Democratic caucuses and primaries

WTF is wrong with Iowans.

turnout wasn't that great at all. Pretty average-above average compared to prior elections since the 2000s.

I hope we aren't in for an ugly surprise in the general.
 
dudalb said:
I would say have all the primaries on one day, but I don't see that happening.
Click to expand...

I heard someone on a podcast suggest Maryland as the first state. Really, and primary (not caucus - that system keeps too many people from participating) state with a more representative population would do. Florida or New York could do well, although they may be a bit too populous. NY, in particular, has a decent share of blak, hispanic, *and* Jewish voters, as well as a decent rural section outside of major cities. And they've apparently changed their voting laws so you no longer need to change registration months in advance (don't know for sure, though).

ETA, perhaps Cali and a a midwest state join in, to help balance things out geographically?
 
Last edited:
ahhell said:
If we are going to keep primaries, I think that makes the most sense. I'd also have it much closer to the general. We really need to shorten this process man.
Click to expand...

On second though, not sure about the one day idea, but I think we really, really, need to shorten the process.
At one time, people did begin serious campaigning until the November before the election year.
The campaign starting two freaking years before the actual election is destructive; if nothing else a lot of people get just plain sick of it and suffer burnout at the exact time they should start paying attention.
ANd I think a lot of good potential candidates shy away because they don't want to spend two years in media hell.

The primary system is not perfect, but it's better then a system like the UK were pretty much a few Party big shots make all the decisions.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
I would say have all the primaries on one day, but I don't see that happening.
Click to expand...
I generally prefer solutions which can be nudged into existence, and this is one of them. DNC could reward states who award delegates on "Super Tuesday" and penalize those who run their process earlier, weighing based on how many weeks earlier.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk
 
nearly 97 percent of precincts have reported their results.

Man this is a tight final quarter.

Pete Buttigieg 550 votes - 26.22%
Bernie Sanders 547 votes - 26.07%

according to Iowa public radio
 
theprestige said:
It's not our voting system. It's the voting system of Iowa Democrats, for indicating their preference. And apparently they do love it. Why so judgy? It's not like they're forcing your state party to do it their way.
Click to expand...

Stacyhs said:
It's also the voting system of Iowa Republicans.
Click to expand...

theprestige said:
It is?!?!?!

Holy **** !!!

Now I totally hate it and/or love it, depending on how you need me to react, in order to satisfy whatever need prompted you to post this inanity.

I hope this helps. Have a nice day!
Click to expand...

Stacyhs said:
Despite your totally ridiculous over the top and childish retort, you did imply that only the Dems use the caucus in Iowa when you said "It's not our voting system. It's the voting system of Iowa Democrats, for indicating their preference."

Why you had such a juvenile response to my simply pointing out the fact that Iowa Republicans use it, too, I can only guess.
Click to expand...

theprestige said:
What's your point, Stacyhs?
Click to expand...

Stacyhs said:
I think it's pretty apparent in my last point post. But I'll repeat it: Iowa Republicans also use the caucus. Why you think there is more than just that, I have no idea.
Click to expand...

theprestige said:
It seemed important enough for you to post it. What was the importance?
Click to expand...

Read the exchange above. You took a completely benign and non-judgmental statement of fact and, for some reason known only to you, turned it into a ************* in a tea cup.

Why did I post it? Because, as I've already explained twice, your initial post declared that the (Iowa) caucus is not "our" (meaning Republican) voting system when, in fact, it is. If you cannot understand something that simple, then I can't help you. I'm done discussing this with you because it's just not worth it.
 
Venom said:
nearly 97 percent of precincts have reported their results.

Man this is a tight final quarter.

Pete Buttigieg 550 votes - 26.22%
Bernie Sanders 547 votes - 26.07%

according to Iowa public radio
Click to expand...

Still not 100%, but getting close (man, this is taking forever; even doing it all manually, I can't understand why it's still not done).

Here's that link again so folks don't have to go back to previous pages for it:

https://features.desmoinesregister.com/news/politics/iowa-caucuses-results-alignment/

The above numbers are actually SDEs, not raw votes. Bernie is ahead in the raw votes.
 
dudalb said:
The primary system is not perfect, but it's better then a system like the UK were pretty much a few Party big shots make all the decisions.
Click to expand...

First off, we don't have a President, and we don't vote for the PM, so there's not really an equivalent.

The voting for leader of the main parties tends to come down to getting support from enough MPs (you are after all supposed to be leading them, so their support is pretty crucial, see Corbyn) then going to the membership.

It's not really down to party big wigs and backroom deals anymore. Hasn't been for several years.
 
Venom said:
WTF is wrong with Iowans.

turnout wasn't that great at all. Pretty average-above average compared to prior elections since the 2000s.

I hope we aren't in for an ugly surprise in the general.
Click to expand...

I'm not ready to ring the "low turnout" alarm bell yet.

Caucuses are by their very design a pain to attend. You have to block off large amounts of time, deal with this rowdy crowd, and make your voting intentions very public. It's practically designed to depress turnout.

I think primaries will be a much better indication of whether or not turnout is depressed. Primaries are much more similar voting conditions to the general election.
 
Venom said:
WTF is wrong with Iowans.

turnout wasn't that great at all. Pretty average-above average compared to prior elections since the 2000s.

I hope we aren't in for an ugly surprise in the general.
Click to expand...

Only if you think lukewarm turnout is something to be surprised by. I'm not.

"Vote Burnout" is the one thing the fanatics on both sides find impossible to factor in and it most certainly exists.

Not everyone can feed on political drama forever in that way that keeps Twitter and the 24 Hour News Cycle feed.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Only if you think lukewarm turnout is something to be surprised by. I'm not.

"Vote Burnout" is the one thing the fanatics on both sides find impossible to factor in and it most certainly exists.

Not everyone can feed on political drama forever in that way that keeps Twitter and the 24 Hour News Cycle feed.
Click to expand...

I think one of the more interesting reveals in this election so far is the time when Kamala Harris's staff admitted that they got suckered by twitter. Turns out that the real world is not so fanatic as the internet. Who'd of thunk.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Only if you think lukewarm turnout is something to be surprised by. I'm not.

"Vote Burnout" is the one thing the fanatics on both sides find impossible to factor in and it most certainly exists.

Not everyone can feed on political drama forever in that way that keeps Twitter and the 24 Hour News Cycle feed.
Click to expand...

I also think (maybe hope?) that democrats will be more motivated to vote against Trump than for any of the current leaders.

The only candidates I would have a hard time voting for would be touchy feely Biden or GOP Bloomberg. So, I may have showed up in Iowa just to make sure Biden didn't do well, or I may have stayed home trusting that Biden wouldn't do well. It's a toss up. But November is not. Maybe that is just me. I hope not.
 
ahhell said:
I think one of the more interesting reveals in this election so far is the time when Kamala Harris's staff admitted that they got suckered by twitter. Turns out that the real world is not so fanatic as the internet. Who'd of thunk.
Click to expand...

Were they crying "entrapment"? :D
 
Dr. Keith said:
I also think (maybe hope?) that democrats will be more motivated to vote against Trump than for any of the current leaders.

The only candidates I would have a hard time voting for would be touchy feely Biden or GOP Bloomberg. So, I may have showed up in Iowa just to make sure Biden didn't do well, or I may have stayed home trusting that Biden wouldn't do well. It's a toss up. But November is not. Maybe that is just me. I hope not.
Click to expand...
I suppose that could be indicative of the reason for low caucus turnout.

Many Dems (like me) don't really care who gets the nomination because they are voting for them no matter what. So why bother wasting a Tuesday night.
 
Distracted1 said:
I suppose that could be indicative of the reason for low caucus turnout.

Many Dems (like me) don't really care who gets the nomination because they are voting for them no matter what. So why bother wasting a Tuesday night.
Click to expand...

And this is the problem with formalized decision making of almost any type, it leaves the people who are obsessed with a particular solution instead of focusing on fixing the problem with an in-proportionate amount of the "voice."

This is something I try to impress upon people. If the nuts and bolts of the decision aren't important to you, you still have to make our voice heard if the outcome is important to you or the decision is going to be made only by people obsessed with how, not the what.

Now I know this is... difficult with how the two political parties play their game, and I doubt this is by accident.
 
Dr. Keith said:
I also think (maybe hope?) that democrats will be more motivated to vote against Trump than for any of the current leaders.

The only candidates I would have a hard time voting for would be touchy feely Biden or GOP Bloomberg. So, I may have showed up in Iowa just to make sure Biden didn't do well, or I may have stayed home trusting that Biden wouldn't do well. It's a toss up. But November is not. Maybe that is just me. I hope not.
Click to expand...

See, I would've shown up to vote for Biden because he's the most electable candidate in the general election IMO. I think Sanders and Warren have only a 50/50 chance against Trump, and thats if someone like Bloomberg or Howard Schultz doesn't decide to run independently, then its game over, 4 more years of Trump thanks for playing. My actual preferred candidate would be Buttigieg, not sold on his electability though.

But alas New Mexico goes pretty much last, so we have no real choice in the nomination. Although, this year who knows?
 
Puppycow said:
Still not 100%, but getting close (man, this is taking forever; even doing it all manually, I can't understand why it's still not done).

Here's that link again so folks don't have to go back to previous pages for it:

https://features.desmoinesregister.com/news/politics/iowa-caucuses-results-alignment/

The above numbers are actually SDEs, not raw votes. Bernie is ahead in the raw votes.
Click to expand...

I know Bloomberg didn't expect to do well in Iowa... but 20 votes in the entire state on the final alignment? :jaw-dropp
 
lobosrul5 said:
I know Bloomberg didn't expect to do well in Iowa... but 20 votes in the entire state on the final alignment? :jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

If he was blasting the state like he is Florida that's about 1 vote for every 10,000 commercials.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom