Does all this behind the scenes Iowa deal making make you uneasy?

We all agree that whomever wins Iowa, unless it's neck and neck, gets a bump, if not a sizable bump.

But what does it mean for the validity of the results when you have Dennis Kucinich and possibly Bill Richardson attempting to divert their own supporters to another candidate if they fail to meet this arbitrary threshold.

This entire caucus system does not seem to be a very authentic form of representative democracy. I don't want an eventual nominee who got the nomination, because he/she got momentum from a win that was orchestrated behind the scenes by Dennis Kucinich.

If I'm wrong in how this process is playing out, explain it to me.

But from where I stand, I'd much prefer if this was simply one person, one vote, with no coercion and no arbitrary thresholds and no byzantine, Monopoly rules and regulations.

I want a winner from Iowa who actually is the will of the people, not the result of clandestine, secretive, campaign strategizing and horse trading.

if you wanted a winner who was the real choice of the people, then support getting rid of the caucus system

it's all horse-trading

the caucus system doesn't allow for absentee voting; if you can't make the caucus, you lose your voice

And I don't think it reflect well on the will of the people.

It seems shallow and shadowy.

if you want the will of the people, drop the caucus and move to a primary

...instead of having to file FOIA paperwork and have Congressional inquiries denied and every other obstructionist bullshit republicans are known for.

Certainly this doesn't rise to that level, but it is good to know somethings are out in the open.

as you can get..


the CAUCUS system is geared toward a system that rewards the backroom deal makers instead of the MOST SUCCESSFUL AND POPULAR by pure votes.


this happened to Dean. He was too arrogant to horse trade with other candidates such as Gephart and other lower level candidates to take their votes, so, quietly kerry was doing deals with Edwards and gephart and kerry who initially had NO MONEY and no real votes, ended up taking the caucus because of some shrewd backroom negotiating.

THIS SUX.

to hear that my candidate has already not only done his backroom deal but announced it publicly which was a huge MISTAKE for kucinich is not only sad, it shows that the some folks who are even part of the process don't get how huge those backroom deals can be.

just ask Trippi.. he understand the dealing and he will probably be why Edwards wins the Iowa caucus with less than the total amount of supporters but shrewd dealing..

it's so not what america was based on.

it's such a sham.

i'm still disgusted by our entire electoral and caucus system that is makes me sick tonite to think how truly under represented those iowans are by the mere 'process' of a very broken system.

that certainly helped Edwards make a strong showing, which gave him more national coverage, which led to him being chosen for the VP, which led to him getting coverage this election cycle.... it goes on and on. The caucus sucks, and the media love it, because they hate democracy.

This could be the most truthful results we see from the rest of the race..



- - - - - - - - - - - - -

I'm looking forward to Super Tuesday. THAT's when the game is truly afoot. This silly crap in IA and NH is just the parade before the Big Show...

propoganda. I'm looking forward to Super Tuesday myself.

It's that whole "up close and personal" thing that used to make IA interesting. Now, they're all scripted. It's the same old stump speech, and the reporters are kept away from the press-the-flesh meet/greet evolutions. The CSPAN camera gets a better gander than the print media does, often as not.

Super Tuesday might surprise us all--I wouldn't be horrified if a few paradigms got broken, honestly. I'll probably pick a candidate the day before the contest!!!

Too effing bad you chaps bring up the rear. Eat yer heart out.

Yours Sincerely from Old Iowa.

Bill Clinton got, what, three percent in 92?

We know you cosmopolitans will come up with real winners later on. Dukakis, for one!

You and others are the ones that pushed those candidates forward.

In fact, we NEVER got to pick first, or even early. Up until this year, the deal was often all done before we ever even voted--and we STILL turned out in over twice the percentage as you guys did!!!!

horrendous. I much prefer the older system where sometimes one had to wait for the actual convention to know who the winner was. I am happy Iowa is first but wish we could be first later. In 1960, Iowa had its caucus in March. No big publicity then either. That's a thought, if it wasn't so tilted to early results then maybe people wouldn't be so bothered at IA and NH being up in the front.

Maybe regional primaries, or something else. I actually think IA and NH will become less important as "events" in future years. The states themselves like them, because they're moneymakers, but the candidates don't particularly care for them, and the campaign staffs honestly don't like spending all their time in these small venues, spending obscene amounts of money on groups of a few hundred thousand voters--it's money they really want to be spending elsewhere. I think they'll be largely symbolic in years to come, myself...it's already started with this Super Tuesday business.

I think everyone wants a chance to weigh in, and COUNT, and that's rather democratic, in my view--it's nice that my state will have a chance to influence primary events, if even in a small way, for a change.

I wonder if this is better than what it used to be? Maybe we should do this in groups of states all over the country and have one group go first in turn. You know the South this year than the West or some thing on that order plus go for a pop. vote when Nov. gets here. We are looking like screw balls to the rest of the world who has gone modern.Time we got with the modern world on this.

Or "cauci" or whatever. But, seriously, that was pretty transparent.

They didn't start getting really noticed until George McGovern and Jimmy Carter used them to launch their campaigns.

Iowa is a small state. As a result, it costs less for candidates to campaign in a state such as Iowa, so non-establishment candidates have been able to use Iowa to gain some recognition. If it was New York, the cost would be prohibitive.

So you see 6-8 candidates in a system which starts with two small states.

If we didn't have this, and started with larger states, or regional primary, the only candidates who could compete would be the big names. This would not be democracy.

The caucus system and the primary each have their quirks. I think it is a lot of fun. I really wish i lived in Iowa to be able to participate.

As to the horse trading, deal making, politicking, and all the caucus goings on....what is wrong with that? Beats sitting at home in one's living room and watching who the main stream media selected for us.

unlike some.

I haven't liked the caucus system for a long time, and have expressed my opposition to the "First in the nation status" for two small, in my view, non representative states having so much influence over the process. I've held these views for a few years, and expressed them long before Obama was a candidate and on here just recently when he wasn't even close to winning.

So much for your theory.

I defend Hillary all the time--because the attacks against her are so slimy. But that's not the same as endorsing her. I realize this is pretty subtle stuff for an anti-Hillarite.

horse trading and strategizing doesn't mean didly damn.

1) It seems that the people most upset are the Edwards people, who were fine with the same practice having occurred in 2004.

2) The people are not bound to voting as their round 1 choice suggests. I would imagine that if I were in that situation and had seen the other candidates, I would have my own judgment on which I preferred of the remaining ones. However, if I had a high level of trust in my first round choice, that recommendation would break a "tie". I would be more inclined to shift to that person if my favorite made a good case for that person. Here, likely because it was Iowa only, that didn't really happen.

3) I don't think it is wrong - it is nothing other than an endorsement of sorts and every campaign has received from someone. I do think the endorsement of someone respected has some effect, if only because it makes people relook at the endorsed candidate to try to find what the endorser saw. I doubt as many Clark supporters would now be HRC supporters without his endorsement, but as can be seen, not all followed. It did seem most at least gave it a serious look, which speaks well of their respect for Clark. (Closer to home for me, in 2006 I was one of many JK group people who strongly disliked Webb because he questioned JK's patriotism in 2004, but saw after JK's endorsement in the primary, saw him as the only one likely tro win VA for the Democrats. Luckily I do not live in VA.)

I think it's more even democratic to have a chance to vote for your second choice if you really believe that your candidate isn't going to win. No one can force you to vote for someone else in the caucus. What's undemocratic about that?

I like the fact that people come together, have discussions, and make passionate cases for their respective candidates.

But the fact that many are excluded because they are on active military duty, have work, lack transportation, or simply can't make it at a designated time, really bothers me. I also think it's ridiciculous how much influence two relatively homogeneous states have in selecting the party's candidate.