"Vote for me because the racists will..."

...seems to be the latest bizarre message from the Clinton campaign.

The Associated Press is not exactly where I normally go looking for dirt on Democrats, but this sums up the situation nicely:

Clinton campaign strategists denied any intentional effort to stir the racial debate. But they said they believe the fallout has had the effect of branding Obama as "the black candidate," a tag that could hurt him outside the South.

Let's just remember that we are talking about Democrats choosing their candidate for U.S. President.
How can being "the black candidate" hurt someone's chances of winning Democratic party supporters votes?
Let's leave aside the obvious point that one would expect racist bigots, who have "NO N*****s IN THE WHITE HOUSE" car bumper stickers, to come from Alabama (or South Carolina, come to think of it) rather than, say, Colorado, Hawaii or Maine.

Could it be that the party of affirmative action, of civil rights and political correctness likes to have its leaders photographed next to the hired help, but not, you know, actually let the servants run the country? "The poor dears, they try so hard, but they can't help it, you know?"
Until last year I would have found it barely conceivable. But the more "liberals" I have met who talk about their moral superiority because they demand that other people pay taxes to provide public transportation (for blacks), public schooling (for blacks), quotas for universities (for blacks) and corporations (for blacks), the more I see something ugly.
This is not "white guilt." These are white people who have a visceral unease with ethnicity and who project this by blaming "society," or "capitalism," or "a right-wing conspiracy" for racism. They remind me of nothing more than those British Conservative Party members who shouted loudest about the evils of homosexuality, demanding that it be outlawed or "all the boys will turn into perverts," only to turn out to be repressed gay men.
Is this really the Hillary Clinton base constituency? I hope not.
I like the bluff: "Me, a racist? No! no! I voted against having black candidate because I couldn't let him be humiliated by REAL racists."
Senator Barack Obama is not (in my personal view) the beautiful orator that Jesse Jackson was 20 years ago. On form, the Reverend is someone I would gladly buy a ticket to hear give a sermon. That's certainly not true of any candidate this time round for me. Sen Obama is more like a bank manager with the common touch, I like his demeanour and his "winner" outlook, but that's not the same. In fact, without Bill Clinton's attempt to not make race an issue, by making it an issue, it would not have occurred to me to compare the two. Senator Obama has plenty of flaws: some of his policies and the dubious Chicago connections. But if it comes to a "which candidate has the worst criminal connections" I don't see Bill Clinton as offering much constructive help. A list of the crooks he pardoned in his last day of office, and the one whose wife by an AMAZING COINCIDENCE gave a lot of money to his wife's 2000 campaign, will make anything Senator Obama is likely to have done look minor.
I'm not impressed with the Republican line-up so far in this election campaign, but if Hillary Clinton wins her party's nomination by pandering to racism, I don't see how any decent human being could campaign for her in November, against what is likely to be a fairly moderate Republican candidate.
In pure election terms, we now know how black women voted in South Carolina: they're misogynistic witch burners, apparently.

Obama wins again

Ron Gunzburger, who runs the very comprehensivePolitics1 blog, says it all on his Facebook profile status:

Ron Gunzburger
is thrilled that Obama won a LANDSLIDE victory in South Carolina. Congrats to the SC Dems for soundly rejecting the racially divisive Clinton strategy.
Updated about an hour ago

I think we can take it as read that we are not looking at a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket for November given the bile, especially from the Clinton camp.
Bearing in mind just how convoluted each party's primary rules are, and the fact I got it wrong in Nevada[*], I hesitate to make any comparisons between the Democrat and Republican turnouts.
However, with under 60% of precincts reporting, it looks as though Senator Obama could win South Carolina in November, if we assume that the Clinton voters don't go for a Republican rather than the black man. Between them the Dems look like getting almost 500,000 votes, compared with 443,203 votes in the recent Republican primary.

[*]

A quick look at turnout suggests Romney is outscoring Hillary Clinton in Nevada too. This is very bad for the Democrats, if repeated in November. Husband Bill Clinton won the state in both 1992 and 1996.

Wishful thinking 0, reality 1

Last weekend's South Carolina primary election for the Republicans did not get any coverage here, for which I apologize. The timing was bad.

However, I did wonder if the conservative blogs who seemed to doubt if Fred Thompson was quitting after coming third in what had been described as his "firewall" weren't putting hope before realism.

Unlike Ron Paul, who has the record of standing for President on a third party ticket and has the money and the message, libertarianism, to motivate him to stick around, I had the impression that Fred Thompson was never really hungry for politics. This, of course, made him the sanest candidate if he could have somehow won.

Here's the announcement that Fred Thompson has quit and here is a post on Real Clear Politics explaining what it could all mean:

In Thompson's exit we have our first real shake up of what has been a wide open Republican race, and it comes just a week before a pivotal vote in Florida. Thompson's campaign never lived up to the promise so many Republicans had for him in this race, and while he leaves with the disappointment of those unrealized expectations, what support he has left may prove to have a significant influence on the vote in Florida, and thus perhaps on the selection of the nominee as well.

If I'm not mistaken, in our podcast last Friday, Brian Micklethwait and I touched on the Fred Thompson campaign, or lack of it. I'm pleased to say the podcast can be access thru here.

And yes, I'd say Mr Thompson would probably make a fine vice-presidential candidate. He could be very dangerous to an aggressive opponent in a televised debate.

Here's one for the Ronbots

I found a county in Nevada that voted Ron Paul ahead of the rest:

Nye County
Giuliani 33 votes 3%
Huckabee 172 votes 14%
Hunter 18 votes 1%
McCain 134 votes 11%
Paul 415 votes 34%
Romney 399 33%
Thompson 55 4%
Total 1,226 100%
33 of 33 precincts reporting
Figures from Nevada Republican Party.

Ron Paul SECOND in Nevada (98% votes counted)

This is the result of the primary season for the Ronbots. Their man is holding second position behind Mitt Romney in Nevada.

At 00:49 GMT Sunday morning:

Mitt Romney 22,629 51%
Ron Paul 6,077 14%
John McCain 5,641 13%
Mike Huckabee 3,607 8%
Fred Thompson 3,518 8%
Rudy Giuliani 1,907 4%
Duncan Hunter 890 2%
With 2% of precincts to report, so it's very unlikely to change, except possibly between Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson.

To beat Rudy Giuliani by three votes to one is one one thing, to lead John McCain is another.

However, this is clearly a great result for Romney, not just over 50% but also his rivals are nowhere near him. A quick look at turnout suggests Romney is outscoring Hillary Clinton in Nevada too. This is very bad for the Democrats, if repeated in November. Husband Bill Clinton won the state in both 1992 and 1996.

Resounding silence on Ron's performance at RealClearPolitics.

Over at Daily Kos, DHinMI writes:

And MSNBC just announced that crazy-ass Ron Paul finished second in Nevada. Thus, the top two finishers in South Carolina were unable to beat Ron Paul.

I think the point here is that none of the Republican candidates is shining at the moment. Mitt Romney seems the most effective so far, but is it down to the right states coming up early? We shall see.

ARRRRRGH!
Update: The Democrat votes aren't votes. Washington Post explains:

About the Nevada 2008 Democratic Caucus Results

The Nevada Democratic Party is not reporting votes for its Jan. 19 caucuses. Instead, the party will only release the number of county delegates won by each presidential candidate (or "Uncommitted"). This is the data being collected by the Associated Press and displayed on washingtonpost.com. There will be at least 10,446 delegates to the county conventions in the state's 17 counties. (More information here.)

On the Republican side, the party caucuses are essentially a straw poll. Thus, the votes reported by the party and collected by AP are actual votes. (More information here.)

My error demonstrates that the primary system is too complicated for a quick skim through of the rules, as I mentioned here and here [or will be when Brian loads our podcast!].

Quote of the election campaign

Ok, so we've had the speech of the campaign from "uncommitted."

Here's the quote of the (Republican) campaign:

"These primaries are like the Special Olympics: Everybody gets a ribbon!"
Jim Treacher. [via Instapundit]

The speech of the campaign so far!

Uncommitted wins Michigan.

Victory speech here.

[Hat tip Instapundit.]

Divisive?

In Michigan, a state John Kerry won in 2004 with a 3.42% lead over an unpopular George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton scored 55% in an effectively uncontested election.

Now pretend she has a Republican opponent in November.

You can see why the Republicans reckon they have a chance against the New York Senator. Let's not forget that she has vastly more resources than all her opponents combined, if we include the backing from George Soros' proxies, for example.
If I had to define "divisive"...

About the turnout, here's the score:
Democratic votes total= 592,798
Republican votes total= 867,577

Now the question is, how much did Kos' call for Democrats to vote for Mitt Romney affect this result? Did a lot of Democrats stay at home? Or is Michigan the first hard evidence that Republicans might do better in 2008 after George W. Bush?

My guess is that the wrong Democratic party candidate could get hammered in November. But so could the wrong Republican. A communicator like Ronald Reagan against Clinton-Edwards-Obama on current form would probably take the 50 states, leaving the District of Columbia to cling to. As for Bill Clinton against the current Republican field? No need for Ross Perot or an Oklahoma bombing.

Ron Paul hanging in there

The LA Times has noticed Ron Paul "thumped" Giuliani and Thomson In Michigan. Overall, Representative Ron Paul (Texas) is ahead of both Giuliani and Thompson, both of whom have to do well in at least one of South Carolina, Nevada and Florida. Thanks to the "Ronbots," he has more cash than his closest rivals. As he is putting out an ideological message rather than merely seeking the nomination, there is every reason to assume Ron Paul will stick around.
Here's the "popular vote" from Iowa, Wyoming, New Hampshire and Michigan for the Republicans.

Candidate	Popular Vote	%
Romney, Mitt	443,139	36.18%
McCain, John S.	361,546	29.52%
Huckabee, Mike	207,308	16.93%
Paul, Ron	84,554	6.90%
Thompson, Fred Dalton	50,925	4.16%
Giuliani, Rudolph W.	49,198	4.02%
Uncommitted	17,971	1.47%
Others	4,796	0.39%
Hunter, Duncan	4,567	0.37%
Tancredo, Thomas Gerald "Tom"	317	0.03%
Keyes, Alan L.	220	0.02%
Brownback, Samuel Dale	197	0.02%
Total	1,224,778	100.01%

I made this from data here.

Michigan thread and why it matters

I'm not staying up for the Michigan primary results, but you can follow the Republican-leaning viewpoint here and the Democrat-leaning viewpoint here (not sure if there's a specific thread on Daily Kos yet). Wordy but pretty straight reporting later here.
Here are my thoughts for what they're worth.
1) The Democrats will go and vote Republican to push Mitt Romney for two reasons. They are convinced he is beatable in November, and the more Republicans win different primaries (Huckabee got Iowa and McCain got New Hampshire), the more divided the Republicans will be. It's good politics, provided they start with the right "loser" to back.
2) Because the Democrats votes don't really count (it's a complicated issue to do with the party's nomination rules, see The Green Papers), there should be a lot less of them than Republicans, given that this is a very marginal state in the last presidential campaign. John Kerry beat George W. Bush with a 3.42% lead in Michigan. That's one of the SIX states the Democrats won with less than 4% leads (Wisconsin 0.4%, New Hampshire 1.43% [but a gain], Pennsylvania 2.5%, Minnesota 3.48% and Oregon 3.9%) in 2004. With a relatively unpopular incumbent...
For the Democrats, the easy targets are few in number: Iowa 0.67%, New Mexico 0.79% [both gains], Ohio 2.12% [yes FOUR states were closer than Ohio but somehow the conspiracy theorists never mention them] and Nevada 2.59% are the only targets under 4%. You can add Colorado on 4.67%.

So my tip is to look at the vote totals. If the Democrats poll more heavily in total than the Republicans do, then its VERY bad for the Republicans. It adds to the evidence from Iowa and New Hampshire of a party in organizational chaos.


3) Check the accuracy of the pollsters. If they broadly get Michigan right this time, they might get November right in this state, which could be cricial.

Now for some background.
The November election will be decided by an Electoral College count, with 269 (if you get the casting vote in Congress) or 270 (to be sure) votes required.
Here's the breakdown in the most tightly contested states in 2004 that I mentioned above.
0.40% Wisconsin (D), 10 votes
0.67% Iowa (R), 7 votes (gain from D)
0.79% New Mexico (R), 5 votes (gain from D)
1.43% New Hampshire (D), 4 votes (gain from R)
2.12% Ohio (R), 20 votes
2.50% Pennsylvania (D), 21 votes
2.59% Nevada (R), 5 votes
3.42% Michigan (D),17 votes
3.48% Minnesota (D), 10 votes
3.90% Oregon (D), 7 votes
4.67% Colorado (R), 9 votes

Democrats "at risk" 69 votes. Republicans "at risk" 46 votes.

And just for fun, every winning Presidential candidate since 1972 inclusive has won the following SIX states: Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio, Tennesee. In 1968, a third party candidate scored wins in some of the Southern states so I haven't included that election.

Kos is a (fiscal) Conservative!

The man himself sez about Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich's complaint:

I find it somewhat amusing that so many people are demanding the taxpayers of New Hampshire indulge their paranoia by paying for a recount. What I'm not seeing, however, is an effort to raise the money to pay for such a recount. It seems that no one wants to put their money where their mouth is. It's much easier to spread rumors and baseless allegations than it is to actually do something concrete about it.

Kos adds:

Again, if the people making unsupported allegations want to pay for a recount, all the power to them. That's not a bad thing, that's a good thing. But ante up the cash. If they are so convinced that fraud exists, they can even justify the expense as an opportunity to have me and other skeptics in the reality based community eat some serious crow. But other than Kucinich putting a $2,000 down payment toward the cost of that recount, I haven't seen any efforts to raise that money.

If a candidate loses by more than three percentage points, a candidate may demand a recount in New Hampshire, but only if he or she pays for it.

I can only imagine that Rep Kucinich thinks he should have got FEWER votes than the write-ins(*) (figures from Washington Post):

New Hampshire Democratic Party Primary
Candidate name	votes	%
Bill Richardson	13,245	5
Dennis Kucinich	3,912	1
Total write-ins	3,076	1

Hmm. I find Kos making a lot of sense. Reminds of his proposal of what to do with John Kerry's campaign team in 2004.

I also agree with Kos' call for Democrats to vote for Mitt Romney in the Michigan primary on January 15. If I were a Democrat, the people I would not to face are: Rudy Giuliani and Senator John McCain (Arizona). (OK if it looked like they could lose to Ron Paul or Fred Thompson, this would set back the liberals 50 years, but I'm talking about someone who the Dems think could beat them.) So it makes total sense to have Democrats for Romney. I like the logo too.




(*) Some elections allow a voter to write-in the name of the candidate who isn't on the ballot.

I'm at the Putney Debates tonight

I'm the last minute change of speaker for the Putney Debates in London tonight. The title of my talk is ‘Change at the Top: How the US Election Process Works and What are the Opportunities for Ron Paul?’

My audience will mostly be British so it's mostly about explaining just how decentralized the U.S. electoral system is. Because anyone turning up is likey to be a Libertarian, I shall be concentrating on Ron Paul's campaign and what he can realistically hope to achieve. I shall try to post a summary of the talk somewhere.

For details, see the Libertarian Alliance blog. Time: 7.30pm (GMT).

Quicks thoughts on New Hampshire: Live Free or Die of Boredom

I don't recall opinion polls getting it this wrong since 1987 in the U.K. General Election, although maybe 1992 was also as bad.

Unless Barak Obama wins at least 70% of the remaining votes to count, he has come second to Hillary Clinton.

The Republican results are nearer the polls.

Yet again, Democrats outvoted Republicans in a battleground state. And the Democrat counting was faster for at least the early part of the evening. In November, this will translate into early declarations by the networks for the Democratic Party candidate and will influence voters further West (Colorado, New Mexico, California, Oregon, Washington), as they will still be voting when the Democrat victory will have been announced.

Ron Paul didn't quite match Rudy Giuliani. However, when was the last time someone focused the policy element his speech on the abolition of the Federal Reserve?

Final thought for know: Hillary Clinton, John McCain. This does nothing to enhance New Hampshire's reputation as an independent minded state. Very dull. Live Free or Die of Boredom.

Election thread

02:56
Spoke too soon: McCain lead down to 6% over Romney, Clinton down to 2% over Obama. Ron Paul 1% behind Giuliani.

02:42
Turning in.
Final count as I write:
Democrats
Hillary Clinton 49,941 39%
Barack Obama 45,850 36%
John Edwards 21,299 17%
with 48% results in.
(Exit polls now project Clinton win by 2%)

Republicans
John McCain 36,685 37%
Mitt Romney 31,085 31%
Mike Huckabee 11,506 12%
Rudy Giuliani 8,639 9%
Ron Paul 7,811 8%
with 47% of results in.
Fred Thompson is on about 1%.





02:18
HEH. Romney creeps into the 30%, McCain's 37%, with two thirds of votes to count, there's still time to start thinking of recounts...

02:08
My Twitter comment: " Turning in soon. Hillary looks very good in early results. Paul close to Giuliani. Obama underdelivers."

02:04
Kos is worried.

02:02
Over at the RealClearPolitics blog:

8:58 PM Michael Barone just said he thinks Hillary Clinton has a "good chance" of winning tonight. That would be an unreal outcome given the events of the last few days and the overwhelming amount of polling data showing her trailing Obama. - TOM BEVAN

01:57
Perry de Havilland writes: "If Ron Paul can only do single figures in NH, he is going to be pointless from our perspective."
Well it's less than 200 votes between Giuliani and Paul as I write. And it is becoming clear that it's going to be an open fight for some time.
Clinton staying clear of Obama still. Any conspiracy theories yet?

01:27
Credit where it's due. Washington Post has a quick loading quick reporting set of pages od results. In Iowa, they were far, far better than the Republicans at getting Republican results out.
Dems
Reps


01:22
The bad news: Clinton 5 points up to 40%-35%
The good news: Giuliani and Paul tied at 9%.

01:19
Democrats are outscoring Republicans again in a battleground state. Good for the Democrats again.

01:14
John McCain is projected to win the Republican vote. Clinton leads Obama 38%-36%.
Giuliani 9%, Paul 8%.

01:02
Polls closed in New Hampshire.
John McCain, the blogosphere's enemy, is leading the Republican field.
Hillary Clinton edging it in the urban districts (37% to Obama's 36%).
UPDATE: 00:43
From Drudge.
OBAMA 36; CLINTON 37; EDWARDS 17; RICHARDSON 4; KUCINICH 2...
MCCAIN 38; ROMNEY 29; HUCKABEE 11; PAUL 8; GIULIANI 9; THOMPSON 1...

00:39
Obama 37% Clinton 35%
Ron Paul 6%, Giuliani 8%

00:38 GMT Earliest figures showed Clinton ahead of Obama, but like Iowa, Obama is clawing back. Obama 36% Clinton 36%.

Voting still going on in some precincts with paper ballots, this will delay matters.

Why does New Hampshire matter?

New Hampshire has a pretty good record as state that votes the same way as the country as whole, despite not being typical from a demographic point of view.

In 2004, John Kerry famously claimed that all he had to do was win there to overturn the 2000 defeat of Al Gore. He was wrong of course, because the 200 Census meant Kerry needed 11 extra electoral college votes than Gore needed the previous time.

Here's the record of New Hampshire in presidential elections since 1972:
1972: Richard Nixon (Republican, winner)
1976: Gerald Ford (Republican, loser)
1980: Ronald Reagan (Republican, winner)
1984: Ronald Reagan (Republican, winner)
1988: George HW Bush (Republican, winner)
1992: Bill Clinton (Democrat, winner)
1996: Bill Clinton (Democrat, winner)
2000: George W Bush (Republican, winner)
2004: John Kerry (Democrat, loser)

Two losers in nine elections ain't bad. I'd settle for that prediction ratio myself.

Another win for Barak Obama kills any notion (assuming anyone not on the Clinton payroll needs convincing) that a black man can't win a U.S. presidential election. The Clintons look so 1990s...

On the Republican side, Rudy Giuliani really needs to start getting some votes. I love having a former Libertarian Party candidate for President (Ron Paul) outscoring him, but come on! The G.O.P. nomination looks as wide open as ever.

Clinton (Hillary)... NUL POINTS!

For non-European readers, the title of this post is a reference to our version of presidential primaries, the Eurovision Song Contest, or the cultural atrocity to end them all.

Two little hamlets in New Hampshire, Dixville Notch and Hart's Location, have an exemption which allows them to close the polling station as soon after midnight on election day as all the registered electors have been to cast their votes. So we have our first tallies of the the day.

Dixville Notch:
Barak Obama (Democrat): 7 votes
John McCain (Republican): 4
John Edwards (Democrat): 2
Mitt Romney (Republican): 2
Rudy Giuliani (Republican): 1
Bill Richardson (Democrat): 1
Hillary Clinton (Democrat): NUL POINTS
Mike Huckabee (Republican): 0
Ron Paul (Republican): 0
Fred Thompson (Republican): 0

Hart's Location:
Barak Obama (Democrat): 9 votes
John McCain (Republican): 6
Mike Huckabee (Republican): 5
Ron Paul (Republican): 4
Hillary Clinton (Democrat): 3
John Edwards (Democrat): 1
Mitt Romney (Republican): 1
Rudy Giuliani (Republican): 0
Bill Richardson (Democrat): 0
Fred Thompson (Republican): 0

So the total so far in New Hampshire is:
Democrats:
1. Barak Obama (Democrat): 16 votes
2. Hillary Clinton (Democrat): 3
2. John Edwards (Democrat): 3
4. Bill Richardson (Democrat): 1

Republicans:
1. John McCain (Republican): 10
2. Mike Huckabee (Republican): 5
3. Ron Paul (Republican): 4
4. Mitt Romney (Republican): 3
5. Rudy Giuliani (Republican): 1
6. Fred Thompson (Republican): 0

To say that this would be catastrophic for Clinton, Giuliani, Romney and to a lesser extent Richardson and Thompson is not too extreme, if these tallies were proportionately repeated across New Hampshire. No I'm not predicting. But it looks terrible for Mrs Clinton. Level with Edwards here is a very poor showing.

A shambles

Last night's Iowa caucus was a triumph for the U.S. Democratic party's organization and a warning for Republicans. As Kos put it, all the Republicans had to do was give out pieces of paper, let people mark it, count them and put the numbers on a website.

The Democrats on the other hand, had to hold informal hustings, jostle around a room to form bunches, get counted, argue, haggle and plead the "unviable" candidates' supporters to switch, count again, and then post their results.

Guess which turned out quicker?

The Democrats had over 100,000 more votes to count, and did so more effectively. It got to the point that I never got a score out of the Republicans own website, whereas I found the Democrats to be very effective.

If this was Wyoming, or Massachusetts, it might not matter. But in the past 36 years, Iowa has changed from Republican to Democrat and back again several times.

In 1972, 1976, 1980 and 1984, Iowa went Republican and the party's candidate won in cases apart from 1976. In 1988, 1992, 1996 and 2000, Iowa's electoral college votes went to the Democratic party candidates, who won the presidency in 1992 and 1996. In 2004, the Republicans came back to narrowly win the state, by 10,059 votes out of a total 1,506,908. That's a majority of 0.73%. In a British parliamentary election this would be about equivalent to 540 votes in an average sized constitutency.

For those who remember the fuss made by some people about Ohio in the 2004 presidential election, the majority in Iowa was one third of that in the Buckeye state. Although there are "only" 7 electoral college votes in Iowa, a shambolic local organization by the Republicans is not a good omen for the coming election proper.

Kos is right. If the Republicans can't handle this caucus in Iowa, they're not about to sweep places like Pennsylvania or Michigan. He also has a point about the Mike Huckabee movement being a mirror of the Kossaks in 2004.

I would also add that Barak Obama has the look of a winner right now, in a way that no British Conservative has looked for the past 15 years. Considering that inexperience is the only serious objection (from a Democratic party perspective) to his taking his party's nomination, if he wins New Hampshire and John Edwards focuses on attacking Hillary Clinton, we could witness a sudden realignment.

Turning in

The news from Iowa is not great for Hillary Clinton, good for Barak Obama, lousy for Mitt Romney, good for Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson. Ron Paul leading Rudy Guliani, 3 to 1, is curiousity of the night.

I'm turning in. Further updates tomorrow.

Ron Paul thrashes Rudy

Ron Paul 2,425 11%
Rudy Giuliani 830 4%

after 25% of precincts reporting. Not bad for the Libertarians. Figure from Associated Press via Washington Post.

UPDATE:
Giuliani comes back, threatens to overtake John McCain. Ouch! However, Mike Huckabee with less than 5% of the spending of Mitt Romney, appears to be making the case against "money buys elections."
Iowa Republican Caucuses Results
Candidate Votes * %
Mike Huckabee 14,045 31%
Mitt Romney 10,084 23%
Fred Thompson 5,950 13%
John McCain 5,194 12%
Rudy Giuliani 4,901 11%
Ron Paul 4,379 10%
Duncan Hunter 168 0%
Tom Tancredo 2 0%
Key: * Explainer: What are these votes? | Red Checkmark Winner
Precincts: 41% | Updated: 9:20 PM ET | Source: AP

Iowa

I'm following the early Iowa caucus returns for the 2008 U.S. presidential election. The BBC's first error of the night was to predict that Republican returns would appear an hour before the Democrats.

In fact the Dems here got off to a brisk start.

The first result gave John Edwards 50% and Obama and Clinton 16.67% each.

For the Republicans here. Nothing as I write.

Latest figure:
Democrats:
Senator John Edwards : 34.24%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 32.12%
Senator Barack Obama : 30.28%
Governor Bill Richardson : 2.02%
Senator Joe Biden : 1.11%
Senator Chris Dodd : 0.14%
Uncommitted : 0.10%
Precincts Reporting: 205 of 1781

UPDATE:
The pundits suggest Barak Obama will have strength in depth, which suggests that he can pick up in the later reporting precincts.
Latest figure 1:48am GMT
Senator John Edwards : 33.44%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 32.24%
Senator Barack Obama : 31.63%
Governor Bill Richardson : 1.80%
Senator Joe Biden : 0.78%
Senator Chris Dodd : 0.07%
Uncommitted : 0.05%
Precincts Reporting: 367 of 1781
(Percentages are State Delegate Equivalents.)

UPDATE:
I was about to post figures showing Barak Obama ahead of Hillary Clinton, but the second place switched back. John Edwards is the leader though. But not by much...
Senator John Edwards : 32.52%
Senator Barack Obama : 32.41%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 32.15%

UPDATE:
with 530 precincts reporting...
Senator Barack Obama : 32.70%
Senator John Edwards : 32.38%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 32.02%
If Clinton comes third it's an open contest.

UPDATE: (2:40am GMT)
Senator Barack Obama : 36.68%
Senator John Edwards : 30.24%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 29.99%
Governor Bill Richardson : 2.01%
Senator Joe Biden : 0.94%
Uncommitted : 0.11%
Senator Chris Dodd : 0.03%
Precincts Reporting: 1487 of 1781

Hillary Clinton below 30% is not good for her, but Edwards failing to pull ahead of her is OK. Barak Obama's team can certainly feel good right now.