The Iowa Thread

[GuruJane]

From my understanding the caucuses involve a bunch of people in a room standing around in groups according to which candidate they support, and trying to convince people in other groups to join their group. After a period of time, they're told to stop, the numbers in each group are tallied, and representatives of each level of support are then sent as delegates to the next level of the caucus (though they're somewhat bound at the later caucuses to that of the first level).

However it works, it's bloody confusing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucus

Enivisaging the conversation when Bremer was attemping to persuade the Ayatollah Sistani of the merits of a caucus as the means of electing the Iraqi transitional government back in 2004? .... no wonder Sistani ended up adopting one vote one value and proportional representation in preference?

Was this deep deep CIA black psy-ops do we think? If so will have to revise my opinion of the competence of G Tenet.

 

[GuruJane]

From my understanding the caucuses involve a bunch of people in a room standing around in groups according to which candidate they support, and trying to convince people in other groups to join their group. After a period of time, they're told to stop, the numbers in each group are tallied, and representatives of each level of support are then sent as delegates to the next level of the caucus (though they're somewhat bound at the later caucuses to that of the first level).

However it works, it's bloody confusing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucus

Thanks Q, have now read the link.

Thought some of it was worth posting for the benefit of the perplexed:

Republican Party process


For the Republicans, the Iowa caucus follows (and should not be confused with) the Ames Straw Poll in August of the preceding year. Out of the five Ames Straw Poll iterations, 1987 is the only year in which the winner of the Ames Straw Poll has not gone on to win the Iowa caucus.

In the Republican caucuses, each voter casts his or her vote by secret ballot. Voters are presented blank sheets of paper with no candidate names on them. After listening to some campaigning for each candidate by caucus participants, they write their choices down and the Republican Party of Iowa tabulates the results at each precinct and transmits them to the media.[1] The non-binding results are tabulated and reported to the state party which releases the results to the media. Delegates from the precinct caucuses go on to the County Convention, which chooses delegates to the District Convention, which in turn selects delegates to the State Convention. Thus it is the Republican State Convention, not the precinct caucuses, which select the ultimate delegates to the Republican National Convention in Iowa.


Democratic Party process

The vote is literally determined by where each voter stands.

The process used by the Democrats is more complex than the Republican Party caucus process. Each precinct divides its delegate seats among the candidates in proportion to caucus goers' votes.

Participants indicate their support for a particular candidate by standing in a designated area of the caucus site (forming a "preference group"). An area may also be designated for undecided participants. Then, for roughly 30 minutes, participants try to convince their neighbors to support their candidates. Each preference group might informally deputize a few members to recruit supporters from the other groups and, in particular, from among those undecided. Undecided participants might visit each preference group to ask its members about their candidate.

After 30 minutes, the electioneering is temporarily halted and the supporters for each candidate are counted. At this point, the caucus officials determine which candidates are "viable". Depending on the number of county delegates to be elected, the "viability threshold" can be anywhere from 15% to 25% of attendees. For a candidate to receive any delegates from a particular precinct, he or she must have the support of at least the percentage of participants required by the viability threshold. Once viability is determined, participants have roughly another 30 minutes to "realign": the supporters of inviable candidates may find a viable candidate to support, join together with supporters of another inviable candidate to secure a delegate for one of the two, or choose to abstain. This "realignment" is a crucial distinction of caucuses in that (unlike a primary) being a voter's "second candidate of choice" can help a candidate.

When the voting is closed, a final head count is conducted, and each precinct apportions delegates to the county convention. These numbers are reported to the state party, which counts the total number of delegates for each candidate and reports the results to the media. Most of the participants go home, leaving a few to finish the business of the caucus: each preference group elects its delegates, and then the groups reconvene to elect local party officers and discuss the platform.

The delegates chosen by the precinct then go to a later caucus, the county convention, to choose delegates to the district convention and state convention. Most of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention are selected at the district convention, with the remaining ones selected at the state convention. Delegates to each level of convention are initially bound to support their chosen candidate but can later switch in a process very similar to what goes on at the precinct level; however, as major shifts in delegate support are rare, the media declares the candidate with the most delegates on the precinct caucus night the winner, and relatively little attention is paid to the later caucuses.


2004 Democratic process

In 2004, the meetings ran from 6:30 p.m. until approximately 8:00 p.m. on January 19, 2004, with a turnout of about 124,000 caucus-goers.[2] The county convention occurred on March 13, the district convention on April 24, and the state convention on June 26. Delegates could and did change their votes based on further developments in the race; for instance, in 2004 the delegates pledged to Dick Gephardt, who left the race after the precinct caucuses, chose a different candidate to support at the county, district, and state level.

The number of delegates each candidate receives eventually determines how many state delegates from Iowa that candidate will have at the Democratic National Convention. Iowa sends 56 delegates to the DNC out of a total 4,366.

Of the 45 delegates that were chosen through the caucus system, 29 were chosen at the district level. Ten delegates were at-large delegates, and six were "party leader and elected official" (PLEO) delegates; these were assigned at the state convention. There were also 11 other delegates, eight of whom were appointed from local Democratic National Committee members - two were PLEO delegates and one was elected at the state Democratic convention. The group of 45 delegates was pledged to a candidate; the group of 11 is unassigned.

Must confess am still not much the wiser, but maybe CNN and Fox will provide understandable analysis tomorrow.

However it is useful to know what kind of voting systems the 21st century American imperialists might inflict on us all?

 

[Qsaint]

Still Obama and the Huckster in latest Poll

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/clinton-setback-as-race-gets-real/2008/01/04/1198950021967.html

Clinton last

Anyway only a few hours to go

 

[KissStephanie]

WWII cost billions.. Im glad we came away with that victorious.

Who is "we" Cam? Were you fighting in a past life, or are you more than 80 years old? WWII was justified and has nothing in common in any way, shape or form of course.

Iraq may be costing a lot, but it would cost the US a lot more if they run away like Edwards is suggesting they do.

No it wouldn't. It would cost much less. No war in Iraq means a stop to the frightful financial cost of course.

Actually, out of Obama, Hilliary and Edwards.. surely you are more much aligned with what Edwards stands for?

On which issues? Are you taking all of the issues that are important to me into account, such as previous White House experience and electability, or only some of them?

Ok so teaming up with the US in fighting al-Qaeda is a bad thing in your mind..?

Al-Qaeda was in Afghanistan were not Iraq before the war in Iraq began, and of course I think it's a bad thing to have created Sunni and Shi'ite militias because it further divides Iraqi's. The very militias that the US military only recently condemned.

Petraeus has done a magnificent job, he has done everything asked of him.

That's your opinion. My opinion is that creating these religiously divided militias amongst Iraq's is going to be problematic in the future. The extra money spent in funding the surge has temporarily reduced violence, although currently Pakistan is more of a danger and more of a problem than Iraq ever was. The war in Iraq has created that problem.

Then lets do away with the polls and focus on the facts.

Why do away with the polls? You asked if I was "obsessed" with polls, and I said that I am not obsessed with them, or anything else for that matter. I do take notice of them though, and I have no intention of ignoring them.

And in the next sentence you'll say Bush isn't supplying the troops with good enough armour.

Where did I say that "in the next sentence?" I didn't do any such thing. I think it's more reasonable to point out what someone has actually written, and not what you incorrectly think someone may write in the future. Don't you agree?

Wars that go on for this long tend to cost alot, but as I have said.. if the coalition withdraw it may well cost them a whole lot more in 10 or so years once AQ and Iran have their way.

Goodness me. If Americans had any idea that it would cost as much, or drag on as it has, with years still to come, then it would never have begun in the first place. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban thriving and growing as they are, and the instability in Iran is the direct result of the war in Iraq.

That is if many people get their news from the MSM.

Are you trying to say that al-Qaeda and the Taliban are not in fact thriving in Pakistan? Are you trying to say that Afghanistan is stable? Are you trying to say that Iran is not a problem? To say that mainstream news is a propaganda machine is being ridiculous.

Others will see signs of progress all across Iraq. The current so-called "turmoil" in the region should be blamed on both AQ and Iran. Not the US.

Signs of progress after nearly five years of this with years still to come? Corrupt and dysfunctional Iraqi government, divided religious militias, instability in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan which is far more of a problem that Iraq ever was, is a direct result of Bush's war.

That website doesn't work for me? But I trust that your numbers accurate.

This is the web site that has McCain 2% ahead of Clinton, although Clinton has been ahead for the previous six months. It shows state-by-state trends, but if Clinton and McCain were their respective party's nominations, then I would expect it to change significantly yet again because McCain simply doesn't have the money that Clinton has to run the best campaign.

 

[FOOOOTY]

No CNN or Fox News here. Guess Bigfooty will keep me informed

 

[KissStephanie]

Clinton last

In that one C-Span/Reuters/Zogby poll, she is third, but not last of course, but overall, she is in second place, and only 1.6% behind Obama, and 3.2% ahead of Edwards. That is less than the margin of error. If the three most recent polls are totalled, which are the only ones conducted since the new year began, then Clinton is 30.0%, Obama is 30.0%, and Edwards is 27.0%. It's as close to a dead heat as it can be.

If it's a large turnout, that will aid Obama because he has been targeting fist time voters, while if it's a low turnout, that will aid Clinton and Edwards more. Iowa has usually been a low turnout, so time will tell.

Anyway only a few hours to go

Two and a half hours to go!

 

[CharlieG]

Obama has second-choice endorsements from both Dennis Kucinich and Bill Richardson. I don't think Chris Dodd, Joe Biden or Mike Gravel have indicated who their voters should support if (when) they are eliminated.

 

[achancely]

When will results be available?

 

[KissStephanie]

Obama has second-choice endorsements from both Dennis Kucinich and Bill Richardson. I don't think Chris Dodd, Joe Biden or Mike Gravel have indicated who their voters should support if (when) they are eliminated.

Dennis Kucinch has stated that he endorses Barack Obama as a second choice, but I don't think anybody else has made an official announcement. It will be interesting to see if voters actually follow endorsements or not. Biden, Dodd and Richardson all have years of experience, which is a different policy background to Obama, unless the aim of course is to weaken Clinton and knock Edwards out.

If Clinton finishes third in Iowa, then maybe that will be a good omen as her husband finished third in Iowa in 1992, and went on to become the next president. I don't think the Iowa caucuses have had a significant impact since 1976, while Kerry's win in 2004 that led to him winning the nomination was out of the norm.

The result should be so close between the three main Democratic candidates that I don't think the winner will take any significant momentum into New Hampshire. If John Edwards wins, that will be his first and last win of these primaries. Currently it is practically a 3-way dead-heat, and that is what makes it interesting.

 

[Qsaint]

When will results be available?

IIRC It starts at CST 6.30pm which is 11.30am Melbourne time, I don't think it takes that long for a result

 

[CharlieG]

Dennis Kucinch has stated that he endorses Barack Obama as a second choice, but I don't think anybody else has made an official announcement. It will be interesting to see if voters actually follow endorsements or not. Biden, Dodd and Richardson all have years of experience, which is a different policy background to Obama, unless the aim of course is to weaken Clinton and knock Edwards out.
.

The NY Times is reporting today that the Richardson and Obama campaigns have an agreement whereby Richardson supporters go to Obama in precincts where he is 'unviable' and surplus Obama supporters go to Richardson in precincts where he can win delegates. Presumably that part of the deal comes with a proviso that should Richardson's delegates not be enough to win the state (which will be the case) that they go to Obama as well.

 

[CharlieG]

IIRC It starts at CST 6.30pm which is 11.30am Melbourne time, I don't think it takes that long for a result

It will take at least an hour for Democratic results to start coming in. Republican results might come in somewhat earlier because of the simpler process.

 

[Mr Q]

If Clinton finishes third in Iowa, then maybe that will be a good omen as her husband finished third in Iowa in 1992, and went on to become the next president.

He got all of 3% (and less than "uncommitted" at 12%), and nearly all of the Democratic candidates - including Bill - stayed away in 1992 because they would have had to go up against the Governor of Iowa which was a lose-lose proposition for them.

 

[KissStephanie]

The NY Times is reporting today that the Richardson and Obama campaigns have an agreement whereby Richardson supporters go to Obama in precincts where he is 'unviable' and surplus Obama supporters go to Richardson in precincts where he can win delegates. Presumably that part of the deal comes with a proviso that should Richardson's delegates not be enough to win the state (which will be the case) that they go to Obama as well.

A deal? I'll be interested to see if any voters are put off by such dealings. I would prefer it if voters actually voted for the candidate they believe in instead of the one that has done the best deal, and that includes second-choice votes.

IIRC It starts at CST 6.30pm which is 11.30am Melbourne time, I don't think it takes that long for a result

Meetings begin in about 1800 precincts at 7 PM CT, which is midday in Melbourne. Forty minutes from now.

 

[Elle]

The NY Times is reporting today that the Richardson and Obama campaigns have an agreement whereby Richardson supporters go to Obama in precincts where he is 'unviable' and surplus Obama supporters go to Richardson in precincts where he can win delegates. Presumably that part of the deal comes with a proviso that should Richardson's delegates not be enough to win the state (which will be the case) that they go to Obama as well.

It's been updated:

Update | 3:25 p.m. David Plouffe, Obama campaign manager, responding to the report that Mr. Obama had reached an agreement for reciprocal support with Bill Richardson’s campaign, insisted the campaign had reached “no formal arrangements” with any of his rivals. But he said that “there are certainly places where our precinct captains want to work with Richardson” supporters — to gain second-choice support in cases where Mr. Richardson doesn’t reach the threshold to compete, or to lend Mr. Richardson surplus backers in instances where they can’t yield any additional Obama delegates.

“We’re giving our precinct captains a lot of latitude to work this out,” Mr. Plouffe said. “We’re going to fight as hard as we can for every one” of Mr. Richardson’s available supporters, and “It comes down to how well our precinct captains do.” With polling showing that Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards are the top contenders for second-choice support, Mr. Plouffe said they’d made similar efforts with supporters of Joseph Biden and Chris Dodd as well. Dennis Kucinich has already publicly urged his backers to support Mr. Obama in precincts where Kucinich is not viable.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/03/obama-will-get-richardsons-second-choice-votes

 

[CharlieG]

If Clinton finishes third in Iowa, then maybe that will be a good omen as her husband finished third in Iowa in 1992, and went on to become the next president.

Haha. That would take some world-class spinning to pull off. If Clinton finishes third after being the frontrunner for a year, then it's a disastrous result. No amount of 'omens' could possibly change that.

 

[CharlieG]

It's been updated:

Update | 3:25 p.m. David Plouffe, Obama campaign manager, responding to the report that Mr. Obama had reached an agreement for reciprocal support with Bill Richardson’s campaign, insisted the campaign had reached “no formal arrangements” with any of his rivals. But he said that “there are certainly places where our precinct captains want to work with Richardson” supporters — to gain second-choice support in cases where Mr. Richardson doesn’t reach the threshold to compete, or to lend Mr. Richardson surplus backers in instances where they can’t yield any additional Obama delegates.

“We’re giving our precinct captains a lot of latitude to work this out,” Mr. Plouffe said. “We’re going to fight as hard as we can for every one” of Mr. Richardson’s available supporters, and “It comes down to how well our precinct captains do.” With polling showing that Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards are the top contenders for second-choice support, Mr. Plouffe said they’d made similar efforts with supporters of Joseph Biden and Chris Dodd as well. Dennis Kucinich has already publicly urged his backers to support Mr. Obama in precincts where Kucinich is not viable.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/03/obama-will-get-richardsons-second-choice-votes

Thanks for that.

 

[KissStephanie]

Haha. That would take some world-class spinning to pull off.

Barack Obama has been playing the spin-game, and it could lead him to victory tonight, particularly if he has made deals.

If Clinton finishes third after being the frontrunner for a year, then it's a disastrous result.

It would not be a disaster. I don't expect her to win in Iowa because everybody has been writing her off and practically already announced that Obama will win, particularly if he has done deals for the second-choice votes which will be the difference in a practical dead-heat. It's hard not to hear that, and I have no control over the result, except wait and see what happens.

However, her lead in so many other states is so strong, and I don't expect a victory tonight by any candidate to be great enough to change that. No amount of 'omens' could possibly change that.

Her husbands third-place in Iowa in 1992 is just evidence that Iowa has rarely been significant in the past. That's all.

 

[Qsaint]

Haha. That would take some world-class spinning to pull off. If Clinton finishes third after being the frontrunner for a year, then it's a disastrous result. No amount of 'omens' could possibly change that.

Iowa Democrats, unlike Republicans, use a more complicated system to determine a candidate's viability. Republican caucus-goers are asked for their support for a candidate only one time during the event. Democrats are asked twice: an initial question of support, and a second if their first choice candidate does not reach a 15 percent threshold to achieve viability.

If Obama and Hillary get similar 'primaries', I can't see how Hillary can win

 

[Elle]

C-SPAN are broadcasting live from two caucuses:

Democratic caucus
http://www.c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan_rm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS

Republican caucus
http://www.c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan_rm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS2

They're up to realignment in the Dem caucus.

 

[FOOOOTY]

Go Obama!, any word from you CNN nuts?

 

[CharlieG]

17% counted in the Democratic caucus:
Edwards 34%
Clinton 32%
Obama 31%
Richardson 2%
Biden 1%

These are most likely rural results from western Iowa, where Edwards is expected to get his best results. The big caucuses in Des Moines and the other metropolitan areas will determine who wins.

Only 2% counted in the Republican caucus:
Huckabee 33%
Romney 24%
Thompson 17%
McCain 11%
Others 15%

 

[CharlieG]

23% of Democratic precincts counted:
Edwards - 33%
Clinton - 32%
Obama - 32%
Richardson - 2%
Others - 1%

15% of Republican precincts counted:
Huckabee - 36%
Romney - 23%
Thompson - 15%
McCain - 12%
Others - 14%

 

[CharlieG]

57% of 17-29yo Democrats voting for Obama. 13% for Edwards, 11% for Clinton.

45% of 65+ Democrats for Clinton. Edwards 22%, Obama 17%.

About one third of caucus-goers are over 65.

 

[CharlieG]

CNN calling it for Huckabee.