Poll Smoking in Iowa

I finally feel as though it's okay to post some poll numbers in relation to the upcoming primary. Should I have waited until after Thanksgiving, though?

Anyway, based on these numbers, the Dem primary looks a lot closer than I've been led to believe by the mainstream media. I thought the Hildabeast was all but anointed.

If the 2008 Democratic presidential caucus were held today between, Joeseph Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson, for whom would you vote? (Democrats only; names rotated)

Hillary Clinton 29%
Barack Obama 27%
John Edwards 20%
Bill Richardson 7%
Joseph Biden 5%
Chris Dodd 1%
Dennis Kucinich 1%
Undecided 10%

The Republican primary looks a little more settled, with Romney having a decisive lead:

If the 2008 Republican presidential caucus were held today between Sam Brownback, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo, and Fred Thompson, for whom would you vote? (Republicans only; names rotated)

Mitt Romney 30%
Mike Huckabee 19%
Rudy Giuliani 12%
Fred Thompson 11%
John McCain 7%
Ron Paul 5%
Tom Tancredo 2%
Duncan Hunter 1%
Undecided 13%

And for those who think the Iraq war won't matter, here's a freaky result: 53% of the responding Republicans wanted all troops out of Iraq in the next six months. That's something painful to chew on.

Do you favor a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months? (Republicans only)

Yes 53%
No 36%
Undecided 11%

Anyway, them's some polls. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

If 53% of Republicans want the US out of Iraq, why does Paul only have 5%? (Granted, 5% for him is surprisingly large at this point.)

I think Hillary is already anointed nationwide, but she won't do as well in Iowa. Looks like another election coming where I don't want to vote for either candidate. ~:rolleyes:

I hope Obama wins. To a foreigner such as myself, he seems the most reasonable out of all the canidates. God forbid Clinton winning.

I think and hope that obama will come from behind to win the nomination. Most of the push behind clinton comes from name recognition and the assumption that she's electable.

My personal preference aside, I'm pretty sure that if Hillary gets nominated then the Republicans will win yet another Presidential election. She's hated enough among the Right to provoke a backlash turnout. Not even Giuliani will provoke the same thing among the Left.

I like Obama, but there seems to be some sort of thing with Clinton that I don't get. She's to power-hungry in my opinion....

What was this thread about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

If 53% of Republicans want the US out of Iraq, why does Paul only have 5%? (Granted, 5% for him is surprisingly large at this point.)

---

He only has 5% because he is insane. Pulling out of Iraq isn't the only campaign issue he is running on.

Besides, this is one state. I'm not really seeing how this would be good indicator of the entire country.

The advantages with Ms Clinton are two fold. When she wears the pants they stay on and when she wears a dress it gets dry cleaned.

Do population polls work in states that actually hold caucuses, not primaries?

Anyway, most Republicans aren't 1-issue voters, at least not that 1-issue. Sure, 53% may think its time to pull the plug (I neither confirm nor deny that number). But heck, look at the numbers on gun ownership, and how many Republicans are voting for Rudy Giuliani?

Remember, the Iowa Cauci are not run according to the same process as a standard election.

Iowa Procedures:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Making the Decision

When voters cast their ballots in the Iowa Caucus, they won't be doing it in the privacy of a booth. Instead, they gather in places such as school gymnasiums and fire halls to join fellow supporters of a particular candidate.

For the Democrats, the groups divide in the room, while encouraging undecideds to join them. Their numbers are then tallied. For a candidate to remain "viable," he must have at least 15 percent of the participants behind him. Without it, the supporters must either choose another candidate or go home without backing any candidate at all. Each "viable" group of that precinct can then elect delegates to the county convention. Republicans conduct another straw poll, voting secretly for their candidate.

For the most part, Iowa Caucus participants are usually highly interested in politics. Turnout is typically smaller than in a primary. But pollsters consider predicting the outcome more difficult.

Below, see the procedures that each party follows in choosing the winning candidate.

The Democratic Caucus:

1) Participants meet at 7:00 p.m. and elect caucus officers, with the elected chair running the caucus.

2) Information on the presidential candidates is distributed.

3) The process for selecting delegates to the county convention begins no later than 7:30.

4) Supporters divide into groups by candidate. To remain "viable" a candidate must have at least 15 percent of the caucus participants.

5) Supporters of "non-viable" candidates must decide whether to back another candidate or abandon the caucus.

6) Each "viable" candidate may elect delegates to the county convention. The number of precinct delegates is predetermined.

7) Results are compiled by the Iowa Democratic Party in Des Moines.

Needless to say, results in Iowa have a different "character" than those of New Hampshire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Remember, the Iowa Cauci are not run according to the same process as a standard election.

Iowa Procedures:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Making the Decision

When voters cast their ballots in the Iowa Caucus, they won't be doing it in the privacy of a booth. Instead, they gather in places such as school gymnasiums and fire halls to join fellow supporters of a particular candidate.

For the Democrats, the groups divide in the room, while encouraging undecideds to join them. Their numbers are then tallied. For a candidate to remain "viable," he must have at least 15 percent of the participants behind him. Without it, the supporters must either choose another candidate or go home without backing any candidate at all. Each "viable" group of that precinct can then elect delegates to the county convention. Republicans conduct another straw poll, voting secretly for their candidate.

For the most part, Iowa Caucus participants are usually highly interested in politics. Turnout is typically smaller than in a primary. But pollsters consider predicting the outcome more difficult.

Below, see the procedures that each party follows in choosing the winning candidate.

The Democratic Caucus:

1) Participants meet at 7:00 p.m. and elect caucus officers, with the elected chair running the caucus.

2) Information on the presidential candidates is distributed.

3) The process for selecting delegates to the county convention begins no later than 7:30.

4) Supporters divide into groups by candidate. To remain "viable" a candidate must have at least 15 percent of the caucus participants.

5) Supporters of "non-viable" candidates must decide whether to back another candidate or abandon the caucus.

6) Each "viable" candidate may elect delegates to the county convention. The number of precinct delegates is predetermined.

7) Results are compiled by the Iowa Democratic Party in Des Moines.

Needless to say, results in Iowa have a different "character" than those of New Hampshire.

---

Golly, you think?:beam: I'm quite excited to finally be able to vote come caucus time, and actually have a say in the world as opposed to just being the 'minor who can't think for himself because he's a minor'. And excellent work explaining the caucus, Seamus.:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

My personal preference aside, I'm pretty sure that if Hillary gets nominated then the Republicans will win yet another Presidential election. She's hated enough among the Right to provoke a backlash turnout. Not even Giuliani will provoke the same thing among the Left.

---

My inclination exactly, I have always been one of the moderate undecided and this election has so far been a real pittance for selection.

My wife keeps telling me "Ron Paul" but she's nuts anyway, Im leaning Democrat myself, Im just hoping Iowa thins things out a bit.

Well, I'll say this of Ron Paul. He is not simply spouting campaign platitudes so as to cater to any possible nuaced constituency.

He is, without a doubt, willing to act on every promise and/or policy direction he has put forth during the campaign, and would start signing executive orders to begin the changes he seeks about 1:30PM on 1/20/9 if elected.

Now, as to all of his suggestions being the correct direction for the USA.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Well, I'll say this of Ron Paul. He is not simply spouting campaign platitudes so as to cater to any possible nuaced constituency.

He is, without a doubt, willing to act on every promise and/or policy direction he has put forth during the campaign, and would start signing executive orders to begin the changes he seeks about 1:30PM on 1/20/9 if elected.

Now, as to all of his suggestions being the correct direction for the USA.....

---

Im intriqued by Ron Paul mainly because I do find the Libertarian approach appealing in some regards (mainly foriegn policy, less federalized system, Jefferson would approve).

My inclination is that his best showing might be 10% in any given primary, so it might serve the political system best to simply vote for the libertarian candidate, and lend some viability to a 3rd party?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

Besides, this is one state. I'm not really seeing how this would be good indicator of the entire country.

---

It isn't a good indicator at all, but by the time the Pennsylvania primary rolls around, there will be no choice left for us but the soon-to-be nominees for each party. Iowa and New Hampshire will eliminate 1/3 to 1/2 the field alone. The upcoming primaries will be even worse for us because of so many states moving to earlier primaries than before.

The only sense of relief I get is that I still vote for the candidate I like even if they have already pulled out of the race. It's my little "stick-it-to-the-system" defiant action. 'Tis all we can really do here in the Keystone state. :thumbsdown:

As for Hillary, despite how good of a president she may or may not be, she would be the worst thing that could happen to this country should she become president. The country is already polarized almost to the point of ineffectiveness and she will just make it worse because of who she is. Due to the extreme love/hate reaction she invokes from people, she will be a lightning rod for futher polarization of the country. And Al Gore would have almost as strong an effect should he get "drafted" into the race. We need to leave the Clintons, Gores and Bushs behind us if this country has any hope to get back on track. There is too much bad blood stored up in those names.

Wait. I can't find the pun in Gregoshi's last post. :beam:

Iowa and NH being 'bellweather' states, predictors of how the country at large will vote, is mostly a media invention IMO; a way for the networks to try to be the first to foresee the final outcome. Many states, including my own, have jumped on that bandwagon, at great expense I add, as a matter of prestige, vs. any real furthering of a democratic (small d) process.

For me, these days it's less about the positions these candidates say they hold, because those positions are not predictive of how things will go once they are in office. The mechanics of realpoilitik, whether we give the new Prez a congressional majority to work with, foreign developments, war, etc will all combine to dictate what (s)he can and cannot do once in office.

Sure, in the first 90 days he'll work to undo whatever the previous guy did in the last 90 days of his reign by executive orders - but then the honeymoon ends and the buisness of actually governing and leading the nation begins.

And he doesn't do that alone. I want to know who's gonna be in his cabinet. How well does he manage a crisis? How accessable will he be to the press? How open will his meetings and documents be to scrutiny? Who does he want on the Supreme Court, Armed Forces Chiefs of Staff, District Attorneys, World Bank?

In a nutshell: what are his HR skills? Does he lead from the front, or dwell on consultation? Will he work a full work-week? How much time off does he want, and what are his plans for covering the job while he's "off"? Is he healthy enough to get through the next 8 years without a debilitating illness? How's he feel about personal security (the last thing we need is an assassination)?

These things go through my (so-called) mind nowadays, rather than pro- or anti- gun, abortion, capital punishment, boxers-or-briefs.

Oh, the "poll-decease".

We have that as well in our country.

"If there would be elections now, they would be won by blahblahblah..." All of that brought as if it were an important news event :wall:

Nasty invention and a pity the media always find it necessary to publish/broadcast those useful important interesting polls AND make a huge fuss about it... Idiots :shrug:

I don't know about the USA, but in my country it has led to a generation of politicians who are no longer capable to have a point of view and an insight on delicate and difficult matters that stretches further then the next poll, i.e. approximately 3 months...

Bah :no:

[/rant about my personal disgust with politicians who are no longer worthy of the name politicans, let alone the title "leaders", but instead have degenerated into pathetic attention whores/drama queens without any backbone whatsoever. "Politicans" nowadays = "What decision are we going to take? The best one or the one which will get us the most votes according to the last poll? Off course, we have to state it as such that we can change our point of view drastically should the next poll tell us that we need to take another decision..."]

I agree Gregoshi. I live in New Hampshire now, sure, but before that I lived in North Carolina for 7 years. Talk about not having a say... and before that Connecticut. Same-same.

The argument for the current primary system is that candidates cannot possibly cover all 50 states and if they went to an all on one day, California, Texas, New York and Florida would decide every last primary (they already decide the election itself). If you don't happen to live in one of those 5 states, your vote wouldn't count in primaries any longer (the only point in the American political process when anyone with an even slight political leaning has any hope of a choice).

But I've heard a solution posted (not mine, but I like it a lot) that we do the following. All 50 states are divided into 5 groups, roughly equal by population. Then the primaries will run A-B-C-D-E. In the next primary cycle, they run B-C-D-E-A. In the next one, C-D-E-A-B, and so on. Every 20 years, your state gets to have exceptional political clout, and every 20 years, your state has no say at all. The other 3 cycles you get varying results, somewhere in between.

Interesting idea, Don C. :bow:

Or maybe: limit the populations of states to (the average) 5 million. Got 12 million people? Opps, you've gotta be 3 states; or sub-states (e.g. East Texas, West Texas & South Texas). I know that idea is "out there" but we're trying to level the "influence" playing field to achieve political parity, yes?

I heard yet another proposal for fixing the primary mess, the idea being that states would be ranked according to voter turnout, with highest-turnout states getting first dibs, and lowest-turnout states going last.

I like the idea, if only because it rewards participation. I know, I know, some states would fudge their numbers, and it would create a whole new arms race, but at least it would make sense.

The proposal Don C quotes would also make sense. Anything would make more sense than what we have now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

California, Texas, New York and Florida would decide every last primary (they already decide the election itself). If you don't happen to live in one of those 5 states,

---

Psst, Don...'York' and 'New' together form a single state, not two. So that makes four states.

http://smileys.sur-la-toile.com/repo...t-simpson4.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Psst, Don...'York' and 'New' together form a single state, not two. So that makes four states.

http://smileys.sur-la-toile.com/repo...t-simpson4.gif

---

:clown:

I left out Ohio. Sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

:clown:

I left out Ohio. Sorry.

---

Was that from you, Don, or were you quoting a Kerry strategist?


:devilish:

American politics have serious problems. You have to raise money for tv ads or you won't get elected, and in the primaries it's the people who are well known already and who are perceived as 'electable' that get the votes. And then in our debates they only focus on the top three and we get questions like "Are human rights more important than US national security, yes or no?". Such bs, I had to turn it off. Biden got in some funny cracks, clinton and edwards are snarky, obama is frustrated that he isn't given time to speak, kucinich is a little crazy, richardson is nervous and biden and dodd are the only one's who make a decent sounding speech with good points behind it.