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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
90. That makes sense ...
Fri Jan 6, 2012, 05:02 PM
Jan 2012

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.

As the great Mr. Burns would say.."Excellent!"...n/t monmouth Jan 2012 #1
Actually it was 98.46%, even better! FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #27
You will be accused of stifling dissent in 4...3...2...1... Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2012 #2
Nahh. They are busy taking Greewald down... bluestate10 Jan 2012 #5
I haven't kept up with the Greenwald story. Too over my head right now. Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2012 #6
Apparently calling people to come caucus is "stifling dissent." joshcryer Jan 2012 #14
+99% Fantastic Anarchist Jan 2012 #32
LOL I particularly love the comments accusing people of being "condescending," "insulting" Number23 Jan 2012 #58
Looks like. bluestate10 Jan 2012 #3
To any freepers lurking around BootinUp Jan 2012 #4
I love revisionism nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #7
Where did the OP mention Summer Hathaway Jan 2012 #9
"People here were predicting ahead of time that with SO MANY Democrats frustrated or angry, nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #11
That seemed to be the thrust Summer Hathaway Jan 2012 #16
If they got 15% it would have been news nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #17
No news was made, indeed--and no news, to my view, is good news. nt MADem Jan 2012 #46
"Cenk and his followers failed miserably in their attempt to prove that SO MANY voters are anti-Obam Number23 Jan 2012 #59
I'll give credit where it's due Summer Hathaway Jan 2012 #77
You got that right. Number23 Jan 2012 #89
Guess there aren't too many unhappy Iowan Democrats out there. Old and In the Way Jan 2012 #8
As opposed to loud, angry forum posters Union Scribe Jan 2012 #10
I wonder if Cenk will comment on this? JoePhilly Jan 2012 #12
He did, both last night and today nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #13
Yes, was 2% above or below his expectations? JoePhilly Jan 2012 #25
He just pointed to it nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #36
I miss Keith too. JoePhilly Jan 2012 #40
That was Al Gore nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #41
I understood that. JoePhilly Jan 2012 #43
Then perhaps some of us can serve as filers nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #70
That makes sense ... JoePhilly Jan 2012 #90
Gore did ask Cenk, at one point, why he was so focused on defending Paul... Spazito Jan 2012 #76
Quite frankly I must have missed that part nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #82
It really is worth looking for... Spazito Jan 2012 #83
That would have been interesting to watch ... wish I could get JoePhilly Jan 2012 #92
I don't get it on my cable but am able to stream it... Spazito Jan 2012 #93
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
Don't Forget The Crossover... KharmaTrain Jan 2012 #26
It otherwise appears that 61,000 - not 2001 - turned out for Gore / Bradley in 2000. AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #28
I stand completely corrected, I was going by the wikipedia page... joshcryer Jan 2012 #71
The turnout wasn't that great. girl gone mad Jan 2012 #30
Way to obliterate the goalposts! They just keep moving..... Tarheel_Dem Jan 2012 #45
Look at how many turned out for the GOP, and they actually had a contest. MADem Jan 2012 #47
"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
Not the way that Obama is playing it. AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #53
I am afraid that I don't take your point. A sports contest can always produce an upset. MADem Jan 2012 #62
I feel dumb. Wait Wut Jan 2012 #69
When there's more than one candidate, it's never "in the bag." MADem Jan 2012 #75
I don't recall anyone here predicting that there would be a significant number of "uncommitted." joshcryer Jan 2012 #19
First off, the plan to have uncommitted as a choice mmonk Jan 2012 #20
Since one of the campaigners for the uncomitted movement at the last minute switched to Ron Paul... joshcryer Jan 2012 #22
Cue the 'Occupy Iowa changed their plans' excuses... SidDithers Jan 2012 #29
The complaint wasn't the GOTV effort.. girl gone mad Jan 2012 #31
25000 is a huge number IMHO, it's cold and Obama wouldah won anyway....this is a good thing uponit7771 Jan 2012 #33
It was all about organization. AtomicKitten Jan 2012 #34
K&R treestar Jan 2012 #35
"money and fame" Renew Deal Jan 2012 #37
So he has it in the bag? We don't need to campaign for him? ClassWarrior Jan 2012 #38
I came to this conclusion after the last election zipplewrath Jan 2012 #39
The "true left" is 75% of the nation. ClassWarrior Jan 2012 #48
I love this post! Tarheel_Dem Jan 2012 #42
Just 25,000 people? BeFree Jan 2012 #51
Not sure if you have a point. It's a foregone conclusion that Obama's the nominee. That anyone.... Tarheel_Dem Jan 2012 #54
My point BeFree Jan 2012 #57
You have missed the entire point of this post Number23 Jan 2012 #61
Yet 4 times showed for the clowns? BeFree Jan 2012 #63
Where are you coming up with this? Number23 Jan 2012 #87
Do you get the sense that these talking points were prepared beforehand, just in case "Operation Tarheel_Dem Jan 2012 #64
Nah BeFree Jan 2012 #66
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
Uncommitted won!!!... SidDithers Jan 2012 #85
It was as I thought. You really didn't have a point. Tarheel_Dem Jan 2012 #65
Uncommitted won BeFree Jan 2012 #67
Riiiiiiiight. FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #74
Wooow... Kahuna Jan 2012 #78
LOL BklnDem75 Jan 2012 #95
For perspective, that's 25,000x as many people that caucused for Clinton in 1996. joshcryer Jan 2012 #86
Well done Iowa. lpbk2713 Jan 2012 #44
+100 Liberal_in_LA Jan 2012 #52
So are we finally done with the idiotic "primary Obama" movement? DCBob Jan 2012 #55
Please. Read this thread. There are apparently a bazillion totally "legitimate" reasons why Number23 Jan 2012 #60
Cenk will be soooo disappointed lillypaddle Jan 2012 #56
And that's a good thing. Kahuna Jan 2012 #79
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
I love seeing this thread at 68 mzmolly Jan 2012 #80
We ARE the 99%! FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #84
I had to laugh at an OWSer who said "we are the 2%" :) joshcryer Jan 2012 #88
HA! Rex Jan 2012 #91
These "woe is X, Y, and Z" threads are really starting to get irritating... Fearless Jan 2012 #94
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Barack Obama won the Iowa...»Reply #90