Is winning the Iowa Caucus really a good thing?

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

http://sharoncobb.blogspot.com/2007/12/if-pattern-holds-only-thing-democrat.html

Quote:

In a contested race, the Democrat Iowa caucus winner has never gone on to win the general election

1972 - Iowa Caucus winner: Edmund Muskie. He neither became the party candidate nor the President.
*
1976 - Iowa Caucus winner: No Winner, the largest vote went to "Uncommitted" (the eventual President, Democrat Jimmy Carter, only got 28% of the vote)
*
1980 - Iowa Caucus winner: Jimmy Carter - lost in general election to Ronald Reagan
*
1984 - Iowa Caucus winner: Walter Mondale - lost in general election as Ronald Reagan re-elected.
*
1988 - Iowa Caucus winner: Richard Gephart was not the Party's eventual nominee.
*
1992 - Iowa Caucus winner: Tom Harkin in a landslide victory (eventual party nominee and next President, Bill Clinton only got 3% of the vote)
*
1996 - Iowa Caucus winner: Since Bill Clinton ran unopposed in the caucus, Iowa caucus-goers couldn't help but vote for the eventual winner.
*
2000 - Iowa Caucus winner: Al Gore - did not become the next President of the U.S.
*
2004 - Iowa Caucus winner: John Kerry - did not become the next President.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,949 • Replies: 63

No top replies

It prolongs the race and makes for good tv ratings if nothing else.

0 Replies

That was then, this is now.

For Obama, winning Iowa was a very good thing. For an African-American to win in Iowa and capture the female vote over a woman and the fact that he got young people to the polls, and capturing the independents, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera and then making a stirring and memorable victory speech (likened to RFK/JFK, Reagan MLK) and the fact that NH follows Iowa in a mere 5 days. This election is so much different in so many ways than any other in our history, it is hard to see much significance in historic precedents.

BTW I was supporting Hillary but now have switched to Obama since he won Iowa.

0 Replies

IMO, it is just a PR ploy. Candidates who desire to generate excitement, (and contributions to their campaign) love the caucuses. Bottom line, it is the primaries, (and of course the election) that are paramount.

0 Replies

I agree that it is one hell of a feat to upset Hillary in Iowa, and props to Obama for it. I also don't think it will change the outcome. I also agree with Phoenix.

0 Replies

BBB
I agree with Roxxxanne. What's important is that an African-American man won so much support from a conservative, largely white population.

I dread the South Carolina compaign. It's the home of Republican racial smear tactics. The worst of these evil campaign consultants is working for Mitt Romney.

BBB

0 Replies

Yeah, I tend to agree that it's more likely to make a difference in this particular race than normally. A recurring negative for Obama has been "can't win." Winning in Iowa puts lie to that. Winning in Iowa, then NH, then SC would REALLY put lie to that... but we'll see.

0 Replies

I'm going to stick my neck out, and say it's better than losing. One or two early defeats can kill all but the strongest campaigns.

0 Replies

Dirty Politics 2008, Anatomy of a Smear
This is why I dread the South Carolina campaign for both Democrats and Republicans (Huckabee and McCain.) Romney will use lies and racial smear tactics in desperation. For once, I hope such tactics backfire.---BBB

NOW - Week of 1.4.07
Dirty Politics 2008
This Week: Dirty Politics 2008, Anatomy of a Smear The Misinformation Superhighway?

Dirty Politics 2008Political mudslinging as a campaign tactic is as popular as it's ever been. Romney, Clinton, Huckabee, Giuliani, Obama - no one's managed to steer clear of targeted rumors and malicious gossip. NOW on PBS travels to South Carolina, the home of legendary no-holds-barred campaigner Lee Atwater, to see where negative stories come from, how they spread, and whether they can be effectively defeated with positive messaging.

"In South Carolina, we know how to run negative campaigns," Rod Shealy, a veteran campaign strategist who was convicted for violating campaign laws, tells NOW. "Your challenge as a campaign is to damage your opponent without getting caught doing it."

Interview: Rod Shealy Video:
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/401/video.html

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

For an African-American to win in Iowa and capture the female vote over a woman

Wasn't it more of an even split? That's the impression I have gotten from CNN's and Fox's coverage.

Quote:

and the fact that he got young people to the polls,

The polls I heard said the number of first-time caucus goers as a percentage of total caucus goers was only slightly higher this year than it had been in 2004 and that 59% of first-time Democrat Caucus goers this year voted for someone other than Obama.

Quote:

and capturing the independents,

Don't you have to be a registered member of the party whose caucus you want to participate in? Where did these "independents" come from?

Quote:

and then making a stirring and memorable victory speech (likened to RFK/JFK, Reagan MLK)

What else would they dare say about his speech? That is was full of routine platitudes? Has there ever been an Iowa Caucus winner who didn't claim his victory represented a call for change and a rejection of the Washington establishment?

Quote:

and the fact that NH follows Iowa in a mere 5 days.

Not all that unusual. Since the Democrats held the first Iowa Caucuses in 1972 the time between Iowa and New Hampshire has averaged only 13 days and this is only because the distance was 36 days in 1976 and 37 days in 1972. The "normal" distance is 8 days. Furthermore the distance was also just 5 days in 1980. In that year George H. W. Bush won 32% of the Iowa vote with Ronald Reagan winning 30%. Bush declared the he had the "big mo" going into New Hampshire, but Reagan beat Bush in NH by more than 2 to 1. This election can still change on a dime.

Quote:

BTW I was supporting Hillary but now have switched to Obama since he won Iowa.

You must be a very shallow person (or an extremely young one) if you allegiance can be so easily swayed.

0 Replies

Re: BBB

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

I agree with Roxxxanne. What's important is that an African-American man won so much support from a conservative, largely white population.

Historically, more-or-less, Iowa has supported the more liberal candidate in both parties while NH has supported the more conservative ones.

But, this has been changing since 1992. Since then so many liberals from Massachusetts have retired to New Hampshire that that state is now a very liberal state. I don't think Iowa has grown any less liberal, but compared to what NH now is, Iowa appears to be conservative.

0 Replies

I am so happy to have another clueless rightie to pick on and I just love putting men in their proper place.

fla(ja)tulence wrote:

Don't you have to be a registered member of the party whose caucus you want to participate in? Where did these "independents" come from?

Independents May Boost Obama In Iowa

(Washingtonpost.com) This story was written by Shailagh Murray and Anne E. Kornblut.

With two days before Iowans go to the polls, significant support for Sen. Barack Obama from political independents has put rival Democratic campaigns on edge, challenging the traditional model of the state's caucuses as a low-turnout exercise dominated by partisan insiders.

The senator from Illinois received a jolt of momentum late New Year's Eve, when the Des Moines Register's final Iowa poll showed him leading Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) by 32 percent to 25 percent, with former senator John Edwards (N.C.) at 24 percent. But just as striking were two findings that suggest Obama may be succeeding at one of the riskiest gambits of his Iowa campaign, an aggressive push to persuade non-Democrats to participate.

The survey found that more newcomers than regular participants could turn out on Thursday: Overall, 40 percent of likely Democratic caucusgoers identified themselves as independents, the poll said, double the percentage from 2004, and 60 percent said they would be attending a caucus for the first time. Both groups preferred Obama.

As rival campaigns immediately challenged the makeup of the Register sample and a poll for CNN-Opinion Research came out showing the race a virtual tie between Clinton and Obama, the candidates spent the first day of the election year courting the shrinking number of uncommitted voters.

Even Obama's campaign was surprised by the large sample of independents, and aides cautioned that it could be overblown. "We're not modeling it that high," senior Obama strategist Steve Hildebrand said of the independent pool. "We love the numbers in the Register poll, but we know this is going to be very tight."

I will respond to Flatulence's other nonsense later.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

I am so happy to have another clueless rightie to pick on and I just love putting men in their proper place.

I will momentarily overlook your insulting tone and correct you this point:

Quote:

Independents May Boost Obama In Iowa

You cannot participate in the Iowa Caucus for either the Republicans or the Democrats if you are not a registered Republican or registered Democrat. http://www.iowacaucus.org/iacaucus.html

Unlike New Hampshire, which allows anyone to participate in either party's primary election without being a registered member of one of the parties, you cannot participate in the Iowa Caucuses without giving up your independent label and assuming the label of Republican or Democrat.

0 Replies

flaja wrote:

Unlike New Hampshire, which allows anyone to participate in either party's primary election without being a registered member of one of the parties, you cannot participate in the Iowa Caucuses without giving up your independent label and assuming the label of Republican or Democrat.

True, but you could register at the caucus event - go, come in, register, caucus. So it wasnt that much of a barrier. Hence how so many independents and even a fair bunch of Republicans got to caucus; they just changed their registration on the spot.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

flaja wrote:
Unlike New Hampshire, which allows anyone to participate in either party's primary election without being a registered member of one of the parties, you cannot participate in the Iowa Caucuses without giving up your independent label and assuming the label of Republican or Democrat.

True, but you could register at the caucus event - go, come in, register, caucus. So it wasnt that much of a barrier. Hence how so many independents and even a fair bunch of Republicans got to caucus; they just changed their registration on the spot.

Of course, anyone following politics should know this and know that it was being done.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

I am so happy to have another clueless rightie to pick on and I just love putting men in their proper place.

flatulence wrote:

]The polls I heard said the number of first-time caucus goers as a percentage of total caucus goers was only slightly higher this year than it had been in 2004 and that 59% of first-time Democrat Caucus goers this year voted for someone other than Obama.
I will momentarily overlook your insulting tone and correct you this point:

Of course, you didn't correct me at all and let me remind you, you started the mudslinging and you picked the wrong gal to throw mud at:

roxxxie wrote:

BTW I was supporting Hillary but now have switched to Obama since he won Iowa.

flatulence wrote:

You must be a very shallow person (or an extremely young one) if you allegiance can be so easily swayed.

Thanks for the compliment (You must know the avatar is me not some other movie star) about being young but I assure you, little man, that I am far from shallow. I always liked Obama but didn't think he could win the nomination. Iowa convinced me he can. My support for Hillary was never firm. Unlike clueless right wing men, progressive women change their minds all the time.

flatulence wrote:

he polls I heard said the number of first-time caucus goers as a percentage of total caucus goers was only slightly higher this year than it had been in 2004 and that 59% of first-time Democrat Caucus goers this year voted for someone other than Obama.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1579042/20080104/id_0.jhtml

Quote:

0 Replies

roxxx wrote:

For an African-American to win in Iowa and capture the female vote over a woman...

flatulence wrote:

Wasn't it more of an even split? That's the impression I have gotten from CNN's and Fox's coverage.

Stop relying on your false impressions and start doing the research before you make yourself look so stupid, old man.

Obama captured about 14% more women voters than Hillary

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

Of course, you didn't correct me at all and let me remind you, you started the mudslinging and you picked the wrong gal to throw mud at:

I guess you don't understand arithmetic. It was either CNN or Fox that reported that 41% of 1st time caucus goers voted for Obama. 100 - 41 means that 59% of the 1st time caucus goers did not vote for Obama. He may have won a plurality of 1st time votes, but he won substantially less than a majority this vote.

Quote:

Thanks for the compliment (You must know the avatar is me not some other movie star) about being young

My money was on you being shallow. I was trying to give you some benefit of the doubt by including the young option.

Quote:

but I assure you, little man, that I am far from shallow. I always liked Obama but didn't think he could win the nomination.

If you liked Obama before he won Iowa, why were you supporting Hillary instead of fighting for Obama? You must be willing to put political victory over political principle so you are a very shallow person. You were willing to do what is expedient rather than what is necessary.

Quote:

Unlike clueless right wing men, progressive women change their minds all the time.

Is Hillary progressive? Letting your husband sleep around because you think he can get you to the White House is being progressive?

Quote:

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1579042/20080104/id_0.jhtml

MTV is your news source? You're not just shallow but incredibly stupid to boot. Grow up and watch the real news.

Quote:

Caucus-goers under 30 supported both winners by the largest margins of any age group, according to entrance polls.

A 20-something voter isn't necessarily a 1st time voter. I cast my first ballot the year I turned 18 and had voted in 6 national elections by the time I was 30.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

Stop relying on your false impressions and start doing the research before you make yourself look so stupid, old man.

I'm not relying on false impressions, but rather actual measured polling data:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01062008/news/nationalnews/hillarys_lead_sliding_away_722735.htm?page=0

Only 20% of the Iowa Caucus participants were "unaffiliated". (In New Hampshire some 45% of the registered voters have no party affiliation and they can vote in either primary without changing their affiliation status.)

In Iowa Obama won 35% of the women's vote; Hillary won 30%. So it's like I said: they split the women's vote. Furthermore the women's vote in NH is trending downward in a big way. 62% of the New Hampshire Primary vote was female in 2000. Only 54% was female in 2004.

At best Obama was supported by only half of the Iowa Caucus goers under the age of 30. He did not receive overwhelming support from the "young".

So Obama got barely over 1/3 of the women's vote, only half of the young vote and newcomers were only 20% of the total participants.

Obama is a long way from having a lock on the nomination.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

14% more women voters than Hillary[/url]

This page isn't there, but how do you turn 5 percentage points into 14? If 100 women voted, and Hillary got 30 votes and Obama got 35, then Obama got over 16% more women votes than Hillary got (5/30 = 1/6 = 16.67%), but Obama still only got 35% of the total women vote and 65% of the women who voted did not want Obama because they voted for someone else. You keep confusing a very slim plurality with overwhelming majority support.

0 Replies

Is winning the Iowa Caucus really a good thing?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know