Iowa

[no name 1]

"It wouldn't be wise of any of us to read too much into what happened in Iowa," spokesman Jay Carson told reporters shortly after midnight. The caucus has "rarely picked the nominee," Penn said a little later. "The last time it picked the president it was 1976. And in 1976 'uncommitted' won."

link

I might agree that reading too much into Iowa is wise, but this run, the fact that New Hampshire is 4 days away makes the win that much bigger. Momentum n' all that. His speech was enough to carry him way beyond the 5 day wait to NH.

Still, the other candidates have 1 or 2 less delegates than him. Means NOTHING.

[LaL 418]

"It wouldn't be wise of any of us to read too much into what happened in Iowa," spokesman Jay Carson told reporters shortly after midnight. The caucus has "rarely picked the nominee," Penn said a little later. "The last time it picked the president it was 1976. And in 1976 'uncommitted' won."

link

I might agree that reading too much into Iowa is wise, but this run, the fact that New Hampshire is 4 days away makes the win that much bigger. Momentum n' all that. His speech was enough to carry him way beyond the 5 day wait to NH.

Still, the other candidates have 1 or 2 less delegates than him. Means NOTHING.

I will just have to respectfully disagree - I believe 5 day spread does equate to SOMETHING ... of course not necessarily a slam dunk win, but somethign nonetheless

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Aye, something, not nothing, not everything.

[no name 1]

"It wouldn't be wise of any of us to read too much into what happened in Iowa," spokesman Jay Carson told reporters shortly after midnight. The caucus has "rarely picked the nominee," Penn said a little later. "The last time it picked the president it was 1976. And in 1976 'uncommitted' won."

link

I might agree that reading too much into Iowa is wise, but this run, the fact that New Hampshire is 4 days away makes the win that much bigger. Momentum n' all that. His speech was enough to carry him way beyond the 5 day wait to NH.

Still, the other candidates have 1 or 2 less delegates than him. Means NOTHING.

I will just have to respectfully disagree - I believe 5 day spread does equate to SOMETHING ... of course not necessarily a slam dunk win, but somethign nonetheless

5 day spread?

Just yesterday you asked what is a caucus?

[LaL 418]

Just yesterday you asked what is a caucus?

I said no such thing, you have me confused with someone else!

[no name 1]

Just yesterday you asked what is a caucus?

I said no such thing, you have me confused with someone else!

Sorry.

You asked -

Can anyone tell me what purpose it is for the democrats to count/estimate this way?

which led me to believe that you didn't get why it was happening.

PS: what is this 5 day spread you speak of?

Edited January 4, 2008 by devilette

[LaL 418]

Just yesterday you asked what is a caucus?

I said no such thing, you have me confused with someone else!

Sorry.

You asked -

Can anyone tell me what purpose it is for the democrats to count/estimate this way?

which led me to believe that you didn't get why it was happening.

No, you misunderstood my question. I was asking specifically what purpose/gain it is for Dems to not report true numbers (unlike Reps). That's completely different from not understanding the purpose of a caucus.

[no name 1]

Just yesterday you asked what is a caucus?

I said no such thing, you have me confused with someone else!

Sorry.

You asked -

Can anyone tell me what purpose it is for the democrats to count/estimate this way?

which led me to believe that you didn't get why it was happening.

No, you misunderstood my question. I was asking specifically what purpose/gain it is for Dems to not report true numbers (unlike Reps). That's completely different from not understanding the purpose of a caucus.

During the "persuasion" time in between tallies, the precinct captain for the viable candidates sends a person over to each group that failed to meet the threshold to convince them to support their candidate. Once everyone has decided where to vote, a second tally is taken, and the results are then sent to Democratic state party headquarters -- not electronically but via ordinary mail.

The Iowa Democratic Party keeps the total vote tally a secret and only releases the percentage of delegates won by each candidate, so it all comes down to how many delegates each precinct has, not the popular vote.

source

Edited January 4, 2008 by devilette

[LaL 418]

I don't know why you chose the *nodding no* smilie. I asked what gain is to be had by Dems to report the way they do. From your source:

The Iowa Democratic Party keeps the total vote tally a secret and only releases the percentage of delegates won by each candidate, so it all comes down to how many delegates each precinct has, not the popular vote

vs

By comparison... Republican caucuses... are pretty simple. The Republican caucuses will use a secret ballot, and, since there is no viability threshold, each vote is simply tallied and the number of votes each candidate gets is reported to party headquarters.

Percentages vs Votes each candidates gets. No worries though, it was a simple question that really isn't that important. I will figure it out on my own.

[mawilson 2,133]

I don't know why you chose the *nodding no* smilie.

I was wondering the same thing.

I think she's in love with the sarky smilie.

[no name 1]

I don't know why you chose the *nodding no* smilie. I asked what gain is to be had by Dems to report the way they do. From your source:

The Iowa Democratic Party keeps the total vote tally a secret and only releases the percentage of delegates won by each candidate, so it all comes down to how many delegates each precinct has, not the popular vote

vs

By comparison... Republican caucuses... are pretty simple. The Republican caucuses will use a secret ballot, and, since there is no viability threshold, each vote is simply tallied and the number of votes each candidate gets is reported to party headquarters.

Percentages vs Votes each candidates gets. No worries though, it was a simple question that really isn't that important. I will figure it out on my own.

well, it says the Iowa Dems do know the numbers but don't report them to the public. (You asked what purpose/gain it is for Dems to not report true numbers) BUT, on cnn they have released numbers, from whatever source that is. The link I gave you earlier explains a caucus. I'm done trying to explain it.

Edited January 4, 2008 by devilette

[LaL 418]

[no name 1]

Google is your friend. (If you care to be an informed voter)

[PlatyPius 5]

I haven't seen anywhere that Lal has displayed a jibbering and drooling lack of comprehension about what a caucus is. All I've seen is her asking - repeatedly - why Republicans report true numbers and democrats report percentages and keep the vote total a secret. It isn't that difficult of a question.

However, I guess you couldn't have your feeling of superiority if what Lal asked really WAS a simple question (which it was) and you were simply unable to answer it (which you are apparently unable to do).

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

It's interesting if you look at the percentage of the total number of votes (not broken down by dems and repubs)

Total Voter Turnout (approximate)

356,000

Percentage of total vote

24.5% Obama

20.5% Edwards

19.8% Clinton

11.4% Huckabee ®

I watched Fox News last night and Laura Ingraham and Rush Limbaugh sounded very concerned