Are the iOwa caucuses harmful to the overall election process?

[CADsortaGUY]

Jesus christ. I said nothing about allowing or disallowing anything, just that the caucus system was a bad one because it offers bad incentives. I also never said that it was supposed to always pick the eventual nominee, just that it tended to pick candidates that did not fare well nationally, indicating a possible bias in the process towards the ideologically extreme. What is so hard about this for you to understand? Do you even know what you're arguing against?

I notice that you conveniently left out 2008 where it went for Huckabee. In the last 30 years, it has picked the eventual nominee half the time. Few other states have a track record this poor.

bad incentives? WTF?
Again, you aren't looking at the big picture - some have done well, others have not. There is ZERO problem with an ideological candidate - like was said earlier - some people don't like luke warm candidates. Some of us want people who stand for things we stand for. You may call that "extreme" but why shouldn't people have a chance to offer up people that may be more like themselves.

No, I left out years where the iowa caucus didn't go for the eventual nominee. I can post the Dem numbers as well if you'd like.

Again, who cares how often the eventual nominee comes from who's picked by the first caucus state? Each state gets their shot at picking someone. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it shouldn't be this way. Also, some states have closed primaries - so this whole notion that "caucus is bad" is nothing but bullshit. Each state and each party should have their own chance at picking. Some of you are arguing against "closed" and it is stupid. No party should have some indecisive "independent" chosing their candidate. Pick your own if you don't want to pick one of the parties. OR if you feel strongly for one candidate - it's not that hard to register with the party for the primary season and then change back.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Dems:

'76 - Carter
'80 - Carter (including this because ol swimmer challenged his own incumbent)
'84 - Mondale
2000 - Gore
2004 - Kerry
2008 - BHO

 

[fskimospy]

bad incentives? WTF?
Again, you aren't looking at the big picture - some have done well, others have not. There is ZERO problem with an ideological candidate - like was said earlier - some people don't like luke warm candidates. Some of us want people who stand for things we stand for. You may call that "extreme" but why shouldn't people have a chance to offer up people that may be more like themselves.

No, I left out years where the iowa caucus didn't go for the eventual nominee. I can post the Dem numbers as well if you'd like.

Again, who cares how often the eventual nominee comes from who's picked by the first caucus state? Each state gets their shot at picking someone. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it shouldn't be this way. Also, some states have closed primaries - so this whole notion that "caucus is bad" is nothing but bullshit. Each state and each party should have their own chance at picking. Some of you are arguing against "closed" and it is stupid. No party should have some indecisive "independent" chosing their candidate. Pick your own if you don't want to pick one of the parties. OR if you feel strongly for one candidate - it's not that hard to register with the party for the primary season and then change back.

That post is incoherent. Are you even replying to what I wrote? Is the problem that you don't understand it?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

That post is incoherent. Are you even replying to what I wrote? Is the problem that you don't understand it?

No, it's that I'm trying to address your wandering BS. Do you need help? Why don't you try one point at a time so you are less confused.

 

[fskimospy]

No, it's that I'm trying to address your wandering BS. Do you need help? Why don't you try one point at a time so you are less confused.

I've only made one point. The fact that you can't figure that out explains your posts pretty well though.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I've only made one point. The fact that you can't figure that out explains your posts pretty well though.

Negative junior. Try again.

But the people who are willing to spend the considerable amount of time it takes to do the whole caucus dance are heavily biased towards the most ideological people. For this reason among others, if you discount the caucus years that involve incumbent presidents where the nomination is a foregone conclusion, they really aren't a terribly good predictor of who will actually win the nomination.

That was the post I replied to. There is more than just one "point" there. Maybe your problem is that you can't count or maybe you just don't know what you posted.

 

[fskimospy]

Negative junior. Try again.



That was the post I replied to. There is more than just one "point" there. Maybe your problem is that you can't count or maybe you just don't know what you posted.

The fact that you don't understand what supporting evidence is also strongly explains why your posts on here are so consistently awful. I've sort of missed your mix of confident ignorance and aggressive stupidity, CAD. So glad to see you back.

Why don't you go back and actually try to answer the point I made as opposed to inventing positions for people to hold and incoherently babbling about unrelated topics?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

The fact that you don't understand what supporting evidence is also strongly explains why your posts on here are so consistently awful. I've sort of missed your mix of confident ignorance and aggressive stupidity, CAD. So glad to see you back.

Why don't you go back and actually try to answer the point I made as opposed to inventing positions for people to hold and incoherently babbling about unrelated topics?

I addressed your points - you don't seem to be able to handle them.

Lets break down what you posted and I addressed.

1. biased towards ideological persons

1 answer - No shit. It should be that way. People who are actively involved or want to be actively involved should have a say in which candidate they want. Closed primaries aren't much different - only difference is voting style(which itself varies based on party caucus rules in Iowa).

2. caucus isn't a good predictor of eventual nominee

2 answer - no shit. It doesn't have to be nor should it have to be. Each state gets it's say and then goes to convention to submit votes of their state. It being a caucus instead of a primary doesn't really change any of that.

So want to try again?

 

[chowderhead]

Yes, we do. It's how BHO became President. He was a little known leftist who took his big win in Iowa to roll through Hillary for the nomination.

BTW, Iowa is not some backwoods hick state. Yes, there is plenty of rural farm vote but we are very close to the rest of the midwest farming states in our ideals and demographic. I know many of you leftists detest flyover country but the truth is - WE ARE THE 99%.

I think caucus are not representative of the electorate as a whole. A lot of people do not have the time to spend 1/2 the day in some school gymnasium talking about politics. Caucuses are for the most hard core partisans. In addition, there is no secret vote as voting occurs in front of everyone i.e. friends/family/neighbors/strangers where peer pressure can be utilized. There can also be trading/negotiating and deals made for other candidate's supporters after the initial round of voting/sorting. It should not be how we select Presidential candidates.

Obama would not be President had Hillary Clinton won the Iowa Caucus in my opinion.
I still say the media was actively cheering for Obama as they wanted a horse race.

Republican Rep. Tom Latham's district IA-04 actually has the distinction of being the district that most closely match the Nation-wide voting percentage (and going with the winner) in the last 3 Presidential elections: 48-49 Gore/Bush, 48-51 Kerry/Bush and 53/45 Obama/McCain.

 

[fskimospy]

I addressed your points - you don't seem to be able to handle them.

Lets break down what you posted and I addressed.

1. biased towards ideological persons

1 answer - No shit. It should be that way. People who are actively involved or want to be actively involved should have a say in which candidate they want. Closed primaries aren't much different - only difference is voting style(which itself varies based on party caucus rules in Iowa).

2. caucus isn't a good predictor of eventual nominee

2 answer - no shit. It doesn't have to be nor should it have to be. Each state gets it's say and then goes to convention to submit votes of their state. It being a caucus instead of a primary doesn't really change any of that.

So want to try again?

Yeap, you sure as hell can't read. If you think I care whether or not is actually predicts the eventual winner, you have even worse reading comprehension than I gave you credit for.

Closed primaries are way, way different than caucuses. If you think they aren't, you're just displaying your trademarked aggressive ignorance. Seriously, trying to say they aren't much different is pretty bafflingly stupid.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I think caucus are not representative of the electorate as a whole. A lot of people do not have the time to spend 1/2 the day in some school gymnasium talking about politics. Caucuses are for the most hard core partisans. In addition, there is no secret vote as voting occurs in front of everyone i.e. friends/family/neighbors/strangers where peer pressure can be utilized. There can also be trading/negotiating and deals made for other candidate's supporters after the initial round of voting/sorting. It should not be how we select Presidential candidates.

Obama would not be President had Hillary Clinton won the Iowa Caucus in my opinion.
I still say the media was actively cheering for Obama as they wanted a horse race.

Republican Rep. Tom Latham's district IA-04 actually has the distinction of being the district that most closely match the Nation-wide voting percentage (and going with the winner) in the last 3 Presidential elections: 48-49 Gore/Bush, 48-51 Kerry/Bush and 53/45 Obama/McCain.

The dems here in Iowa do the horse trade thing. It's their rules. The 1 caucus I've been to (2000) our precinct did a private paper "ballot" vote (wrote in on a piece of paper) and that was it. 2008 I did not participate as I didn't like any candidates.

True, Hillary would have won the nom if she had paid more attention to Iowa and won it.

The old district or the new district?



Back to your first point. I would argue those most engaged should have more say than those who are entirely clueless in a primary situation. I wouldn't support it in an actual election but when searching for a party candidate the party's most active should be able to decide - not those who aren't party people. As noted, it's not hard to be a party person for a day and then switch.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Yeap, you sure as hell can't read. If you think I care whether or not is actually predicts the eventual winner, you have even worse reading comprehension than I gave you credit for.

Closed primaries are way, way different than caucuses. If you think they aren't, you're just displaying your trademarked aggressive ignorance. Seriously, trying to say they aren't much different is pretty bafflingly stupid.

You posted

if you discount the caucus years that involve incumbent presidents where the nomination is a foregone conclusion, they really aren't a terribly good predictor of who will actually win the nomination.

but yeah... you don't care if it predicts the winner. If you really don't - then don't post what I quoted above you dolt.

 

[fskimospy]

You posted

but yeah... you don't care if it predicts the winner. If you really don't - then don't post what I quoted above you dolt.

Of course I don't care if it predicts the winner, the point was that the candidates that win the Iowa caucuses frequently lose the national nomination because they are nominated by ideologically extreme partisans. I don't give a shit about it for prediction's sake, I was using it as supporting evidence for why the caucuses were a crappy way to nominate candidates.

This isn't brain surgery, but you seriously seem to be struggling heavily with some basic reading skills. I fear for the 99%, hahaha.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Of course I don't care if it predicts the winner, the point was that the candidates that win the Iowa caucuses frequently lose the national nomination because they are nominated by ideologically extreme partisans. I don't give a shit about it for prediction's sake, I was using it as supporting evidence for why the caucuses were a crappy way to nominate candidates.

This isn't brain surgery, but you seriously seem to be struggling heavily with some basic reading skills. I fear for the 99%, hahaha.

How does that support your contention? It's not INTENDED to do that so you providing it as a reason is asinine. That's why I rebutted it. You can't use it as a reason why the caucus sucks(due to ideology) if it's not intended to be used in such a fashion. It's not a reading problem on my part - it's a logic problem on your part which isn't unusual for people like you.

 

[fskimospy]

How does that support your contention? It's not INTENDED to do that so you providing it as a reason is asinine. That's why I rebutted it. You can't use it as a reason why the caucus sucks(due to ideology) if it's not intended to be used in such a fashion. It's not a reading problem on my part - it's a logic problem on your part which isn't unusual for people like you.

A system that produces unacceptable candidates more often than other systems indicates the possibility that it is not adequately reflecting voter preferences. Since the point of these contests is to turn voter preferences into candidates, it is directly relevant to what I was talking about.

This is not complicated.

 

[chowderhead]

The old district or the new district?

The old one. The new one is more R+. McCain won it about 50-48 over Obama. Latham is going to go to the new IA-03 and challenge Boswell while King/Christie Vilsack will face off in the new IA-04. Both should be marquee match ups.

 

[Infohawk]

This is different.
2008... Mike Huckabee. 2012... (and mark my words) Michele Bachmann.
The end result, Romney, Huntsman and even Cain will be hopelessly damaged and unable to seriously challenge any sitting president from the other party, be it a Clinton or an Obama.

So considering the Iowa caucuses hasn't changed that much, maybe that isn't the reason behind Huckabee and Bachmann? It seems more likely there's external factors causing these people to be chosen. The rise of the Tea Party is a more likely scenario.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

A system that produces unacceptable candidates more often than other systems indicates the possibility that it is not adequately reflecting voter preferences. Since the point of these contests is to turn voter preferences into candidates, it is directly relevant to what I was talking about.

This is not complicated.

"unacceptable candidates"? To who? The other party? To non-party members? To people from other states?

IMO - who cares. It is about the people within the state and who they choose. Just because you or someone else doesn't like them or they eventually don't get chosen doesn't mean it's wrong.

 

[Bowfinger]

A system that produces unacceptable candidates more often than other systems indicates the possibility that it is not adequately reflecting voter preferences. Since the point of these contests is to turn voter preferences into candidates, it is directly relevant to what I was talking about.

This is not complicated.

Your premise is faulty. The purpose of the early caucuses & primaries is not to anoint the one winner. They are to begin the process of narrowing the field, of shaking out the wannabes who have no chance so voters and the media (and donors) can focus on the very few who are true contenders. It's quite predictable that the leaders will shift over the ensuing months until the conventions. Just look at how much they've already changed on the Republican side, as people learn more about candidates and often as early leaders self destruct when they're center stage.

 

[fskimospy]

"unacceptable candidates"? To who? The other party? To non-party members? To people from other states?

IMO - who cares. It is about the people within the state and who they choose. Just because you or someone else doesn't like them or they eventually don't get chosen doesn't mean it's wrong.

Of course it doesn't mean that they are 'wrong', it just means that when a system consistently produces candidates that are defeated that it might be biased towards candidates that aren't representative of the Iowa electorate, which is why the caucus system is terrible. You are a ridiculous idiot.

 

[fskimospy]

Your premise is faulty. The purpose of the early caucuses & primaries is not to anoint the one winner. They are to begin the process of narrowing the field, of shaking out the wannabes who have no chance so voters and the media (and donors) can focus on the very few who are true contenders. It's quite predictable that the leaders will shift over the ensuing months until the conventions. Just look at how much they've already changed on the Republican side, as people learn more about candidates and often as early leaders self destruct when they're center stage.

No, that is not the purpose of the early caucuses and primaries. Their purpose is to express the will of the voters of that party in that state.

 

[Bowfinger]

No, that is not the purpose of the early caucuses and primaries. Their purpose is to express the will of the voters of that party in that state.

You're being intentionally obtuse. Obviously that's the formal purpose, but it's only a snapshot of the first day in an 8+ month process. Initial popularity will frequently shift after months of attack ads, debates, sound bites, etc. It wouldn't matter where the process starts. Things change over time.

You act as if the whole country's views should set in stone in early February, ignoring the months of campaigning that follow. That's irrational and denies the very purpose of running campaigns. Given that they spend a fortune in those following months, it's clear candidates think they can change opinions.

 

[fskimospy]

You're being intentionally obtuse. Obviously that's the formal purpose, but it's only a snapshot of the first day in an 8+ month process. Initial popularity will frequently shift after months of attack ads, debates, sound bites, etc. It wouldn't matter where the process starts. Things change over time.

You act as if the whole country's views should set in stone in early February, ignoring the months of campaigning that follow. That's irrational and denies the very purpose of running campaigns. Given that they spend a fortune in those following months, it's clear candidates think they can change opinions.

Nowhere did I say the country's views should be set in stone. If you want to make up ideas for me to hold, I'm sure you can do better than that. The Iowa caucuses frequently create results that are significantly at large not only with the final nominee, but with the winners of states that immediately follow it.

Why is it so hard to understand that a system which rewards hard core ideologues frequently produces candidates that are different from what other, more representative systems create? Why is this even controversial?

 

[ProfJohn]

I think Iowa is losing its influence and this election and last are signs of that happening.

With Florida moving up its votes and South Carolina following so close to Iowa there is no longer a big gap between Iowa and the rest of the country.

And the fact that several candidates are not even trying in Iowa hurts it too.


I think the cable media and all the early debates are almost pushing us towards a national primary. People are 'voting' via polls and those polls are being reported in the media and that is shaping the race as we have seen with Cain this last week.

 

[Bowfinger]

Nowhere did I say the country's views should be set in stone. If you want to make up ideas for me to hold, I'm sure you can do better than that.

Yet that's the implication of your continued sniping about Iowa's results often don't match the ultimate "winner" of the nomination. It's obvious that campaigns expect to be able to change those early results or they'd hang it all up after the first two or three contests.

The Iowa caucuses frequently create results that are significantly at large not only with the final nominee, but with the winners of states that immediately follow it.

Interesting claim. Can you produce actual data to support it? Can that data account for candidates who skip Iowa? Can it account for major campaign flubs, e.g., the infamous (and manufactured) Dean scream incident? If not, you're reaching your conclusions first, based on emotions, and then searching for any "evidence" you can use to support you.

Why is it so hard to understand that a system which rewards hard core ideologues frequently produces candidates that are different from what other, more representative systems create? Why is this even controversial?

Who said otherwise? The point you're avoiding is this isn't unique to Iowa. It is inherent in the primary process. The people who participate in primaries are a small subset of official election voters. That subset tends to be more of the hard core ideologues and other fringe elements since they're the ones who are most passionate in their views. It is especially prevalent early in the campaign cycle, when most "regular" voters are far more concerned with their daily lives than they are with an election that's nearly a year away.