Iowa Caucuses Analysis - Updated after NH
Fri 4 Jan 2008Robert G. Kaiser, Washington Post Associate Editor, hosted an online chat in the hours following the closure of the Iowa Caucuses. Interesting questions from participants and responses from Robert give a good insight to this first step in the US Presidential race.
As I post this, the discussion is continuing. See Live Analysis: Iowa Caucuses Returns.
———————
Update: 9 Jan 08
Washington Post Live Analysis chat and Results from the New Hampshire primaries. There was a lot of participation in the chat from overseas. Note this comment from a chat participant in Denpasar, Indonesia…
It is clear why foreigners have more interest in this U.S. election — they very recently have experienced what a bad U.S. president can cost them. In Bali, it is fair to say that the terrorists bombings of the past few years (2002 and 2005, and there were also attacks in Jakarta) never would have happened if Bush hadn’t lashed out and attack a Muslim country. In lives and in economic terms, Indonesia has suffered directly because of the decisions of a U.S. president; the connection is evident to most here. Is it fair to blame Bush directly? Sure, he tried to solve a wasp problem by kicking the nest, and has gotten everybody stung in the process. So foreigners are anxious to see who will replace Bush and if that will be positive or will everyone get a painful sting again.
(Bush) tried to solve a wasp problem by kicking the nest, and has gotten everybody stung in the process. Is that the best description of his presidency, or what?
January 5th, 2008 at 0:02
The whole caucus thing both fascinates and bewilders me. It seems such an archaic, undignified way of voting - my understanding is that you all get in groups for you preferred candidate (round 1), then you spend the next half hour haranguing everyone else to join your crowd (cos it’s so cool? This has high-school leanings) and then on to round 2, and so on and so forth. Is that about right?
On the one hand, it’s a very involved way of voting and it allows the individual person to directly convince others (which appeals to me) but, on the other hand, it seems so long and complicated and while I would love to harangue other people, I would have to be harangued myself.
January 5th, 2008 at 2:52
G’day Dune, Yes, the caucus process is fascinating. It has nothing to do with the actual election; it is the process by which the parties choose their candidate for President.
In Iowa, the caucus meeting points are restaurants, town halls, gas stations even private residences.
On the Republican side, it’s fairly simple; they just tally votes. Huckabee got the most Republican votes. (BTW: Is it possible to elect a worse president than George W Bush? Oh yes, you could put a Creationist in the White House.)
On the Democrat side, it’s way more complex. At each Caucus point, there is a first round count. The top three candidates might get 20-25% each. Then, in a second round, people who supported candidates who don’t achieve the “viability” limit (say 10-15%) are invited to distribute their preferences to the other candidates. It’s at this second round where the “haranguing” occurs.
Now each Democrat Caucus point will have been allocated a small number of “delegates”, say 2 to 4. Whoever wins the greatest percentage of votes after the second round gets ALL the delegates. So at one 2-delegate Caucus point, Barack Obama might only have 40% of the votes (and say Clinton and Edwards 30% each); Barack would get both delegates while Clinton and Edwards get none. Clear as mud?
Anyhow, what I learned from the Washington Post discussion was that there was a huge turnout of (especially young) Democrat voters. Perhaps we are seeing the emergence of similar voter sentiments to those which caused our “Ruddslide”?