• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Iowa Caucuses (or Cauci?)

The Dums could have put up any idiot, buffoon, or blowhard, say like a Dotard...and still won against the Republican (McCain) nominee in 2008. :)
Obviously we can't be sure with counterfactuals, but we know Hillary missed the open goal in 2016. What makes you think she'd have won against McCain?
 
Without caucuses, Hillary would have lost to McCain in 2008.[/B] :)

That doesn't even make sense.

It does. Look at the 2008 primary season. Hillary had DNC support and name recognition, but Obama won the Iowa and Nevada caucuses. That gave him a fighting chance a straight primary system not have.
And I am sure that had Hillary won the nomination in 2008, she have found a way to screw it up just like in 2016. :)

And how can caucuses be more democratic than an actual vote when so many are unable to participate in the caucus when they could participate in a vote?
It's not about being more or less democratic. It's a different system, where participation takes more effort. It focuses on depth rather than breadth.
 
This just proves how insane it is to continue to use an extremely outdated method of voting.
I disagree caucuses are outdated. They reward giving a damn enough to participate for a couple of hours.

Only a tiny number of people actually showed up for the caucus vote and most of them were white.
What's wrong with being white? Most of the country is white.
Democratic electorate in a state like Iowa is a better reflection of the general electorate nationwide than a state like Nevada or South Carolina. South Carolina is for example >50% black in Democratic primaries. No state comes even close to that for general election demographics, much less the country overall! But I bet you have no problems with SC being one of the early states that are so crucial for the nomination.

I hope that Iowa comes into the 21st Century and votes like normal people do. I also hope this will be the last year that Iowa goes first.
I hope you are wrong, but that is exactly the kind of overreaction I expect from the DNC.

And, not everyone who has won in Iowa went on to win the nomination. Tom Harkin had 76% of the delegates when he was running for president. Tom who?
Tom Harkin was the governor of Iowa, so in that year the caucuses were not contested. But in every Democratic caucus since then, almost 30 years worth, the Iowa winner went on to snag the nomination.

Iowa should be considered irrelevant. Why not have a large, diverse state go first or have all the states vote on or near Super Tuesday. Less money would be wasted and no small state would have an outsized influence in the race.
The advantage of having a couple of smaller states go first is the money. You need relatively little money to compete in Iowa. It's all about retail politics, and the media markets are not terribly expensive. Having a large state run first, or even worse have a national primary, would make it prohibitively expensive for most candidates to compete from the get-go. So Iowa, New Hampshire do early sorting on the cheap, followed by Nevada and South Carolina more expensively, but still manageable compared to Super Tuesday. The idea being that an initially lesser known, lesser funded candidate can catch fire and get enough donors to successfully compete in much more expensive contests.

And as far as "diverse", the Democratic electorate in a diverse state like South Carolina is a poor proxy for the country. US is, still, majority white. It is not >50% black like the Democratic electorate in SC is. Take Obama. Him winning Iowa and coming very close on NH proved that he resonated with white Americans as well, something that was necessary to make him electable in November.

The conspiracy theories are nuts as to what happened in Iowa. They simply had a very bad plan, and it was known very early on Monday morning that there were major problems with the App. Hey Iowa! You fucked up royally.

I agree it was a clusterfuck, but I still smell a rat.
 
The Dums could have put up any idiot, buffoon, or blowhard, say like a Dotard...and still won against the Republican (McCain) nominee in 2008. :)
Obviously we can't be sure with counterfactuals, but we know Hillary missed the open goal in 2016. What makes you think she'd have won against McCain?
First it was largely a joke. But...a tanking economy and markets after 8 years of the Shrub is a pretty good clue. Then, there wasn't any Fake Benghazi issue with years of hearings. There wasn't any self-created private email fiasco to dwell on. The military occupations would continue to be ignored in the campaigns. So yeah, I'd say odds are that HRC would have won, but maybe not with Obama's big win.
 
But I will say this also. I'm against open primaries. Why should people who are not members of the club get a say in who runs the club?
But even for closed primaries you don't have to be a "member of the club". Certainly not a dues-paying, card-carrying member. All it takes is checking the right box on your voter registration. And there is nothing preventing people from registering strategically.
Also, why should independents be excluded from primaries?
 
First it was largely a joke.
Good!

But...a tanking economy and markets after 8 years of the Shrub is a pretty good clue. Then, there wasn't any Fake Benghazi issue with years of hearings. There wasn't any self-created private email fiasco to dwell on. The military occupations would continue to be ignored in the campaigns. So yeah, I'd say odds are that HRC would have won, but maybe not with Obama's big win.
I remember the Great Recession, yes. However, odds were that HRC would easily win against Trump as well, and yet here we are.
 
Buttigieg in 1st, Sanders in 2nd. Warren and Biden 3rd and 4th. 61% precincts reporting. This is a remarkable win for candidates that will emphasize the results (Buttigieg and Sanders), and not the end of the world for candidates that wish to deemphasize Iowa and note that the delegate haul will be close for the top four anyway (Warren and Biden).

Klobuchar is in trouble, not that she had much hope to begin with.

Buttigieg is obviously a big winner here to take this 'momentum' and maybe 15 or 20 delegates (just 1700 or so more to go). If the percentages hold, Sanders wins the prog race. Big loser appears to be Biden who has been hurt by Trump's bullshit (and maybe people noticing that Biden is the only Candidate alive when Andrew Jackson was born).
 
We have some results. finally!

From NY Times.
With 62% reporting, it's Mayor Pete with Bernie a close second, with Warren, Biden and Klobuchar following. Bad news for Biden, great news for Mayor Pete if results hold.
 
Big loser appears to be Biden who has been hurt by Trump's bullshit (and maybe people noticing that Biden is the only Candidate alive when Andrew Jackson was born).
That well may end up being Biden's spin. But Biden was never a great candidate, he just seemed to be a lot of people's 'safe' choice. He has a lot of political history, some good, some not so good. He has ran twice before and got nowhere. He verbally stumbles a lot. I've heard that Biden knew Jackson's grandma :D
 
Didn't see your post there, but I got the link in.

Buttigieg in 1st, Sanders in 2nd. Warren and Biden 3rd and 4th. 61% precincts reporting. This is a remarkable win for candidates that will emphasize the results (Buttigieg and Sanders), and not the end of the world for candidates that wish to deemphasize Iowa and note that the delegate haul will be close for the top four anyway (Warren and Biden).

Bad news for Biden for sure, as he was having trouble with donors anyway, and Bloomberg has seriously started crowding his lane.
Bad news for Warren too, and she will sure hope Buttigieg will hold on to his lead. But even as things stand, Bernie can claim supremacy in the progressive lane, and some momentum for New Hampshire.

Klobuchar is in trouble, not that she had much hope to begin with.
She is not just in trouble, she is most likely done. There are a maximum of 4 tickets out of Iowa (plus Bloomberg, who is not contesting Iowa), but Amy really needs a 3rd or better finish since she is the favorite daughter adjacent. If she can't have a competitive performance here, she can't pull it off in the remaining early states either. She needs to do really well in the outstanding 38% of precincts to crawl her way past Joe and Liz.

Buttigieg is obviously a big winner here
Yes. Even a strong second would give him a big chunk of momentum for NH. He is definitely still in the game.

Edited to add: even though Mayor Pete leads with SDEs, Bernie is leading with both first and second votes. Curious. I remember how in 2016 Hillary got "lucky" with vast majority of coin tosses. Is the same going on here?
 
Last edited:
It's really too bad we can't come up with a better system than 1,700 separate meetings in different cafeterias where people who like the same candidate stand in close proximity to one another

It really is an anachronism from a bygone age.
 
The Dums could have put up any idiot, buffoon, or blowhard, say like a Dotard...and still won against the Republican (McCain) nominee in 2008. :)
Obviously we can't be sure with counterfactuals, but we know Hillary missed the open goal in 2016. What makes you think she'd have won against McCain?
First it was largely a joke. But...a tanking economy and markets after 8 years of the Shrub is a pretty good clue. Then, there wasn't any Fake Benghazi issue with years of hearings. There wasn't any self-created private email fiasco to dwell on. The military occupations would continue to be ignored in the campaigns. So yeah, I'd say odds are that HRC would have won, but maybe not with Obama's big win.

Not to mention Caribou Barbie.
 
This just proves how insane it is to continue to use an extremely outdated method of voting. Only a tiny number of people actually showed up for the caucus vote and most of them were white. I hope that Iowa comes into the 21st Century and votes like normal people do. I also hope this will be the last year that Iowa goes first. And, not everyone who has won in Iowa went on to win the nomination. Tom Harkin had 76% of the delegates when he was running for president. Tom who? Iowa should be considered irrelevant. Why not have a large, diverse state go first or have all the states vote on or near Super Tuesday. Less money would be wasted and no small state would have an outsized influence in the race.

The conspiracy theories are nuts as to what happened in Iowa. They simply had a very bad plan, and it was known very early on Monday morning that there were major problems with the App. Hey Iowa! You fucked up royally.

I was just getting ready to post a new thread claiming that pretty soon the Bernie supporters were going to invent a conspiracy when I saw this post!
 
I don't get how the app conspiracy theory is supposed to work since the app failed anyway. And when all the results are in, any precinct can check to see if it's what they reported.
 
I don't get how the app conspiracy theory is supposed to work since the app failed anyway. And when all the results are in, any precinct can check to see if it's what they reported.
And why would it take so long to fake the results?
 
When things don't go your way. An Act in two parts.

EP8wOFOWAAAYeZk
 
Well, the Iowa voters have spoken. Congratulations to Buttigieg. Huge win for him. Sanders was close. The interesting thing to me is that three moderates (Buttigieg, Biden, and Klobuchar) won 54.8% of the vote, while the Sanders/Warren got 43.6%. This bodes very well for the moderates to be making a statement.
 
Back
Top Bottom