HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Why We Shouldn’t Give a D...

Sun Sep 6, 2015, 12:24 PM

Why We Shouldn’t Give a Damn Who Wins the Iowa Caucuses

Early in the 2016 Presidential election year all eyes will be on Iowa because on February 1st the state will host their first in the nation Presidential election process, the Iowa caucuses. Presidential candidates have long since been crisscrossing the state shaking thousands of hands. The television news channels are already featuring the latest results of polls taken in Iowa and it has been projected that the Presidential campaigns will spend as much as $30 million dollars in the state before the caucuses have been completed. No doubt on that Monday evening the major networks will have scores of reporters on hand waiting breathlessly to report the latest vote tabulations. However, if you look closely at how the caucus process works, and how few voters are involved, you will inevitably come away wondering why anyone would care which candidates will win in Iowa.

http://www.cajunscomments.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=775&action=edit

5 replies, 769 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 5 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why We Shouldn’t Give a Damn Who Wins the Iowa Caucuses (Original post)
CajunBlazer Sep 2015 OP
99Forever Sep 2015 #1
CajunBlazer Sep 2015 #2
jwirr Sep 2015 #4
Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2015 #3
Gothmog Sep 2015 #5

Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Sun Sep 6, 2015, 12:35 PM

1. Sounds like the words of someone who is backing...

... an "inevitable" candidate that is very likely to get beat in Iowa.

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Sun Sep 6, 2015, 01:51 PM

2. Actually, I haven't a clue who will win in Iowa, but it a process that is run by political insiders.

and it is not representative of the democracy we live in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Reply #2)

Sun Sep 6, 2015, 04:25 PM

4. LOL My little brother went to a caucus event and was

elected to represent them on the next level. Lot of people in his area know him only as "that mentally ill kid who lives alone in that old house".

What they do not know about him and what the caucus found out was that he is very into politics, is a great speaker and this time around supports Bernie.

Party leaders my eye. This is the first time he has ever done anything like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Sun Sep 6, 2015, 04:11 PM

3. Actually, I don't give a damn. I've already selected my candidate.

 

And, will vote accordingly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)

Sun Sep 6, 2015, 04:48 PM

5. According to Nate Silver, neither Iowa nor New Hampshire will affect the Democratic race

Winning Iowa and New Hampshire is meaningless according to to Nate Silver http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/bernie-sanders-new-hampshire/

So why do I still think Sanders is a factional candidate? He hasn’t made any inroads with non-white voters — in particular black voters, a crucial wing of the Democratic coalition and whose support was a big part of President Obama’s toppling of Clinton in the 2008 primary. Not only are African-Americans the majority of Democratic voters in the South Carolina primary (a crucial early contest), they make up somewhere between 19 percent and 24 percent of Democrats nationwide. In the past two YouGov polls, Sanders has averaged just 5 percent with black voters. Ipsos’s weekly tracking poll has him at an average of only 7 percent over the past two weeks. Fox News (the only live-interview pollster to publish results among non-white voters in July and August) had Clinton leading Sanders 62-10 among non-white Democrats in mid-July and 65-14 in mid-August. Clinton’s edge with non-whites held even as Sanders cut her overall lead from 40 percentage points to 19.

There are other indications that Sanders is unlikely to win the nomination. He hasn’t won a single endorsement from a governor, senator or member of the U.S. House of Representatives (unlike Obama at this point in the 2008 campaign). Sanders is also well behind in the money race (again, unlike Obama). These indicators haven’t changed over the past month.

But even if you put aside those metrics, Sanders is running into the problem that other insurgent Democrats have in past election cycles. You can win Iowa relying mostly on white liberals. You can win New Hampshire. But as Gary Hart and Bill Bradley learned, you can’t win a Democratic nomination without substantial support from African-Americans.

Iowa and New Hampshire are not that meaningful this cycle due to the lack of diversity in these two states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread