[mike777]

Well.....

Tonight Iowa elects our next president.

No one including them seem to really understand the 72 pages of Caucus rules. But that is America.

It may seem funny to some that some 5% of Iowa voters only vote, 250,000, and they have so much power but welcome to America.

I guess only one who won, Jimmy Carter, ever really went on and became President but I think that sometimes gets lost in the media coverage.

You would think we could come with with a better way, but nope we cant.

Let the fun begin.

[awm]

The population of Iowa is about 3 million, of which a quarter are either under 18 years old or foreign citizens and thus ineligible to vote.

So the 250,000 voter turnout is over 10%, not 5%. And it's quite possible that voter turnout this year will be much higher since for the first time in decades, both parties have contested primaries (in the past there is usually an incumbent president or vice president in one party who is the obvious nominee).

On the other hand, it's true that Iowa is a small state and in many ways is not statistically representative of the US as a whole. Our political system does seem to award disproportionate power to Iowa (and New Hampshire) for no obvious reason.

2006 Census Data on Iowa.

[PassedOut]

mike777, on Jan 3 2008, 02:39 PM, said:

No one including them seem to really understand the 72 pages of Caucus rules. But that is America.

My sister lives in Iowa and always attends the Democrat caucus there. She says the number of phone calls and meetings this year was overwhelming.

She had the opportunity to meet and talk with every candidate from both parties, though, and that's pretty amazing, imo. Lots of candidate family members too.

At least there is some suspense this year!

[jtfanclub]

mike777, on Jan 3 2008, 02:39 PM, said:

It may seem funny to some that some 5% of Iowa voters only vote, 250,000, and they have so much power but welcome to America.

But they're 250,000 who actually met and spoke with the candidates, for the most part. Virtually all of them have a deeper understanding of the differences between the candidates than I do, and I keep up on these things.

It's not true, by the way, that you have to win Iowa to win the Presidency. Bill Clinton skipped Iowa in '92, and George Bush beat Reagan in '80.

[mike777]

Well the numbers are really smaller depending on how you look at them.


About 68,000 will vote in the Rep caucus. So about 30K or less will win.
On the Dem side about 50K may win it.

Add to that most think whoever or whatever DEM will win over anyone we could say 50,000 Iowans elected the next president.

Sweet system.

[Winstonm]

Iowa is not that far from Chicago - they should be able to get 100K or so dead Chicago Democrats to vote.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Jan 3 2008, 08:16 PM, said:

Iowa is not that far from Chicago - they should be able to get 100K or so dead Chicago Democrats to vote.

Well all I can say is Barak won and won big. What state is he from?

[Gerben42]

First numbers:

Obama 39
Edwards 30
Clinton 29

Huckabee 34
Romney 25
Thompson 13
McCain 13

Personally, I don't think this means anything at all. Wait until we get to the important states (sorry Iowa...)

Is Iowa always first? Sounds very cool to be able to meet your next president and their family 1 year before they win

Quote

What state is he from?

Illinois. Must be the "I" bonus

[Al_U_Card]

What do the caususes and the WWE have in common? EVERYTHING!

[jtfanclub]

In terms of delegates, I believe it's Obama 16, Clinton 15, Edwards 14 in Iowa.

What's next:

Edwards should bow out. He's spent the last 4 years in Iowa, and it was by far his best state outside of the South. He's done. He'll probably stick around until January 26th- South Carolina, where he's currently polling about 15%, compared to over 30% for Hillary and Obama. Biden and Dodd have already dropped out. Gravel and Kucinich were never really serious. Richardson will stick around until the Nevada caucuses on January 19th- if he doesn't win there, he's done. Currently, he has about 6% there, compared to over 40% for Clinton. Good luck with that.

For the Republicans, McCain has made this election pretty clear. He thinks the loser between him and Romney in New Hampshire should bow out. If McCain wins, Romney will probably stick around for the Michigan primary on January 15th, which is way too close to call. I don't know what Thompson is sticking around for...South Carolina on the 19th, I guess. Ron Paul didn't win many delegates, but the exit polling for him in Iowa is about 10%. He's not a serious candidate, IMO, but with the funds he's raking in he can stick around as long as he wants. Guilliani is skipping the first two, but that means he has to win one of the big states between now and February 5th.

Must Wins, and my predictions:
Clinton: New Hampshire (W) or Nevada (W)
Edwards: New Hampshire (L) or South Carolina (L)
Obama: In through February 5th
Richardson: New Hampshire (L) or Nevada (L)

Looks like only two Democratic candidates will make it to the 5th.

Huckabee: In through February 5th
McCain: New Hampshire (W)
Romney: New Hampshire (L) or Michigan (L)
Thompson: New Hampshire (L), Michigan (L), or South Carolina (L)
Guilliani: Michigan (L) or Florida (W)
Paul: N/A

Looks like Huckabee, McCain, and Guilliani, though it's very close.

Iowa wasn't the end-all and be-all...just one win in their favorite state will keep all of the candidates going who were given even a semi-serious chance. But if you lose all 6 early states, I don't think you get to try your hand on February 5th.

After the 5th, we're talking two candidates per party the rest of the way.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Jan 3 2008, 08:16 PM, said:

Iowa is not that far from Chicago - they should be able to get 100K or so dead Chicago Democrats to vote.

WinstonM the news reports say 100K more voted in the Dem caucus than ever before in history. Is this number, your post, and the fact he is from Chicago coincidence? I think not!

The dead do vote.

[Al_U_Card]

mike777, on Jan 4 2008, 11:18 AM, said:

The dead do vote.

Just not with their feet.

[kfay]

jtfanclub, on Jan 4 2008, 11:11 AM, said:

If McCain wins, Romney will probably stick around for the Michigan primary on January 15th, which is way too close to call.

Does this primary even matter? Michigan has been stripped of its delegates so I think whatever happens isn't really of physical substance.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Jan 4 2008, 11:18 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 3 2008, 08:16 PM, said:

Iowa is not that far from Chicago - they should be able to get 100K or so dead Chicago Democrats to vote.

WinstonM the news reports say 100K more voted in the Dem caucus than ever before in history. Is this number, your post, and the fact he is from Chicago coincidence? I think not!

The dead do vote.

We'll know for sure if that 100K came from absentee ballots.

[Winstonm]

By the way, no one has mentioned Ron Paul getting 10%, a huge upset in its own right - Fox is even backpeddling on their idea to exclude him from their upcoming debate/conference/trailer talk/whatever-in-heck-they-call-it.

[Rossoneri]

mike777, on Jan 4 2008, 03:39 AM, said:

Well.....

Tonight Iowa elects our next president.

No one including them seem to really understand the 72 pages of Caucus rules. But that is America.

It may seem funny to some that some 5% of Iowa voters only vote, 250,000, and they have so much power but welcome to America.

I guess only one who won, Jimmy Carter, ever really went on and became President but I think that sometimes gets lost in the media coverage.

You would think we could come with with a better way, but nope we cant.

Let the fun begin.

No kidding.

Any history as to why the US has such an election system?

[jtfanclub]

kfay, on Jan 5 2008, 12:02 AM, said:

Does this primary even matter? Michigan has been stripped of its delegates so I think whatever happens isn't really of physical substance.

Only the Democrats stripped the Michigan primary. Still counts for the Republicans.

[jdonn]

Rossoneri, on Jan 5 2008, 12:19 AM, said:

Any history as to why the US has such an election system?

If you are referring to the electoral college, Wikipedia (as is often the case) has a good summary arguments for and against the idea.

http://en.wikipedia....ectoral_College

It seems like an idea that is constantly shot down by most people, and while I am not necessarily saying I agree with it (I haven't given the matter deep thought), there are certainly arguments in its favor that these people don't even consider.

[PassedOut]

jtfanclub, on Jan 5 2008, 12:25 AM, said:

kfay, on Jan 5 2008, 12:02 AM, said:

Does this primary even matter?  Michigan has been stripped of its delegates so I think whatever happens isn't really of physical substance.

Only the Democrats stripped the Michigan primary. Still counts for the Republicans.

Yes, all of the republican candidates are on the ballot here. The republicans only stripped Michigan of 1/2 of our normal delegates, so we will have partial representation at their convention.

The democrats took away all our state's delegates, so we will have no representation there. Obama and Edwards are not even on the ballot here, although Clinton is.

Some folks expect the democrats to relent before the convention to avoid antagonizing voters here, but I imagine that Obama and Edwards would object to that if the party's decision could be affected by Michigan's delegates.

[cherdano]

jdonn, on Jan 5 2008, 12:23 AM, said:

Rossoneri, on Jan 5 2008, 12:19 AM, said:

Any history as to why the US has such an election system?

If you are referring to the electoral college, Wikipedia (as is often the case) has a good summary arguments for and against the idea.

http://en.wikipedia....ectoral_College

It seems like an idea that is constantly shot down by most people, and while I am not necessarily saying I agree with it (I haven't given the matter deep thought), there are certainly arguments in its favor that these people don't even consider.

That's maybe because most of the arguments typically brought forward in favor of the electoral college are not well-thought out, or are just explaining why it was a good idea in the 18th century?

For example I would think Hispanics living in California would find the "Enhances the status of minority groups" on the wikipedia page pretty ridiculous. The only worthwile argument is the one about a win requiring a support more widely distributed among the country, but it pales in comparison to the reality of how hugely different the influence of a single voter is, depending on which state he lives in. This is about the essence of democracy.

By the way, the wikipedia page doesn't even properly explain this, and seems generally rather purely written and slightly biased. (Try reading the section on "Focus on large swing states".)