Must See TV. How hilarious will that be? Tough to turn that one down.

I imagine Dancing with the Stars will still be more popular. Let's have the candidates in the clown car dance. Then vote 'em off.

Must see tv for sure!

Iowa should be the first state kicked out of the union.

Nt

Gee, I can't figure out why Democrats have problems with the flyover states...

Poor TV and radio commentary, conservative papers that people never read anyway, births at young ages, too much reverence for Tupperware.

those stereotypes. You may hit yourself with one.

Iowa has a history of progressive legislation. We also have a very fair redistricting system that does not allow for gerrymandering. When I vote,I use a pen and mark my ballot. When we caucus we are engaging in political discussion with our friends and neighbors to select our candidate. You night be surprised at how well that works. We are not rubes. And you may want to consider the balled up mess created by some large states. Ohio? Florida? How about New Jersey? How is California handling that water shortage vis a vis fracking?

https://councilbluffscommunityalliance.wordpress.com/iowa/iowas-progressive-history/

Iowa isn't full of rubes but rich farmers/ag biz. The caucus system is outdated, old-fashioned and leaves a lot of people out of the loop. It's a system you need knowledge of before standing with your candidate.

40 years and raised my children here. Some of the stuff you've put in this thread does not reflect that you have a working knowledge of the state's system.

And I wouldn't say Iowa is "full" of rich farmers/ag biz. We're full of teachers, firemen, homemakers, doctors, nurses, convenience store clerks, hairdressers, coaches, electricians, factory workers...just like regular states.

Republicans would never go for California going first. They want Texas first. Lol. And the voting machines are not used in primary in Iowa because they have a caucus which is hard to cheat with.

LOL. The caucus system is one step away from mob rule. Everyone knows how you are voting. Your friends, enemies, neighbors, employers, family members. Why don't we have that in November? Everyone go to the public square and declare who they favor.

It's not mob-like at all. People bring cookies, ffs.

The point is that it is undemocratic. We have a secret ballot system in this country for a reason. You can't be for the secret ballot and be for a caucus.

A caucus is a means to choose delegates to the county convention (which in turn sends delegates to the State convention, then the National convention).

To say that it's "mob rule" betrays a lack of understanding of how caucuses work and what they're intended to do.

Really is discouraging how ill informed people are about how caucuses work.

Republicans and Democrats eat out of the same pizza box and then go give their votes to their candidate of choice. Downright undemocratic.

you guys sacrificed cute puppies and other mean stuff at those cactus's pagan ceremonies?

Sheesh!

And there is no changing for 2016 for sure.

They get attention they would never get otherwise. They are like a spoiled child threatening to throw a fit if they are not catered to. They do not have the demographics of the nation but the DNC is too spineless to tell them no.

Be specific.

Some state wants to move their state forward to be first or near first and Iowa screams and yells (as they did in 2008 when this last came up among Democrats, I guess you forgot) and they say they will move the caucus to December or November or October. The DNC gets nervous with this extortion and gives in and sanctions states that move their voting anywhere near Iowa (I guess you forgot MI and FL in 2008).

I understand if you don't have anything more concrete.

It's a state law that the caucus has to happen a certain amount of time before the first primary. Iowa is required to move it up if other states move theirs up. And if "they say they will move the caucus" constitutes "scream{ing} and yell{ing}" to you, I suspect you've never had children.

To call it extortion is ludicrous.

Unless on the internet. I gave you specific examples of what happened in 2008. You ignored that as I knew you would... Other states can pass the same law. Does Iowa law supersede every other state???

Let's see...

My question was:

What "fit" are Iowa voters threatening to throw?
Be specific.

Because of DNC rules that will sanction their delegates. We wouldn't want poor little Iowa to have their little feelings hurt...

You're the one who said "other states can pass the same law." If states are that adamant about it, they can negotiate with the DNC (and the RNC, for that matter - they're also involved in the primary calendar).

They are not as juvenile as Iowa who says "I get to go first or I'm taking the ball and go home"!

Your brilliant argument aside, there's nothing "juvenile" about following the law. It's not "taking the ball and going home" to follow the law, either. It's a requirement. If a state moves up their date, Iowa has to move up - the alternative is to violate state law.

It wasn't even Iowa who made changes to push the caucuses earlier and earlier - it was the DNC. Nominees used to be chosen at the actual convention until the problems in 1968, and the Iowa Caucus was merely the first step to choose Iowa's delegates - not to choose a "winner".

where campaigns can get their act together working out how to handle all the details they'll need later.

And the people in Iowa handle the circus that it is with dignity, not laughing at absurdities.

I have no problem with Iowa or New Hampshire.

It'd be nice if the previous highest party turnout state got rewarded with the convention or some such thing

This is here voters where start dropping out. And the photo ops on hay bales, with pols wearing denim and cowboy boots is so Americana ridiculous. Hate it"

It can be as big as ANY band in River City!!!!!

...and I live in Iowa (and have subsequently met many presidential candidates over the years...it's an awesome opportunity).

The 'adults' could work out the details, but it might be a way for voters to feel they have some skin in the game. It's all become so much about winning oligarch donations that the actual voting seems to be taken for granted.

She certainly has her people entrenched already and a system that's been in place for the Clintons all these years. I remember being a California delegate two elections ago and the most prepared was the Hillary campaign. I remember Edwards had wet pasty palms.

She found out too late that name recognition alone would not carry her to victory.

She was old school political. He had a lot of young energetic boots on the ground. I've supported him all these years. I expect the same work to keep the morons on the right out of office.

Give everyone a chance to see the candidates on equal footing. Have a chance to personally ask a question. Shouldn't take more than a couple years to work their way around the country. Say 5,000 voters a debate.

Of a national televised debate with all the candiidates on both sides, with the best, most honest "journalists" we have and a completely lotteries audience.

As pointed out above, it is relatively cheap to campaign here so more candidates can actually afford to enter the race.

California would certainly require more "countless private money"

IMHO

How, specifically, is a caucus rigged?

The candidates travel the state and get asked hard questions.

Then Democrats gather in a room, group themselves by the candidate they support. Some people give speeches. Then people stand up for their candidate and there is a head count taken.

A lot of social ostracizing

Huh? People show up, talk a little, split up into groups for their candidate of choice. How is that socially ostracizing?

your point is moot.

Yeah that's exactly why they want to get rid of it.

It's a weakness for Hillary. She's the money candidate. Every moment she spends in Iowa exposes her to the risk of being faced with an unscripted question.

... and I as a former Iowa resident am a bit insulted by that. Tom Harkin has been one of the better progressive politicians in the Senate, and I'm sad that this senator who I proudly voted for many years ago when I still lived there is no longer there now.

A caucus is a good way to start a campaign, as it involves a lot more personal contact of candidates with voters, and voters with each other to help set the table of what issues should be discussed and looked at in a coming primary campaign.

It's not perfect. Iowan Republicans, as much as Republicans are sticky about making sure that we count our votes right in elections in their moves towards voter suppression, couldn't even get their first count for who won the caucus there right and had to change it later to have the winner be Santorum instead of Romney. But I think people falsely label many Iowans as being backward, as when they are given a good choice like Harkin, they can still elect the right politician in many cases. Not sure what happened with Ernst, but it seems like there were a lot of miscellaneous factors that went in to that (including a Libertarian candidate dying in a small plane crash right before the election, etc.).

I haven't named names but am against the caucus system.

California first primary. Please.

...and that if you started in California, you wouldn't have candidates like Bernie Sanders, because they wouldn't be able to raise the millions needed for television ad buys?

But if this is just an excuse to rant, be my guest...

Eyes are rolling.

That's why the fucking first state caucus is so irrelevant.
It's a system that you need election advisement on since it's basically people standing in different corners of a room. Prehistoric

My wife and I ran a caucus site for Hillary Clinton in 2008. It's not as representative of the total electorate, but it IS representative of the people in the Party who actually care about the outcome. It's raw, retail, local politics at its finest.

Add to that, the choice of Iowa and New Hampshire as the first states allows people to see how candidates actually campaign, face to face with voters. How they respond to the unexpected question, deal with a heckler, organize a State-wide ground campaign. It may not tell you who should be your candidate, but it's great at telling you who shouldn't

That does seem old fashioned.

Feed the pigs.

Any gas being used alternatively?

Saw that photo captioned that way somewhere.

I'll be at the 2016 Iowa Democratic Caucus.

Should be fun.

Remember in August of 2007 when Iowa's Judge Hanson made his ruling and Iowa's first legal gay marriage happened right smack dab in the middle of the primary campaign leading up to Caucus night four months later on January 3rd?

Always good to see how politicians respond to curve balls.

Iowa is a place that can not be won by money alone. It also has sometimes defied the inside the beltway media's biases. Even the party powers that be are nowhere as much a factor in Iowa.

Iowa is not perfect. On the Republican side, it appears to be to the right of the party as a whole; on the Democratic side it seems a little to the left. That might simply reflect the extra commitment of going to caucus.

I noticed in 2004, that CSPAN would cover two of the caucus locations. I decided to check it out as I had never seen a caucus. I ended up watching for 4 hours. It was fascinating and it was very democratic. (Only years later did I experience the Vt town meetings - that in some way seem the same.)

Without Iowa or NH (or some other smallish states do fill in for them), a candidate is defined by ads, carefully honed position papers and speeches, that may even be written for them. In Iowa, to win, they have to be willing to take questions from anyone and give thoughtful answers.

It is not perfect, but I absolutely do not agree that it keeps thoughtful, intelligent candidates from winning. It might be fairer to say that it sometimes will allow a candidate who is not the inside the beltway media favorite/ favorite of BIG money donors/party insiders to win or even do better than expected --- and then get a second look.

This year, it will take a huge amount of real excitement for an alternative to Clinton to do unexpectly well. It will be a very high bar to jump - because Clinton HAS impressed many many people already.

Now why not California? It is HUGE and there is no way to personally cover enough of it to have anything like the retail politics of Iowa. It also has at least 2 very expensive media markets. It is hard to see how a not well funded candidate is even noticed.

In fact, the thing I wish were changed from 2008 was the HUGE supertuesday. It was designed as a wall to anyone who needed to get their message out and gain name recognition. The previous stringing them out longer allowed the process to test frontrunners - and if they failed -- test the next frontrunner ...

Thanks for your explanation!

Bankrupt qthe Repubs just looking for walking around money. delicious rewards for the Koch brothers largess.

I don;t think that helps our democracy.

Iowa and New Hampshire give less well-heeled candidates the chance to connect with actual voters, and gain some free publicity by doing well.

In this 2016 cycle, Hillary and Jeb would use that advantage to crush the life out the competition.

That's simply by the numbers. We have the biggest population here. We stand to be the most affected - simply BECAUSE there are more of us than there are in any other state. I think I recall, last time I looked, that California had either the largest or the fastest-growing Latino population (or both) as well.

(that is, we pay more in Federal taxes than we receive in Federal spending)

Funny how that works. Most Blue states are donor states, while most recipient states are Red.

Look at my history. Coz I've been here sine year one.

Iowa is small enough to allow for retail politics. I had the privilege of caucusing in Iowa in 1988, and I've never seen a more informed or engaged citizenry, nor have I ever had such direct access to candidates, before or since. The only way to campaign in a state as large as California is with big media buys and large events, which means the only candidates who would be able to play are ones with huge war chests assembled before the first primary. Big money/corporate money/dark money would matter more than ever in such a system.

As usual....really worked well huh?
Drain the Republican money from Adelson and Kochs early.

No brainer.

Your reply doesn't even address what the post said.

What does Koch Republican $ have to do with Democratic candidates? Especially those that are less well known and less well-funded?

Do you know why the caucuses in Iowa are even on anybody's radar? Read about the early days of Jimmy Carter's campaign.

arrogant elitist jerk such as yourself.

I really like Hillary and plan on working for her campaign. If you feel the same way, I'd suggest cutting out the negative stereotyping and condescending rhetoric. A lot of people vote AGAINST a candidate. Your tactics will shore up a lot of votes for Hillary's opponent.

Politics ain't for everyone but welcome to the dream. Cutting off the BS from the start is a strategy. Challenging the lies from the beginning is the right way.

You are rude and show an absolute lack of class. It is unfortunate that we are political allies. Hillary Clinton is worse off having you on her side.

Would there be a big bridge from Nebraska to Illinois? Would I have to drive around a big hole? Seriously I think we have a big issue with logistics. Also what would the Big 10 do?

and I do not want nonstop candidate visiting! Iowa is welcome to them. The winner of the caucus may not win the nomination anyway. And last time the Iowa Repub caucus results were revised at least four times. And none of them won!

Let I wa have the money in their economy and leave me in peace. Thanks.

So Clinton can cheat and run roughshod throughout whatever "primary"
gets mounted against her this cycle.

Yay!

My partner is from Iowa, yet I might add has never wanted to move back.
So having visited more times than I ever wanted, I say this.
Iowans are insanely myopic when it comes to there state and defensive as hell
about any criticism about it. Iowans feel the sun shines out there states butt,
and refuse to see it as the welfare agra-buisiness ecological hell scape that it is.
Having traveled to all corners of this boring deforested toxic lump, I despise freakin Iowa.

Rant off.

The Music Man has his own Iowa problems.

start at 1:50