Huckabee/Obama Win Iowa Caucuses

[HuskyCaucasian]

Question for those smarter than me on politics (everybody who has posted in this thread, in other words): Just how important is the Iowa Caucus? I know it's the first one and happens here at the start of the year of the election, but what happens tonight matter as much as the media is making it seem like? Thanks in advance for any help you can give to a novice here.

I dont have the total history, but here it goes...

Iowa is important because the media and the democratic party say it is. It's about momentum. In 2004 Kerry was I think 3rd or worse in iowa and NH. But he sprung ahead in Iowa and WON. The NH Primary a few days (maybe a week) later, Kerry won that. It's all about momentum. It doesnt mean everything, but it CAN.

 

Iowa is important, but if the democratic party could make Idaho, Illinois, Texas, Nebraska more important if they really wanted to.

 

Why is Iowa important? i dunno. Some argue they are the "real america" Or, a broad sampling that represents the rest of the country. I dont know how true that is.

[NorthSideSox72]

Question for those smarter than me on politics (everybody who has posted in this thread, in other words): Just how important is the Iowa Caucus? I know it's the first one and happens here at the start of the year of the election, but what happens tonight matter as much as the media is making it seem like? Thanks in advance for any help you can give to a novice here.

There is the literal importance of the delegates, and then there is the more dynamic effect of victory...

 

At a base level, the primary/caucus system assigns a number of delegates to each state that go to the winner(s) of those states. Those delegates, essentially, represent votes at the convention which decide who gets the nomination. Iowa has 45 delegates to give out for the Dems, 41 for the Republicans.

 

In reality, its been a long time (not sure how long) since it was really still in question anywhere near the convention (which would be in the summer of 2008). There is usually a candidate dominant enough well before then, such that other contenders give up and endorse someone else, until one remains. But if it does come down to the wire, there is a complex set of rules as to how that all works.

 

Iowa's effect is big, being the first one, as it sets the tone, gives the winning or strong candidates major pub, and gives momentum. It also usually means the death of some of the lower level candidates, giving those votes to other more viable ones. This year, with such a tight race with so many viable candidates in both parties... the effect is huge. Much, much larger than what the 45 delegates (only about 1 to 2% of the national total) represent. The following primaries are so close together, and give such a boost to Iowa's winners, that having momentum of victory in Iowa is huge.

 

For more, I'd check Wikipedia or the DNC/RNC pages.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I dont have the total history, but here it goes...

Iowa is important because the media and the democratic party say it is. It's about momentum. In 2004 Kerry was I think 3rd or worse in iowa and NH. But he sprung ahead in Iowa and WON. The NH Primary a few days (maybe a week) later, Kerry won that. It's all about momentum. It doesnt mean everything, but it CAN.

 

Iowa is important, but if the democratic party could make Idaho, Illinois, Texas, Nebraska more important if they really wanted to.

 

Why is Iowa important? i dunno. Some argue they are the "real america" Or, a broad sampling that represents the rest of the country. I dont know how true that is.

Iowa was originally chosen as a bellweather state for a number of reasons, but here are some...

 

--Unusually well educated public

--Geographically and politically centrist

--At the time, with agriculture so huge in the economy, the breadbasket was much more important

--Same with the rural population, which at the time was so much larger as part of the country's population

 

[YASNY]

Athomeboy and Northsidesox both used the word in their answer, but the key word coming out of Iowa and New Hampshire is Momentum. It's not a guarantee, but it can make or break a candicacy depending on the money and/or effort put forth by a particular candidate to win these contests.

Edited January 3, 2008 by YASNY

[Balta1701]

Question for those smarter than me on politics (everybody who has posted in this thread, in other words): Just how important is the Iowa Caucus? I know it's the first one and happens here at the start of the year of the election, but what happens tonight matter as much as the media is making it seem like? Thanks in advance for any help you can give to a novice here.

Overall, it should be of virtually no importance. It's one small rural state with a homogeneous racial population that is a very poor representation of the country as a whole, and at least for the Dems, roughly 1% of the available convention delegates are up for grabs. Beyond that, the procedures are insane. There are no absentee votes, so anyone who has to work or is out of town for whatever reason can not vote. In other words, if you're a serviceman from Iowa on deployment in Iraq right now, you have no vote. If you would get fired for missing a night of work, you have no vote. As one blog I read put it yesterday...it's much like Camelot in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". It is a silly place, let's not go.

 

But, because the media have decided it's important, it's important. Historically, here is the effect that Iowa finishes have had on the average polling in New Hampshire (obviously the variance will be large, but I think this gets the point across).

Iowa impact on New Hampshire

 

1st: Plus 14.5 in NH

2nd: Plus 3.2 in NH

3rd: Minus 3.5 in NH

4th: Minus 4.4 in NH

Because the Iowa caucuses are so freaking silly, we really do need to get rid of the whole "Iowa is always first" thing and put in a more sane system. But until that happens, that's roughly how important it is...you win in Iowa, your poll numbers go up by 15 points in NH. For the Dems, this basically means you win Iowa and you should also win NH whoever you are, because it's that close.

[NorthSideSox72]

Trib has a nice little illustration of the Caucus process, for those curious.

 

[vandy125]

I dont have the total history, but here it goes...

Iowa is important because the media and the democratic party say it is. It's about momentum. In 2004 Kerry was I think 3rd or worse in iowa and NH. But he sprung ahead in Iowa and WON. The NH Primary a few days (maybe a week) later, Kerry won that. It's all about momentum. It doesnt mean everything, but it CAN.

 

Iowa is important, but if the democratic party could make Idaho, Illinois, Texas, Nebraska more important if they really wanted to.

 

Why is Iowa important? i dunno. Some argue they are the "real america" Or, a broad sampling that represents the rest of the country. I dont know how true that is.

 

Here is some pretty good information on it from Wikipedia and from a Dayton News article. Iowa moved its caucus ahead of the New Hampshire primary in 1972. Those two are different events, but the Iowa caucus became the first nomination event in the country at that time.

 

Iowa Caucus

 

Dayton News

[Rex Kickass]

Dems:

 

Obama 32

Edwards 29

Clinton 23

Richardson 8

Dodd 7

 

 

GOP:

Romney 32

Huckabee 31 (Lots of momentum, not so much organization)

Paul 12

Thompson 11

McCain 10

Guiliani 2

[NorthSideSox72]

Dems:

 

Obama 32

Edwards 29

Clinton 23

Richardson 8

Dodd 7

 

GOP:

Romney 32

Huckabee 31 (Lots of momentum, not so much organization)

Paul 12

Thompson 11

McCain 10

Guiliani 2

Wow - Paul in 3rd, eh? That would be quite a thing. And Dodd at 7 but no Biden?

 

 

[WilliamTell]

Paul is very popular hear in Iowa. But I think Romney, Huckabee, and Thompson will be the top 3 in order, with Obama, Edwards, and Clinton the top 3 in order. Huckabee has my vote tonight.

[WilliamTell]

Overall, it should be of virtually no importance. It's one small rural state with a homogeneous racial population that is a very poor representation of the country as a whole, and at least for the Dems, roughly 1% of the available convention delegates are up for grabs. Beyond that, the procedures are insane. There are no absentee votes, so anyone who has to work or is out of town for whatever reason can not vote. In other words, if you're a serviceman from Iowa on deployment in Iraq right now, you have no vote. If you would get fired for missing a night of work, you have no vote. As one blog I read put it yesterday...it's much like Camelot in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". It is a silly place, let's not go.

 

But, because the media have decided it's important, it's important. Historically, here is the effect that Iowa finishes have had on the average polling in New Hampshire (obviously the variance will be large, but I think this gets the point across).

 

Because the Iowa caucuses are so freaking silly, we really do need to get rid of the whole "Iowa is always first" thing and put in a more sane system. But until that happens, that's roughly how important it is...you win in Iowa, your poll numbers go up by 15 points in NH. For the Dems, this basically means you win Iowa and you should also win NH whoever you are, because it's that close.

 

 

You may think it's silly to have Iowa always first, and maybe it is, but to us Iowans it's something very special and we take pride in it. You wouldn't realize how many people are looking forward to tonight. This is the first time in a long time that both parties are a toss up right now. Iowans love the publicity they get once every 4 years. It's not like New York, Florida, California, Texas, etc. that have the massive population.

Edited January 3, 2008 by WilliamTell

[Mplssoxfan]

I don't want to find out. I might vote for Hillary over Hitler or Stalin, but at the moment I can't think of too many more who'd I'd choose Hillary over. Ok, I'll add Nero to the list.

Nero>>>>>Caligula

[WilliamTell]

Hey you do know that Vlad the Impaler eliminated poverty...........by killing the poor.

[GoSox05]

Hey you do know that Vlad the Impaler eliminated poverty...........by killing the poor.

 

 

 

Bad dude, but how cool would it be to have a name like that.

 

[Rex Kickass]

You may think it's silly to have Iowa always first, and maybe it is, but to us Iowans it's something very special and we take pride in it. You wouldn't realize how many people are looking forward to tonight. This is the first time in a long time that both parties are a toss up right now. Iowans love the publicity they get once every 4 years. It's not like New York, Florida, California, Texas, etc. that have the massive population.

 

If it was really that important, maybe more than 200,000 people would show up for these things out of the 1.8 million registered voters in the state. I'm sick and tired of having 11% of a voter base in a state that controls fewer than 10% of my party's delegates having such a big say in who gets to be the nominee for President.

[WilliamTell]

If it was really that important, maybe more than 200,000 people would show up for these things out of the 1.8 million registered voters in the state. I'm sick and tired of having 11% of a voter base in a state that controls fewer than 10% of my party's delegates having such a big say in who gets to be the nominee for President.

 

I'm sick and tired of people complaining that Iowa is first, but that's not going to change, and I don't see Iowa giving up the top spot for quite some time. We'll have to wait and see how many people actually show up, but numbers are expected to be the highest ever. Plus half the nation doesn't vote anyways, so the 11% still isn't great, but certainly not as bad as it looks. Any state that has the first caucus or primary would back it up. If North Dakota or Tennessee had it first I'd probably agree with you to an extent, but Iowa has it and I've lived all my life in Iowa, so I'm going to defend the state. Hardly any politician would come to Iowa if we weren't first.

[Rex Kickass]

11% turnout is pathetic. At anywhere and anytime.

 

This is the only election in the nation where 11% turnout gets this kind of constant attention. It can be first, but the truth is that it should be as important as Wyoming is for the GOP, which btw is caucusing for its Presidential candidates on Saturday, in case you didn't know.

[EvilMonkey]

Hardly any politician would come to Iowa if we weren't first.

So instead they don't come to Illinois, because by the time we get around to the primaries, things have already shaken out to only one or two choices. None of the campaign money raised from Illinois goes back into Illinois, it all goes into Iowa. This is a joke.

[WilliamTell]

11% turnout is pathetic. At anywhere and anytime.

 

This is the only election in the nation where 11% turnout gets this kind of constant attention. It can be first, but the truth is that it should be as important as Wyoming is for the GOP, which btw is caucusing for its Presidential candidates on Saturday, in case you didn't know.

 

 

Yes I did know that. And I do agree with you that it shouldn't be as important as Wyoming is for the GOP. For this it seems like the media goes by tradition with Iowa and New Hampshire. Hopefully there will be more than 11% tonight. We'll find out later on I guess.

[WilliamTell]

So instead they don't come to Illinois, because by the time we get around to the primaries, things have already shaken out to only one or two choices. None of the campaign money raised from Illinois goes back into Illinois, it all goes into Iowa. This is a joke.

 

 

Yeah..........I love it. I got to see Chuck Norris in Des Moines on New Year's. It was pretty sweet.

[Balta1701]

Yes I did know that. And I do agree with you that it shouldn't be as important as Wyoming is for the GOP. For this it seems like the media goes by tradition with Iowa and New Hampshire. Hopefully there will be more than 11% tonight. We'll find out later on I guess.

Tonight will almost certainly be a record turnout, because both sides have a contested primary for the first time in decades. But even then, it'll only be like 20% turnout, maybe 25%. But beyond that, I defy you to explain to me why a system where anyone who has to work or who is out of town or who is deployed overseas serving in the U.S. military should be the single most important contest in deciding a candidate.

[NorthSideSox72]

11% is, as Rex said, pathetic. Period. And as much as I understand the original reasons for Iowa going first, at this point, the primary/caucus system with Iowa being so important every year is just nonsensical.

 

[DBAHO]

So what time do we actually find out the results for this?

 

And I do indeed hope Hilary comes in 3rd as has been predicted recently.

 

Another funny thing, I took one of those 20 questions quizzes a couple of months ago, my candidate, Mitt Romney.

 

[WilliamTell]

Tonight will almost certainly be a record turnout, because both sides have a contested primary for the first time in decades. But even then, it'll only be like 20% turnout, maybe 25%. But beyond that, I defy you to explain to me why a system where anyone who has to work or who is out of town or who is deployed overseas serving in the U.S. military should be the single most important contest in deciding a candidate.

 

haha you're not gonna get me to try to back up the lack of absentee voting because it's not right. Like I said before, tradition seems to be the main reason why Iowa and New Hampshire are first. The other 48 states won't agree with it because frankly it is unfair to them, but to us, we think it's fine and I'm not going to complain about the system too much. But yes, I do think there should be some sort of absentee balloting for those who can't make it. That would be a great chance to increase voting percentage.

[WilliamTell]

So what time do we actually find out the results for this?

 

And I do indeed hope Hilary comes in 3rd as has been predicted recently.

 

Another funny thing, I took one of those 20 questions quizzes a couple of months ago, my candidate, Mitt Romney.

 

It's hard to say, we start at 6:30 CST and I can't remember what time we found out 8 years ago. I was only 14 then anyways. If I had to take a guess for the GOP, probably 10 or so. Just a guess though.

Edited January 3, 2008 by WilliamTell