Could the way the Iowa Caucuses are conducted affect the actual result there?

[AZ Progressive]

Here's a video from youtube from the Iowa caucuses in 2008, and I'm wondering if the way the caucus process is done there affect who might win. Would either candidate have a pronounced edge there this time?

[Chitown Kev]

1. Fascinating process

2016 is really not comparable to 2008, though, because of the number of candidates, so that same type of retail politicking to get whichever vote you can get won't be the same...

If every caucus were like this (and they roughly are) I would give the advantage to Hillary. In this scenario, Bernie voters would quite literally have to convert Clinton supporters. (probably won't be enough O'Malley supporters.

[AtomicKitten]

3. Clinton and Sanders would probably be viable, O'Malley maybe or maybe not.

If O'Malley isn't viable, they would be up for grabs. It would be Sanders and Clinton literally trying to woo O'Malley to their tables. Now cue you telling us how terribly awfully horrible Sanders supporters are and how O'Malley caucus-goers would never choose to join them. Your argument is so predictable, it barely requires your participation.

[Chitown Kev]

15. Why would I say that?

here and there, I've been pushing for Sanders to woo black voters in Iowa, after all.

[marlakay]

11. I lived in WA last two elections

And in a room full of people me and another guy talked everyone into obama including some who wanted Hillary. At the begining it was even for both.

The deal is you have to be very strong and firm for your candidate, you can not waiver or be indecisive. Strong personalities will win.

We need the young to come out and fight for their candidate.

I have been doing some calls to Nevada and had some for both. Its the real old ones i worry will be swayed.

[AtomicKitten]

2. Clinton accused Obama of cheating in Iowa; will there be more accusations if she loses again?

http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2010/01/10/clinton-caucus-fraud-claim-long-since-debunked

[CoffeeCat]

7. That was really disheartening and unfair...

...of Hillary. She was the only candidate EVER to slam our caucuses like that as she left the state. She also did this to the people in NV as well.

I was embarrassed, as a Democrat that she did this. All of Iowa took note. I mean, we had the dastardly Republicans come through our state, and most of them lost and left the state without impugning our entire process.

Caucusing is a terrific process. We vote by show of hands. We discuss respectfully and we listen.

The counts are phoned in to precinct headquarters by the Precinct chair who takes witnesses with him (during the phoning in) from each candidate camp. It's so honest, it's crazy. Then, after all is counted, the final tallies are posted. No cheating.

The system is so sound.

Iowans work hours and hours to put together our caucuses. And we take them very seriously. We're humbled by our first-in-the-nation status and we want to do a good job! I think we did a great job being the first state to pick Obama.

I hope we do right by the country in 6 weeks! I know we will try!

[AtomicKitten]

9. It sounds like a very exciting process, traditional and multi-generational.

We here in California are so removed from the nominating process, not voting until June. It's like we have our faces pressed up against the glass watching the process from afar.

Hillary filed a lawsuit to suppress the vote of casino workers in Nevada caucuses expected to vote for Obama in 2007/08. Here's a summary of it at dailykos: http://www.dailykos.com/stories/436131/full_content

I hope she can muster a modicum of good sportsmanship this time.

[Mnpaul]

12. She also snubbed the party in Michigan

All the other candidates(except Dodd) pulled out(or tried to) after Michigan went against the party rules and moved up their primaries. Loyal Democrat, Clinton style.

[AtomicKitten]

13. She's a good winner and a really lousy loser. Her poor sportsmanship made things really unpleasant.

[Mnpaul]

14. It really shows where her priorities lie

It was all about getting herself elected. She showed no concern for her Michigan supporters who were disenfranchised by this move. No concern for the party. No concern for her own pledge against campaigning in Michigan.

[Agschmid]

18. The system is not sound...

It may seem "good" in state but to many of us outsiders it seems like it disenfranchises many people.

You can't get there during the caucus window? You are out of luck.

You can't get child care during the caucus? You are out of luck.

You can't get off work during the caucus? You are out of luck.

This really hurts first time caucus goers and younger people who may have a harder time getting to the event.

Elections where polls are open for 10+ hours seem to be a better model and also allow people to support their candidate, not just a "viable" candidate.

Odd system if you ask me.

[CoffeeCat]

21. But to Iowans who have grown up around the process...

...it's not "odd". It's part of the fabric of the state.

I do agree with you that it is different than having a ten hours of time to vote. There is a bigger window there and that is true.

However, people have four years lead time to make sure that window is open. Caucuses start at 7:00 p.m. If people work at night they can take that night off. I can't imagine any Iowa business denying a worker a day off for caucusing.

Efforts have been made to have some form of childcare at as many caucus sites as possible. Every year that I've caucused, people have been there with babies and children.

This year, they've added a tele-caucus element--where Iowans who live overseas or are in other states at college can participate via phone and phone in their votes, in real time--along with their precinct caucus. They're also doing this for Iowa military members who are serving overseas.

It's not perfect, but it's a good system and the people of Iowa love it. Our outcomes tend to reflect the electorate, as well. Iowa Democratic caucus goers went with Obama, Kerry and Gore in 08, 04 and 00, respectively.

Now the Republican caucus goers? Can't speak for them. They're nuts.

[elleng]

4. and Edwards gets it!!!

Clearly HIGHLY predictable!

[jwirr]

5. I have taken part in Iowa caucuses and I think that is the

goal. We go there to support our candidate but unlike going to a voting booth we get to talk about what we think about our candidate in order to sway votes.

I look at it as a vote with discussion.

[KMOD]

16. Yeah, but yelling

"feel the bern" at people isn't going to work.

[CoffeeCat]

6. I can't wait to caucus in Iowa...

This video captures the excitement and also the basic format, fairly well.

In 2008, it was so much fun. Everyone was so excited, happy to be there and there were so many people caucusing. It was nuts, just as this announcer said. It is very lively. Everyone is respectful and kind. However, if there are supporters with a candidate who is not "viable" there will be some wooing to do.

About O'Malley. He is polling at that flashpoint that leads me to believe that he will not make viability in the vast majority of his precincts. Each precinct is different though. He may have precincts where he has pockets of supporters, and in those precincts he could reach viability. However, I think his 4-6 percent (unless that changes) will deem him not viable in nearly all precincts.

With that said, that does mean that O'Malleys supporters will have to join another camp; or sit it out. I'm unsure where they will go. I think both Sanders and Clinton supporters could make a case as to why O'Malley supporters would shift to their camp.

You just never know what will happen--or what the room dynamics will be like--until you walk into your caucus. In 08, we had many terrific speakers for Obama. It was overwhelming. Other candidates has speakers and they were very underwhelming. I will say, it did make a difference. Obama's enthusiastic supporters drew others away from Richardson's camp, as well as from Hillary's camp too.

You never know how many people will be there; or how the camps will divide. I was astounded (and so happy) to see a packed room full of Obama supporters in 08. I was a precinct captain.

It all comes down to the hard work that the campaigns put in, during the caucus-campaign season. All of the canvassing, phone banking, getting people to the polls--it all shows up on caucus night. Usually those efforts show up in many ways: 1.) Sheer numbers; 2.) People willing to give speeches about their candidates; 3.) General enthusiasm of supporters.

Those factors can pull people over. Or win them supporters from inviable candidates.

I'm a precinct captain for Bernie and I'll be giving a speech.

I just can't wait to show up and see what awaits us in that room!

[tblue37]

10. I hope you have your speech videotaped and then post it here! nt

[Blue_Adept]

20. And don't forget the weather

That can bring its own impact on the event.

[antigop]

8. good lord. How ridiculous. nt

[Kentonio]

17. Why is real people discussing politics and making the case for their candidates ridiculous?

[brooklynite]

19. Also worth noting that the actual delegate count at the end...

Last edited Thu Dec 17, 2015, 11:16 AM - Edit history (1)

...could bear little resemblance to the voting in the precinct Caucuses, because of subsequent decisions at County, district and State levels.

FWIW however, the only thing that's important is "winning" or "beating expectations".

[CoffeeCat]

22. But that has NEVER, EVER, EVER happened in the Iowa caucuses...

The delegate count at the precinct level has always reflected the final state delegates who are sent to the DNC national convention. In short, the winner at the precinct level has always been the winner reflected in the delegates from Iowa sent to the DNC national convention.

Always.

That is a red herring.

That's like saying, "Well, sure they have stoplights in Iowa. But it's possible that everyone could decide to ignore the stoplights and drive through them. So we shouldn't have stoplights."

Ridiculous argument. An argument based on something happening, that has never happened.

[sufrommich]

23. Caucuses are incredibly elitist and designed

to appeal to extroverted personalities,no introvert would put themselves through that.They're basically bully sessions for people with lots of time on their hands and the means to commit to that time slot.