Left In Alabama - Iowa Caucus

Santorum Surges To Tie Romney in Iowa

mooncat — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:24:53 GMT

Rick Santorum held Mitt Romney to a 25-25 tie in the 2012 Iowa GOP caucuses last night, with professional curmudgeon Ron Paul finishing a close third with 21%.

Karl Rove was able to predict Romney's win to within 6 votes out of 120,000 or so, despite losing track of some of the ballots.

Rick Perry is going home to Texas.

Newt Gingrich praised Santorum and says he'll keep ~~selling books~~ fighting, despite a disappointing fourth place finish in Iowa.

Sixth place finisher Michele Bachmann is toast.

In a surprising development, a handful of Iowa Republicans actually voted for John Huntsman.

Republicans & Voter ID - Do As I Say, Not As I Do

mooncat — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 21:30:00 GMT

Here's a stellar example of Republican hypocrisy. The GOP has cried "voter fraud" to pass laws mandating a photo ID to vote in 15 states, but do you need a photo ID to vote in the Republican caucuses tonight in Iowa?

No, you do not.

No photo ID, same day registration. Pretty sweet. If it's good enough for the Republican Iowa caucus, why can't the rest of us have the same lenient voter registration set-up for general elections?

Of course, Iowa is a really white state (see ethnic breakdown at right) and Republicans are primarily concerned with alleged voter fraud on the part of "other" people. People who don't vote for Republicans.

What do you want to bet that if Ron Paul does well tonight, the Republican establishment will discount the results on the basis of all those fraudulent non-Republicans who slipped into the Iowa caucuses?

How Many Candidates Will "Bite The Dust" In Iowa Tonight?

countrycat — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 17:15:59 GMT

The media's all abuzz this morning, wondering how many clowns will get kicked out of the GOP car tonight. Iowa has already knocked off one - Tim Pawlenty - and that was due to a poor showing in a straw poll! Undoubtedly, at least a couple will be exiting "stage right" tonight, so let's have a final look at the field before ~~they say goodbye~~ we say good riddance.

At a time when many people are chuckling about the cult of personality that surrounds North Korean leaders and decrying the megalomania of Iran's political & religious culture, it's worth remembering this about the GOP field. At least three Republican candidates have bragged that God told them to run:

However, if you look at polling data, it appears that God told a bunch of Iowa Republicans to vote for someone else. These three stand a good chance of being prophets without honor, money, or voters after tonight's caucuses.

Follow on the flip for a recap the candidates - and a very appropriate soundtrack to accompany your reading.

Ok... let's go in alphabetical order and discuss why these people should NOT be president. Of anything. Not even the Foursquare mayor of their own clothes closet....

Michele Bachmann

This surprise winner of the Iowa straw poll not only got a message from God to run for president: she also thinks He told her to sponsor an anti-gay marriage amendment to the Minnesota state constitution.

Delusional Deity discussions aside, most people would agree that it's important for a country's president to have at least a passing familiarity with the country's history. Like Sarah Palin before her, Bachmann fails this test miserably - and often. For complete details, check out this delicious link (with video and fact checking): Prof. Michele Bachmann's American History 101.

But perhaps it's even more important for a president to have at least a basic grasp of foreign affairs and Bachmann's promise to close the non-existent US embassy in Iran fails that test as well.

Herman Cain

We'll include him because he hasn't officially dropped out, just "suspended" his campaign - an action that allows him to keep legally raising money.

Bachmann doesn't know her history and Cain seems totally ignorant of the Constitution (that he'd have to swear to "preserve, protect, and defend" as president):

The GOP candidate told Christian Broadcasting Network that he would sign a constitutional amendment banning abortion.

"I feel that strongly about it. If we can get the necessary support and it comes to my desk I’ll sign it. That’s all I can do. I will sign it," he said.

Unfortunately for Cain, as Politico's Ben Smith points out, the president doesn't sign constitutional amendments. In fact, he plays essentially no role in the process.

Cain's economic plan (9 9 9) sounds like a pizza commercial. His stated leadership style ("we need a leader, not a reader") is from a Simpsons episode. And, like so many on the far Right, he glories in his willful ignorance:

"I'm ready for the 'gotcha' questions and they're already starting to come. And when they ask me who is the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan I'm going to say, you know, I don't know. Do you know?".

Oh, and there was that "Women for Cain" Web site, complete with stock photos of women who had never been sexually harassed by the candidate.

Newt Gingrich

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, suggests that his biggest asset is the fact that he is simultaneously "intellectually" a Washington insider and "psychologically and outsider." How is this possible, you ask? Look no further than Ronald Reagan: "Reagan served in Washington for eight years and never noticed he was there. And I think that’s a huge virtue.”

....Strongly resisting the almost overwhelming temptation to insert a tacky joke here.... so let's move on to Newt's other non-qualifications.

While most candidates realize the path to victory is to broaden their base of support, Newt has suggested that about 10% of the electorate should vote for President Obama.

Earlier, in an obvious attempt to corner the George Wallace vote, Gingrich promised to defy Supreme Court rulings he opposed - Marbury vs. Madison be damned. Unless, of course, Obama should ignore a Supreme Court ruling that Gingrich supports:

But the former House speaker demurred when asked whether President Obama could ignore a high court ruling next year if it declared unconstitutional the new healthcare law and its mandate that all Americans have health insurance by 2014. Gingrich said presidents can ignore court rulings only in "extraordinary" situations.

You have to wonder... if SCOTUS told Gingrich to immediately pay his bill at Tiffinay's.... would that ba an "extraordinary" situation?

Jon Huntsman

There are a number of reasons that President Obama's former ambassador to China would be unacceptable - at least to the GOP base. For reason #1, look no further than the previous sentence or at the photo on the right...

Also, Huntsman speaks Mandarin Chinese. The only thing more offensive to the party's xenophobic base might be Spanish - or Arabic.

If that's not enough, there's this famous Tweet:

"To be clear, I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy."

He certainly is crazy if he thinks that will win him points with GOP primary voters. And so arguably the most formidable challenger to President Obama doesn't stand a chance.

Hey, if you lie down with elephants, they're likely to stomp you to into the ground!

Ron Paul

Texas Representative Ron Paul sometimes makes a lot of sense, but then other times you can just smell the nut fudge cooking.

What else can you say about a candidate who stands up to his own party to challenge military spending, works with progressives against indefinite detention, and advocates drug legalization - but in the next breath spouts conspiracy theory nonsense about the Trilateral Commission and a "NAFTA Superhighway" as the precurser to a national merger between Mexico, Canada, and the US:

Paul teamed up with other fringe legislators, most notably former Rep, Tom Tancredo (R-CO) and Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA), to introduce legislation denouncing the nonexistent superhighway, even as both the Bush administration and the top ranking Republicans on the relevant transportation committees insisted there was no basis to the theory. Paul took their denials as further encouragement he was onto something and insisted that federal officials were using “secret funding” to advance the project.

And, of course, there are those pesky newsletters that Paul says he signed, but didn't write himself. They contain more jewels (of extremism) than Gingrich ever considered buying for his 3rd wife:

Urban youth carjackings: " It's the hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos."
AIDS is spread by "malicious gays" deliberately infecting people.
1992 Los Angeles riots stopped only "when it came time for blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

He's leading or within the margin of error in many Iowa polls conducted just days ago.

Rick Perry

There are 3 reasons not to elect Rick Perry President of the United States (other than the aforementioned deity discussions):

He has suggested that Texas consider seceding from the Union (um... been there, done that, bad plan!).
Not another Constitutionally-challenged president, please! Perry calls Social Security unconstitutional, doesn't know the minimum voting age, and thinks the Supreme Court has 8 justices.
And the 3rd reason is... uh... uh... it'll come to us in a minute.... Hey, Ron Paul! Can we buy a conspiracy theory?

Just kidding...

How about the horror of having a president who brags about executing people - including at least one man who was innocent?

Mitt Romney

Let's consider all the important issues Romney supported - before he flip-flopped. Visit MittRomneyFlipFlops.com for even more!

Romney supported mandates before deciding they're a 10th amendment violation.
Capital gains tax rates should be zero - OR - maybe they're a "tax cut for fat cats."
Romney saw his father "march with Martin Luther King." Or maybe he didn't.
TARP was necessary. No, it wasn't!
"Don't Ask Don't Tell" was silly public policy - but it worked well.
The minimum wage should be adjusted for inflation. But it shouldn't because it costs jobs.

What we have in Mitt Romney is a hollow man with no center and no core beliefs:

[...]
Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion;
[...]
T.S. Eliot - The Hollow Men

Remember, he ran as a pro-choice candidate in 1994 he said, "because it was impossible for a pro-life candidate to win." Romney's spine is made of silly putty and he will twist himself any way you want. Until someone with more money wants something different.

Rick Santorum

Pollsters tell us that the former Pennsylvania senator is "surging" among voters - an unfortunate description for a public official whose name became the butt of an Internet prank.

Frankly, we're at a loss as to why this guy is so popular in Iowa. Can the good Midwestern folk there really agree with his assertion that marriage equality will lead to the legalization and societal acceptance of "man on dog sex?"

Do they want to elect a man who thinks that Medicare is crushing the country's health care system, believes health care reform will "rob America of its soul" and says that states have the right to outlaw birth control?

These questions and many more will soon be answered by Iowa caucus-goers. Pop the corn and stay tuned!

Up close at an Iowa caucus

countrycat — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 18:05:39 GMT

About 4pm on Thursday, the Edwards office in Davenport went from barely organized chaos to total chaos. We had a sudden influx of last-minute people asking for literature, and a horde of precinct captains coming in for their kits (signs, stickers, literature, etc. for the caucus).

I took this photo on Wednesday afternoon.

Then, just as suddenly, about 4:30, the place was empty and the staff started getting ready to head to their assigned locations.

We were assigned to Precinct 74 in Davenport, and had the address of one person needing a ride to the caucus location. After picking her up, we arrived at the Kirkwood center about 6:20. And it was PACKED already!

People stood in line 40 minutes just to sign in to get into the caucus room.

Once the caucus finally got started (about 7:15), the caucus chair did a preliminary count of the total number of voters in the room. Which meant all the volunteers had to leave the room. grr.... that meant me! (and several other people).

But they kept the door open so we would watch and hear much of what was happening.

The total count in our precinct: 232, which meant a candidate had to have 35 people in the first round to be "viable" and eligible for the second round.

There were people there for Edwards, Obama, Clinton, Richardson, Biden, and Kucinich (one guy for Dennis: he asked me if I knew who the Kucinich precinct captain was and I told him that I thought he was it). Only Edwards, Obama, and Clinton had enough people on the 1st round, so then they started swarming around the other candidates' voters.

Except for one Richardson supporter who went to Clinton, ALL the Biden, Richardson, and Kucinich people went for Edwards.

Then the horse trading began in earnest, with Obama & Clinton precinct captains running the numbers and offering a couple of people to Edwards to deny the other person a delegate. Edwards needed 8 more to get a second delegate and Obama needed 3 more people to deny Clinton a delegate. Clinton was right on the edge and couldn't give up any voters although her precinct captain was desperate to keep Obama from getting 4 instead of 3 at that precinct. She was working on the Edwards people to help her out.

If that sounds bizarre and convoluted, well it was. The guy on the right in the photo below is holding the caucus guidebook and there were several pages describing in minute detail how to count people, percentages, how do divide delegates, whether to round up or down, and what to do in case of a tie (flip a coin!). It was literally coming down to tenths of a percentage deciding the final delegate.

Obama and Clinton numbers were so close that a swing of just a few people could decide who got the final delegate (there were 7 delegates available to that precinct).

But none of the Edwards people would peel off to Clinton (who needed 5 more), even though they weren't "needed" to give Edwards a delegate.

So the total was: Obama 3, Clinton 3, and Edwards 1.

Some interesting observations:

1. Clinton didn't seem to be anyone's second choice (except for the Richardson guy). Otherwise, she could have pulled off a few Edwards folks and possibly gotten another delegate. While Edwards was the second choice for most voters, their third seemed to be Obama.

Other volunteers from other precincts reported similar results (in the Davenport area).

At least in Iowa, it appeared she had her base of supporters, but was unable to pick up additional support.

That could be a bad sign for future primaries, or it could just mean that Iowa has a bizarre process and the results don't transfer to any other situation.

We'll know soon.

2.Obama and Clinton staffers/volunteers didn't get along at all. Truly, they seemed to detest each other on a personal level. All the staff/volunteers at the caucus were from out of state (because in-state people were at their own caucuses of course), and I had fun chatting with them all.

People willing to travel and slog around in the bitter cold and get hung up on, etc. etc. have a lot in common - no matter which party they're from or what candidate they support.

But the interactions between the Obama & Clinton people really surprised me. They didn't talk much and when they did it was to argue about who could stand where or who was talking too loud, etc. At one point, one of the Clinton people (an ASFCME volunteer from Missouri) asked the Obama staffer (a woman from Chicago) what Obama's count was. The Obama staffer glared at the Missouri woman and said: "What do you care?" and walked off.

Even the supporters didn't mingle at all. They sat on opposite sides of the room - with Edwards in the middle. After watching some of the sharp words being exchanged, I wondered if we Edwards people would end up in the middle of a food fight (we were packed into a cafeteria).

My concern with this is that if one or the other gets the nomination, then the bad blood from the primary could spill over into the general. Boy, I hope not, but things were certainly tense on caucus night.

The stakes were high and the precinct captains were in there to win. If we can keep that level of determination and committment without turning on each other, then the Republicans don't have a chance in November.

Well, the Iowa caucus of 2008 has come and gone.

herding old cats — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 04:37:27 GMT

On the Democratic side, total turnout was 239,000. Barack Obama got 38% of the votes which would be 90,820, John Edwards got 30% which would be 71,700, and Hillary Clinton got 29% which would be 69,310. Republican turnout was estimated at 114,000. If that is correct, then Huckabee got 38,760 votes, Romney got 28,500, and Thompson got about 14,820.

Now, what did it take for Obama to get his 90,820 votes, Edwards his 71,700 votes, and Clinton her 69,310 votes? For the candidates,it took lots of wear and tear on the vocal cords, lots of travel, lots of walking through cafe's interrupting people's meals, and lots of being "on" no matter how exhausted and footsore one might be. Behind the scenes, there are of course paid staff, yard signs, offices, supplies, and a whole logistical tail. But above and beyond the support costs and direct costs to get the candidate face-to-face with people, there is advertising, which happens to be something we can find out.

I poked around a little bit with good ol' Google and dug this up. Obama spent $9 million on about 11000 ad spots. Edwards spent $3.2 million on 3700 ads.
Clinton spent about $7.2 million on about 8000 TV ads. Huckabee spent $1.4 million on 1800 ads. Romney spent $7 million for 8500 ads. Thompson spent $1.1 million for 1100 ads.

So, in advertising costs alone, Obama spent about $99 per vote. Edwards spent about $45 per vote. Clinton spent about $104 per vote. Huckabee spent about $36 per vote. Romney spent about $246 per vote. Thompson spent about $74 per vote.

More fun with a calculator - Obama got 8.26 votes per ad. Edwards got 19.38 votes per ad. Clinton got 8.66 votes per ad. Huckabee got 21.53 votes per ad. Romney got 3.35 votes per ad. Thompson got 13.47 votes per ad.

Both Edwards and Huckabee said at different times, "This is an election, not an auction!" The results seem to bear this out. Romney would have done better to stand in the median of I-80 burning $20 bills. Romney, Obama, and Clinton need to re-think their ad agency, as well.

Aren't metrics fun?

Alabama Goes to Iowa

countrycat — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:40:30 GMT

We've been in Iowa since December 31st, and the whole caucus scene is absolutely amazing!

My daughter and I arrived on New Year's Eve after flying into Chicago, renting a car, and driving on very slick, snowy roads to Davenport, Iowa. The 2 1/2 hour trip in good weather took 4 hours and 20 minutes. My hands and arms were sore Wednesday morning - probably from the death grip I kept on the steering wheel for hours.

On January 1, we started off the New Year right - working to make John Edwards the next president!

On Wednesday, we arrived at Edwards HQ just after lunch expecting to be sent out door-to-door. We weren't really excited at the prospect since the high temperature was supposed to be 7 degrees with a brisk wind.

Instead, they asked us to make phone calls. I got the unenvieable task of calling undecided voters on New Year's Day when they were trying to watch football and not wanting to be bothered. Sarah called Edwards supporters to remind them of the caucus date.

As if anyone still alive could forget it!

I had a slight tussle with the person in charge of calling because she wanted us all to read from this prepared script. Now, nothing irritates me more at home than someone calling to read this canned script. So, being a person who doesn't take direction well, I improvised some.

One woman told me that her big issue is retirement health care, so I asked if she was retired and she said no, but she was about to get state retirement. So I told her I understood her concern because my mother was a retired teacher and worried that the state is going to cut her retirement benefits. We talked a bit about how important it is for regular, moderate and low income people to have a secure retirement & then hung up. And I looked up to find Jill holding the script and asking me to please stick with the facts and figures in the script.

She's from New Jersey, so maybe it's just a different communication style, but I just don't think people want to hear nothing but statistics.

In the meantime, Sarah was able to complete over 100 calls to supporters! Not bad for a 13 yr old.

Yesterday was MUCH better. We went out in the morning and canvassed in Bettendorf (a bit north of Davenport). Since we had room in the car, we took 2 high school students from Youngstown, Ohio with us and we hit 29 homes. It was still COLD! There was a wind chill warning because the temp was about 9 with a 20 mph wind. But the people were so much nicer in person than on the phone. Everyone home invited us in their house to warm up, listened to us, and were very friendly.

One woman offered us hot chocolate, use of her bathroom, and, after finding out we're from Alabama and paying for a B&B, asked if we wanted to move our stuff to her house and stay for free. We thanked her profusely, but said no.

We stopped for lunch, then took our packets back to HQ and got another one - this one with 39 houses. Sarah and I did them yesterday afternoon. It didn't take nearly as long as the morning because only about 20% of the people were actually home.

We were at it again today - again in Bettendorf - and hey, it's warmer! The temperature when we knocked off for lunch (Panera Bread for the free wifi) was up to 20 degrees! Hey, who needs a coat?

We're about to head back to HQ for more work and to find out who we're supposed to drive to the caucus tonight. We'll get to watch, but not participate and it should be exciting.

I wish I had some sort of feel for how it looks for John, but I just can't tell. There are a lot of yard signs for all the candidates: Obama, Edwards, Clinton, Romney in particular.

One thing that's really interesting is that you'll often see a house with Obama and Edwards or Edwards and Biden, or any combination. But if there's a Clinton sign, there are no other candidate signs. I have no idea what that means - if anything - but it's an interesting data point.

Also, I can tell you from our phone calling and door-to-door, that I have only come across one voter who has Clinton as a 2nd choice. The vast majority in my small sample (about 50 calls and 75 houses) have Edwards as 2nd choice with Obama far behind. The Richardson & Biden people also seem to be breaking for Edwards for 2nd place.

Everyone stay warm in Alabama and wish us luck!

Caucus power

julie — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:03:31 GMT

Paul Loeb, in an article entitled 'How Kucinich Supporters Can Help Stop Hillary', made a few points that I would like to hear folks discuss.

To sum up his position: Hillary is way too Corporate to appeal to a Kucinich supporter. Obama or Edwards are your best hope to see a Progressive Democratic Nominee.

His take on the Iowa Caucus system-

So how could Kucinich supporters, with their candidate polling at 1%-2%, even make a difference? First, because it's a caucus system, this favors groups that are organized and enthusiastic. Only 125,000 people attended Iowa's Democratic caucuses last round, but they sank Howard Dean's candidacy when he was the clear favorite going in. If Kucinich supporters could get out 12,500 people that's 10% of the vote, if 6250, 5%. Neither would be enough to qualify under the 15% threshold for representation, but if they could account for even just a few points difference in how the delegates are allocated, that might shift who comes first among the three leading Democrats. It might make the difference between Hillary being the nominee and Edwards or Obama.

We also need to bear in mind that Ralph Nader has threatened to run again if Hillary is the eventual nominee. If we think that doesn't make a difference, we're ignoring the last election results. Many Democrats blame Nader for Gore's loss, so obviously he can swing enough votes to be a factor in 2008.

For me, it's a crisis of conscience, AKA Politics, or Pragmatism vs. Idealism. Should I 'play politics' with my vote, thereby ensuring the demise of the candidate I feel best represents my interests, the candidate I feel is the best choice for a saner, safer, more prosperous America? If I do, can I blame anyone but myself if Progressive ideas aren't present on the eventual Democratic platform?

I'll let Loeb have the last word, since he has a decided opinion and I don't, yet:

Over the next six weeks you're going to have a choice. You can vote for Kucinich in your primaries and caucuses, make a symbolic point, and maybe give him a shade more clout to stay in the race. But whether he gets 1% or 5%, his presence when they're done is going to be minimal, and his coverage negligible as well. Your other choice is to do what you can to try to make John Edwards the nominee (or at least vote for Obama), and potentially help tip the balance in who ends up president. To me, that's the greater political impact.

What do you folks think? Should each of us vote our hearts, thus preserving the whole point of having a democracy in the first place, or do we, as Democrats, need to be political pragmatists who are ready to jettison ideals that simply won't sell in the USA in 2008?