Instead of praising Iowa, we need to condemn the caucuses

[question everything]

of being anti democratic, with no secret ballots - which are the hallmark of a true democracy.

I knew about it, actually participated in a caucus in 1988 where my candidate won that caucus, but there was an interesting story on MSNBC:

We have to remember that many of the caucuses are in private homes in rural Iowa. So in 2004, the daughter of a prominent family that opened its home for the caucus, started moving toward the Dean group. Her father said: one more step and you are grounded for a week.

So not only did she went with her parents, others decided to follow the leader of the community in whose house they were the guests.

Let this year be the last one that we follow the current system that has run its course.

Let us move to rotating regional primaries, or some other form, for example, let the first primary be of small states so that we can still keep the "retail" politics. But let remove Iowa and New Hampshire from the role of "make it or break it."

If all the candidates will stick through Feb. 5th - and thank you, Bill Richardson, for doing just that - and if the winner after that day will not be the one who won Iowa, then, perhaps this will be the first brick to be removed from that wall.

And, please, do not bring up Jimmy Carter. This happened more than 30 years ago and a lot has changed since then, starting with that system of "tubes" (and what else, Senator Stevens?) called the Internet and with 500 cable channels. With globalization, with the shift from a farm and manufacturing society to a service driven one where, as papa Bush demonstrated in 1991, we have to buy a pair of socks whether we need it or not to prevent a recession.

I don't remember who the other candidates were in 1976 but, no doubt, the simplicity and honesty of Carter at the time played against Watergate.

Back to 1988: this and 2004, were the only primaries when the Democratic field was wide open, with no incumbent President or Vice President running, or even a former VP. 1992 would have been, except that with Harkin in the race, all others just skipped Iowa.

So the winner of 1988 - Gephardst (and Dole) - did not get the nomination, and the winner of 2004 - Kerry - did. So why is Iowa so important?

Again, ask your candidates to stick around through Feb. 5th regardless of how they finish in Iowa and in New Hampshire. And in Nevada and SC.

[TwilightGardener]

1. I do think the caucuses are anti-democratic.

[pauldg0]

68. Holy Cow.

Is it because you also lean toward corporate Democracy!!!???

John Edwards for President 08

[Justitia]

2. I agree, I think they are highly-undemocratic, I've always thought they were a corrosive process.

People should feel free to vote their preference and conscience in private.

The "horse-trading" of votes is appalling, people should not be group-pressured into changing their votes.

And if you work at night, have small children, are introverted or some other situation, you cannot participate. It all appears very cliquish.

Then, simply look at the results - how many Iowa caucus winners went on to become president?

[dbackjon]

3. Bravo!!!

Let me add another reason that Iowa is usually praised for, but in fact makes them ill-suited to be in a prominent position - their dislike of negative campaigning.

This dislike vaulted John Kerry to the forefront in 2004, and left us with a candidate ill-equiped to respond to the Republican smear machine. Nice Guys/Gals may finish first in the hearts of Iowans, but reality shows that nice people get eaten alive by the Republicans, and their MSM cronies.

[question everything]

6. Right. Which is why the attacks on the Clinton man from NH

who raised the issue of Obama's drug use as a youngster were disingenuous.

I don't have anything against Obama, but if he is the candidate, he's better be prepared to face overt hints about his Muslim upbringing and about his drug use. And they will never be up in the open, just hints and suggestions.

In 1992, candidate Harkin used to refer to Bush as George Herbert Walker Bush - all four names, to show how he was not one of us. I can see the Republican refer to Barack Hussein Obama and see how many undecided voters will vote for McCain.

[dbackjon]

7. Whether we think it wrong, or not

This type of campaigning is the Right's bread and butter. Proclaiming to be better than them and not being ready for it or responding to it only ensures Repub wins.

Better to air it out now, and have our candidates get practice in responding.

[SoxFan]

85. And Harkin didn't break threshhold

He battled it out with Jerry Brown for last place.

[AndyTiedye]

9. None Of Our Candidates (2004 or Now) Can Deal With the Repiglican Smear Machine

They did the Dean campaign in a single day with the "scream".

It is not clear who we could have run that would have done any better.
Kerry won, they stole it from him in Ohio and Florida.

Sadly, we have no candidate of his caliber this year.



You can fool some of the people all of the time. They are called Republicans.

[surfermaw]

70. Wolf Blitzer and Candy whatever her name did Dean in

Wolf also did Gore in with the Invention of the Internet, Better watch the old geezer

[1corona4u]

29. Get real....

Iowans pick who THEY would like. That doesn't mean the rest of the country HAS to vote for that person. They didn't "leave us" with an ill equipped candidate. The rest of the country simply followed what they did. People need to make up their own minds, despite what Iowa does, and stop bitching about who Iowa chooses. it's just that simple.

I am so sick of people saying everything is Iowa's fault. It's just a feeble, bogus argument.

[MethuenProgressive]

4. Less than 10% of Iowa's registered Democrats even bother to show up.

Again - why does Iowa even matter?

[DU9598]

8. Because you make Iowa matter

We have always done it this way and understood the benefits to our citizens by going first. Others caught on, but quite late. Caucuses are town hall meetings which are borne of our founding fathers and have many purposes in terms of organization of precincts that are lost in easy primary voting states.

Are all of the other states that pick party nominees (NOT ELECT SOMEONE TO AN ACTUAL GOVERNMENT OFFICE)likewise undemocratic? Perhaps the party should step in to do away with caucuses due to your dislike.

[question everything]

11. In 2004 I participated in a Minnesota caucus for the first time

(and if Feb. 5th is a snow storm, or if I do not feel well, may be the last).

As I understand it, traditionally the Minnesota caucuses selected proposals and delegates to the county and then state conventions. When I participated in an Iowa one, in the city, there were several hundreds of us. In Minnesota, also in the city, we were less than 20 in the school room.

But in 2004 for the first time, I think, caucus members were allowed to vote on a Presidential preferences and we did it by secret ballots. As a matter of fact, there were few people who just came in to "drop" their ballots and who did not bother to stay.

I think that the Minnesota caucus - and perhaps other states' - do resemble a town hall meeting in that you stand up and speak your mind, agree and disagree with others and with proposals.

But voting for a candidate should be secret. And if you are in a caucus and your boss is there I can see how you would side with him. After all, I've known someone who left a church because they were upset with the minister, but did not join another one since the boss stayed with the church, so they appeared as just dropping out of organized religion.

[DU9598]

14. Selecting vs. Voting

I think the difference lies in the words you use. In Iowa, all Democrats come together to select a pool of delegates to represent us from our precinct based upon the candidate we prefer. Those delegates from the precinct go on representing our candidate to the county convention, the district convention, the state convention, and ultimately the national convention. We directly select the person to represent our interests in the nominating procedure.

How is that less democratic than having a secret vote for a person chosen by the state political party to be a national delegate for a candidate?

I am an Iowan and love our process. It is open, honest, and participatory. Isn't that what the Democratic party should be ... as opposed to having the party choose who the national delegates are?

[Debi]

18. I love you

:loveya:

[MethuenProgressive]

19. "It is open, honest, and participatory." So why do 90% ignore it?

90% are basically saying "none of the above" - shouldn't *their* opinion matter?

[DU9598]

21. What are the voting percentages elsewhere?

You think lack of participation in the party nominating process is higher in all other states outside of Iowa? Those who are informed and choose to participate do so. What, do you want us to legislate participation? That would be stupid.

[Critters2]

33. Thank you!! I miss the caucus process

and truly hate just showing up and being handed a ballot with names placed there by some party process of which I was not a part. Give me grassroots democracy over the back rooms any day!

[sampsonblk]

5. Not a big deal.

This is still America. And the caucuses are an entertaining peculiarity.

[harmonicon]

10. entertaining?

In that case, you must think Stalinist Russia was just a hoot! We ought to tell Iowa and NH that we're stripping their delegates and honor a solidly Democratic state like Michigan with first dibs at voting, if anyone (though I think all primaries should be on the same day). Instant run-off voting would also do wonders for the primary system - screw this caucus thing. Iowa can go jump in a lake.

[question everything]

12. Michigan first in the nation will be nice

in the middle of the country, long associated with manufacturing industry - instead of the service that now determine whether we are in a recession - with unions, with working families, with music innovation.

And plenty of snow and cold weather so that the change won't be too abrupt...

[Diane R]

20. Washington State first in the nation would be nice....

[Debi]

23. Isn't Washington the only other state that holds caucuses like Iowa?

or does WA hold a 'straw poll'?

[Recursion]

28. Washington DC has a caucus

But its Presidential selection can be overridden by a primary that comes later in the season (long story).

[question everything]

39. Are the votes cast during caucus night open or secret? (nt)

[NoPasaran]

49. In Texas we have both a primary and a caucus

The apportionment of state at-large delegates is determined by the primary. After the polls close, we have precinct caucuses that begin the process of electing the remaining national delegates by declarations of presidential preference and election of delegates to the county conventions later that month. These in turn elect delegates to the state convention in the summer, where delegates to the national convention are elected at senate district caucuses. And every step of the way is done by people only declaring their choices.

[MaineDem]

50. Maine has caucuses

Very similar to Iowa.

[question everything]

60. No secret preferences, either? (nt)

[MaineDem]

62. Nope, it's all done in the open

But that's how the Town Meeting form of government works, too. We meet in public and vote on budget issues and other items that come up for a vote. It's done in public with people speaking their minds before the vote.

One difference Maine has is that we allow "absentee" ballots to be cast. They are opened at the caucus and the votes announced.

[maxanne]

13. brilliant!

the logic you display here is truly remarkable!

Michigan got what they deserved.

[harmonicon]

15. what they deserved?

Guess what. I'm a Michigan resident and I had no choice as to when they scheduled our primary. You really think I deserve to have my voice taken out of the political process? Shame on you. We should all be entitled to take part in choosing our party's nominee. My point was that it would make a hell of a lot more sense having a state with two Democratic senators, a Democratic governor and prominent congressmen have a vital say on who the party nominee will be if one state is to have that role.

[progressoid]

25. Is this poker?

I've got a Democratic Governor, a Democratic Senator and 60% Democratic Represtentatives. Does that beat two Democratic Senators, a Democratic Governor and 40% Democratic Representatives?

[harmonicon]

30. I don't know, but I do know that it beats a white bread Republican-voting state with no people in it

[progressoid]

42. Your rapier wit and cunning insight have won me over.

[harmonicon]

45. I'm interested in your views and would like to subscribe to your newsletter

[maxanne]

92. don't yell at me

Yell at your state Democratic party for pushing the envelope - when they were warned as to what the results would be.

Remind me again of the reigns of President McCain and President Buchanan.

They both won the NH primary (back when we were a RED state) therefore the rest of the nation was forced to elect them....right??

[sampsonblk]

16. You're taking this far too seriously

If Iowa were the 10th primary instead of the first caucus, I suspect you'd agree with my point of view. The big problem with the peculiarities in Iowa is that they have such a great impact on the nomination process.

States are allowed to be peculiar. Its a party election, defined and organized by the party. If they wanted to have a caucus for the general election, then I'd be upset too.

[harmonicon]

17. of course I'm taking it too far, but I don't think a non-democratic system is "entertaining"

[DU9598]

22. Michigan

Looking at Michigan on a map, it looks like your state already jumped.

I love your envy of Iowa. Jealously is not healthy, however.

[harmonicon]

31. not envy

Trust me, I'd take voting by secret mail-in ballot over some dog and pony show bullshit at an asshole's house any day.

[Critters2]

35. Do you have stats as to how many caucuses take place in private homes?

I know of not a one. When I lived in Chicago, though, I voted in a private home. Let's disenfranchise Chicago next!!

[harmonicon]

36. let's disenfranchise nobody

I don't like the idea of people being bullied to vote for one candidate when they have to cast their vote publicly, possibly in front of family or coworkers who may disagree with them about politics. My poling place is a church, but I don't feel the need to support the religious right because of it. The difference here is that I can cast my vote in private. The physical space doesn't matter, as long as who's in charge of that space the rest of the year isn't there to bully you and tell you who to vote for.

[Critters2]

34. Ummm, NH uses secret ballots.

So, it's clear that the issue isn't secret ballots. You want Michigan to go first, and in the process to disenfranchise Iowa and NH.

Democracy my ass!!

[harmonicon]

46. no, NH is fine, and I don't want ANY state to go first

BUT if they are going to insist on this silly thing where states go in different orders, wouldn't it make sense to have solidly Democratic states with large populations, like New York, California, Michigan, Massachusetts, etc. be among those first states?

[LanternWaste]

53. Right... because the Iowa Caucus is the same as the Doctors Purge

"In that case, you must think Stalinist Russia was just a hoot! "
Right... because the Iowa Caucus is no better than the Doctors Purge in the Soviet Union.

And although I haven't seen any Gulags in Iowa, that doesn't mean they're not there...

:eyes:

[Hippo_Tron]

69. Why Michigan, so the candidates can be forced to kiss the auto industry's ass?

[harmonicon]

72. No, because it's a solidly Democratic state

I don't think any state should be first, but if one is going to be first I think it would make sense to have it be a state with Democratic senators and a Democratic governor, as opposed to... well, Iowa and New Hampshire. I think it also does no good to have states with such small (and most white) populations determining something for the entire country (I know, they don't on paper, but for the media and corporate campaign contributors they do).

[Debi]

73. Unlike Iowa with it's Democratic Governor and Lt. Governor

and Secretary of State and Treasurer and Attorney General and Democratic Majority in both houses of the State Legislature and Democratic Senator Tom Harkin and 3 of our 5 Members of the U.S. Congress being Democrats, Michigan's Democratic voters seemed politically apathetic in the last national process.

Take for instance the 2004 Caucuses in Iowa and Michigan. Iowa has a population of about 2.9 Million. Approximately 124,000 Iowa Democrats participated in the Iowa Caucuses in 2004. Michigan has a population of about 10 Million and yet only 163,000 Michigan Democrats participated in the 2004 Michigan 'caucuses/primaries'.

Also, in the 2004 General election 2.5 million Democrats voted (out of Michigan's 10,000,000 people) whereas 741,000 Iowa Democrats voted (out of Iowa's 2,900,000 people) (comes out to 25% of the population for both).

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P04/MI-D.phtml
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26000.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/28/opinion/pollpositions/main3548914.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_3548914
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/19000.html

I will agree that the corporate media and people who behaving like lemmings make Iowa and New Hampshire more important than they should be. I don't agree that Michigan is any MORE Democratic than Iowa.

[harmonicon]

87. turnout is a moot point, because of this silly way things are ordered

Last time Kerry had already been virtually "crowned" the nominee by the time Michigan voted. Sure, I still put my vote in for Dean all the same - a lot of people didn't even bother. As far as demographics, Detroit is Michigan's largest city and a largely black city. Iowa and New Hampshire are white - plain fact. Don't you think it would be nice to have a more diverse voting block, if we are to persist with this absurd first-state garbage? I also think California would be a great first-state (again, only if there has to be one - we'd be better off with all primaries being on one day).

[Debi]

24. Since the story you relayed was on MSNBC I'm hoping you could find a link

"So in 2004, the daughter of a prominent family that opened its home for the caucus, started moving toward the Dean group. Her father said: one more step and you are grounded for a week."

Strange that an adult participating in the caucuses would be able to be grounded by her father (unless this was a 17-year-old who, as long as she turned 18 by election day 2004, was eligible to participate). Unless, of course, this is one more vague story of the coercion or bullying or arm-twisting or manipulation I keep hearing about the Iowa Caucuses.

I do agree that all candidates should stay in the race for the duration (or at least until the realization of the necessary amount of delegates cannot be reached - which is looking like the pseudo-national primary date of February 5th).

[question everything]

40. Sorry, no link. It was not a news story only their reporter

Chuck Todd was talking this morning with Mika Brzezinski and he added that comment.

But, really, you don't even need a specific story. It makes sense that in a small community some would hesitate to openly declare their support of a candidate who is not supported by one's boss, or another influential member of the community. Human nature, that's all.

[Debi]

52. Actually, I'd prefer specific stories. Otherwise what we have is made up stories

that reporters use to aid in the 'Iowa's not fair' meme.

I enjoy facts over fiction, don't you?

[IA_Seth]

58. Not me..

In fact, I heard that in 2004 Bigfoot entered a small town and bullied everyone into caucusing for Kucinich.. which was nothing compared to the great invasion of 2000 when the entire state of Illinois was bussed into Iowa and disrupted our backroom dealings.

And since I heard it, I HAVE to believe it. Like the poster said, you don't even need to know facts. Duh.

[Debi]

59. Damn You Bigfoot!!

I posted a challenge to Iowa DUers to find the 2004 caucus that Chuck Todd was talking about - since all caucus locations are made public AND there aren't that many 'prominent' families in Iowa with a father/daughter combination equal to the one in the 'story' AND I'm betting not many caucuses were held in private residences in 2004 it should be easy to debunk.

But then again, the 'I hate the Iowa Caucuses' group doesn't want the story debunked. They'll just run with it :eyes:

[question everything]

61. Sure I prefer facts

but, as I said, this is human nature. And not everyone is brave enough to stand in front of bosses or customers or others in whose "grace" their livelihood may be dependent, and express a preference that is different from theirs.

[Debi]

67. And all those people live in the same precinct as the caucus attendee?

All I ask for is proof of the coercion I keep reading about.

Human nature also allows for building relationships with your neighbors AND allowing each other to respectfully agree to disagree knowing in the end we are all on the same side. (The people who didn't support my candidate in the caucuses in January are the same people I made GOTV calls to in November).

[CTLawGuy]

47. I was hoping you were on this thread Debi

I see you still can't admit this major flaw of the caucus system. The father has the psychological power necessary to ground his daughter, which is the power ALL fathers use to ground children. (They don't get court orders, call the sheriff, or lock their daughters in a cage). And it doesn't go away when she magically turns 18.

You've now seen a concrete example of what you previously insisted was so farfetched as to be laughable. Just admit that the possibility of undue influence is a drawback to the caucus system and I'll be satisfied.

[Debi]

51. What we have is a story told by a reporter that pertpetuates the myth

without names or locations we have a fairytale. Chuck Todd needs to sell a story.

[CTLawGuy]

54. ah

so your position is you don't believe the story.

Sigh.

Oh well. Here's to a hopeful Obama Victory. :toast:

[Debi]

56. If someone was close enough to overhear the exchange then they were there.

Why not ad validity to the story by saying where the event occured and who the father/daughter combination was? Aren't reporters supposed to report facts? Or are they just supposed to Kitty Kelly/Page Six stories and have us all go hmmmmmm?

[youthere]

55. I'm amazed the"father" was not called out..in my precinct...

anything that remotely resembles coersion is addressed immediately. This "story" smells fishy.

[Debi]

57. That story sounds made up.

How many adult children get grounded anyway? :shrug: How many caucuses occurred in private homes in 2004? :shrug: How many prominent families in Iowa held caucuses in their home? :shrug: These are easy things that could have been determined by a competent reporter. However it would be easier to say "I heard from someone who was there that blah, blah, blah happened". Yeah, right :eyes:

[question everything]

65. See my reply - 61 - above

The story does not have to be true but human nature, especially in difficult economic times put ballots that are not secret in bad light.

This may be the reason why turnout is so low. Individuals just decided that they are not going to jeopardize personal and professional relations to cast a vote for someone who is not popular in the community... like McCain who does not support ethanol?

[MaineDem]

26. People who vote at caucuses, generally, ...

...have done research on the candidates. They know the issues. They know the candidates. They take the time to invest a few hours in the process. These people make informed decisions.

Many primary voters have no clue what's going on. They go into the voting booth and "wing it".

As I said, this is a generality but true in many cases.

And Iowa and NH are important this year especially because so much is at stake on Feb 5. Having so many delegates up for grabs so early has made the most early states much more important.

[Recursion]

27. Do you prefer the partisan or the ignorant to decide?

Caucuses are a way to keep "the fickle mob" from overrunning the party every 5-6 years. They reinforce the parties' power structure. I'm not asserting that is necessarily good or bad, but it does keep some loony candidates at bay.

[harmonicon]

32. it it keeps loony candidates at bay, how can you account for all the loonies running now?

[Recursion]

37. Easy: the caucuses haven't happened yet

Once they do, they'll knock them out.

[harmonicon]

44. fantastic

Now I can sleep soundly, knowing there's zero chance of Clinton, Obama, Dodd, Edwards or Biden being the nominee. Thank you Iowa caucuses, thank you!!

[question everything]

63. Oh, great, another test

Someone actually had a letter in the Minneapolis paper last year, determining that voters who have not done their homework, did not bother to find out where the candidates stand, have no right casting a vote.

So let's have a poll test that one has to "pass" before one is provided with a ballot.

Yes, ideally voters should be familiar with the candidates and with ballot measures. And ideally people should not conceive a child before they show maturity and compassion to raise one, and ideally jerks who do not accommodate other drivers on the freeways should not get a driver license... you get my point.

[LWolf]

71. I prefer neither.

I prefer that citizens, whether caucusing or voting, make informed choices based on issues.

It "keeps some loony candidates at bay." It sure does. That's the whole point. I don't want the party power structure limiting my choices. I prefer the Democrat that the party power holders "keep at bay." You know, the guy who didn't vote for the IWR or NAFTA or the Patriot Act, the guy who actually promotes universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health care, they guy who actually supports and defends the Constitution with vigor.

I don't think those outside party power structures are "loony." I think they are less corrupt, and therefore, more desirable.

[JaneQPublic]

38. I agree. I watched the 2004 Iowa caucuses on C-Span.

It's hardly better than a parlor game.

People who came to vote for candidates garnering lower than 15 percent of the votes were choosing their second-round candidate based on whose supporters struck the best deal, saying, for example, "If you vote for my candidate, I'll arrange for you to give a speech at the regional party conference."

[musicblind]

41. secret ballots

I'm not against Iowa but I am against the caucus process. It really does seem undemocractic. I wish they would change the process to a primary, or to some form of secret ballot (not being able to cast a secret ballot is what makes it undemocract) or if they cannot change it to a secret ballot then they should change states. I have no issue with NH's primary because they use secret ballots.

[CTLawGuy]

48. logrolling

that's how we want our candidates to be chosen :eyes:

[eridani]

43. As opposed to the "democracy" of huge piles of money and the MSM--

--deciding who our candidate is going to be?

[pstans]

64. A Caucus is democracy at work

A caucus is neighbors talking to neighbors, gettting together to discuss ideas and our future.

[question everything]

66. Right. This is how it is done in Minnesota and, perhaps

in other states.

But when it come to vote on a Presidential preference, we write the names on a piece of paper and they are later tallied, keeping the the choices secret.

[Hobarticus]

74. Only one more week of misinformed whining...

This Iowan can't wait.

[Tashca]

75. Me neither

I've rarely seen so much whining and complaining in my life. Some people are so misinformed. I wonder how many of the expert posters on here have actually been to a caucus? By the looks of it ....it is a very small number. Obvious ignorance abounds...

[Debi]

77. Same folks that were here in 2004 with the same arguments

they'll let it go until the calendar fight in 2012 (which will actually start at the National Convention in 2008) *sigh*

[Tashca]

78. I don't see arguments...I see misinformation

lots and lots of it.
I've done many caucuses and have never seen anything remotely close to the things said here. I've never participated in anything more democratic in my life.

[Hobarticus]

79. ...and half-assed second-hand anecdotes and flat-out distortions

This post has popped up at least once a week for the last month.

[Debi]

82. But there was this one time where some guys republican boss who lived in a different town

attended his Democratic precinct caucus and threatened to fire him and burn his family's house down if he didn't caucus for the right candidate ..... x( .... doesn't matter how many times we talk about our experiences somebody from out of state who has never attended a caucus (but has a cousin who's brother-in-law's co-worker's ex-wife did and really hated it - really) is going to 'prove' that we are wrong in our beliefs that the Iowa Caucuses are democracy in action.

P.S. still waiting to find out WHO almost got grounded for almost caucusing for Howard Dean :eyes:

Edited b/c my punctuation and spelling is not so hot x(

[Hobarticus]

88. And when he walked around to her side of the car, there was a bloody hook

hanging from her door handle!!!

:evilgrin:

[Debi]

91. OMG - I just wrote that in my response to one of your other posts

before reading this one....too much of a coincidence. Therefore the Iowa Caucuses must be open to corruption, coercion, manipulation and bullying (and other scary shit!)

[Hobarticus]

95. Debi, you RAWK!

:hi:

[Debi]

80. I've been told by the naysayers that my personal experiences with the caucuses

don't count b/c I'm only one person in one precinct. Since there are 1,700-some-odd precincts out there coercion and bullying and intimidation and manipulation MAY occur SOMEWHERE. And since it MAY occur it MUST be occurring no matter how many Iowan DUers say different. :crazy:

So stop talking about your positive caucus experiences and start focusing on the mythical negatives :rofl: It's the only way!

[Tashca]

81. .I noticed the Big Foot

My only bad experience had to do with Ninja......but that one ended up resolved just fine..:o

[Debi]

83. You offered the Ninja snacks didn't you?

x( snacks get em every time!

(I hear is was the Reuben Dip that the Kerry folks brought that got to youthere - Rambis had a bad experience with chips and salsa. Over in Dubuque Teri Goodman says they have a potluck dinner early on! :wow: How the hell can anyone get any serious political arm twisting done when there's a POTLUCK???!!! Damn that Teri Goodman and her support of Joe Biden - loose meat sandwiches and deviled eggs could destroy the competition)

[Hobarticus]

89. And the babysitter answered the phone, again, and the policeman said

those calls are coming from INSIDE THE HOUSE!!!!

[Debi]

90. Noooooooo

Was there a hook hanging from the car door too????

[Debi]

76. Yet without any bowl games to watch

what will we do with our time? :shrug:

[terryg11]

84. Iowa isn't so important

we just go first, so there.

grow some backbone and stand up for your candidate, it's a great process and if a candidtes reps at a caucus can't present their case better and persuade others to join them then I guess their candidate isn't that strong or they need better representation.

I caucused like hell last year for Kucinich in a losing battle and even though I was frustrated it was still a great experience. Half the Gephardt camp walked out rather than throw their lot in with Kerry or Edwards, their perogative.

I'm pretty sure the "home house" intimidation is a rather isolated event and you can always push to have the caucus somewhere else thats more neutral.

You actuallly gotta roll up your sleeves and do work, reaally undemocratic

[Debi]

86. Hey terryg11

:hi: Don't know if we've ever talked - do you ever go over to the Iowa Forum?

I truly doubt the incident even occurred - I'm still trying to figure out how somebody 'grounds' an adult :shrug:

Have you been a Caucus Chair or Precinct Captain in the past? Are you one this go around?

[IndianaGreen]

93. Iowa is a 4-letter word

Only 122,000 Iowans went to the caucus in 2004, and they ditched the antiwar candidates in favour of Mister Electable.

I expect Iowans to give us another LOSER next month.

[Strelnikov_]

94. So it is the fault of the lead lemmings over the cliff

that those following do not have the courage to find their own path?

[musicblind]

96. anecdotal fallacy

For the people saying that the system works because they have had good experiences with the system, OR for the people saying that the system does not work because they have heard of people who have had bad experiences with the system ... please consider this:

There is something in debate that is called the anecdotal fallacy. For example "I have been smoking 60 years and still don't have lung cancer. Therefore, smoking does not cause lung cancer." The fallacy here is that, while smoking does cause cancer, all this person's statement proves is that smoking has not yet caused HER to develop cancer.

In the caucus process, all these positive and negative statements prove is that certain people have had positive and negative experiences. We cannot allow ourselves to debate this way. We need to discuss what we know CAN happen and if the negatives that CAN happen are bad enough to change the system based on the fact that they could actually happen then the system should be changed. We need to decide if these negatives are worth the risk of changing the system, or if the negatives could not happen and therefore nothing needs to be fixed. Whether these negative things have happened to you or not is irrelevant... it is a fallacy, and therefore is null for use in a debate.

Here is a link regarding the anecdotal fallacy (complete with examples):

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Anecdotal_evidence/id/1912526