Obama Campaign's Facts On Iowa

The Obama campaign is sending around these talkers about his Iowa victory:

* Obama beat Clinton among women 35% to 30%
* Obama beat Edwards among voters in union households 30%-24%
* Obama beat Clinton and Edwards among voters of almost every income level (Obama and Clinton tied among voters who make $15-30,000)
* As many voters age 17-29 as voters 65 and older participated last night -- in previous years senior participation has been 5-times greater than younger voters.
* Obama beat Edwards and Clinton among voters who want change (51%-20%-19%)
* Despite countless attacks and hundreds of thousands of dollars in negative mail, TV, and radio, Obama beat Clinton and Edwards (34%-30%-27%) among voters who say health care is the most important issue
* Obama won among those who said the economy was the most important issue (36%-26%-26%)
* Obama won over Clinton and Edwards (35%-26%-17%) among those who said Iraq was the most important issue
* Won across the ideological spectrum – winning among liberals, moderates and conservatives
* Won among high income and lower income voters among voters with household income below $50,000 (34%-32%-19%) and among those over $50,000 (41%-19%-28%)
* Also won among the 82% of voters who said Pakistan was “very or somewhat important”

Comments

Everyone's talking about two striking facts about Obama's win: the unprecedented number of young people caucusing for him and the number of independents he captured. What I haven't seen are any numbers on how many of those two groups were first-time caucus goers.

If a significant percentage of both the young people and the independents WERE first-timers, it seems to me that it would have been driven by two factors: Obama's unique appeal to those groups AND what I've heard was the best ground operation the Democratic party has ever seen.

Right now, everyone assumes the former (Obama's appeal to these groups) explains 100% of the result. But could that ground operation be a significant part of the story also? It seems likely to me that young caucus goers and independents need more of a "push" to get to the polls than the party faithful and the older voters.

If so, how does his team in the other states compare to the Iowa team? From what I hear the guy running Iowa for Obama (Paul Tewes) was, hands down, the best ground organizer the Dems have. So New Hampshire is likely to be a step down, but how far down?

My worry for Obama in New Hampshire: a lot of independents and young people sit at home and say to themselves, "I like that guy", but on primary day nobody's knocking on their door and therefore they never actually make it out to vote.

Posted by Troy | January 4, 2008 4:57 PM

A union household is not the same thing as a union voter.

The daughters of a union member is a member of a union household. Their mother the steelworker may have voted for Edwards while her daughters voted for Obama.

That would give Obama 66% in that union household. But it doesn't mean he won the union vote.

just a minor point, but one worth making, since the obama camp is using that "union household" number to claim victory in the union vote withou a single union endorsement.

Posted by drfranklives | January 4, 2008 5:09 PM

And I am quite certain I saw that edwards walloped him among conservatives. Which is a point in Edwards's favor in the general - he can run left and the right still likes him.

Posted by drfranklives | January 4, 2008 5:10 PM

Fact Check: A plurality of self-labeled conservatives chose Edwards.

Posted by Anonymous | January 4, 2008 6:34 PM

These are all lies.

HRC/Hillary/The Queen won the voters that:

- Believe Obama is a Muslim.
- Believe Obama has no experience at all. He is like an intern.
- Believe that Obama is not a legitimate American citizen. He was raised in a 3rd world country.

Etc.

The HRC is going on attack. Check drudge now. The Clintons + Press will demolish Obama.

I am so sad. I am so loser.

Posted by eorse | January 4, 2008 7:07 PM