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]BootinUp
(47,144 posts)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!
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