Hillary May Skip Iowa Caucus

[JABBS]

Click here to read why. It may actually be a very shrewd strategy, if the rumors are true.

[Captain Hilts]

1. The Iowa Caucus is a waste of time. nt

[JABBS]

2. maybe/maybe not

it does set the tone for the campaign. edwards finished strong there in 2004, which promoted him to a top-tier candidate.

[Captain Hilts]

4. It's a chaotic event without real voting procedures. It's an endurance contest...

that ultimately rewards the candidates' organizations more than reflects the opinions of voters.

A friend of mine lived in Iowa and participated. It's structure is too unlike regular voting to be as relevant as it should be.

[CornField]

67. LOL!

Regardless of what you think of the caucuses... no candidate will ever be able to buy his/her way into the top tiers of our process. You go right ahead and cast your vote in your primary. Enjoy watching all your neighbors heading off to the polls (the ones that actually care enough to go anyway) with only television, radio and mass mailing determining their choices.

[IA_Seth]

16. How very insightful! Care to share some wisdom Mookie? n/t

[Jai4WKC08]

25. Maybe Iowa SHOULD be a waste of time

I agree that a caucus doesn't reflect much about how people will vote in an election, can be too easily manipulated, and who said Iowa is representative of the national party anyway?

But the simple fact is, Iowa counts. It didn't use to count as much as it does now, but times (and media) have changed. The 24/7 news channels are so hungry to fill their air time that they will spend hours and hours disecting and regurgitating every last nuance of what happens in Iowa. Any candidate who isn't part of the discussion will be ignored right at a time when he or she cannot afford to be.

That said, Hillary Clinton is a special case. She doesn't need free media as much as most candidates do, because of her money, name recognition, and the affection many rank & file Democrats feel for her because of her husband. So maybe she can afford to skip Iowa.

But then, that's what they told Clark in 04. They said it wouldn't matter. They said he hadn't been in the race long enough to do well in Iowa, and that doing badly would knock him out before he got started. Turned out a no-show was as bad as a loss. Maybe it won't be for Clinton.

Hindsight is 20/20. Whether she competes in Iowa or not, and whatever effect it has on her performance afterwards, some share of the political "they" will claim they knew it all along. :eyes:

[zann725]

91. It wasn't for Kerry in '04. It's where he split from the pack, and gained his lead.

But, if Election Machines remain as flawed as in '04, Iowa...or any other primary will ALL be waste of time.

In which case, Hilary may be shrewd, and quite astute in skipping Iowa.

[zulchzulu]

3. She knows she'll get her ass kicked

Having seen the Iowa caucus, it really impressed me that they take their votes seriously. It's actually an awesome event to see a neighborhood or precinct do a caucus. You can bet that Hillary would be seen as a nice smart woman who would also be the worst possible candidate to run in 2008, due to her candidacy completely mobilizing the hard right as well as even a lot of moderates.

So she wants to skip Iowa...she never had a chance of getting even fourth place there. New Hampshire will do no better. South Carolina...um...wuh? She'll be gone no later than the day after Super Tuesday...winless.

[Captain Hilts]

6. The Iowa Caucus is not reflective of how the primary process works. Besides...

Hillary Clinton has a shadow vote. She always gets MORE votes than polls predict. Kind of the opposite of the way votes and polls numbers work for black candidates.

[zulchzulu]

8. Um...the Iowa Caucus is PART of the primary process

Actually, if you've ever participated in a caucus, they are kinda cool.

[Captain Hilts]

10. They are cool. But they reward organization. Not individual voters. ...

The role of teacher union members, for example, is over-represented in this system compared to Democratic primary voters, in general, because this process rewards organization.

[Le Taz Hot]

17. Interesting point.

I've not read that perspective before.

[zulchzulu]

34. If you show up in a caucus, you have a voice

Of course, just as the GOTV efforts are part of the primary process, so organization by any group (union/coalition/etc.) to show up at a caucus is similar.

If you show up with your band of merry fans of a candidate that are in your neighborhood, you can address the caucus like anyone else. It's up to you and it's no time to be a shrinking violet.

[sandnsea]

13. I agree

She knew she couldn't win, put Vilsack in as a ringer, and then blames him for not running in Iowa. Her punditry can attack other Dems and then say "oh I'm not for Clinton, I'm for Vilsack, he has a compelling personal story". I've already had that run on me too many times for those words to be coincidence.

[Captain Hilts]

43. It might be the old-fashioned "favorite son" primary/convention strategy.

That's the way folks used to do it.

[DU9598]

50. Maybe

But what happens when Obama or Edwards win Iowa with Vilsack second or more likely third? Even if Hillary participates in Iowa - if she evens runs - she will beat neither Edwards or Obama here. The conspiracy theories are cute and all, but not accurate of what happens here on the ground.

[sandnsea]

55. If she never participated

then she didn't lose to them, now did she? But their participation, with Vilsack as attack dog, means they get muddied up for her. If he can't put some dings in on Edwards and Obama, then he's useless as a VP candidate. And NOBODY runs for President without some measure of support from Party money somewhere. Vilsack did not just decide to run, all by himself. He also didn't get the leadership in the DLC out of the blue either.

[Hardrada]

78. And he didn't get an AIPAC-sponsored tour of Palestine out of the

blue either.

[Le Taz Hot]

5. I'm not a Hillary fan

but I'd advise ALL presidential contenders to avoid Iowa -- too much opportunity for behind-the-scenes manipulation, as we found out in 2004. The powerbrokers know it is not necessary to compete in all the primaries/caucuses -- after Iowa and New Hampshire, the predator class and their MSM lapdogs have already chosen our candidate for us.

I will continue to advocate that all state primaries/ be held on the same day. It's the only way the REST OF THE COUNTRY gets to have a say in the nominee.

On edit: speeling

[Captain Hilts]

7. The more lengthy - and thoughtful - the process, the less representative the participants become...

of all voters. The ideal places for the first primaries are small states: NH, RI or Delaware.

This makes the entry costs for participation lower for unknown candidates. The more front-loaded the primary process, the more machines and wealthier candidates are rewarded.

[Le Taz Hot]

11. The problem is that

demographically, those states are hardly representative of the rest of the nation and the rest of the nation gets locked out of the process -- hardly democracy in action.

[zulchzulu]

9. Bullocks...have you ever actually been in a caucus?

You gather in a room with others. Each candidate has a designated area where their supporters gather.

Everyone is given a chance to speak about their candidate.

There is a Q/A session afterword.

People then go to where they want to stand in their preferred candidate's section.

A head count is made.

Candidates with less than 20% then have to decide to go to another candidate, usually their second choice.

The head count is then counted and the winner is recognized. Based on how many people are at the caucus, points are added to the tally, which finally is added and the election results are made.

It's tinfoil hattery to think that some "behind-the-scenes powerbrokers" manipulate the caucus. It's a very people-powered process.

[Captain Hilts]

12. Yes. I know how it works. And the involved process discourages some demograhics...

and rewards others. It is NOT reflective of the primary process at all. An argument can be made that it should be, but it isn't.

Besides, the population demographics of the state of Iowa itself are not like those of Democratic voters at large.

I was in political polling for eight years.

[CornField]

66. And which state is a representative of the demographics at large?

None.

In the final analysis, it isn't the demographics of the state in question, but the demographics of those attending the caucuses or casting a vote in the primary. Both Iowa and New Hampshire have been and will continue to be good stewards of the First in the Nation status. Citizens here and there take the responsibility seriously and do a hell of a lot of leg work in order to be able to select the best possible candidates.

The primary system, however superior looking in your eyes, has its own flaws. Namely, any candidate can come into a primary market with a large media buy and sit back and reap the rewards. When you are campaigning in a caucus state, however, you'd better get your ground game in top shape.

[Le Taz Hot]

15. Well, in that I'm a complete

political neophyte and have only been involved in politics since 1972, I didn't know how a caucus operated but thanks so much for the enlightenment. :sarcasm:

Now, back to the point. Behind-the-scenes manipulations aside (I don't want to fight this battle again on this board), rightly or wrongly, the media all but hands the nomination to the winner of the Iowa caucus. Granted, it's necessary for candidates to go to New Hampshire and possibly So. Carolina but Iowa's 600+ mostly Caucasian delegates are hardly an accurate representation of the rest of the country. And I don't understand the problem in letting the rest of the country have a say. Iowa should not be any more important than California, Idaho or New Mexico in choosing our candidate.

On edit: Speeling. Again. :eyes:

[IA_Seth]

19. And that is a problem with the media, not the process.

Iowan choose who Iowans support, we don't by any means control who California votes for, or any other damn state for that matter.

I don't understand how you can blame Iowa for the media's hype of it's winner. It'd be the same story regardless of who went first, and being in Iowa allows candidates that aren't millionaires to run a relatively cheap campaign.

[Le Taz Hot]

22. Actually, Iowa DOES

control who we vote for. And yes, I agree that the MSM is a party to chosing our nominee for us and yes I agree that it is the process. Look, this is nothing against Iowa as a state. I've never been there but I'm sure it's lovely. I take issue that Iowa should have any more say in the nominee than California, New York, or any other state.

[IA_Seth]

23. How so?

You state: "Actually, Iowa DOES control who we vote for."

How do we do that? We caucus for who we feel will best represent OUR values, how does that in any way influence who YOU will vote for? Leaving aside the media's influence on your vote (which I would hope would be minimal for most activist-types), how does who we choose in Iowa control who YOU vote for?

I am not trying to be a dick, but you saying it is so doesn't really make it so.

What would your solution to this perceived problem be? You've mentioned everyone voting on one day, but that would greatly hinder the under-dog type candidates and favor those with the most money...how would that be better?

[Le Taz Hot]

26. And actually, I should

have said the Iowa caucus PROCESS and the MSM are a party to choosing the Democratic party's nominee long before the rest of the country gets to contribute. (For various reasons I've become sloppy when posting to this board.) I'm not disagreeing that Iowa delegates best represent Iowa's values and that is my point. Iowa's values are not New Mexico's are not Oregon's, etc. Because the process is set up successively with Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina first, the nominee has all but been chosen by the time it gets around to the rest of the states as most candidates have dropped out by that time.

You mention hindrance of underdog candidates but those classifications have already been established long before the process even begins. In 2004, Kucinich, Mosely-Braun and Sharpton were all labeled underdogs -- the process itself had nothing to do with that designation. As was so wisely pointed out up-thread, it is organization and the money and power behind it that determines who will and will not be the frontrunners.

And yes, my solution is to have all primaries/caucuses on the same day to ensure the rest of the country has a say in who the candidate will be.

[IA_Seth]

33. But that's just it....

But that just it, the nominee isn't selected until ALL of the votes are in, Iowa doesn't eliminate ANYONE...the media unfortunately contributes toward that, and would regardless of who held the first caucus/primary.

Iowa values aren't Oregon's or New Mexico's anymore than their values are ours. The 'who comes first' argument must be limited to the ability for candidates to afford campaigning in that state, IMO. There are other 'cheap' states that may work in place of Iowa, but the argument would be the same...why do they get to go first?

Everything on the same day would lead to tarmac-to-tarmac campaigns for only the wealthiest of candidates, with the less wealthy (I wont kid myself, they are all wealthy) picking and choosing which states to contest. It would lead to an even less representative process than we have now.

[fuzzyball]

36. Don't bother....Iowa is colder than hell in winter & muggy & hot in summer

[windbreeze]

27. my experience with caucus....pffffttttt!!

it sure seemed to me that some had way more power than others....we were NOT given the chance to speak about our individual candidate in front of everyone...we signed in...sat at tables...any talking about candidates was done privately...and before you knew it...we picked delegates, and it was over...I went home wondering what the hell we had just done...because it didn't happen anything like I thought it was going to...not quite the political process I had hoped for...do a primary and be done with it...at least that way, everyone has their own vote...
windbreeze

[zulchzulu]

30. Next time, you need to possibly be more aggressive

In a caucus, you are absolutely entitled to speak for your candidate. If someone somehow made it so that you couldn't speak your mind, you could easily protest the vote.

If you don't speak up, the process will continue without you. You do have to show up on time and basically stand up and yell if you have to... don't drink the Decaf... :->

[windbreeze]

40. apparently I was not the only one disenchanted with caucus...

we now have primaries...the process was changed shortly after the last pres election...
wb

[dflprincess]

39. I'm a fan of caucuses

They are open to everyone. Minnesota law requires that employers give time off to employees who want to attend them.
Candidates aren't able to win them by having a slick advertising agency, they need a good grass roots organization. Minnesota doesn't have a 20% cut off, however, the candidate does have to have enough supporters present to qualify for at least 1 delegate to the next level.

[DU9598]

52. What behind the scenes manipulation?

That is really disingenuous to make such accusations on here against your fellow Democrats. My caucus finished Edwards first and Kerry almost even in second. Everyone saw Kerry and then Edwards with all the momentum in the final week. Saying the game was fixed in BS in the first degree!

[ContraBass Black]

92. Well, Diebold built the rooms the caucus was held in, and the flipped the

:shrug:

[NCarolinawoman]

14. Bobby Kennedy won the California primary in June.

Until his death shortly after, this was considered an important win that would change everything.

It is the MSM hype that has messed up things and has given the Iowa caucus more meaning than it deserves. It is particularly disturbing that Iowa has a CAUCUS rather than a primary. From what I can see, there is too much "insider" influence in any caucus.

[JABBS]

18. that's revisionist history

Kennedy wasn't going to win the nomination, regardless of the California vote.

[Le Taz Hot]

20. That Kennedy won the California primary in 1968

is revisionist history???? Um, okay.

[JABBS]

24. not what i said

what i said was that it was revisionist history to think he was going to win the nomination. he wasn't. he might have hoped for a brokered convention, but humphrey had the votes.

[NCarolinawoman]

32. My main point was that this was June and this was California.

People, at this time did not feel so left out of things. My NC caucus in May will hardly have any meaning; just as it had little meaning in 2004. Hardly any Democrat in my state participated.

It's all about front loading which wouldn't work without the MSM hype. Too many people feel left out. It wasn't always this way.

Does California have a chance to be the FIRST big win for one of the candidates? I wish it could be so. I wish it could be so for many other states as well.

[CornField]

68. Insider influence? You've got to be kidding.

If you want to see the candidates... If you want to know what they truly think and what there stance is on things outside of the corporate media's narrow view of the world... you want to caucus.

I sit in a room with my friends and neighbors. Our kids attend the same school. We've shoveled each other's sidewalks. Do you honestly believe that some outsider is going to be able to come into that group and not be seen as a fraud?

Now, if you want to really talk about influence, you need to take a look at your own primary and how many corporate dollars are sunk into your state with rarely the actual candidate walking down Main Street.

[Deep13]

21. Maybe she should skip the whole race while she's at it.

That would be fine with me.

[JABBS]

29. LOL

[Rambis]

28. As an Iowan...

I have actually been to one and there are a lot of assumptions made on this board that are BS.
We might not be the most diverse state although I live in a town that is 50% hispanic but we are not idiots or sheeple easily swayed. The people of Iowa generally see through political bullshit. If a candidate isn't honest and on the up and up they don't win here. Who says the rest of the nation has to follow our lead anyway? Hillary has 0 chance here.

[zulchzulu]

31. I thought Des Moines was pretty diverse...

I couldn't agree with you more on Iowans. They don't go for the hype. I have nothing but great respect for Iowans...they show up at all the candidate's receptions and speeches and ask questions. Then the caucus process comes and they take their vote very seriously. And yes, they are pretty smart. Doesn't Iowa City have the most PHDs per capita in the US?

[Rambis]

37. Correct on Iowa City

The joke here is you can't swing a dead cat without hitting someone with a PHD.

[Captain Hilts]

54. I think it does. But, again, that is not reflective of the Dem voting population.

I had close friends who moved to Iowa from Va.Beach/Norfolk and they couldn't get over how white Iowa was.

[Le Taz Hot]

35. Here's the demographic data for Iowa, CA & US:

Iowa CA US

White persons, percent, 2004 95.0% 77.2 80.4%
Black persons, percent, 2004 2.3% 6.8 12.8%
American Indian and Alaska Native 0.3% 1.2 1.0%
Asian persons, percent, 2004 1.4% 12.1 4.2%
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 0.0% 0.4 0.2%
Persons reporting two or more races 0.9% 2.4 1.5%
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin 3.5% 34.7 14.1%
White persons, not Hispanic 91.7% 44.5 67.4%

Sources: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/19000.html
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html

[zulchzulu]

38. Let's make California the first state in primaries so that only big bucks win

I'm guessing here, but I'd say that the Iowa advertising market rates for political ads is about a tenth of what a candidate would have to spend in California. Imagine a candidacy that has to try to get the message out having to spend big bucks to get the name out to the public.

Having lived in California as well as having been in Iowa, it's kind of like comparing surf boards to tractors. Des Moines reminds me of Sacramento. Iowa City has a taste of Berkeley, being a fairly progressive college town. But all in all, Iowa is pretty rural, like eastern and central California. Add that California is probably 6-7 times larger than Iowa. That's a lot of ground to cover for a candidacy that is usually just getting its groove on.

If choosing a candidate in Iowa is "unfair" because somehow not all "races" are represented in the populace, then a vast majority of the US should not be included in the process.

[Le Taz Hot]

41. Never did I advocate that California should be first

I've actually been advocating primaries on the same day; however, another DUer, much smarter than I, recommended this which I think is an excellent solution. Too bad it's sinking like a stone.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2995739

[Captain Hilts]

44. Delaware or Rhode Island would be better first tests. NH isn't bad either. nt

[IA_Seth]

47. And why do they represent American values/choices any better than Iowa? n/t

[Captain Hilts]

49. Reflect Democratic Party voters more accurately. Not the USA. nt

[IA_Seth]

51. Wait a minute...

How do you figure that NE states any better represent Democratic Party voters any more than any other states Democrats do? Other than race, which no one state is representive of the others, how are the values/opinions of Delaware or Rhode Island any more 'mainstream' than any others?

I am either missing your point entirely or your argument is lacking.

[Captain Hilts]

53. Iowa's economy is not as diverse. Its voting population is whiter than the US. It has fewer...

poor people, etc. You can't write of race that easily when surveying Democratic voters.

Stereotypes tell me that the economy is very much based on agriculture, which the US economy is not.

And, again, the caucus process is too involved/elaborate to accurately reflect the demographic that actually shows up to vote.

[IA_Seth]

56. And then how does changing the state fix that?

No single states economy is representative of the entire nation's, and either way, there are still a great number of people in our country that make their living involved in some shape or form in the ag industry.

Your argument about the caucus process is just absurd and unfounded, the people that show up are not cowed or bullied and are able to speak their minds and vote their conscience. How many caucuses have you even participated in? Witnessed?

Regardless of all of the above, it isn't the state that goes first that is the problem, it is the media hype that surrounds the contest and the voters that allow Iowa's results to influence their votes. If you were a Dean supporter in 04, did you change your mind from Dean because Iowans preferred Kerry? That's ridiculous. The media may have disparaged the Dean scream, but did that change your vote? Was it Iowa's fault the media covered what they did?

Iowa's selection represents how IOWANS feel, if we were 2nd or 45th we'd still vote the way we felt, which I'd hope is how you vote wherever you are?

[Captain Hilts]

59. No, no, no, no. You don't get it. Caucus participants are NOT indicative of ...

overall Iowa voters.

The processes are very different and, therefore, draw on a different population.

Caucus participants are not the same as registered or likely voters. If election day were held in caucuses, then it might be accurate, but it's not, so it isn't.

So, no, the caucus process does not necessarily reflect how IOWANS feel. If they wanted that, they would have a regular primary, which attracts a population more similar to that of the general election.

[zulchzulu]

64. You obviously have never witnessed or participated in a caucus

It's pointless to argue with you about it if you have such preconcieved (and incorrect) notions about the Iowa caucus.

I personally participated in one (as a witness) and can tell you that caucus voters ARE registered and likely voters.

Perhaps the only difference in a caucus voter vs. a primary voter may be that they potentially are more informed on the issues since they go to a caucus with the possibility that they would have to present themselves as to why they like their candidate.

I would highly recommend that you participate in a caucus-style election...it's democratically pretty exhilarating.

[Captain Hilts]

70. No one said they aren't registered and likely voters. They are.

I think the caucus system is SUPERIOR to regular voting. I do.

But, because it is DIFFERENT from the generic process of voting on election day, it is not the same. Election day brings out additional people with different motivations, time constraints, etc.

[Debi]

85. That is just a false or uneducated comment or just plain convoluted

That makes an assumption that caucus-goers would vote for a different individual in a primary than they supported in a caucus. That is ridiculous.

Since a caucus actually requires a more public showing of support than going into a closed booth and making a mark on a sheet of paper, a person who caucuses for a specific candidate is just as likely to vote for that candidate in a primary.

As for the amount of persons participating in a caucus as compared to voters in a primary, in 2004 125,000 Iowa Democrats participated in the caucus. Approximately 1/3 of registered Iowa voters are registered as Democrats. meaning that approximately 1 millions Iowans are registered Democrats (of course that number includes all Iowans, so I'm guessing high). That creates a rough turn-out of 10% attending a caucus, which equal to or not far off of the amount of people who vote in primaries all across America.

And of course a caucus OR a primary are not reflective of a general election. Party preference comes in to play in both.

Your argument doesn't make sense unless you are NOW trying to compare the Iowa caucuses to a national general election.

[Clark2008]

60. And RI and NH are more white than ANY Southern state.

They're not diverse populations - sorry.

Neither is Iowa, but you also picked two lily white states!

[Captain Hilts]

62. Rhode Island actually has a lot of minorities. There are blacks in East Providence, but ...

the big minority is the Portuguese. Italians, Irish, Hispanics, Newport WASPs, etc. They actually count, voter-wise, because they've been there long enough to vote.

But there is much more economic diversity in RI than Iowa will ever see.

And RI deals with a wider variety of problems: crime, interstate issues, inner city issues, air pollution, water pollution, military bases , etc.

My friends that moved to Iowa and were surprised by how white-bread it is were originally from RI, actually.

[Debi]

58. NH is already the first primary in the nation. n/t

[zulchzulu]

63. I lived in Delaware for a while and it's pretty white...

This whole notion that white people can't reflect democratic values and votes is really a tad silly.

[Captain Hilts]

71. Southern Delaware is white. Northern Delaware is a checkerboard. nt

[zulchzulu]

83. Delaware would have to use the DC market in South, Philly market up north

There isn't much in terms of a Delaware media. The markets in PA and DC are expensive.

[JABBS]

88. how about this idea

you have the primaries in order of the percentage of democrats voting in the previous election.

So DC, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Illinois, California, Hawaii, etc. would be the first group.

You could have eight Super Tuesdays, each one two weeks apart, until all the states and DC and the territories were covered.

It would hurt Southern candidates and Mountain State candidates, but it would streamline the process, and give some incentive for blue voters in bright blue states to turn out.

[vikegirl]

76. Irrelevant.

I grew up in Iowa and that means nothing.

I now live in Denver, a so-called "melting pot." I can tell you as a NON WHITE I experienced MUCH MORE racism here in Denver, and virtually none in Iowa, who are quick to embrace ANYONE as "us" as is their Democratic nature. Who else supported Jesse Jackson surprisingly more than Iowa in the 80s in his bid for presidency than Iowa? (This was before my time, so if I'm wrong, ECK! But that is what I have read.)

Iowa too white? Please... :eyes:

[zulchzulu]

84. I don't understand the "logic" that white voters don't have a pulse on electorate

It's kind of racist or reverse racist to think that white Iowans just don't understand the "issues".

It's a stereotype that Iowans are just honky knock-kneed corn-eatin' farmers with hay stickin' out of their ears and a couple a' teeth missin'. OK, there are a few of those, but they're Raygun Democrat Republicans. :->

[Debi]

42. Wouldn't bother me a bit but it makes it hard for Iowans to decide who

to support in the caucuses if not all candidates campaign here. (Just ask Gen. Clark about 2004)

It's not a surprise to read the anti-Iowa comments here once again, seems that anyone who doesn't live in Iowa doesn't like Iowa. I wonder if that would be the say if the first contest of the primary season were in any other state :think:.

Iowa is only as important as people outside of Iowa make it. Yes, the MSM jumps all over the winner of the caucus (although winning the caucuses does not predict winning the nomination), but why do primary voters of other states buy into the MSM's chatter? If you supported candidate A in December and candidate B won the caucuses so the MSM fell in love with candidate B would you still vote for candidate A in January? Or would you follow what the talking heads told you to do and vote for candidate B? It seems that Iowa is not the problem but all the individuals who wait until Iowa decides to make up their own minds. Why not just vote for who you supported all along and let Iowa do it's thing? :shrug:

Or you could sign on DU and tell Iowans how unfair our process is and how we are unrepresentative of the country (like any state is actually demographically representative of the entire country)and how we really should not go first but Ohio, Minnesota, Kansas, or God knows where is better than Iowa and they should have the initial contest.

[Captain Hilts]

72. I didn't say I didn't like Iowa.

My friends who moved there liked it a lot.

I hear it's nice.

It's the caucus system.

[Debi]

82. As I wrote Iowa, I meant the Iowa Caucus.

I should have made myself more clear.

[election_2004]

89. Debi, if a candidate skips the Iowa Caucus....

...does that make you less likely to consider supporting them?

[Debi]

90. Not in the General Election should they receive the nomination

which would be the next contest I could support them.

It would be difficult to stand up at a caucus and speak for a candidate that I didn't know what they supported, stood for and had to say about....well....anything. (The same could be said for a primary, who would vote for a candidate that didn't actually compete? :shrug:)

[election_2004]

93. I meant in the Caucuses

If Hillary or any other candidate decides to skip Iowa during primary season, is that a strike against them regarding whether or not they will have your Caucus vote?

[Debi]

94. I thought I made that clear in my previous answer.

It would be difficult for me to support a candidate who chose not to run in the primary contest in Iowa. Kind of like Wes Clark or Joe Lieberman in 2004. They never came to Iowa, never asked for anyone's support, never allowed any interaction with potential caucus attendees so questions could be asked about their positions or potential policies (say that ten times fast!). (yes, they were part of the debate process - but most of those question/answers were SO canned that they didn't allow any actual information through - and heck, Lieberman even skipped one of those!!! Okay, the debate where all the other candidates attack Al Gore was pretty lively, but beyond that...:boring:)

It's like asking me to pick a name out of a hat and support that candidate on caucus night. I'd prefer to support a candidate that actually RAN for the position, asked for my support and gave me a reason to support them. (As you know, during a caucus people speak on behalf of their candidates - hopefully being educated about the candidate and passionate about the candidate, hard to do when you've never met the person or been able to ask questions about them beyond visiting a web site.)

If a candidate is interested in representing all 50 states as President, wouldn't they run in all fifty sates? And please don't compare this to Clinton in 1992 - Iowa does not have Tom Harkin running this year (and I Iowa caucus attendees realized their mistake in not inviting all candidates to campaign here back then). The IDP has invited all candidates running for President to come here, I hope to meet with and question all of them before making up my mind who to support.

[benny05]

45. Dear JABBS

I like your blog, but isn't a bit of a leap to say Hillary Clinton is skipping Iowa when there is nothing in that article that says, "Dave Cagle told.." ?

[JABBS]

46. Read the headline.

Doesn't say "is skipping Iowa." It says "may skip Iowa."

The linked story includes people who are suggesting as much. So no, I don't think it's a leap of logic to say something "may" happen.

[benny05]

48. This is the headline in the article

Democratic officials say caucuses will be fair field,

and there is no mention of Mrs. Clinton in the article.

[PATRICK]

57. More common sense than shrewd

Vilsack is the centrist stalking horse to bleed and weed more liberal small fry picking up leftovers UNLESS his supposed dominance folds. A victory then becomes possible significant momentum.

Way too early but part of this story is the oddness of the process and the planning that goes on to try and program the results. So much so we assume that the worst form of programming is succeeding on behalf of the ready for credit but not victory DLC. No matter who is the nominee. It would be be more honest to have a more open and democratic process OR kingmakers among the wise who have lost Democratic prominence over 20 years. But such a mess is more typical and perhaps providential for the real party top to bottom.

[Debi]

87. Vilsack has NO dominance in Iowa

In fact he came in 4th BEHIND Clinton in a poll last summer.

Iowa is wide open and all candidates are welcome and wanted here.

Any support Vilsack has is less than or only equal to any of the other Democratic candidates. There are individuals in Iowa why already support Edwards, Bayh, Clark, Clinton, Kerry, Biden, Dodd, Gore and Obama (my apologies to any candidates that I have left out).

The only reason there is a perception of Vilsack's dominance is because he just announced his candidacy. That warm fuzzy feeling will fade in a week and whoever announces next will get the same amount of fluffy press and rally attendance and people making positive comments about the candidate.

Vilsack has no magic hold on Iowa caucus-goers. The majority of us perfer to vet each candidate before making up our minds.

[Thrill]

61. Hilary or Obama

aren't candidates that can win the General Election. Harsh Reality

[JABBS]

80. Hillary's problem is her high negatives

40% of the Democrats would absolutely vote for her, and 40% absolutely won't, in the primaries.

Edwards is the best choice.

[IndianaGreen]

65. We need someone dressed like a chicken to follow Hillary around

If Hillary hides and avoids confronting the issue of the war head on by facing the voters, you can bet that as President she will continue the practice of corralling us into First Amendment zones.

[snowbear]

77. I guess Denny Hastert will have to do...

Only one I could find in a chicken suit..

[mtnsnake]

98. Are you still angry just because she wouldn't sign your autograph?

What is it with you? You've got more shit than the rightwing neocons that hate her. hmmmm

[LittleClarkie]

69. It wasn't so shrewed when Clark did it

That was the one he skipped, wasn't it? Or was it New Hampshire he skipped?

[IndianaGreen]

73. Clark skipped Iowa and concentrated in New Hampshire

At the time I thought it was a good idea for Clark to avoid Iowa and just wait in ambush in NH. As we all know now, this was a mistake. It is hard to tell to what extend skipping Iowa hurt Clark, or whether it was just his late entry into the race that hurt him the most.

Clark is not skipping Iowa this time, and he is not waiting much longer to announce.

[LittleClarkie]

74. It should be interesting to see what happens when he wages a proper campaign

and not one that was rushed.

[JABBS]

96. clark doesn't look like a front-of-the-pack candidate

does he have/can he raise money? seems like he's a longshot at best.

[leesa]

75. Always a bad move...but I don't want her to be nominated so it works for me!

[Hardrada]

79. I want her to fight over there so we don't have to fight her here

in Iowa.

[bigdarryl]

81. She might not even be running PERIOD!!

[zulchzulu]

86. WHAT? She's havin' her period????

(insert Michael Savage goofy laugh here)

:sarcasm:

[eridani]

101. Not at her age she isn't n/t

[ripple]

95. Vilsack will skew the Iowa results, anyway

Iowa won't be the 'predictor' that it has been considered in the past.

[Debi]

97. I don't know that I agree with that

Vilsack does not have the support that Harkin did in 1992 (in fact there are many, many Iowans that have made it clear that we won't be supporting Vilsack in the caucuses). Even the Iowa Democratic Party Chair has made it clear that the Party will be neutral and that Iowa will be fair. We have encouraged all Democratic candidates to campaign in Iowa. Vilsack is not a lock to win here (don't forget that he came in fourth in a statewide poll just a few months ago).

[SmellsLikeDeanSpirit]

99. Edwards will probably win Iowa anyway

I don't see Vilsack being much of a contender.

[Debi]

102. Well, before we decide who will win Iowa

(13 months before the caucuses) Sen. Edwards might consider running for President (which he hasn't said he'd do yet) and should consider campaigning here (and I don't think a book signing equals a presidential campaign). :P

[Infinite Hope]

100. It's smart because a caucus system often elects the second favorite...

and can severely harm the appearance of the front-runner. I've said all along Clinton would not win the nomination because of the caucus system, especially since it begins with Iowa. This may be a smart move on her part if she skips Iowa.

[Debi]

103. Where would you get that idea?

:shrug: