Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

ffs... NO IT ISN'T!!! Go back and look at how many people who have won iowa go on to win the presidency. The number is tiny. Ridiculously tiny. This is a case of "Marsha Brady" syndrome.

Oh my fault, I kind of misread your post. I don't think Iowa or New Hampshire are guarantees of the presidency or anything.

However, I do think it's silly that they have this god-given right to be first. There are better ways to do things.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Oh my fault, I kind of misread your post. I don't think Iowa or New Hampshire are guarantees of the presidency or anything.

However, I do think it's silly that they have this god-given right to be first. There are better ways to do things.

Eh, it happens. God knows how many times i do that.

I guess I don't disagree. But you gotta start somewhere. Might as well be in the middle of a state or states that nobody cares about.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

ffs... NO IT ISN'T!!! Go back and look at how many people who have won iowa go on to win the presidency. The number is tiny. Ridiculously tiny. This is a case of "Marsha Brady" syndrome.

Ridiculously tiny might be overstating it.

And winning the Presidency shouldn't be the bar - the bar should be winning your party's nomination, since that's what primaries and caucuses are all about.

Iowa's been first to caucus since 1972:

Dem Iowa winners (eventual nominee in bold):

* January 3, 2008 - Barack Obama (38%), John Edwards (30%), Hillary Clinton (29%), Bill Richardson (2%), Joe Biden (1%), Christopher Dodd 0%, Mike Gravel 0%, and Dennis Kucinich 0%[14]
* January 19, 2004 - John Kerry (38%), John Edwards (32%), Howard Dean (18%), Dick Gephardt (11%), and Dennis Kucinich (1%)
* January 24, 2000 - Al Gore (63%) and Bill Bradley (37%)
* February 12, 1996 - Bill Clinton (unopposed)
* February 10, 1992 - Tom Harkin (76%), "Uncommitted" (12%), Paul Tsongas (4%), Bill Clinton (3%), Bob Kerrey (2%), and Jerry Brown (2%)
* February 8, 1988 - Dick Gephardt (31%), Paul Simon (27%), Michael Dukakis (22%), and Bruce Babbitt (6%)
* February 20, 1984 - Walter Mondale (49%), Gary Hart (17%), George McGovern (10%), Alan Cranston (7%), John Glenn (4%), Reubin Askew (3%), and Jesse Jackson (2%)
* January 21, 1980 - Jimmy Carter (59%) and Ted Kennedy (31%)
* January 19, 1976 - "Uncommitted" (37%), Jimmy Carter (28%) Birch Bayh (13%), Fred R. Harris (10%), Morris Udall (6%), Sargent Shriver (3%), and Henry M. Jackson (1%)
* January 24, 1972 - "Uncommitted" (36%), Edmund Muskie (36%), George McGovern (23%), Hubert Humphrey (2%), Eugene McCarthy (1%), Shirley Chisholm (1%), and Henry M. Jackson (1%)

6/10

Iowa Republican Caucus winners:

* 2008 - Mike Huckabee (34%), Mitt Romney (25%), Fred Thompson (13%), John McCain (13%), Ron Paul (10%), Rudy Giuliani (4%), and Duncan Hunter (1%)
* 2004 - George W. Bush (unopposed)
* 2000 - George W. Bush (41%)[citation needed], Steve Forbes (30%)[citation needed], Alan Keyes (14%), Gary Bauer (9%), John McCain (5%), and Orrin Hatch (1%)
* 1996 - Bob Dole (26%), Pat Buchanan (23%), Lamar Alexander (18%), Steve Forbes (10%), Phil Gramm (9%), Alan Keyes (7%), Richard Lugar (4%), and Morry Taylor (1%)
* 1992 - George H. W. Bush (unopposed)
* 1988 - Bob Dole (37%), Pat Robertson (25%), George H. W. Bush (19%), Jack Kemp (11%), and Pete DuPont (7%)
* 1984 - Ronald Reagan (unopposed)
* 1980 - George H. W. Bush (32%), Ronald Reagan (30%), Howard Baker (15%), John Connally (9%), Phil Crane (7%), John B. Anderson (4%), and Bob Dole (2%)
* 1976 - Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan
* 1972 - Nixon (unopposed)

7/10 for the Republicans.

New Hampshire has similar patterns:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_primary#Winners_and_runners-up

Dems: Eventual nominee won 8/15

Repubs: Eventual nominee won 12/16

Now, you can factor that in to remove years when incumbent Presidents were running for re-election or candidates faced no real opposition, and the numbers change. But it's not tiny.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

hmm... I remember looking those up a few years ago and it wasn't close. I might have been thinking only for dems when I looked it up last. Because before obama they didn't exactly have a hot streak.

and yes, when you change the metric, it does change the numbers. I was talking only about the presidency. So yes, I agree, and never disagreed with the fact that party nominations are a bit higher percentage.

edit: Yes, only three candidates since Iowa went first have won the presidency among those who were not incumbents. That is ridiculously tiny. Which I was correct about.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

To me, caucuses are so undemocratic--somebody serving active duty in Iraq can't participate, you have to drive someplace and spend a considerable amount of time, which would tend to keep young couples with kids away along with students who are going to college out of state. The reason why the president is the president is that his campaign played the caucuses/primaries like a drum. To me, that was the great political accomplishment, beating Madame LaFarge.

Anyway, if Democrats are satisfied with those caucuses, it's no skin off my nose. But they really ought to replace them with primaries to at least give people the chance to sound off.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

So, I hear Cat Stevens played today at the Colbert shindig? Is that the same Cat Stevens who wants Salman Rushdie dead, or is there more than one Cat Stevens?

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

So, I hear Cat Stevens played today at the Colbert shindig? Is that the same Cat Stevens who wants Salman Rushdie dead, or is there more than one Cat Stevens?

Its the same one, for awhile he couldn't get into the US legally, wonder how he did this time?

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

So, I hear Cat Stevens played today at the Colbert shindig? Is that the same Cat Stevens who wants Salman Rushdie dead, or is there more than one Cat Stevens?

Fatwas are very very sane.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

So, in a montage yesterday, Stewart played clips of Beck and Olbermann and others, making fun of cable news. Guess whose feelings are hurt?

 

[amherstblackbear]

Fatwas are very very sane.

You're all missing the point. Cat Stevens started to play Peace Train. Ozzy Osborne went onstage and played Crazy Train. And they went back and forth a bit and then both took off.

The return to sanity was when the O'Jays then took the stage and played Love Train. Because, as Stewart put it, it's one thing we all agree on. We like to get it on (paraphrasing here).

It actually wasn't all that funny. But the point was clear enough.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

You're all missing the point. Cat Stevens started to play Peace Train. Ozzy Osborne went onstage and played Crazy Train. And they went back and forth a bit and then both took off.

The return to sanity was when the O'Jays then took the stage and played Love Train. Because, as Stewart put it, it's one thing we all agree on. We like to get it on (paraphrasing here).

It actually wasn't all that funny. But the point was clear enough.

Oh, I got the point of the bit.
I'm saying, at a Rally to Restore Sanity, they invited a guy who called for Salmon Rushdie to die. Not especially sane.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Oh, I got the point of the bit.
I'm saying, at a Rally to Restore Sanity, they invited a guy who called for Salmon Rushdie to die. Not especially sane.

Mountain out of a molehill, imo. If the script calls for Colbert to make fun of your name and chase you offstage with Ozzy, I think it's safe to say your presence is ironic, at best.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

To me, caucuses are so undemocratic--somebody serving active duty in Iraq can't participate, you have to drive someplace and spend a considerable amount of time, which would tend to keep young couples with kids away along with students who are going to college out of state. The reason why the president is the president is that his campaign played the caucuses/primaries like a drum. To me, that was the great political accomplishment, beating Madame LaFarge.

Anyway, if Democrats are satisfied with those caucuses, it's no skin off my nose. But they really ought to replace them with primaries to at least give people the chance to sound off.

The Republicans also caucus in Iowa, you know.

And I agree that the caucus isn't a great way to elect folks on this scale - it may work at a town hall level, but for a larger population it's almost too participatory - too time consuming and too exclusive.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

The Republicans also caucus in Iowa, you know.

And I agree that the caucus isn't a great way to elect folks on this scale - it may work at a town hall level, but for a larger population it's almost too participatory - too time consuming and too exclusive.

Sure. But don't the Democrats have way more of 'em? Maybe I'm having a brain cramp.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Sure. But don't the Democrats have way more of 'em? Maybe I'm having a brain cramp.

The party processes are slightly different. In Iowa, the Democrats use sort of an interative process, where representatives of a candidate talk to the caucus, they take an initial straw poll, eliminate some of the low finishers, do it again, etc. But it's still just one caucus.

The Republican caucuses in Iowa are more just like a straigh straw poll, where the candidate reps talk, there is some discussion, and they vote - which is officially a recommendation to Iowa Republican state convention - which actually assigns the delegates.

So, they're different, but definitely still caucuses and not elections.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

The party processes are slightly different. In Iowa, the Democrats use sort of an interative process, where representatives of a candidate talk to the caucus, they take an initial straw poll, eliminate some of the low finishers, do it again, etc. But it's still just one caucus.

The Republican caucuses in Iowa are more just like a straigh straw poll, where the candidate reps talk, there is some discussion, and they vote - which is officially a recommendation to Iowa Republican state convention - which actually assigns the delegates.

So, they're different, but definitely still caucuses and not elections.

I'm talking about other STATES. Thank God, Iowa isn't the center of the universe. BTW, that state is responsible for my favorite uses of language to confuse an ugly reality. At those giant hog farms, the incredibly huge, unimaginably stinky reservoirs of pig chit are referred to as "lagoons." Well now, that makes it all better.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

I'm talking about other STATES. Thank God, Iowa isn't the center of the universe. BTW, that state is responsible for my favorite uses of language to confuse an ugly reality. At those giant hog farms, the incredibly huge, unimaginably stinky reservoirs of pig chit are referred to as "lagoons." Well now, that makes it all better.

For the most part, caucus/primaries are state level decisions, not party-level decisions:

As of 2008, 11 states---Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, North Dakota and Wyoming -- used caucuses exclusively in the nomination process. Texas and Washington used both primaries and caucuses in what was essentially a two-step nomination process with rules set by the state parties. In one state, New Mexico, a Democratic caucus and a Republican primary took place a few months apart. South Carolina had primaries for both parties, but they took place on different dates.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

For the most part, caucus/primaries are state level decisions, not party-level decisions:

In all of the caucus only states you mentioned, that includes GOP as well as DEMS? I just have this factoid rolling around in my head that there are states where D's have caususes and R's have primaries. I would have thought, since the parties are private, independent organizations, that the states would have nothing to say about how they conduct their nominating process. Perhaps on the dates, but if the Repubicans want to draw straws to apportion delegates in Idaho, what business is that of the state government?

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

In all of the caucus only states you mentioned, that includes GOP as well as DEMS? I just have this factoid rolling around in my head that there are states where D's have caususes and R's have primaries. I would have thought, since the parties are private, independent organizations, that the states would have nothing to say about how they conduct their nominating process. Perhaps on the dates, but if the Repubicans want to draw straws to apportion delegates in Idaho, what business is that of the state government?

The parties must be registered with the states in order to get names on the ballot, therefore states have been free to regulate the parties by mandating various rules (are primaries open or closed? When do they happen? etc). Back in the day, many parties chose their candidates based on a convention of the party, but a series of populist reforms across the nation gradually led to the current kinds of primaries we see. Likewise, there was a push to pull all parties together into a somewhat common format in most states. All of those moves were meant to democratize the process and take it into the light, rather than the smoke-filled back rooms under the control of party bosses.

So, yes, parties are independent organizations - but they are subject to regulation by the state, especially since the whole point is to eventually win election to public office. Therefore, if you have an organized party, that party must be registered to have certain benefits of that status. Registration means regulation, and the list goes on. It is, admittedly, quite complex. This is what you get with laws layered upon laws over the course of many decades.

If you want to nominate your own candidate, you can still do so, of course. You just run as an independent - the only thresholds would be whatever local rules apply for getting your name on the ballot.

And yes, all of those caucus states cover both parties.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

The parties must be registered with the states in order to get names on the ballot, therefore states have been free to regulate the parties by mandating various rules (are primaries open or closed? When do they happen? etc). Back in the day, many parties chose their candidates based on a convention of the party, but a series of populist reforms across the nation gradually led to the current kinds of primaries we see. Likewise, there was a push to pull all parties together into a somewhat common format in most states. All of those moves were meant to democratize the process and take it into the light, rather than the smoke-filled back rooms under the control of party bosses.

So, yes, parties are independent organizations - but they are subject to regulation by the state, especially since the whole point is to eventually win election to public office. Therefore, if you have an organized party, that party must be registered to have certain benefits of that status. Registration means regulation, and the list goes on. It is, admittedly, quite complex. This is what you get with laws layered upon laws over the course of many decades.

If you want to nominate your own candidate, you can still do so, of course. You just run as an independent - the only thresholds would be whatever local rules apply for getting your name on the ballot.

And yes, all of those caucus states cover both parties.

Thanks. Anyway, IMO, caucuses should go and so should Iowa and NH.