WWTBAM Bored

The official start of the 2008 "Clusterf**k to the White House" begins tonight at 7 PM CST. It's the Iowa caucuses.

So, what are your predictions on the outcome?

On the Democratic side, I predict a record turnout and Sen. Obama will take the victory by a 5-point margin. Second place will be Sen. Edwards, with Sen. Clinton running a close third. Sen. Biden and/or Sen. Dodd will quit the presidential race before the New Hampshire primary.

On the Republican side, it will be Gov. Huckabee with an 8-point win over Gov. Romney. Third place will go to Sen. McCain. Fred Thompson, the so-called great white hope for the party, will get 5% or less and then bow out of the race before New Hampshire.

My prediction, by this time next week nobody will care about Iowa.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:My prediction, by this time next week nobody will care about Iowa.

Certainly not the candidates.

And I won't make any predictions about the outcome. I find myself alienated and uninspired by the entire field.

Me, I'm hoping there's a virtual tie on both sides, which then carries over to NH and the rest so no one goes into the conventions with a clear majority or even close to one. IMO there would be nothing better to hold both party's collective feet to the fire than a brokered convention. I see three possibilities from that (I use "the party" to mean either one):

1. The party will rally around one of the current candidates, offering cabinet posts and major appointments to get their desired ideologue onto the November ballot.

2. The party will see that the primaries were effectively a NOTA vote, and drag someone who can actually lead kicking and screaming to the nomination ("A person who truly wants the office of President should under no circumstances be allowed to hold the position.").

3. The people see behind the curtain at the machinations of the two major parties, and a third party with some leadership behind it emerges as a real alternative. This may have already started, and not just with Mayor Bloomburg as the suggested candidate.

Meanwhile, I'm stuck working in NH, and my favorite radio stations are fattening their bottom lines with political ads in every break. Six more days, six more days ...

Iowa - state of 2.5 million people, of which maybe 50,000 will participate in caucuses tonight.

There is no such thing as an absentee ballot- Iowans who are working, Iowans who are shut in, Iowans out of town, all cannot participate.

Iowa is not representative economically, demographically, or ethinically of the country as a whole - not that any one other state is, either.

What we have here is a high school student council election gone horribly awry.

nitrah55 wrote: There is no such thing as an absentee ballot- Iowans who are working, Iowans who are shut in, Iowans out of town, all cannot participate.

Moreover, one cannot simply cast one's ballot and leave. One must arrive by 7 pm and stay for the entire evening, however long the process takes.

None of the candidates from my party are in Iowa.

Although I guess that could change depending on what happens.

MarleysGh0st wrote:

nitrah55 wrote: There is no such thing as an absentee ballot- Iowans who are working, Iowans who are shut in, Iowans out of town, all cannot participate.

Moreover, one cannot simply cast one's ballot and leave. One must arrive by 7 pm and stay for the entire evening, however long the process takes.

That's only true on the Democratic side. The Republican "Caucus" more accurately resembles a Straw Poll. I don't know if Participants are required to wait until the results are tallied, but there is no jockeying and brokering for support.

MarleysGh0st wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:My prediction, by this time next week nobody will care about Iowa.

Certainly not the candidates.

And I won't make any predictions about the outcome. I find myself alienated and uninspired by the entire field.

I do as well.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

MarleysGh0st wrote:

nitrah55 wrote: There is no such thing as an absentee ballot- Iowans who are working, Iowans who are shut in, Iowans out of town, all cannot participate.

Moreover, one cannot simply cast one's ballot and leave. One must arrive by 7 pm and stay for the entire evening, however long the process takes.

That's only true on the Democratic side. The Republican "Caucus" more accurately resembles a Straw Poll. I don't know if Participants are required to wait until the results are tallied, but there is no jockeying and brokering for support.

Morning Joe had some guy on this morning, showing the room the Republicans will have their caucus in (I think he might have used the word 'civilized"). Then he showed the rooms the Democrats would be in and did this whole funny jockeying thing, if a candidate didn't have 15%. It was a bit funny and a bit demeaning. I enjoyed watching him.

Democrats came off like school kids.

In 2004, about 125,000 attended the Dem caucus. There was no Republican caucus. In 2000, about 90,000 attended the Republican caucus and 60,000 the Democratic.

Because of the way delegates are allocated, one candidate can perform significantly better than another yet still not have the delegates to show for it. For example, if a precinct has six delegates at stake and the results are: Obama 40, Edwards 30, Clinton 30, the delegates would be allotted 2-2-2, even though Obama "won" the precinct substantially. And if that precinct has 500 people voting, and another precinct that has 100 people and four delegates voting splits Clinton 34, Obama 33 and Edwards 33, (2-1-1). then, essentially, 184 Clinton voters would select more delegates than 233 Obama voters.

While second choices of minor candidates are important, in many cases, they must break heavily for one of the big three in order for this to make a difference of even one delegate in the final totals. There are 1800 precincts in Iowa and most of them will boil down to mini-tactical battles over single delegates.

It's all going to boil down to who actually decides to show up and where they show up.

While I don't think means much in the overall election picture, I just like a good horse race.

What I am hoping for is a Democratic trifecta of Obama, Edwards, Clinton with Obama distancing the other two by at least 5 lengths. I think this will serve to show that Madame Clinton is not the invincible shrew she was thought to be.

On the Republican side, I don't think that The Huckster's winning will mean anything. AFAIC, a strong evangelical winning in a bible-belt state is kind of like Secretariat winning over a group of 10-year old nags. So what. Same goes for New Hampshire. I will be surprised if Romney doesn't win there. But again, so what. I still think Rudy is the guy to beat nationally. I am a little disappointed that Thompson isn't a stronger contender.

I believe the only way the Democrats can lose is if they nominate Hillary Clinton.

I believe the only way the Republicans can lose is if they nominate Rudy Guiliani.


If they are both the nominees: Rudy wins.

YMMV

MarleysGh0st wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:My prediction, by this time next week nobody will care about Iowa.

Certainly not the candidates.

Don't know about the candidates but I don't even care about the outcome now, much less a week from now.

It is all a joke. A very bad joke and we get to be the butt of it.

Let's see how well I did in my predictions:

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:On the Democratic side, I predict a record turnout and Sen. Obama will take the victory by a 5-point margin. Second place will be Sen. Edwards, with Sen. Clinton running a close third. Sen. Biden and/or Sen. Dodd will quit the presidential race before the New Hampshire primary.

On the Republican side, it will be Gov. Huckabee with an 8-point win over Gov. Romney. Third place will go to Sen. McCain. Fred Thompson, the so-called great white hope for the party, will get 5% or less and then bow out of the race before New Hampshire.

--Record turnout? *DING* Between 210,000-240,000 Democrats turned out, over 100,000 more than in 2004.
--5-point win for Obama? It was actually 8 points.
--Edwards second, Hillary a close third? *DING*
--Biden and/or Dodd out? *DING DING* They're both out.
--8-point win for Huckabee? Off by one--9 points.
--Romney second, McCain third? *DING DING*
--Thompson under 5%? Man, was I wrong on that. He tied McCain at third with 14%. And he made it clear that he's sticking around for NH.

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:The official start of the 2008 "Clusterf**k to the White House" begins tonight at 7 PM CST. It's the Iowa caucuses.

So, what are your predictions on the outcome?

On the Democratic side, I predict a record turnout and Sen. Obama will take the victory by a 5-point margin. Second place will be Sen. Edwards, with Sen. Clinton running a close third. Sen. Biden and/or Sen. Dodd will quit the presidential race before the New Hampshire primary.

On the Republican side, it will be Gov. Huckabee with an 8-point win over Gov. Romney. Third place will go to Sen. McCain. Fred Thompson, the so-called great white hope for the party, will get 5% or less and then bow out of the race before New Hampshire.

I bow before your prognosticational skills, Nelly - I'm not sure of the exact figures but you called the results pretty close. There might be a future for you as a pundit.

NellyLunatic1980 wrote: Record turnout? *DING* Between 210,000-240,000 Democrats turned out, over 100,000 more than in 2004.
--5-point win for Obama? It was actually 8 points.
--Edwards second, Hillary a close third? *DING*
--Biden and/or Dodd out? *DING DING* They're both out.
--8-point win for Huckabee? Off by one--9 points.
--Romney second, McCain third? *DING DING*
--Thompson under 5%? Man, was I wrong on that. He tied McCain at third with 14%. And he made it clear that he's sticking around for NH.

Pretty good, Nelly!

When will you be calling the New Hampshire results?

MarleysGh0st wrote:Pretty good, Nelly!

When will you be calling the New Hampshire results?

I'll write something up on Monday, the day before the primary.

Dear Hillary:

We don't like you. We don't believe you. We don't trust you. We don't want you for President. We won't vote for you.

Thank you for visiting Iowa. Don't come back.

Sincerely,
America

BTW, can anyone point me to an article that says something about where the strengths of each candidate were? Cities vs. more rural areas, especially. I've seen one or two with demographic (age, gender) breakdowns, but they were limited.

I hope none of the candidates are on the road along my commuting route while I am. I might be tempted to wave, and not with all my fingers.

Here is an AP article with some information

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hRjX ... wD8TUTSAO1

Here is an article with a breakdown rural/urban by county

http://www.dailyyonder.com/huckabee-win ... est-cities

From that article:

Huckabee won the state with 34 percent of the vote. But, geogrpahically, his success was uneven. Huckabee won 38% of the rural vote. In urban counties, however, he won just 30 percent of the Republican caucus vote.


Huckabee won urban Iowa by just 954 votes over former Massachusetts governor Romney. In rural Iowa, however, the Arkansan beat Romney by 9,284 votes.

and

Obama's victory was exactly the reverse. He won 38 percent of the vote across Iowa. In the cities, however, Obama took 41 percent of the vote. In rural Iowa, Obama won 34 percent of the vote, barely edging out John Edwards, who had 32 percent of the rural vote, and Sen. Hillary Clinton, with 31 percent.

Both Edwards and Clinton won more votes in rural Iowa than in urban Iowa.

Half of all Iowans live in the nine counties classified as urban but the delegates are distributed unevenly giving rural voters more influence on the outcome.

I didn't know there was an urban Iowa.

Bob Juch wrote:I didn't know there was an urban Iowa.

You will notice that I said "counties classified as urban" rather than "urban counties".

Of course, I'd probably go farther than the writer of the article. By my definition if you can see more than one other house after you cut the corn, that's urban.

What if you can see one house before you cut the corn?

peacock2121 wrote:What if you can see one house before you cut the corn?

That's a duplex.