Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Barack Obama won the Iowa Caucus with 98%. "Uncommitted" got 2%. [View all]JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)43. I understood that.
I was referring to not having access to current TV, and so ... I can't easily see Al, or Keith.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
95 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I haven't kept up with the Greenwald story. Too over my head right now.
Liberal_Stalwart71
Jan 2012
#6
LOL I particularly love the comments accusing people of being "condescending," "insulting"
Number23
Jan 2012
#58
"People here were predicting ahead of time that with SO MANY Democrats frustrated or angry,
nadinbrzezinski
Jan 2012
#11
"Cenk and his followers failed miserably in their attempt to prove that SO MANY voters are anti-Obam
Number23
Jan 2012
#59
I support the President avidly and I wouldn't even drive 2 miles for this caucus
banned from Kos
Jan 2012
#15
25,000? That's it? In 2008, the turnout exceeded 239,000, far above the 124,000 in 2004.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2012
#18
2004 and 2008 were incumbancy numbers. Apparently there was no caucus in 1996 for Democrats.
joshcryer
Jan 2012
#21
What do you perceive as "incumbancy numbers"? Do you reject the Washington Post's numbers?
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2012
#23
In 2004 and 2008 Bush was an incumbant. In 2000, only 2001 voters voted for Gore / Bradley.
joshcryer
Jan 2012
#24
It otherwise appears that 61,000 - not 2001 - turned out for Gore / Bradley in 2000.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2012
#28
"why NOT go to ... instead?" Because these are Iowa friends and neighbors. They show up to
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2012
#49
So going to a football game with family and friends is same party as voting for a dem candidate in a
snooper2
Jan 2012
#50
I am afraid that I don't take your point. A sports contest can always produce an upset.
MADem
Jan 2012
#62
I don't recall anyone here predicting that there would be a significant number of "uncommitted."
joshcryer
Jan 2012
#19
Since one of the campaigners for the uncomitted movement at the last minute switched to Ron Paul...
joshcryer
Jan 2012
#22
25000 is a huge number IMHO, it's cold and Obama wouldah won anyway....this is a good thing
uponit7771
Jan 2012
#33
Not sure if you have a point. It's a foregone conclusion that Obama's the nominee. That anyone....
Tarheel_Dem
Jan 2012
#54
Do you get the sense that these talking points were prepared beforehand, just in case "Operation
Tarheel_Dem
Jan 2012
#64
Dude, you must not understand the process. The reason 100,000 showed up for the GOP is because
FarLeftFist
Jan 2012
#73
Your nonsensical talking points aside, the math just doesn't favor you or "Uncommitted".
Tarheel_Dem
Jan 2012
#81
For perspective, that's 25,000x as many people that caucused for Clinton in 1996.
joshcryer
Jan 2012
#86
Please. Read this thread. There are apparently a bazillion totally "legitimate" reasons why
Number23
Jan 2012
#60
Well, I certainly should hope so, given the amount of resources the Obama camp dumped into it,
MadHound
Jan 2012
#68
I guess all this proves is that most Democratic Iowans who caucused aren't idiots.
MjolnirTime
Jan 2012
#72