Today is the Iowa Caucus

[tim huntzinger]

I call shennanigans on the caucuses and their importance. All the fuss over 200K participants? And if it was such a fulfilling civic duty, why are like 50% of participants every year first timers? How is that even possible? I get that the process illustrates how candidates can warm up a crowd at the retail level, but it is a sop to real 'townhall' democracy because once that is over the campaign becomes an air war almost exclusively. All that time and money and the most the Parties can garner is 10% of the population to participate? What does that say about what the Parties have done to our democracy?

[RecycleMichael]

What will the headlines be if Hillary finishes in third place? It could be a devastating blow to her campaign. Third place for John McCain could be huge however.

This field will narrow to three each after this week and to one each in the next five weeks. Iowa is huge because it is the beginning of a sprint after a marathon of preparation.

[cannon_fodder]

Hildog has set herself up for failure, anything but a major victory is essentially a defeat.  I do not see a good prospect of her joining anyone else's campaign because she is to dividing of an influence - not to mention it would be humbling for her.

I'll be waiting tonight to see what happens on the  democrats side... and who wins 3rd for the Republicans.

[we vs us]

I think you're right about Hillary.  She set herself up waaaaay too early as the "inevitable candidate," which in retrospect is something of an all-in strategy:  meaning, if she turns out NOT to be inevitable, it also means she's NOT invulnerable, that perception has been what she's been banking on.  Her record, after all, isn't really much stronger than Obama or Edwards, and her likeability quotient is much lower.  Invulnerability was only big thing.  That and Bill of course.

I think it's Obama's to lose, honestly.  I've been reading about lower-tier candidates who've been instructing their caucus-goers to put Obama down as their second choice . . . and, per caucus rules, if your first choice loses, your vote goes to your second candidate.  

My wife and I were going to try to get our voter registration cards in in time for the OK primary in Feb, but I really think it'll mostly be over at that point.  Knowing tha this has been the most expensive campaign ever in American history, and the first ballot hasn't even been cast, I think most of the candidates will bow out quickly after one or two losses.  They just won't have enough money to continue. And we'll know our general election candidate sooner rather than later.

[FOTD]

Whoa: The final Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby tracking poll before Iowa's caucus on Thursday showed Obama surging to a four-point lead over Edwards at 31 percent to 27 percent. Clinton fell to third place at 24 percent. Confirms Vaunted Des Moines Register Poll of Monday, But with a Faster Trending Up for Edwards and a Trending Down for Clinton. As the BIG MO shifts to Barack:

Election theft won't be tolerated: Obama
CAUCUSES | 'The nice thing is, I'm a voting-rights attorney'
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/721461,CST-NWS-iowa01.article
January 1, 2008
BY ABDON M. PALLASCH Political Reporter/apallasch@suntimes.com
JEFFERSON, Iowa -- White House hopeful Barack Obama came out swinging Monday when asked if he would fight another "stolen presidential election" like some Democrats believe happened the last two times.

But his "fighting" stance contrasts sharply with the vote he took on his very first day in the U.S. Senate where he joined the 74-1 majority voting not to challenge President Bush's disputed victory in Ohio. The Congressional Black Caucus urged him to be the second "yes" vote, but he declined.

At a town hall meeting in rural Jefferson on Monday, undecided voter Bruce Banister, 56, asked Obama, "The last two presidential elections have been very dirty, and for me there have been very serious questions about whether George Bush was even legally elected. I want to know if we have another dirty election and you are the candidate, if you think it is dirty, will you back off like Gore and Kerry did or will you fight?"

Obama replied, "I intend to whoop 'em so good that it won't even be close and they can't steal the election."

After sustained cheers, laughter and applause, Obama added that he would hope to win over enough independents and Republicans in the general election that, "We aren't going to have 47 percent on one side, 47 percent on the other side, 5 percent in the middle and they all live in Ohio and Florida so you only campaign in two states."

Then Obama gave the hard-charging answer Banister was looking for: "If for any reason this thing is close, we will fight it tooth and nail till the end. The nice thing is, I'm a voting-rights attorney as well as a civil rights attorney."

That was enough to persuade Banister, a rare-guitar dealer, to commit to supporting Obama over his other choice, John Edwards, in Thursday night's caucus.

All the main candidates hoping to win Thursday's caucuses criss-crossed the state Monday seeking to win over undecideds like Banister. Obama is locked in an apparent three-way tie with fellow Democratic front-runners Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.

Obama did not mention in his answer to Banister the controversy that greeted him on his first day in the Senate. He faced angering party leaders on his first day by voting not to join Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and African-American congressmen in rejecting the vote totals from Ohio, where Democrats say faulty voting machines and bad voter-registration policies threw the close election to Bush.

Obama said through chief strategist David Axelrod that he voted to accept the results because Kerry himself said he did not want to fight it.

At his first three events Monday, Obama faced questions from undecided voters about what he would do to stop illegal immigration. Obama said he would tighten the borders and crack down on employers who hire illegal aliens but would also support a "path to citizenship" for those already here.

[FOTD]

Sure, all you know-it-all political junkies think you know it all about the arcana of the Iowa caucus. But here are the cold hard facts that the mainstream media doesn't want you to know:

Q. Which way is the "cross-over" vote expected to go?

A: As in most years, independents tend to vote Democratic, but this year the GOP is expected to draw the vast majority of cross-dressers.

Q. Is it true that if a candidate doesn't reach the 15% threshold, there's horse-trading among the caucus-goers?

A: True, but also trading of cows, pigs, chickens and goats.

Q. Doesn't the entire caucus procedure violate the sanctity of the "secret ballot?"

A: Well, yes, but ever since The Bushinistas hired Diebold, the government knows how you're voting anyway.

Q. Doesn't the 7 p.m. starting time of the caucuses discriminate against single mothers and night-shift workers?

A: Sure, but that's balanced out by the fact that the farmers also are excluded, since they hit the hay at 6 p.m.

Q. Isn't it unfair that a small percentage of voters exercise such a disproportionate weight in the voting for the highest office in the land?

A: That's only the case if you look at the number of voters in Iowa– if you look at their actual weight, then they're actually underrepresented.

Q: How about the lack of diversity in Iowa?

A: While it's true that blacks constitute only about 2.5% of Iowans, the largely German population traces their ancestry to such disparate regions as Berlin, Brandenburg and Bavaria.  

Q. Ultimately, will voters value "experience" or "change?"

A: After 7 years of George W. Bush, the voters seem prepared to go for anyone experienced enough to give them the correct change.
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=1341

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I predict that Edwards and Hillary both get 27% of the vote and Obama gets 30%.

My prediction is pretty close to what the pollsters are now saying...

[Conan71]

The only poll I pay attention to is the final one after election night.  I'm usually wary of polls and which out of the various ones out there get picked up in the national media.

I mean, is anyone going to trust a media concern controlled by Rupert Murdoch which shows a conservative leading the pack in the general election, or the NYT to have an un-biased pick in the race?

What I'm saying is that editors and editorial boards can slant elections to their personal preference by citing or manufacturing poll results similar to the results they want to see in an election.  Undecided voters often follow the polls to make their own decision.

If the Des Moines Register says Obama will get 31% of the vote, that's a likely reality now.  If they would have said Edwards was going to get 46% he likely would.  It's not overly scientific.

[rwarn17588]

I think polls are fine for seeing out what the trends are. For instance, polls are indicating Rudy Giuliani is tanking everywhere, and I don't see any evidence to refute that.

But as an indicator what the final percentages will be, polls aren't worth much. There are too many variables from last-minute voters on election day.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

I think polls are fine for seeing out what the trends are. For instance, polls are indicating Rudy Giuliani is tanking everywhere, and I don't see any evidence to refute that.

But as an indicator what the final percentages will be, polls aren't worth much. There are too many variables from last-minute voters on election day.

I agree, rwarn.  Polls are very useful for predicting trendlines.  They don't tell the whole story, of course, or predict exact outcomes, but it's good to see where things are headed, broadly.

And as for bias, I've got to tell you, Conan that there're worlds of difference between the bias that Fox News is spouting and what the NYT runs with.  I can agree that bias exists in all of our media, but that doesn't mean that the bias is obscuring the facts 100% of the time and in all places.  It's a matter of degree.  Having read the NYT off and on for years, I wouldn't say that its bias obscures the reporting of fact, and they work hard to keep their opinion separate from their fact.  Believe it or not, the Wall Street Journal is the same way.  Good reporting, lousy opinion.

Fox News, though, is entirely different.  They don't give a rip about fact at all.

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

The only poll I pay attention to is the final one after election night.  I'm usually wary of polls and which out of the various ones out there get picked up in the national media.

I mean, is anyone going to trust a media concern controlled by Rupert Murdoch which shows a conservative leading the pack in the general election, or the NYT to have an un-biased pick in the race?

What I'm saying is that editors and editorial boards can slant elections to their personal preference by citing or manufacturing poll results similar to the results they want to see in an election.  Undecided voters often follow the polls to make their own decision.

If the Des Moines Register says Obama will get 31% of the vote, that's a likely reality now.  If they would have said Edwards was going to get 46% he likely would.  It's not overly scientific.

Rupert Murdoch...! Mister Dow Jones.  Scary isn't it Conan....

To paraphrase Karl the Rove, "There's the news and then there is The News..." The thought of this man being able to control so much of the media and facts is frightening.

somewhat similar to living in Tulsa and having "The World"...



[}:)]

[tulsacyclist]

...Go Huckabee!

[we vs us]

CNN projects Huck and Obama as winners.  Huck gets almost 10pt lead in front of Romney, but Obama's lead is almost within the margin of error, with Edwards then Clinton.

Of course, there're more precincts to report still, as well.

[Ibanez]

I'm about as conservative as you can get and there is no way I could vote for Huckabee.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by wavoka

I'm about as conservative as you can get and there is no way I could vote for Huckabee.

Could you vote for Obama?