Can someone explain the Iowa caucus?

[Laurielee]

I thought I had a good understanding of how the election process works, but am gray on why the Iowa primary is so important. The reason I ask i ABC was interviewing John Edwards this morning and tasked him if he didnt win, was he trowing in the towel.

Okay, each state has a certain number of delegate votes and we have a long way to go, so why ask this or am I missing something here

Laurie

[leebee]

Well, the actual importance may be diminishing over time, but the Iowa caucus still garners a LOT of media attention. I believe it's the attention that makes it so important to candidates. It's also the first major electoral event, and an interesting one to boot. The process is fascinating, and differs from Republican to Democrat. People gather in person (in schools, churches, homes, etc). In the Rep version, I believe that a vote is taken via blank ballot (ie, write ins). In the Dem version, there is a viability vote taken after caucus-goers have a chance to sway one another (if I support a particular candidate, I can try to convince you to vote for him or her). Eventually, official results of each precinct are taken and passed on to determine where the actual Iowa delegate votes will go. It's an extremely active process. And, it's an exciting time in Iowa. People have long-standing traditions and participation is very serious!

[SusanMac]

Just to add to what Leebee said...Iowa has a huge % turnout for the caucus. That's another key reason it's important (compared to a lot of the later primaries, where very few people actually show up to vote/participate)

Also, it's a swing state....neither consistently Dem or Rep. The last Pres election was the first time I lived in a swing state. It really made me much more engaged in the whole election, and I felt like my vote mattered more. (I was in CA before, where I felt, no matter how I voted, the state electorates would always go Dem)

[Autumn]

As an Iowan I thought I'd better chime in here. I think the big deal is mostly about the timing--first in the nation. Money and momentum are huge in presidential campaigns, so the sooner you are realized as a candidate with an actual shot at the nomination, both of those increase. A good finish in Iowa can give new life to a campaign; a poor finish can kill it.

Many states have tried to "steal" Iowa's first in the nation status by moving up the dates of their primaries, but both Dem. and Rep. National Committees, as well as Iowa, worked hard in the courts to keep it here. I guess it is easier for the pols to know where they need to focus early every four years, and because of our demographics and "middle America" mindset, we are a good testing ground.

I'm caucusing for the first time tomorrow night!

[wwhirledpeas]

......okay, now can you make it go away?


I am frankly sick of hearing about Iowa and New Hampshire...and, I am sure they are both very lovely.

[bobmark226]

......okay, now can you make it go away?


I am frankly sick of hearing about Iowa and New Hampshire...and, I am sure they are both very lovely.

I'm with you. We've been listening to this crap for over two years now and at this point there isn't a single candidate I'd willingly give my vote to, just a large number I've come to loathe via this drawn out process.

Bob

[Autumn]

......okay, now can you make it go away?


I am frankly sick of hearing about Iowa and New Hampshire...and, I am sure they are both very lovely.

I assure you, Iowans are ready for it to end too. We have been enduring nonstop TV ads for months and my phone rings at least 6 times a day with a candidate wanting my vote. In one day I had calls from Obama, Romney, Edwards, Huckabee, McCain, and Paul (I guess my aversion to Hillary is so strong it seeps through the phone lines ;) ). It is an imperfect process, for sure, but I still embrace it...at its' roots it is still a good one. It could be a lot worse, that is for sure.

[bobmark226]

I assure you, Iowans are ready for it to end too. We have been enduring nonstop TV ads for months and my phone rings at least 6 times a day with a candidate wanting my vote. In one day I had calls from Obama, Romney, Edwards, Huckabee, McCain, and Paul (I guess my aversion to Hillary is so strong it seeps through the phone lines ;) ). It is an imperfect process, for sure, but I still embrace it...at its' roots it is still a good one. It could be a lot worse, that is for sure.

Yes, but you've got something to really be thankful for:

NO GIULIANI!!!!!

(or Judith!)

Bob

[SusanMac]

I agree the nonstop pundit over-analysis has been annoying. The nonstop, no-content, do-you-believe-in-the-bible, questions-from-snowmen debates have been even worse.

I figure, now that the caucus & primaries are actually beginning, at least there's some real news happening!

[Autumn]

Bob,
Giuliani is hardly even registering in the polls here; he decided to "skip" Iowa and has headed straight for NH. Political strategy or is he too much of a city boy to spend six months in a "flyover" state? Probably the former, but it doesn't play too well out here in the sticks. Who is Judith? Wife?

[Gumbeaux]

..... and because of our demographics and "middle America" mindset, we are a good testing ground.

A lot of people are arguing just the opposite.


AP-Yahoo Poll: Rest of nation has had enough of Iowa-New Hampshire prominence

By HOLLY RAMER , Associated Press


CONCORD, N.H. -

All eyes may be on Iowa and New Hampshire, but many of them are rolling.

Despite efforts to evict the two states from the front of the presidential calendar, both managed to hang on for another election cycle that culminates with the Iowa caucuses on Thursday and the New Hampshire primary on Jan. 8. As a year of media attention reaches its crescendo, voters in other states are saying enough is enough.

According to a national survey conducted for The Associated Press and Yahoo News, just over half of all voters said New Hampshire and Iowa have an extraordinary amount of influence over who wins the two parties nominations.

"They have way too much _ WAY too much _ say," said Kevin Thomas of Tacoma, Wash. "California's a big state and they don't have any say, and Iowa's not even half the size of California. It really makes me as a voter wonder what's going on."

Fewer than one in five voters said they favor the current system that allows Iowa and New Hampshire to hold the first contests, while nearly 80 percent would rather see other states get their chance at the front of the line.

"I think they should take turns, maybe take it to a small state like Rhode Island that doesn't have a whole lot of voting power," Thomas said.

Both states have been criticized as unrepresentative of the country given their size and lack of racial diversity. Iowa _ population 3 million _ is 95 percent white; New Hampshire _ population 1.3 million _ is 96 percent white. Democrats tried to inject more diversity into the process by adding early contests in Nevada and South Carolina, but Iowa and New Hampshire moved even earlier.

The system became so scrambled last year that New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner was prepared to move the primary into December to keep ahead of other states that scheduled their own early primaries and caucuses. If anything, the front-loaded calendar made Iowa and New Hampshire more important.

Gardner and other defenders of New Hampshire say the country _ and the candidates _ are well-served because the primary requires close contact with voters, not just a big advertising budget and name recognition.

"It gives the little guy a chance," said Gardner.

He wasn't surprised by the poll results and negative reaction toward the early states given that most of the country knows nothing about the primary's history or the state's uniquely inquisitive and democratic culture.

New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat who has not endorsed any candidate, argues that New Hampshire's retail politics cannot be duplicated anywhere else in the country.

"We have made it possible for the so-called unknown candidates to make their case without having millions of dollars in the bank. And in turn, we demand that candidates move beyond the rope line and scripted town hall meetings, and directly answer the hard questions from voters," he said. "As a result, the voters, the candidates and the political process all benefit from the New Hampshire primary."

Unsurprisingly, every one of the 21 Iowans who participated in the AP-Yahoo survey think their state and New Hampshire have just the right amount of influence over the presidential selection process. Not so in New Hampshire.

There, two of the five participants said the two states don't have enough power.

The survey of 1,821 adults was conducted from Dec. 14-20, and had an overall margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.3 percentage points. The poll was conducted over the Internet by Knowledge Networks, which initially contacted people using traditional telephone polling methods and followed with online interviews. People chosen for the study who had no Internet access were given it for free.

[Chefzhat]

just over half of all voters said New Hampshire and Iowa have an extraordinary amount of influence over who wins the two parties nominations.

This is why Michigan and Florida are moving their primary dates up the election calendar. Of course, now the democratic candidates have refused to campaign in Michigan and have in fact removed their names from the primary ballots (all except Hillary, of course. No moral high ground for her :) ). She says she won't campaign though.

[ajowen]

One way of thinking about it is that Iowa and New Hampshire are first and are quite small states. We have very little influence in the general election, but do get some say now. In some ways it's like the balance of powers in the senate/house (small vs large states).

At the same time, it actually started in the 70's because underdog candidates would come and campaign in these small states where they could compete with a truck and enough money for gas (assuming supporters put them up in homes and fed them), meeting in bars and church halls. So you didn't have to start the campaign with enough money to wage it in the main media - you could build momentum along the way and then compete in the bigger states later. The push to have the primaries on the same date nationwide would actually disenfranchise a lot of folks who might want to compete because they can't afford that kind of campaign up front. Iowa and NH may not deserve to be first, but I think you can make a case for any of a number of smallish states to be early and before the largest states in terms of retaining the idea that 'anyone can be president' not just the royalty (rich).

As for the amount of coverage, I think that would be true of whichever state is first. So that wouldn't go away just because things get shuffled.

[leebee]

At the same time, it actually started in the 70's because underdog candidates would come and campaign in these small states where they could compete with a truck and enough money for gas (assuming supporters put them up in homes and fed them), meeting in bars and church halls. So you didn't have to start the campaign with enough money to wage it in the main media - you could build momentum along the way and then compete in the bigger states later.


I think that the historic significance of the Iowa Caucus is something that doesn't make sense to many simply because of the unbelievable amount of media coverage the candidates have been getting in recent years. This used to be the first big thing, and in many cases, the candidates garnered a big "WHO is that?" from the general public. The sheer number and frequency of polls, the pundits punditting, and the 24/7 nature of information availability makes that a little strange sounding! I still think it's a very interesting procedure--and one that I wish I had the opportunity to participate in. As a registered Democrat, I'd like the chance to be in a room full of people arguing points and speaking to support a candidate. There is a real choice involved there, and it's an intriguing idea to me.

[bobmark226]

Who is Judith? Wife?

Oh, dear. You have to read what is probably a classic hatchet job from Vanity Fair.

The Princess Bride (http://www.vanityfair.com/fame/features/2007/09/giuliani200709)


It's long, it's juicy and gossipy. Sit down, pour yourself a big mug of coffee or tea and wallow. :)

Bob

[SDMomChef]

Abby - Good for you for going to your first caucus. I have a friend who is also going to her first caucus. But, I think the caucus process actually discourages more participation. How many people are willing AND able to take between 1 1/2 hour to 2 hours out of their day for this voting process? And, there is no absentee options, so if you have to work or can't find a babysitter, you are out of luck. Not to mention if you are serving in the military.

So, I applaud you for being able to go and participate!

[Melman]

It's 9:00 EST and NBC News already "projects Huckabee wins Iowa Republican Caucus".

Huckabee?!?!?! He has shown in the past few weeks that he has not much of a clue as far as international affairs. He's getting the evangelical vote. Period. <sigh> Here we go again.

But on the Democratic side, at 9:00, the vote is split 33/32/32 (Obama, Edwards, Clinton). They're also predicting a record turn-out.

[Meg O'C]

Oh, dear. You have to read what is probably a classic hatchet job from Vanity Fair.

The Princess Bride (http://www.vanityfair.com/fame/features/2007/09/giuliani200709)


It's long, it's juicy and gossipy. Sit down, pour yourself a big mug of coffee or tea and wallow. :)

Bob

I love juicy and gossipy! I read the whole thing - very interesting - just the escape I needed. Thanks for sharing, Bob.

[Laurielee]

Thanks for all your info

I love juicy and gossipy! I read the whole thing - very interesting - just the escape I needed. Thanks for sharing, Bob.


This is exactly what I need to read to calm my nerves as I flight out on Sunday in our "Mother of all Storms" happening here.

Laurie

[Autumn]

Thanks, Sherri. I walked down to my caucus location (school gym), listened to the speeches, wrote my choice on the little paper square they cut out of legal pads (high-tech here :p ) and went home. I didn't stay for the platform/plank discussions because I had kids at home that needed to get to bed, but it felt really good to take part in the process. Definitely a record turnout.

That giant sucking sound you hear is all the candidates, their campaign teams and the media leaving Iowa. The circus has left town., and Iowa goes back to relative anonymity for four more years.

Bob, thanks for that article. VERY entertaining. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall of the Giuliani household the day that was published. It provided insight into Rudy as well as Judith.

[Laurielee]

Autumn, what keeps people from tampering with your piece of paper and changing your vote?

Laurie

[bobmark226]

Huckabee?!?!?! He has shown in the past few weeks that he has not much of a clue as far as international affairs. He's getting the evangelical vote. Period. <sigh> Here we go again.




Nevermind his bird shooting outing (no objection there) where he pointed to the dead birds on the ground and jokingly said "This is what happens if you don't vote for me!" :eek:, there was a segment on "Hardball" back in late summer that absolutely floored me.

He and Chris Matthews were discussing gun control and he said flat out, referring to the crime rate in Philadelphia, that if every single citizen were armed, it would go down. He then added that any criminal who intended harm to anyone but knew the other guy could take him out would think twice. Matthews was completely taken aback and confronted him, but he held his position even after Matthews suggested he'd be turning major cities into Dodge City.

Amazing, just amazing.

Bob

[Autumn]

The precinct captain just walked around and picked up everyone's slip of paper. Then he and and the recording secretary sat down and counted them at a table right there in front of everyone...there were about 200 voters there I think. There were reps from the campaigns to observe the counting. They announced the precinct results as soon as they were done counting, then I assume they call in the results to...someone official? :rolleyes: Maybe county party officials. I know that although the precincts are set up by the state, the caucuses are run by the political parties themselves. There didn't seem to be a concern about corruption.

[ajowen]

So it sounds like Autumn caucused for the republicans.

I caucused for the democrats and it was much more like herding cats. We had everyone sit at the tables labeled for their candidates, including an undecided table (which had all the candidates literature). Everyone counted up. Then we were told we needed 46 people to get a delegate (we had 15). Discussing and talking ensued and 30 min later they counted again. (we still had 15). Discussing and talking and deal making ensued.... My 15 traded the opportunity to serve on the county party committees for joining a larger group and staying together.... We counted again. The numbers didn't add up right. The groups counted again with observers from other group present. We assigned delegates and went home.

[granolagirl]

I wish we had caucuses instead of a primary. I find them to be so interesting.