Iowa Is A Little Weird.

[ttogreh]

So, Senator Obama won the Iowa Caucuses, with Edwards and Clinton neck and neck for second place. Iowa Democrats voted in numbers around 200,000. Iowa Republicans voted in numbers around 100,000, for Mike Huckabee.

If ever there were two different people, Obama and Huckabee...

I kind of like Obama. I don't think I would vote for the man, but he seems like a decent man. Huckabee... I really don't understand Iowa Republicans. I don't think Huckabee is going to do well in New Hampshire next week.

Any ways, a state of three million with voters of about three hundred thousand named the front-runners for the Presidency of three hundred million. It is an odd way to do things, indeed.

What do you guys think?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Know_buddy_cares, that was extremely narrow minded and bigoted. It is attitudes like yours that really really have no place in the modern world.

and to get rid of your ingnorance.... Iowa has voted first in every election for a very long time.

[ttogreh]

I would not have been so harsh, Gaf, but I feel I agree with you.

KBK, why exactly do you feel the way you do?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

On topic... I'm not surprised by this at all. I was really hoping for Clinton and Romney... but the race is not over yet.

I am also cool with Iowa voting first. I understand the logic. Because of population levels and how they are spread around... the order is chosen to givd the regions with the least amount of voting power a bit more influance on the vote.

People group together of like mindsets... to get the best representation of the various sub cultures inthe USA we hve to manipulate the voting order a bit to give everyone as equal a say as everyone else. if Cali, Florida and NY voted first... the election would be decided... but if the smaller population ares go first.. their votes swing a few people in the larger states... influance them... sheep.... and the power is more evenly spread to the people.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

KBK: Cut that out, asap. Make your point with some tact or don't make it.

If KBKs comment offends you, report it, don't respond with an also offensive response. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Well anyhow the die is cast.

Conventional wisdom (and the statistics) generally say if you dont finish at least 3rd in Iowa you can pretty much pack it in.

I was expecting:

Democrats:

1. Clinton

2. Obama

3. Edwards

So

1. Obama

2. Edwards

3. Clinton (bill had this same slot when he won the election as i remember)

isn't all that huge of a difference.

For the GOP i was thinking...

Republicans:

1. Mitt Romney

2. John McCain

3. Some actor

Huckabee I'm in shock about. I doubted he had any real chance of winning anything, even if he won in Iowa. But, the national election voters seem to be very elastic. Although the press that the dems are getting so far, i doubt any GOP candidate has a chance unless something drastically changes. Which is possible since public opinion is notoriously finicky and news-centric (issues stances be damned)

[the eternal]

BOY, I must've really missed a doozy from KBK. Anyone want to PM me, feel free to do so

On topic... I'm not surprised by this at all. I was really hoping for Clinton and Romney... but the race is not over yet.

I am also cool with Iowa voting first. I understand the logic. Because of population levels and how they are spread around... the order is chosen to give the regions with the least amount of voting power a bit more influence on the vote.

People group together of like mindsets... to get the best representation of the various sub cultures in the USA we have to manipulate the voting order a bit to give everyone as equal a say as everyone else. if Cali, Florida and NY voted first... the election would be decided... but if the smaller population ares go first.. their votes swing a few people in the larger states... influence them... sheep.... and the power is more evenly spread to the people.

Agree 100%. That was also the thinking behind the electoral college, though I'm much more mixed on that.

I hate to stick my tongue out and say it, though I probably did in five other threads, this ended EXACTLY the way I thought. (at least as of the past month)

Hilary was strong in Iowa for awhile but she ran out of steam.

I know way too much about Iowa.

Iowans are Christian farmers.

They like G-d, not as big on guns as the south, but they like their hunting.

They believe in change, and positive campaigning.

When Romney went negative and his Mormonism was spotlighted, those things really hurt him.

Giuliani NEVER connected with Iowa. He just couldn't find common ground. He seemed too "city" for them.

Iowans ate up Huckabees "aw shucks" Arkansas, bible-loving attitude.

Obama was so damn positive and hopeful through the state and he really connected.

Up until a month ago, I didn't think he could win it.

Edwards had been there practically since the last election. He was vocal for change.

But I think he got a little too negative for Iowans' flavor, too.

He WAS white, though.

In Iowa, that's important.

So, I think the story coming out of Iowa in my mind is not that a guy who talks just like every Iowa Republican(Huckabee), beat a much more well-funded slick-haired East coast Governor (Romney).

But that a Black man was able to beat a populist Democrat who did everything but grow corn to win the Caucus there(Edwards)

------------------------------------------------------------------

Obamas got the momentum now, but Hillary's still tops in polls.

She needs to post STRONGLY in NH.

If Romney doesn't win NH, I don't see how he's going to be able to come back.

And Giulianis showing was an embarrassment, even worse than I thought.

I think his Florida first strategy is going to backfire.

Although the press that the dems are getting so far, I doubt any GOP candidate has a chance unless something drastically changes. Which is possible since public opinion is notoriously finicky and news-centric (issues stances be damned)

The press follows the interesting story.

Huckabee's going to be a hero for awhile. He'll get a lot of press.

If McCain wins NH, he'll be the comeback kid. HE'LL get a lot of press too.

And he has a lot of crossover appeal to moderates like the "Reagan Democrats"

I really thought he had no shot because he was going far right and he was the most pro-war, but ever since the far right shunned him, he's gone back to basics, while at the same time the public discussion has shifted from Iraq to the economy and the sub-prime market.

One more thing Troy:

NEVER understimate the democrats' ability to snatch defeat from the hands of victory.

[Destroit]

My god....

We're screwed.

That's all I have to say.

I get the Iowa thing, but I still think that, like the Olympics, they should switch the power/place of the caucus every year, it just seems more fair.

[know_buddy_kares]

Well i knew the comment was gonna be a bit racey but i didn't think it would get that out of context. Bad choice of humor on my part so I wish to appologize for anyone who may have been offended by it. If anyone does wish to know why I'm not too happy with Iowa at the moment... I'm putting this tactfully here...

I think they unfairly removed Kucinich from the ballots. The reason they gave wasn't of any significants as to where he decided to operate from. Why he was singled out against all the other Democratic candidates to me was unfair. So yes, my opinion of how Iowa runs things isn't so high anymore. Like Kucinich or not, he still should have had a fair chance to loose like everyone else (other than the winners)

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

You mean the Debates? and Kucinich was on the "ballots" for the Iowa caucus. He got less the 15% of the vote in the initial voting so asked his supporters to go vote for Obama. Thats the same reason he is getting cut for the NH debates... he cant muster 15% of the vote in poles... People don't want to waste time on him in a limited time setting.

[know_buddy_kares]

Actually... the sources I've read gave the reason being that he ran from his house, and not an office. I haven't found anything from what you said so now I am a bit confused... perhaps you could link me a few sources in a PM and I can do the same. I've not really had time to keep up with this all as I've been preocupied getting ready for Germany and trying to still visit friends while on leave, so I would be thankful if you sent me some links if you could. I was going by what I last read a few weeks ago before this took place.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I think your confusing Iowa with Texas.

[know_buddy_kares]

you could be right... but then again while i'm trying to find the news article i still could have swore it be Iowa, and for a different reason all together than what Texas had put down. It had something to do with where he wanted to run his campaign at in Iowa.

[ttogreh]

Kucinich, Gravel, Dodd... they didn't have a chance because the National Party didn't want them to have a chance. Like I have said before... Parties are an ancient anachronism that need to go away...

It does give me a little hope, though... Huckabee spent peanuts compared to Romney, and kicked him in the teeth. At least in Iowa, you can't buy an election. Not that I agree with Huckabee on a lot of things...

[know_buddy_kares]

true, however Obama seems to be taking alot of money now from organizations that wish to prevent socialized medicine... so even though I'm ok with him coming in first in Iowa, I'm not exactly thrilled. However there's still 49 more states to go.