are seeing record turnout with 227,000 caucus attendees.” This may be a whole new paradigm…

Update Update: Another email. “With 100 percent of the precincts reporting we are seeing record turnout with 239,000 caucus attendees.” I’m going with, yes, new paradigm. Turnout in 2004 was 125,000. For the record, this turnout isn’t all Obama: an exceptionally strong set of Democratic candidates is creating enthusiasm across the board. So says Howard Dean: “Record turnout for Democrats—nearly twice as many people participated in the Democratic caucus as in the Republican caucus—shows that voters are excited about our candidates and that our Party is strong.”

BEFORE YOU CLICK AWAY!

“Lying.” “Disgusting.” “Scum.” “Slime.” “Corrupt.” “Enemy of the people.” Donald Trump has always made clear what he thinks of journalists. And it’s plain now that his administration intends to do everything it can to stop journalists from reporting things they don’t like—which is most things that are true.

No one gets to tell Mother Jones what to publish or not publish, because no one owns our fiercely independent newsroom. But that also means we need to directly raise the resources it takes to keep our journalism alive. There’s only one way for that to happen, and it’s readers like you stepping up. Please help with a donation today if you can—even a few bucks will make a real difference. A monthly gift would be incredible.

payment methods

BEFORE YOU CLICK AWAY!

“Lying.” “Disgusting.” “Scum.” “Slime.” “Corrupt.” “Enemy of the people.” Donald Trump has always made clear what he thinks of journalists. And it’s plain now that his administration intends to do everything it can to stop journalists from reporting things they don’t like—which is most things that are true.

No one gets to tell Mother Jones what to publish or not publish, because no one owns our fiercely independent newsroom. But that also means we need to directly raise the resources it takes to keep our journalism alive. There’s only one way for that to happen, and it’s readers like you stepping up. Please help with a donation today if you can—even a few bucks will make a real difference. A monthly gift would be incredible.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate