The Iowa caucuses will be on January 3rd. Never before have both parties' nominations been as wide open as they are now.

For the Democrats, Hillary Clinton was the runaway favorite and is leading in most later primary states. However, in polls in Iowa she has been passed, albeit within the margin of error, by Barack Obama. Clinton went on the offensive this past weekend to attack Obama. John Edwards is not far behind in Iowa. Obama and Edwards hope to use Iowa to derail Clinton's momentum. Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel fill out the rest of the field.

For the Republicans, Mitt Romney has used his financial advantage and poured his resources into the early states of Iowa and New Hampshire. He was the only top-tier candidate at the time that actively participated in the Iowa Straw Poll and won. Second in that straw poll was Mike Huckabee. Huckabee is a populist that in recent months has shot up in the Republican nomination race, now threatening Romney's previously assured win in Iowa. Huckabee's finances though for the rest of the campaign are not the greatest. Rudy Giuliani is in great shape in later primary states if he can get there unscathed. John McCain's campaign was left for dead this past summer but has drastically cut back his campaign staff and has slowly tried to climb back into the race in support, although Iowa is a write-off for him (he's polling below Ron Paul). Fred Thompson's campaign has been poorly run and gives the vibe he's thoroughly uninterested. Ron Paul has received a lot of money from a grassroots movement, but New Hampshire fits him better than Iowa. Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo make up the rest of the field.

What's your opinion and what do you think will happen?

12/3/2007 1:48:14 PM

its scary

12/3/2007 2:12:00 PM

your mom's wide open

12/3/2007 2:12:28 PM

The most recent polls on Meet the Press yesterday had Obama and Huckabee with slight leads over Clinton and Romney, but it was a statistical dead heat.

12/3/2007 2:18:14 PM

i saw all that

it looked so silly

12/3/2007 2:18:53 PM

Shits gonna be crazy, yo.

The national front-runners, Hillary and Guiliani, might get shut out of both Iowa and/or NH.

As it stands right now, Obama and Huckabee would win Iowa, while Hillary and Romney look to take New Hampshire. Hell, I wouldn't be shocked if Ron Paul won or took a strong 2nd in New Hampshire, given the crazy voting tendancies of those northerners.

The primaries could get interesting from there. Does "Super Tuesday" still exist, or did states leapfrog each other and do away with it?

[Edited on December 3, 2007 at 2:37 PM. Reason : 2]

12/3/2007 2:35:36 PM

i don't know where to throw this in, but the DNC pulled michigan's delegates from the national convention because their primary was moved into january.

12/3/2007 2:38:28 PM

Yeah typical liberal infighting and bitching going on.

Michigan's primary is irrelevant at this point. Edwards, Obama and some others won't even be on the ballot.

12/3/2007 2:39:20 PM

I really hate to ask this...but can someone break down how exactly the process of picking candidates to run for the general election works?

12/3/2007 2:55:04 PM

most $ -> candidate

12/3/2007 3:02:49 PM

Quote :

"Does "Super Tuesday" still exist, or did states leapfrog each other and do away with it? "

"Super Tuesday" became "Tsunami Tuesday", the first Tuesday in February I think.

Here's the full primary and caucus schedule for both parties. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/events.phtml?s=c

12/3/2007 3:03:48 PM

Why don't all states hold primaries on the same day?

12/3/2007 3:07:29 PM

Quote :

"Why don't all states hold primaries on the same day?"

a big part of the idea is that you don't need to have enough money to run a national campaign from the beginning.

but personally i'd prefer it if there were four regional primaries (all the southeastern states, northeastern, west coast and midwest) and they'd rotate which is first every four years.

[Edited on December 3, 2007 at 3:10 PM. Reason : .]

12/3/2007 3:09:03 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/02/AR2007120201602.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Quote :

"A Non-Story Remakes the Race Last month, Katharine Q. Seelye of the New York Times live-blogged the Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas. As the discussion bounced from subject to subject, she marked the topic and the time, then gave her thoughts. At 8:34 p.m., it was driver's licenses; 8:55, Pakistan; 9:57, the Supreme Court. By night's end she had 17 entries totaling almost 1,500 words. And she hadn't typed "Iraq" once. The candidates mentioned the war, to be sure. But it never took center stage. And with the first primaries just weeks away, that's become the norm: Iraq wasn't a major focus at last week's Republican YouTube debate either. In the biggest surprise of the campaign so far, the election that almost everyone thought would be about Iraq is turning out not to be. And that explains a lot about which candidates are on the rise and which ones are starting to fall. The reason Iraq is fading is simple: Not as many people are dying there. Fewer deaths mean fewer front-page stories, and fewer front-page stories mean less discussion on the cable shows, which were pretty sick of the topic already. Turn on the television these days, and you're more likely to think America is at war with illegal immigrants than with insurgents in the heart of the Middle East. And that's showing up in the polls. Between June and November, according to NBC and the Wall Street Journal, the percentage of Americans citing Iraq as their top priority fell eight points. A Post survey recently reported a six-point decline since September. When a CNN/WMUR news poll asked the same question of likely New Hampshire voters last month, it found that the percentage of Republicans citing Iraq had dropped 14 points since June. Among Democrats, the drop was 16 points. The result is that both the Democratic and Republican campaigns are looking more like the campaigns of the 1990s. Start with the GOP. The Republican who has benefited most from Iraq's slide is Mike Huckabee, who this summer was in low single digits in Iowa and is now running neck and neck with Mitt Romney for first place. A few months ago, commentators were saying that conservatives no longer cared as much about abortion, gay marriage and the like; they were more focused on the "war on terror." Rudy Giuliani has bet his whole campaign on that proposition. Romney's competence theme is a not-so-subtle critique of the way President Bush has handled the war. Huckabee, by contrast, has virtually no national security profile. In an Iraq-dominated campaign, it's hard to imagine him as a serious contender. But as the war has receded, it has been supplanted by domestic issues and by questions of personality and character. And in that '90s-like environment, Huckabee -- the truest social conservative in the race, and the guy you'd most like to drink a root beer with -- is smiling his way into the top tier. On the Democratic side, the impact is even more striking. Iraq, bizarrely enough, was a great issue for Hillary Clinton. True, she had voted for a war that everyone in her party now hates. But when asked which candidate they most trusted on the war, Democrats consistently chose her, often by huge margins. Iraq played to Clinton's biggest asset: her reputation for experience and strength. Iraq reminded Democrats of how dangerous the world is, and the more dangerous it seemed, the more they gravitated to the safe choice. But as Iraq has faded, the mood has changed. Since summer, according to The Post, the percentage of Democrats prioritizing "strength and experience" has gone down and the percentage wanting a "new direction and new ideas" has gone up. That's good news for Barack Obama, who is low on experience but high on charisma. In recent weeks, the Democratic primary campaign has frequently revolved around small, even trivial, issues -- driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, rumors of planted questions at town-hall meetings and dirty tricks -- that supposedly testify to the character of the candidates. And in this changed environment, Obama and John Edwards have managed to sow doubts about whether Clinton is too evasive and too scripted. When the world is falling apart, people tend not to care about these sorts of things. After all, Americans elected Richard Nixon twice because they thought he could best extricate us from Vietnam. But with Iraq no longer as central, campaign 2008 has become more like the campaigns of 1992, 1996 and 2000, when résumés mattered less and personality mattered more. In the 1990s, the guys with pizzazz won and the guys with gravitas lost: Just ask George H.W. Bush, Robert Dole and Al Gore. Iraq could make a political comeback, or it could be supplanted by another frightening post-Sept. 11 topic such as Pakistan or Iran. But right now, it's the biggest non-story of the campaign. No wonder Mike Huckabee is smiling. "

[Edited on December 3, 2007 at 7:51 PM. Reason : /]

12/3/2007 7:51:06 PM

bttt

Predictions for tomorrow?


On the Dem side: I think the three headlines will be Obama with a significant 1st place finish (5-10 pts ahead of Hillary), Edwards underperforming (~20% with talk off the end for him), and a suprising performance out of Biden, maybe 10%, which will add his name to the mix.

On the Rep side: I think Guiliani and McCain will outperform recent polls, with Giuliani finishing around 10% and McCain around 20%. Huckabee will underperform, but still take second with about 25%. Everyone else about as expected, Romney around 30%, Thompson and Paul splitting the rest.

1/2/2008 11:40:54 AM

Edwards may do well, because his strength seems to be with rural voters, which are overreperesented. The delegates are already apportioned, so huge turnouts for Obama and Clinton wouldn't help as much (if they are at the wrong locations) as if it were a primary. I do think Biden could edge out Richardson for 4th, but he is going to have a lot of difficulty getting 10% of the delegates even if he has 10% of the voters, b/c he will not be viable at so many caucus sites.

I think an Obama or Clinton win could give them enough momentum to win New Hampshire and emerge as the clear frontrunner. An Edwards win makes this a wide open race, as he would still struggle in NH.

Huckabee and Romney should both be way ahead of the rest of the Republican field.

1/2/2008 11:50:05 AM

Republicans

Huckabee squeaks out a victory over Romney. McCain a distant third. Paul barely takes 4th beating Thompson and Giuliani. Fred Thompson subsequently drops out. Giuliani officially does not care about Iowa.

Democrats

This is hard to call. A very tight three-way that I think Obama will win, Clinton second, and Edwards third. Biden will take best of the rest followed by Richardson, Kucinich, and Dodd in that order.

[Edited on January 2, 2008 at 1:36 PM. Reason : /]

1/2/2008 1:34:36 PM

Republicans:

Romney, Huckabee, Paul, McCain, Thompson, Giuliani.

McCain v. Paul for 3rd is HUGE going into NH, fighting over respect with independents. If RP shows, he could get some more respect by NH indies who were considering him. If McCain gets third, then I'm gonna call NH for him.

I think that battle for 3rd is more important than the battle for 1st.

Dems:

Going out on a limb.

Obama, Edwards, Clinton, Biden, Richardson, Kucinich, Dodd.

1/2/2008 1:39:52 PM

^ I also think you're correct that Iowa and NH, as far as the GOP race goes, will be a battle for 3rd, mostly between Paul and McCain. If McCain loses to Paul in both of those places, he's going to fold like a lawn chair - he might try to claim SC, but basically that's all, folks.

Guiliani is going to hold out for Florida, where he's strong.

Thompson will probably stick around until sometime after Super(-duper) Tuesday, then lazily exit stage left. Within a week we'll have all forgotten the man was running.

1/2/2008 1:59:03 PM

^, ^^ Not to get ahead of ourselves, but I'm expecting McCain to win or get a close 2nd in New Hampshire.

1/2/2008 2:00:35 PM

^^ Don't have the sources now, but I'm pretty sure Thompson will drop out if he doesn't get 3rd in Iowa - he's basically said as much.

[Edited on January 2, 2008 at 2:10 PM. Reason : a]

1/2/2008 2:10:17 PM

I heard some talk of Romney and Edwards winning today.

If they do, Iowa should really, reeeaaally not get to go first anymore.

1/3/2008 9:00:42 AM

^^

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=3D9BF000-3048-5C12-00F70B89AC99625A

Quote :

"DES MOINES, Iowa – Several Republican officials close to Fred Thompson’s presidential campaign said they expect the candidate will drop out of the race within days if he finishes poorly in Thursday’s Iowa caucus. Thompson’s campaign, which last spring and summer was generating fevered anticipation in the media and with some Republican activists, has never ignited nationally, and there are no signs of a late spark happening here in Iowa, where even a third-place finish is far from assured. This reality—combined with a fundraising drought—left well-connected friends and advisers of Thompson Wednesday evening predicting that he will pull the plug on hype and hope before the Jan. 8 New Hampshire primary. Thompson’s departure could shake up the race more than his continued presence. Friends and advisers said they have long considered it likely that if the lobbyist-actor is forced from the race he would endorse John McCain his former Senate colleague who lately has been staging a political revival in New Hampshire. “Without a solid third-place finish, there’s no point in going on,” a Thompson adviser said Wednesday. “It was an honorable race, and he turned out to be a good candidate. The moment had just passed.” A Thompson campaign source said there is “a strong likelihood” that if Thompson comes in a distant third in Iowa, with less than 15 percent of the vote, he would drop out soon—most likely before this weekend’s New Hampshire presidential debates. The Thompson sources said they were describing a consensus expectation that is now widespread among his political circle, not announcing a decision that the candidate himself has definitively reached. "

Thompson was on Fox & Friends and called the Politico's reporting ludicrous.

1/3/2008 9:45:15 AM

So this caucus is their primary election, right? I read it starts at 7 PM. Why is it so late and why don't they just call it a primary? *confused*

1/3/2008 10:26:07 AM

The format, which we won't try to explain here, since it would just confuse you (and everyone else) more.

1/3/2008 10:38:33 AM

as far as i understand it, it's basically like a primary for republicans. and for the democrats it's different because they do a vote and then if the candidate you vote for doesn't reach the 15% threshold at your voting place, you vote for a second choice, right?

1/3/2008 10:45:30 AM

^^^ A primary is where you show up, like in a general election, cast your vote privately and leave.

A caucus is more "community-based". Every precinct has a party meeting where Democrats and Republicans meet in separate places to determine who to support for President. The main difference is that instead of secretly determining who you support, you are publicly declaring your candidate to your neighbors.

Democrats and Republicans each do theirs a little differently. Republicans do a "one man, one vote" straw poll. So even if you support a crackpot that has 0.3% support, your vote for him will count. The Democrats have a viability test, where a candidate must have 15% support in each precinct. Those supporters of candidates that do not receive 15% have to either leave or go support another candidate.

Notice these rules do not apply to other states that also have caucuses, this only applies to the rules set by each state party in Iowa.

Here's the Des Moines Register explaining for their readers. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071219/NEWS09/71219068

[Edited on January 3, 2008 at 10:54 AM. Reason : .]

1/3/2008 10:48:54 AM

In a nutshell, the caucuses differ from a traditional primary in several ways.

1) There is no secret ballot. All caucus-goers meet at a specific time and place (often for several hours) to express their choice of candidate.

2) Delegates are preapportioned to each caucus site/precinct based roughly on population. In some ways it is similar to the electoral college, in that each state gets so many delegates. This is inexact, and many people feel that rural caucus-goers are overrepresented.

3) Candidates not receiving 15% support at a caucus site are not considered viable. Supporters of those candidates must choose a viable candidate. Since this is public, campaign supporters try to attract supporters of non-viable candidates, and possibly even "pick off" supporters of other viable candidates.

4) In the end, delegates are split roughly according to % support at each caucus site.

5) The delegates are added up statewide to determine the "winner". In a pure primary all votes are added up.

I know that is simplistic and quick and dirty, but basically how the process works.

1/3/2008 10:52:30 AM

Thanks for clearing that up.

1/3/2008 10:53:14 AM

^^that sounds like it's just the democrat's process

1/3/2008 11:04:51 AM

^
Correct. What I described was the Democratic caucuses. The Republicans just do a straw poll.

1/3/2008 11:37:10 AM

Right. But the other issues you pointed out - "set time and place, must be present to win" also apply for the Republican caucus. Also, the Republican caucus generally has one "representative" from each candidate give a stump speech before the room before voting goes on. As I recall, the Democrats continuously have some haggling and horse-trading as people stand up in "support groups" for their candidates.

Essentially, in either case, a caucus is like a primary where you can only vote at one specific time in the evening with plenty of arm-twisting going on.

1/3/2008 1:04:36 PM

I watched some live footage of actual caucuses last time around on CSPAN. It was actually pretty interesting, at least for a political junkie.

1/3/2008 1:15:57 PM

interesting or not (or "quaint and ole' timey" or whatever the allure of it is supposed to be), it just feels like an abortion of democracy.
1) the restrictions are too great (must be physically present in a specific time and place)
2) it's not secret
3) it's rife for abuse and manipulation, through poor vote counting and and undemocratic incentives ("come stand in my corner and get a free meal!", "we'll drive pick you and your kids up in a bus and babysit your kids if you stand in my corner!")

[Edited on January 3, 2008 at 1:34 PM. Reason : .]

1/3/2008 1:32:09 PM

Quote :

"Also, the Republican caucus generally has one "representative" from each candidate give a stump speech before the room before voting goes on."

Yeah, on another site, there's a guy there who was describing who was showing up to give the speech for his county (Black Hawk County, all precincts are being done in one place). Huckabee himself would show up to speak for Huckabee, Romney's wife will speak for Romney, a former governor of Louisiana would speak for McCain, and then this guy himself, who is just a typical Iowa voter, would be speaking for Paul.

Quote :

"I watched some live footage of actual caucuses last time around on CSPAN. It was actually pretty interesting, at least for a political junkie."

Interesting. I'll have to switch over to CSPAN occasionally this evening.

[Edited on January 3, 2008 at 1:38 PM. Reason : .]

1/3/2008 1:36:54 PM

Quote :

"markgoal: I watched some live footage of actual caucuses last time around on CSPAN. It was actually pretty interesting, at least for a political junkie."

If you're a junkie, you have to go one year. It's an incredible experience.

I read somewhere that Youtube's given cameras to reporters from the Register, so there should be more footage of what goes on inside a caucus precinct.

The Des Moines Register's explanation is good, but I think this video from the Edwards campaign does a good job of explaining how the caucus works:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJX5S6UWXYI

1/3/2008 3:58:31 PM

caucuses are awesome.

i went to my first one here in WA, in 2004. unfortunately, by the time it occured (March something) Kerry had already clinched it.

of course, i still caucused for Dean, just to be that guy

it looks like it will still be a good fight by the time they roll around this year.

1/3/2008 4:50:54 PM

On a moderately unrelated note; does anyone else find it ironic that a feminist is running for election, and her primary qualification is her husband? I mean, without him, she'd really just be a female John Edwards without the charm.

1/3/2008 5:54:12 PM

^ Use what you can as a means to advance yourself. It's par for the course for politicians.

Quote :

"of course, i still caucused for Dean, just to be that guy"

How many dirty stares did you get from the Kerry people?

[Edited on January 3, 2008 at 6:09 PM. Reason : .]

1/3/2008 6:08:01 PM

For what it's worth, Tim Russert just said he expects four high-profile political names to announce by this weekend they're out of this race because they won't have a good Iowa finish and they're broke.

1/3/2008 6:54:43 PM

Thompson, McCain, Paul, and....Kucinich(What? He's a big name).

1/3/2008 7:55:44 PM

Paul is not a "big name" and is very very far from broke

1/3/2008 8:01:30 PM

First Read:

Quote :

"Inside the Westridge elementary school in West Des Moines, this Democratic caucus site is packed. Huge turnout here. Only 86 showed up in 2004. Tonight, the line is out the door. It looks like almost 200 here. Registration is still open."

1/3/2008 8:02:56 PM

The Dem caucus on CSPAN had ~375 in Des Moines Precinct 53

1/3/2008 8:18:14 PM

Here's results links:

Democrats- http://www.iowacaucusresults.com/

Republicans- http://www.iowagop.net/

1/3/2008 8:19:17 PM

Is anyone else watching this? Biden, Dodd, and Richardson alliances being schemed at the moment heh

1/3/2008 8:21:39 PM

i'm watching it

immabout to beat that big lady w/ blonde hair

LEAVE ME ALONE

[Edited on January 3, 2008 at 8:23 PM. Reason : i]

1/3/2008 8:23:04 PM

Quote :

"How many dirty stares did you get from the Kerry people?"

not too many. they all were pretty relaxed, since their candidate had all but clinched the nomination.

i actually convinced several Clark supporters to join the Dean group. probably the one Kerry supporter who was most annoyed at me was my wife.



that said, i never liked Kerry and I blame GWB's second term on him. Kerry lost what should have been an electoral landslide for the dems....

Instead, Kerry just bent over and took it up the ass, then tried to "nuance" his way around the fact that he got buttfucked.

1/3/2008 8:37:33 PM

With 2% of the precincts in,

Huckabee 33%
Romney 24%
Thompson 18%
McCain 12%
Paul 11%
Giuliani 2%

1/3/2008 8:38:43 PM

Senator John Edwards : 33.70%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 32.06%
Senator Barack Obama : 31.36%
Governor Bill Richardson : 1.90%
Senator Joe Biden : 0.84%
Senator Chris Dodd : 0.08%
Uncommitted : 0.06%

Precincts Reporting: 313 of 1781

Well, looks like Edwards keeps his momentum - although pretty much I'm guessing about half the Democratic field will be dropping out by about early next week at this rate...

1/3/2008 8:45:40 PM