how many republicons cross-over did it take to push obama over the victory line?

bush-push: republicons cross-over = obama win .

some indies, sure, but the GOP had 40000 more turn out in their seperate caucuses, in different locations from the Ds.

Only a sour grapes Hillarian could think this was a GOP plot.

They just added to his victory.

With all due respect to Senator Obama's victory, the most important news out of the caucus this evening was the whopping, room-busting turnout of Democrats. 239,000 people showed up to vote Democratic tonight (93% more than in '04, which was a record year), while only 115,000 showed up to vote Republican. And this is a red state!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2588627

Are you insinuating the record turn-out of Dems was the result of several tens of thousands being Repubs there to jam it all up? The anemic turn-out of Repubs seems to suggest that they stayed home.

All they have to do is turn up at the Dem venue and change their affiliation.

They can even show up ON THE DAY and register.

It's a very freewheeling system in Iowa.

The Republicans and Democrats each hold their own set of caucuses subject to their own particular rules that change from time to time. Participants in each party's caucuses must be registered with that party. Participants can change their registration at the caucus location. Additionally, 17-year-olds can participate, as long as they will be 18 years old by the date of the general election. Observers are allowed to attend, as long as they do not become actively involved in the debate and voting process. For example, members of the media and campaign staff and volunteers attend many of the precinct caucuses. Youth who will not be eligible to vote by the date of the general election may also attend as observers and may volunteer to attend the county convention as youth delegates.<4>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucus

Ram it home please :D

gave him a victory in Iowa. Now have have fun with those extremely sour grapes.

Room split between Dems and Rs, so we were able to observe them as well. It was a lesson in how different minds are. Dems had a lot of discussion and give and take over various ideas and issues. The Rs sat in neat rows behind tables and wrote their candidates' names on little squares of paper. Afterward, they speechified about making this a more Christian nation, while respecting the religion of others, but making the nation more Christian nonetheless. They also talked about activist judges. Dems had a lot of interaction and continual conversation. It was funny because when the Rs were reading their platform proposal for the Christian nation stuff they read it REALLY REALLY LOUDLY so that we heathans could hear it. Haha....

splitting the ballots up in bunches to do a group count of them secret. The process for Dems is much more fluid and involves arriving at consensus. We form coalitions and alliances and then vote on whether to support them. It is extremely democratic, and I love the process. Everyone has a chance to say what they think and to convince others to join them or reject what they are supporting.

If you like the process, well, it's your state and up to you guys.

I think it is very undemocratic, myself, and I KNOW that it disenfranchises many people. That's my problem with it. Of course, I don't live there, so it isn't up to me.

Working with your friends and neighbors to agree on a candidate that will represent your interests as a community or relying on computerized voting machines with bells and whistles and no way to dependably count the votes. The caucuses are very transparent.

That was the reason why most states did away with the caucusing system in favor of primary elections in the previous decades because the process becomes awkward if everybody shows up.

If people want to switch votes if their candidate doesn't reach viability threshold, why not simply institute IRV (Instant Run-off Voting)?

those tollbooth workers, cops, firemen, those people who are in nursing homes, hospitalized, working the four to nine shift at the Piggly Wiggly Supermarket, on the cash register at the convenience store for the evening shift, mopping those floors in that office building, and so on and so on, that they CAN'T PARTICIPATE.

That's undemocratic. It is disenfranchising. There's no argument there, it IS.

And there's no way to spin it to say it isn't. When you prevent a huge percentage of the population from participating, simply because they can't all be in a location at a specific time, well, what else CAN you call it?

The "working with your friends and neighbors" bullshit sounds swell--unless you're a friend or neighbor who has to work, is away on business or a family obligation, sick in hospital, and can't attend the caucus.

There's no reason why any votes HAVE to be counted by unreliable machines. That is a false argument.

In Canada, they manage to count them by hand. There are precincts in NH that do hand counts, too.

Disenfranchising people by not allowing an absentee process, and counting votes by machine or by hand, well, those are two separate issues. It's not an either-or situation. One thing isn't married to the other.

20% of those that voted identified themselves as Independents and 41% voted for Obama

3% of those that voted identified themselves as Republicans and 44% voted for Obama


SOURCE: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#val=IADEM

I'm guessing that since your particular candidate didn't win, that it must have been a rethug conspiracy? That is so ludicrous, it hardly merits debating. This isn't like a primary where you just show up and vote. You're telling me that rethugs abandoned their own caucus just for the sake of "sabotaging" the Democratic caucus? Are you saying that Democrats who cast their votes for Obama just aren't intelligent? After all, anyone with any real intelligence would have voted for your candidate, right? :sarcasm:

And so now these same rethugs, who participated in this insidious conspiracy, now have to deal with the consequences of not voting in their own caucus, right?