to the owners of the game.. BUT let's see. Hope springs eternal. Go get 'em Bernie!

eom

The popular vote totals are not published, but we do get to see the delegate counts. Considering that Clinton has a stronger ground game, it's conceivable she will receive more delegates.

democracy demands that voters oversee the entire process anything else is smoke and mirrors

hopefully bernie's campaign is closely watching the vote totals and the math the party is using to reward delegates

We don't change the entire system for one candidate. Did you demand to see voter numbers in 2008? Case closed.

I made an ass of myself.

Remember, it's all rigged by Third-Way, DLC, DNC, Hillary, ESTABLISHMENT....AAAARGBLE BAAARGLE!!!

Delegates Guys,and then you have Super Delegates. Bernie has to really nail it tonight.

Been to and through many a caucus,so many moving parts and ideals,like herding cats. Fun process to get involved with. Fun to watch Operatives work the room.

It's endlessly fascinating because it's so unlike politics in general in this country. It's not my preferred method, but it's something that really is about actual face to face involvement in a way that most people can't deal with.

delegates to the County Conventions and subsequent State Convention. One has a chance to meet and see who really pulls the levers of Political power in your Precinct and ultimately your County. It is a blood sport,and the most diminutive in stature person can be the power broker,and of course you will always have the loud mouth bully type trying to ram his or her agenda. The latter type is fun to derail if one knows how to form Collisions,even more fun at the County level.

she has commitments from several delegates already sewn up.

Recall the irony of Iowa last election for the Republicans. I think it was Santorum that was initially called the winner, then it was changed to Romney (I might have that vice versa) but more than a week later Ron Paul was officially declared the winner, because he had the most delegates!

They are unpledged and remain so until the convention.

That's what his pre-caucus trip to Elko was all about.

Hillary has learned the hard way about caucuses. Take the 2008 experience (Obama doesn't win the delegate count without running up the score in caucus states) and remove the mind-numbingly inept Mark Penn from the mix and I'm sure she'll be in better shape this time.

said "I am glad that the court recognized that all American families deserve the same legal protections." But failed to mention that he had voted to deny families those legal protections. That sort of defines him in my eyes. A man who will harm others then refuse accountability for his actions.

...You don't WIN the Caucus based on tonight's tallies. The media will report it that way, but all that happens is the allocation of delegates to a County Caucus, which allocate delegates to a District Caucus, which allocate delegates to a State Caucus, which allocate delegates to the Convention. None of these delegates are forced to remain loyal to their original choice of candidate. So, what Harkin is saying, correctly, is that in tonight's process, Clinton will end up with more delegates to the County Caucuses.

Ending up with more delegates to the County Caucuses

...but if you're an Iowa politician, you tend to speak in Iowa political terms.

For instance, I remember that in 2008, Obama got just under 38%, Edwards got 29.7, and HRC got 29.5%. This was widely reported -- and it was more simply reported that HRC came in third. Yet the delegates - which I had to look up - were Obama 16, Clinton 15, Edwards 14. Yet not a single story this year has said that she came in second. Not to mention, Obama DID get momentum - and the win was seen as bigger than just getting one delegate more.

Both delegates and the overall result matter.

Thanks for reminding me of that.

The process it too complicate for most media outlets and their viewers/listeners to understand in quick soundbites.

It really is too complicated -- and as we both know - any team, no matter how genuinely pure of heart - will look for any way to minimize what the other side did and maximize what she did.

I had looked up the 2008 delegates earlier this year to respond to a strange Cook Reports claim that Bernie needed to get more than 70 % of the Iowa delegates to really be seen as winning. To counter it I pulled up the 2000, 2004 and 2008 information -- what was most surprising as I never really looked at the relationship between the % s in 2004 and 2008 which seem to be permanently stored in my brain and the delegate allocation is that there is no simple relationship. (If curious, the numbers are in this otherwise useless post of mine - http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1091460 )

One takeaway I have is that though both Kerry and Obama got the same 38%, Kerry got 46% of the delegates, while Obama got 36%.) If the polling is at all accurate -- this will be a closer race between HRC and Sanders with O'Malley even possibly being shut out. I guess it is possible for them to end up like the 2004 race -- if one them does far better than expected.

It will be interesting to see - though I won't see it until long after it is announced because my husband and I have tickets for a show tonight. (We got them long ago -- and I'm not sure it's not for the better to just hear the result when it is over.)

The candidate with the most delegates wins.

Was that she can "work with Republicans". I threw up in my mouth a little bit.

I will post against my better judgment because most discussions on this board denigrate into online swearing matches.


1) Regardless of who wins, the Iowa caucus violates the three most precious tenets of democracy: the secret ballot, one person, one vote, and making voting as convenient as possible.

2) We will never, ever, know the pop vote because if a candidate doesn't meet the fifteen percent threshold his or her voters can go home or caucus with someone else.

3) Every candidate is going to take advantage of the delegate allocation system.

Where all candidates used to be chosen.

If the big shots want a caucus they should have caucuses in addition to the primaries in their state. They can be their own ersatz Electoral College. Also, instead of IA going first and NH second, every state should have an opportunity to be first second, third, ...et cetera...

Just pick them at random, like a lottery... That would be more democratic.

who have at this point already committed to supporting one candidate or another any different from the old bosses who chose the candidates in smoke-filled rooms? Neither seems to care about the will of The People.

I am in 100% agreement with your three points.

it's a stupid way to pick a nominee, especially since ours isn't until March 26.

... doesn't understand how the caucus works. And if that's a problem to you, then advocate against the caucus system.

So I'm not sure if I'm being overly perceptive. Some politicians speak in riddles.