Iowa Caucus running thread

Neither has had sex in the last decade.

 

Actually, he's down 10 points with about four minutes left...

 

So I guess the democrats don't care either since their caucus rules work the same way. But don't let logic and facts get in the way of your blind ideology.

But thanks for the answer to my question in your first sentence -- private entities can hold their elections as they see fit. It's sometimes confusing to remember that all these primaries actually aren't run by the government like a real election.

Didn't really need the partisan crap that spewed after that.

 

They're even worse actually, with the 15% threshold to receive votes.

This anti-Iowa stuff is silly, if you're going to make it partisan. The "too white", "too rural", "too Christian" complaints are especially silly when you're talking about a GOP Primary. The GOP is white, rural, and Christian.

 

I am so sick of all the freakin' coverage for the past month-good thing that liberal media doesn't have an agenda.

Who is the first out? Mitt? I think he wins and takes New Hampshire and has a lot of momentum.

Ron Paul? Might continue on to New Hampshire and he has plenty of crazy to back him up.

Newt? Escapes (barely) and hopes to scratch by unt SC.

Santor has enough support among EvangelicAls to come out in the top three.

Unfortunately, I think the clock strikes midnight for poor Michelle.

 

The weirdest thing about the Iowa caucus rules for Republicans is that the vote for presidential nominee comes first, and only much later in the meeting do they actually elect delegates. It would be entirely possible to finish first in that vote and get no delegates because your supporters left early out of lack of knowledge of the rules, boredom, too old to stay up late, etc.

 

I think as close as the polls have been in Iowa, Paul will win only because his followers are crazy-fanatical and will show up in force. I don't know what the Mitt threshold for success is — 20%?

 

Is it any different for the Dems?

They're voting for delegates to the convention, right? And, they're not bound.

 

Parties don't have absolute control over their primaries. Otherwise the all white primaries of yore couldn't have been struck down.

 

YF, as I understand it, it is marginally different for the Democrats due to the really odd and awful lengthy winnowing process they go through in the voting, which I think is directly related to delegate apportionment, as why else do it?
Both parties' processes are ridiculous, so it's bipartisan loopy love of complexity for its own sake. The guy who invented NFL passer ratings must've been heavily involved in Iowa politics.
Dixie, primaries are elections and some U.S. and state laws apply. But here in Massachusetts, fer instance, the parties control who gets on the primary ballot, because they have a rule you have to get x percent of the vote for governor at the state party convention to qualify, and that's legal. So it's a mixed bag.

 

Bachmann will likely be the most damaged if she doesn't do well today. Huntsman is looking ahead to NH and Gingrich and Perry care more about South Carolina, so this isn't as important to them.