HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Barack Obama won the Iowa...

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 09:50 PM

Barack Obama won the Iowa Caucus with 98%. "Uncommitted" got 2%.

And despite there being no real competition, some 25,000 Iowans came out in the January cold to vote for Barack Obama.

People here were predicting ahead of time that with SO MANY Democrats frustrated or angry, "Uncommitted" might win the caucus, and show that terrible old Obama what we thought of him. I do believe this pretty much puts a bullet in the theory of there being a huge grassroots segment of the Democratic base that's angry with Obama. So go ahead, and huff, and puff, and feed the Republican narrative of Obama's supposed ineffectiveness and weakness. In the end, aside from the few people who are fooled, it's just a handful of loud, angry bloggers looking to make money and fame off of stirring shit.

95 replies, 7437 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 95 replies Author Time Post
Reply Barack Obama won the Iowa Caucus with 98%. "Uncommitted" got 2%. (Original post)
TheWraith Jan 2012 OP
monmouth Jan 2012 #1
FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #27
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2012 #2
bluestate10 Jan 2012 #5
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2012 #6
joshcryer Jan 2012 #14
Fantastic Anarchist Jan 2012 #32
Number23 Jan 2012 #58
bluestate10 Jan 2012 #3
BootinUp Jan 2012 #4
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #7
Summer Hathaway Jan 2012 #9
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #11
Summer Hathaway Jan 2012 #16
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #17
MADem Jan 2012 #46
Number23 Jan 2012 #59
Summer Hathaway Jan 2012 #77
Number23 Jan 2012 #89
Old and In the Way Jan 2012 #8
Union Scribe Jan 2012 #10
JoePhilly Jan 2012 #12
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #13
JoePhilly Jan 2012 #25
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #36
JoePhilly Jan 2012 #40
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #41
JoePhilly Jan 2012 #43
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #70
JoePhilly Jan 2012 #90
Spazito Jan 2012 #76
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #82
Spazito Jan 2012 #83
JoePhilly Jan 2012 #92
Spazito Jan 2012 #93
banned from Kos Jan 2012 #15
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #18
joshcryer Jan 2012 #21
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #23
joshcryer Jan 2012 #24
KharmaTrain Jan 2012 #26
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #28
joshcryer Jan 2012 #71
girl gone mad Jan 2012 #30
Tarheel_Dem Jan 2012 #45
MADem Jan 2012 #47
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #49
snooper2 Jan 2012 #50
AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #53
MADem Jan 2012 #62
Wait Wut Jan 2012 #69
MADem Jan 2012 #75
joshcryer Jan 2012 #19
mmonk Jan 2012 #20
joshcryer Jan 2012 #22
SidDithers Jan 2012 #29
girl gone mad Jan 2012 #31
uponit7771 Jan 2012 #33
AtomicKitten Jan 2012 #34
treestar Jan 2012 #35
Renew Deal Jan 2012 #37
ClassWarrior Jan 2012 #38
zipplewrath Jan 2012 #39
ClassWarrior Jan 2012 #48
Tarheel_Dem Jan 2012 #42
BeFree Jan 2012 #51
Tarheel_Dem Jan 2012 #54
BeFree Jan 2012 #57
Number23 Jan 2012 #61
BeFree Jan 2012 #63
Number23 Jan 2012 #87
Tarheel_Dem Jan 2012 #64
BeFree Jan 2012 #66
FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #73
Tarheel_Dem Jan 2012 #81
SidDithers Jan 2012 #85
Tarheel_Dem Jan 2012 #65
BeFree Jan 2012 #67
FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #74
Kahuna Jan 2012 #78
BklnDem75 Jan 2012 #95
joshcryer Jan 2012 #86
lpbk2713 Jan 2012 #44
Liberal_in_LA Jan 2012 #52
DCBob Jan 2012 #55
Number23 Jan 2012 #60
lillypaddle Jan 2012 #56
Kahuna Jan 2012 #79
MadHound Jan 2012 #68
MjolnirTime Jan 2012 #72
mzmolly Jan 2012 #80
FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #84
joshcryer Jan 2012 #88
Rex Jan 2012 #91
Fearless Jan 2012 #94

Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 09:52 PM

1. As the great Mr. Burns would say.."Excellent!"...n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to monmouth (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 09:56 AM

27. Actually it was 98.46%, even better!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 09:53 PM

2. You will be accused of stifling dissent in 4...3...2...1...

K&R!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:01 PM

5. Nahh. They are busy taking Greewald down...

from the cross that they accuse those with balanced views of crusifying him on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:02 PM

6. I haven't kept up with the Greenwald story. Too over my head right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:41 PM

14. Apparently calling people to come caucus is "stifling dissent."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 01:12 PM

32. +99%

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 06:06 PM

58. LOL I particularly love the comments accusing people of being "condescending," "insulting"

and "unhelpful to their cause" after they've accused the president of the most heinous of crimes and insulted the integrity and intelligence of every single one of his millions of supporters and been called on their shit about that by someone.

THAT makes me bust a gut laughing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 09:58 PM

3. Looks like.

500 DU "progressives" showed up at the democratic caucus. Oh, well!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 09:58 PM

4. To any freepers lurking around

who have been making posts and trying to stir up trouble:

Get a fucking life, your antics are not going to work. We laugh hardily at you for wasting your time in such an unproductive manner. Feel free to pull your heads out of your asses then to get lost.

cherryo mfers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:05 PM

7. I love revisionism

People said that they'd TRY to get to the 15% threshold. Now math has never been my strong point, but 15% is hardly a majority. What it is, well a THRESHOLD.

Yes, some of us will call you on that revisionist shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:33 PM

9. Where did the OP mention

a 15% threshold?

How can you call someone on 'revisionist shit' when they didn't even mention what you accuse them of 'revising'?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:35 PM

11. "People here were predicting ahead of time that with SO MANY Democrats frustrated or angry,

"Uncommitted" might win the caucus...

-----------

From the OP, nobody did. At least nobody I read, or nobody I read among talking heads either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:58 PM

16. That seemed to be the thrust

of Cenk's argument, which many here agreed with:

"But if all of those people were to go and participate on the Democratic side, they might have an effect. If "uncommitted" beat President Obama on the Democratic side in Iowa, that would make some news."

I guess no news was made after all - except the fact that Cenk and his followers failed miserably in their attempt to prove that SO MANY voters are anti-Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #16)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 11:00 PM

17. If they got 15% it would have been news

oh well.

Two percent is a whimper, I still hate revisionism. And if that was ONE person, that is far from many...

My point.

Cenk's comment was "oh well." That is a direct quotation from yesterday's show. I enjoyed that, the insight of what that looks like from Al Gore was far more valuable than all talking heads combined.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 04:50 PM

46. No news was made, indeed--and no news, to my view, is good news. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 06:08 PM

59. "Cenk and his followers failed miserably in their attempt to prove that SO MANY voters are anti-Obam

They ALWAYS do. You would think that at this point they would stop trying. But I guess when you're trying to keep your name in the spotlight and raise some dough, you gotta do what you gotta do...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #59)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 08:23 PM

77. I'll give credit where it's due

Cenk knows which side of the bread is the buttered side.

There was no point in doing the RW schtick - Limbaugh, Beck and the FOX crowd have that all sewn up.

So the obvious twist was to become a born-again 'progressive' - then offer up RW talking points under that guise.

Apparently a lot of people fell for it. Ca-$-ching, ca-$-ching.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #77)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 11:58 PM

89. You got that right.

Apparently a lot of people fell for it. Ca-$-ching, ca-$-ching.

Cenk has never come across to me as smart or talented enough to come up with such a diabolical scheme but your theory is still an interesting one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:28 PM

8. Guess there aren't too many unhappy Iowan Democrats out there.

Of course, if I had to listen to this crop of Republicans campaigning in my state for 6 months, I'd be motivated to vote for Obama, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:33 PM

10. As opposed to loud, angry forum posters

who spend confusingly equal amounts of time fighting Obama's critics and claiming they are too small a number to bother with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:38 PM

12. I wonder if Cenk will comment on this?

I mean hell ... Karl Rove should have been able to manufacture at least 5% points just to stir up the issue!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:39 PM

13. He did, both last night and today

anything else you'd want to know?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 09:19 AM

25. Yes, was 2% above or below his expectations?

I don't get current TV.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #25)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 02:58 PM

36. He just pointed to it

And too bad not getting it. Having the insight of Al Gore on that rodeo was better than all talking heads combined. I mean the math says that for every 100 people the candidate talks to, they can expect one physical vote. This is not something I expect to hear from wolf blitzer or even Lawrence O'Donnel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #36)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 04:03 PM

40. I miss Keith too.

I did think Rachel did a nice job running the MSNBC coverage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #40)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 04:04 PM

41. That was Al Gore

I am quoting the veep there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #41)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 04:15 PM

43. I understood that.

I was referring to not having access to current TV, and so ... I can't easily see Al, or Keith.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #43)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 07:33 PM

70. Then perhaps some of us can serve as filers

to what they at times cover. The process though the eyes of Al Gore was fascinating. as well as Govenor Gromholt (sp)... it was amazing to watch. At that point Cenk was mostly there for flavor. Having two folks who have gone through elections and all that as candidates was special.

I learned not just that ratio, but also how the pols think about it before returns (it explained the wishful thinking form Michelle by the way). They might know the hard truth, but they still wish for something the polls did not capture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #70)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 04:02 PM

90. That makes sense ...

I heard Michelle on TV saying that in her congressional run, the polls had her down by 8%, but then she won by about 8%, or something like that.

The other thing is that caucuses are odd to start with. It seems each has its own set of special rules ... like if your top candidate doesn't meet some threshold, you have to switch, or not be counted at all ... that's a system one might be able to game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #36)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 07:57 PM

76. Gore did ask Cenk, at one point, why he was so focused on defending Paul...

during that panel discussion and pointed out to Cenk, on more than one occasion, Paul's racism and how utterly unacceptable that was.

It was a very interesting back and forth between them, imo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spazito (Reply #76)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 09:17 PM

82. Quite frankly I must have missed that part

(been quite sick with cold so I honestly slept though part of it)

I will have to go later to the archives and find it though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #82)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 11:30 PM

83. It really is worth looking for...

it was a fascinating exchange knowing that Gore is very much Cenk's boss in the bigger picture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spazito (Reply #83)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 04:03 PM

92. That would have been interesting to watch ... wish I could get

Current TV.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #92)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 12:42 AM

93. I don't get it on my cable but am able to stream it...

here is the link:

http://www.thertv.eu/93


It really was a fascinating interchange between the two. Gore seemed quite bemused by Cenk's continued defense of Ron Paul.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:43 PM

15. I support the President avidly and I wouldn't even drive 2 miles for this caucus

 

while a critic should be highly motivated.

Obama 98
critics 2

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 04:37 AM

18. 25,000? That's it? In 2008, the turnout exceeded 239,000, far above the 124,000 in 2004.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010304441.html

And they "came out in the January cold ..."? For Iowans, January 3rd wasn't that cold. There wasn't even a major snow storm. And they came in the cold? No, actually they drove in their heated cars to places that were warm and went inside to be with friends and neighbors.

25,000 is not enough! It indicates what the November turnout may be.

Somebody, it could even be James Carville with his it's-time-to-panic-message, needs to talk with Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 04:53 AM

21. 2004 and 2008 were incumbancy numbers. Apparently there was no caucus in 1996 for Democrats.

So these numbers do not tell us much if anything at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #21)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 05:04 AM

23. What do you perceive as "incumbancy numbers"? Do you reject the Washington Post's numbers?

 

The Washington Post didn't identify the numbers as being "incumbancy numbers."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010304441.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 05:19 AM

24. In 2004 and 2008 Bush was an incumbant. In 2000, only 2001 voters voted for Gore / Bradley.

So in 2004 and 2008 you can expect a strong turnout. If you compare 2012 to 2000 (both periods where we had a Democratic President), 2012 has 12 times the turnout.

When "our" guy is in office we don't turn out to primaries as much. Primaries get hectic when we're trying to actually pick a candidate (and even then, in 2000 that wasn't the case for Democrats as Gore was a shoein).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 09:29 AM

26. Don't Forget The Crossover...

I'd be curious to see the rushpublican figures for 2004...that's be more relevant to the Democratic numbers from the other day.

My bets are there were Democrats who did participate...in the rushpublican caucuses. To either "be where the action is" or have a little fun. If there weren't some serious down-ticket primary races where my vote was needed I'd take a rushpublican ballot and have some fun as well when my state's primary rolls around.

What does concern me are the new voter ID laws that could exclude a lot of Iowa and Iowa State students from voting in November...enough in number to make the outcome uncomfortably close.

Cheers...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 10:37 AM

28. It otherwise appears that 61,000 - not 2001 - turned out for Gore / Bradley in 2000.

 

http://www.pldminfo.org/search/localhistory/caucusresults.html

What source are you relying upon for your "2001 voters"?

If the information from pldminfo is correct, 2012 did not have "12 times the turnout" but 2012 had 0.41 times the 2000 turnout.

61,000 is substantially higher than 2001. Could the number that you found be for a particular area of Iowa instead of the entire state?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #28)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 07:45 PM

71. I stand completely corrected, I was going by the wikipedia page...

...which has that low number.

But 2000 was marginally contested. When Clinton went uncontested they didn't even caucus. We'll have to wait and see, I think.

But you do give me a reason to pause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #21)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 12:21 PM

30. The turnout wasn't that great.

Let's be honest. The campaign made hundreds of thousands of robocalls and promised a live televised message, promoting a party atmosphere for any Democrats who came out.

Not many people on the left engaged in the process in Iowa. It tells me that even people who may feel disappointed and frustrated are simply giving up on national politics and there isn't a massive group of happy supporters eager to put in the minimal effort. Obama will need to be able to get these people to the polls in November. The good news is that the Republicans don't look energized, either. Looks like turnout will be low on both sides this year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to girl gone mad (Reply #30)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 04:38 PM

45. Way to obliterate the goalposts! They just keep moving.....



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 05:00 PM

47. Look at how many turned out for the GOP, and they actually had a contest.

They barely broke their numbers for the last time around--even with tremendous motivation and a crazier and more interesting field than the last time around.

Sorry, that dog won't hunt. When you already know who the winner is going to be, why NOT go to your kid's high school basketball game instead? Why pay for a sitter for your kids? Why inconvenience yourself for a phony, pointless and completely unnecessary show of "solidarity?" The outcome was pre-determined. There was no "contest." Everyone knew that Obama was the winner--the only question was if a few shit-stirrers would make a difference in his total number.

When there's a need, I think Iowans have shown that they'll show up. There simply was no NEED this time around. That's pragmatism, not a lack of enthusiasm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #47)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 05:37 PM

49. "why NOT go to ... instead?" Because these are Iowa friends and neighbors. They show up to

 

show their committment and reaffirm their support for either traditional Democratic principles and/or Obama.

You reason that when the outcome is known, there is no reason to show up. Or that attendance will be lower?
Knowing the outcome is the reason? During the 2011 football season, more showed up at Kinnick Stadium in Iowa City even when the outcome was known. As an example, when the Hawkeyes played Tennessee Tech and beat them 34-7, 70,585 showed up. They didn't show up because they thought that the outcome was going to be in doubt.

If you are in the group who reasons that Democratic principles don't matter as long as we have a person in the White House with a (D) after their name, you're welcome to that view. For others, such as myself, we think that such principles do matter. Obama can increase the Democratic turn out in other states if he will begin the process of reaffirming his alligence to such prinicples. He doesn't have to mean it, and maybe he won't, but he has to make such re-affirmation out loud. Maybe enough people will forget what has happened in the last several years. And maybe they'll forget how powerless he is, or some say that he is, because of Republican obstructionists. The Republicans did not obstruct any Democrats from showing up at the Iowa caucuses, however. More could have shown up if they wanted to do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #49)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 05:43 PM

50. So going to a football game with family and friends is same party as voting for a dem candidate in a

primary that doesn't matter

Yo Bob, who you vote for?

Oh- the guy running...

What about you,

Oh- the guy running


Hey, I got a twelve pack in the bed of my truck. Lets sit 100 feet away with our signs supporting the guy running

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #50)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 05:50 PM

53. Not the way that Obama is playing it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #49)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 06:22 PM

62. I am afraid that I don't take your point. A sports contest can always produce an upset.

The outcome is NOT always known. Ask disappointed Patriots fans, who are accustomed to victories but have to tolerate the odd, unexpected loss--occasionally at the SUPERBOWL level. Further, people show up at football games to eat at tailgate parties, to socialize with their friends, to drink, and to cheer for their team and excoriate their opponents. It's not the same as sitting around a caucus table when you have a choice between Obama and Obama...oh, and "uncommitted." I mean, really.

Please don't extrapolate beyond that and start questioning "Democratic principles" of myself or anyone else. What's the bottom line, here? How many choices were there to be made? It's not like there was a list of ten to choose from. The outcome was, like it or not, predetermined. There were sports events on offer that particular night in communities where high school athletics is a big deal. I don't blame people for making a pragmatic decision, and I do not think it reflects on their willingness to turn out for Obama in November.

If you, personally, want to go caucus while your neighbor goes to see his kid play basketball, more power to you. Do it! Go, enjoy, feel virtuous! Just don't be sanctimonious about it. My only point was that people who didn't show up (not those who did) shouldn't be excoriated for not schlepping out to participate when the outcome--like it or not--WAS known, to the tune of ninety eight and then some percent.

If you're sincere about principles, I would suggest that instead of complaining about the principles of the candidate who won't be primaried within his own party, you start to "grow your own" instead. It's much more of a positive action than working very hard to find a half empty glass at the Presidential level in an election year. It's way too easy to tell a national politician with a large and varied constituency what he needs to do to satisfy you, and that's dandy if you want to do that, but he's going to cut his cloth according to his measure, and he's not going to change directions when he's on a winning path, even if you are not completely satisfied. Far better to grow local politicians who suit your worldview; work for them, support them, and advocate for their candidacies at the state and federal level. Or jump in yourself, if you're so inclined. That isn't easy, though. It is a long, slow process and it does not happen overnight. It takes commitment and resolve, and one has to accustom oneself to disappointment, because success is not guaranteed.

The only vote that counts this year is the one in November. One way to start putting your nose to the grindstone is with voter registration efforts right now, if you are so inclined, and the time to place your shoulder to the wheel is as November nears, and GOTV is key. I do intend to vote for the guy with the (D) after his name, and that's good enough for me. I will also try hard to break my record of butts-to-the-polls from the last presidential contest, assuming my car holds up or I can borrow my neighbor's van.

As for Obama, he didn't seem all that "powerless" to me this week--but that's just my impression. YMMV.

I like the guy. He has my vote, and he has my strong support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #47)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 07:03 PM

69. I feel dumb.

I woulda locked the kid in the trunk, driven in a blizzard and grabbed a cheeseburger at the drive-thru if I could've gone.
But, I'm not normal. So, yeah...you're right.

The same can be said for voting, in general. People think "it's in the bag" so they don't feel the need to "inconvenience" themselves to vote. Poppycock. Every time I vote I feel more important than them.

I still think those numbers are pretty impressive when you take your post into consideration. Lots of cool folks in Iowa, apparently. Except for those other ones that were voting for those other people. They're nuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wait Wut (Reply #69)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 07:57 PM

75. When there's more than one candidate, it's never "in the bag."

In the case of the Iowa Dem Caucus, though, there was only one candidate.

In a general Presidential election, you'll have at least two.

I never skip a contested election. I often vote in uncontested ones, too. However, if my kid was playing in the Big Game on the night of the uncontested Iowa Democratic caucus, and I were an Iowan, I'd go see the kid play. Then again, I think family is important, and supporting children in their formative years makes for well-adjusted adults.

Those other nuts, the ones who showed up to choose a candidate from the Clown Car Crusade? They had a buffet of loons from which to choose--they were actually coming to a decision, supporting their particular nitwit, not simply showing up to rubber stamp a single, solitary candidate.

Like I've said elsewhere--for those who were inclined to participate in the caucuses, great. More power to them. Yay, team. However, I won't "put down" or call into question the "loyalty" or party credentials of those who did not show up to vote for one single, solitary incumbent who was unopposed in his quest for the approval of the citizens of Iowa (notwithstanding a few rabble-rousers trying and woefully failing to muster support for "uncommitted") and who has a wonderful, well-funded and well-populated organization in the state that will GOTV for him in November.

There are times when people can, and do, look at the big picture, use their own good judgment and make pragmatic choices. This was one of those times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 04:49 AM

19. I don't recall anyone here predicting that there would be a significant number of "uncommitted."

I personally saw the numbers and thought there might be maybe 10% and was surprised it was 2%. But I don't recall that prediction you suggest ever being made.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 04:51 AM

20. First off, the plan to have uncommitted as a choice

was to add a voice to those who have been frustrated and provide a way to voice it without hurting or derailing the reelection. Crowing and giving people the finger and making them out as a Republican inserted disruption or just worthless crazy disgruntled people will be the real threat to the campaign. When you tell people to shut up and stick it, they may stay and you shave off the 2% here or the 3% there in each state. The attitude of dismissal by the bullies of the party IS THE GREATEST threat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Reply #20)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 04:55 AM

22. Since one of the campaigners for the uncomitted movement at the last minute switched to Ron Paul...

...we don't know what the actual outcome was. Ron Paul got most of his votes in precincts which went to Obama in 2008.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 10:50 AM

29. Cue the 'Occupy Iowa changed their plans' excuses...

and the 'Democrats didn't play fair by organizing a huge GOTV effort" complaining.

Democrats are, in the great majority, behind Obama and are going to support him. That cold, hard fact is painful for some of the most disenchanted to swallow.



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #29)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 12:23 PM

31. The complaint wasn't the GOTV effort..

it was that they were telling people that Obama's television appearance meant time for debate would be limited, making it more like a campaign rally than a traditional caucus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 01:53 PM

33. 25000 is a huge number IMHO, it's cold and Obama wouldah won anyway....this is a good thing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 02:14 PM

34. It was all about organization.

President O had more campaign headquarters open in Iowa than the aggregate of the Republican candidates. He ran unopposed and walked away with all 54 delegates. In the process, he also garnered 7,500 Iowa Democrats pledging to work on the campaign in the GE. Not too shabby.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 02:15 PM

35. K&R

Succinctly states the reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 03:00 PM

37. "money and fame"

That's the truth. Controversy is profitable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 03:02 PM

38. So he has it in the bag? We don't need to campaign for him?

What's the point of someone who's a self-proclaimed supporter posting something like this?

NGU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 03:14 PM

39. I came to this conclusion after the last election

You have guys from Grayson to Feingold losing. You had Lincoln winning the democratic primary. The "true left" is a small contingent. And they are pissed, and rightly so. They've been called sanctimonious, drug addled, retarded, and accused of everything from not getting their "pony" to accusations that "they never loved him to begin with". And this was from their supposed "friends". From their opponents, they've watched a guy get labled as a "socialist/liberal" who is anything but from their perspective.

But your post really helped I'm sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #39)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 05:19 PM

48. The "true left" is 75% of the nation.

And the radical RW would love to see other Dems ridiculing them for obvious reasons.

NGU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 04:11 PM

42. I love this post!

Looks like the 3 people on the planet, who give a shit what Cenk has to say, may have voted "uncommitted", which puts his effectiveness in it's proper perspective as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #42)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 05:45 PM

51. Just 25,000 people?

And that is like 1/4th of the fired up republicans?

That is a big enthusiasm gap. Reminds me of 2010 elections when the moderates
failed to carry through and get rid of the republicans.

So, again, the moderate middlers, mudding up the politics have failed to stand up and be counted. Their leaders need to be taken out back and learned a lesson, eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeFree (Reply #51)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 05:56 PM

54. Not sure if you have a point. It's a foregone conclusion that Obama's the nominee. That anyone....

bothered to show up, let alone thousands, is surprising in itself. I would think the most enthused would be Cenk's "uncommitted", I mean they're the ones making all the noise, no? They're obviously much more ferocious on the internet, than in RL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #54)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 06:06 PM

57. My point

Nobody gives a shit. They don't even go and vote for the president.
Why is that? Is it because they don't want to vote for Obama?
Yet many more showed up to vote for the clowns?

The middle democrats are laying down again. I am sure it was only the left who showed up to vote for Obama. The rest of the middling middlers stayed home sucking their thumbs? Lawd knows I'd have been down there to vote for Obama.

25,000 is all? Obama is in deep trouble.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeFree (Reply #57)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 06:18 PM

61. You have missed the entire point of this post

25K showed up with NO CHALLENGER. No one actually needed to show up at all since Obama will be the nominee. That 25K did with virtually NO CHALLENGER is fairly significant.

The president is not in any trouble at all -- with Democrats/liberals anyway. People are coming out in the snow to cast their vote for him even when he has no challenger. That is the point of this OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #61)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 06:30 PM

63. Yet 4 times showed for the clowns?

It must be nice for you to be so smug and think Obama is a shoe-in.
But the thing is he brings no zazz to the process.

If I was in Iowa, and had a chance to vote for Obama, I would have.
But then I am not a centrist muddling middler. The ones who didn't show up to vote for Obama said: "Who gives a shit. American Idol is on tonight, eh?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeFree (Reply #63)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 11:52 PM

87. Where are you coming up with this?

It must be nice for you to be so smug and think Obama is a shoe-in.

Nowhere did anyone suggest anything about being smug. It is no one's fault if you do not understand what is going on but there is absolutely no need for you to be nasty ON TOP OF ignorant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #61)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 06:34 PM

64. Do you get the sense that these talking points were prepared beforehand, just in case "Operation

Uncommitted" went horribly wrong? Wouldn't it stand to reason that more people would show up to caucus for seven (7) people than for one who's already got the nom sewn up? Let's do the percentages. Let's count the total number of Repuke caucus attendees, and split it among the seven candidates, wouldn't that still make the president the winner of the night?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #64)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 06:46 PM

66. Nah

Obama just isn't getting anybody enthused.
Just like when the Tbaggers took over in 2010.

You do remember that, don't you? The middling muddling stayed home.
I'd say the true vote for uncommitted is all those who stayed home this time.
I know that hurts the sensibilities of many here, but it's the truth.

Uncommitted won.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeFree (Reply #66)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 07:55 PM

73. Dude, you must not understand the process. The reason 100,000 showed up for the GOP is because

THEY ARE CHOOSING THEIR CANDIDATE. 25,000 for an unchallenged incumbent is HUGE! Only 1/7th of the entire GOP voting bloc even showed up, now THAT'S low.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeFree (Reply #66)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 08:51 PM

81. Your nonsensical talking points aside, the math just doesn't favor you or "Uncommitted".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeFree (Reply #66)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 11:41 PM

85. Uncommitted won!!!...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeFree (Reply #57)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 06:42 PM

65. It was as I thought. You really didn't have a point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #65)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 06:48 PM

67. Uncommitted won

The math is that uncommitted didn't even show up to vote they were so uncommitted. Obama has lost his appeal. Just like 2010.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeFree (Reply #67)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 07:56 PM

74. Riiiiiiiight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeFree (Reply #67)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 08:39 PM

78. Wooow...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeFree (Reply #67)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 02:35 AM

95. LOL

This is creative!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeFree (Reply #51)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 11:51 PM

86. For perspective, that's 25,000x as many people that caucused for Clinton in 1996.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 04:17 PM

44. Well done Iowa.




You wanted your voice heard and so it was.


Well done.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 05:46 PM

52. +100

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 05:59 PM

55. So are we finally done with the idiotic "primary Obama" movement?

I suppose now the new chant will be "lets go third party"!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #55)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 06:13 PM

60. Please. Read this thread. There are apparently a bazillion totally "legitimate" reasons why

Iowans didn't put in someone else.

Even though the president was pretty much unchallenged, 25K STILL got up and got out to vote for Obama. That should send a message to his incessant detractors but we all know that they are experts at denying truth, exaggerating their numbers, and moving the goalposts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 06:00 PM

56. Cenk will be soooo disappointed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lillypaddle (Reply #56)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 08:40 PM

79. And that's a good thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 06:49 PM

68. Well, I certainly should hope so, given the amount of resources the Obama camp dumped into it,

 

Especially since Obama wasn't actually running against anybody.

"In Iowa, for example, Bird & Co. are preparing for the Democratic caucuses as if they were contested. Their first paid staff members arrived in Des Moines nearly two years ago, and now Obama’s Iowa operation—eight offices, a dozen staffers, hundreds of volunteers, 1,280 official events, 4,000 one-on-one conversations, and 350,000 calls to supporters"
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/01/01/inside-president-obama-s-reelection-machine.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 07:50 PM

72. I guess all this proves is that most Democratic Iowans who caucused aren't idiots.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 08:45 PM

80. I love seeing this thread at 68

recs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 11:33 PM

84. We ARE the 99%!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #84)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 11:52 PM

88. I had to laugh at an OWSer who said "we are the 2%" :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 04:03 PM

91. HA!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Original post)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 12:46 AM

94. These "woe is X, Y, and Z" threads are really starting to get irritating...

And I don't care which side of the issue anyone is on. It's just not a useful debate tool, and I can't wait for DU to move on from it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread