How does the Iowa caucus work exactly?
Kari Chisholm
The Iowa caucus is a strange thing. There's no secret ballot, there's no absentee voting by mail, and everyone has to be in the same room at the same time. And that's just the beginning - "viability" rules mean that you might show up intending to support one candidate, and you'll leave having cast your vote for another one.
The John Edwards campaign has put together an amusing and informative video that explains it all.
Nice work. Use this space to discuss presidential politics - especially the Iowa caucus.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Dec 13, '07
Kari, maybe you can help me out here. I rather like Edward's policies, but it's just so hard to get excited about another white guy with money running for office, when there's a chance to put either the first woman or the first black man in the white house, ever.
Yet, the black man seems to be attacking his fellow Democratic frontrunners from the right, while proposing the least-progressive of the frontrunning policies.
And the woman seems to be blindly accepting contributions from any corporation that comes her way.
Is Edwards really the default, even though he is just another white guy? Is it really worth it to go for Edwards, and make history wait at least another four to eight years for the next chance to break the monopoly that rich white guys have on the white house?
3:51 p.m.
Dec 13, '07
I struggled with the same thing before I made the decision to support Edwards, although it wasn't much of a struggle, I do have to say. I would absolutely love to have a person of color and/or a woman in the White House, but I can't bring myself to support that happening right now if it means sacrificing the progressive values that I hold. Above and beyond race and gender, Obama and Clinton belong to the power-elite class, and while they may endorse a few socially liberal ideals and issues, they will in no way chance any real loss of power for their class. I recognize that Edwards is very wealthy, but he didn't start out that way, and when it comes to the inner-dynamics of power among elites, that makes a difference. Edwards supports moves that would more closely equalize the power dynamic in this country, and that makes him a threat to those who have no desire to give up their power. More than any other candidate that I've looked at, Edwards most fully represents and supports the progressive ideals that I hold to. As a woman, I cannot bring myself to vote for Clinton simply because she is female. As a person of mixed heritage, I can not bring myself to vote for Obama simply because he is a person of color. Neither one of them represent who I am as a citizen of this country. I wish it were otherwise, but it isn't.
4:48 p.m.
Dec 13, '07
Garlynn, please cite an example of "attacking his fellow Democratic frontrunners from the right" please.
Having a Health plan that is more to the left of Clinton, though not as expansive as Edwards doesn't mean he is "attacking his fellow Democratic frontrunners from the right".
Dec 13, '07
I'll cite an issue, lestadelc: Social Security.
Like Republicans, Obama insists that Social Security is in crisis and needs to be fundamentally overhauled to survive. That's simply not true, but Obama has used the issue against Hillary who apparently is not sufficiently alarmed by Social Security's imminent collapse.
If I were in Iowa, I'd stand in John Edward's corner of the caucus room.
Dec 13, '07
I'll cite an issue, lestadelc: Social Security.
Like Republicans, Obama insists that Social Security is in crisis and needs to be fundamentally overhauled to survive. That's simply not true, but Obama has used the issue against Hillary who apparently is not sufficiently alarmed by Social Security's imminent collapse.
If I were in Iowa, I'd stand in John Edward's corner of the caucus room.
3:12 a.m.
Dec 14, '07
Garlynn,
I don't accept your proposition that Hillary Clinton is more progressive than Obama. Obama's health plan has the great defect of incompleteness, but Clinton's goes to great contortions not to upset any existing economic interest benefiting from present health system fragmentation and dysfunction. Edwards' plan, although it has less of a Rube Goldberg machine quality still doesn't do much to reduce fragmentation and associated costs (to health and in money) -- it does have the strongest public element.
Internationally Clinton clearly is the most bellicose of the three front-runners, partly due to unfair gender-based pressures, perhaps, but still she's a serious person so one has to take her at her word.
10:33 a.m.
Dec 14, '07
The huge differecne between Edwards and Obama/Clinton for me is where they get their money.
Edwards would be the least beholden to the big money guys IMO.
However, it really looks like he's running for vice-president and we've already seen that movie. To be fair to Edwards, the fact that he's only apparently the generic "White Guy" hurts him with both the press and also apparently with a segment of commenters on Blue Oregon.
If he manages to distinguish himself in the early primairies, I'd be happy to support him over the other two, but for now it's still:
Go Obama!
2:17 p.m.
Dec 14, '07
I'll be thrilled to vote for the first woman or the first African-American for president.
But I won't make my decision based on skin color or gender. I'll make it based on the policies, values, experience, and character of the candidates.
If that leads you to Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, that's fine by me. Personally, it leads me to John Edwards.
As for "having money"... it's worth noting that John Edwards and Hillary Clinton have roughly the same family wealth. And both of them have 1/30th of what Mitt Romney has.
3:11 p.m.
Dec 14, '07
Gee Kari,
Either I was really unclear or you're being a tad disingenuous.
1) I prefer Edwards but don't see him winning or even moving up at all.
2) I won't make mine based on all that stuff either. Given policies and positions, I'd prefer Edwards, accept Obama, and reject Clinton. My main criterion then, between Obama and Edwards is which one can beat Clinton and Republican X.
3) I'm doubting your comment here Kari. I don't give a Rat's Ass how much money they've made during their careers.
What I care about is who their large institutional donors are. An entirely different matter. On this one, Edwards is the runaway favorite.
Dec 14, '07
Listen, Im a political junkie and I think everyone is missing something...Not only is Edwards the most anti corporate candidate but almost more importantly he is much more likely to beat a republican if he can get the primary than hillary or barack. Hillary is a women in a sexist country that is paranoid about terrorism and Obama has no experience, a muslim name, is black and has admitted to doing Cocaine. The republicans and media realize this and are trying to make both hillary and obama look viable so that they can murder them during the general elections. EDWARDS HAS LITTLE MONEY BUT WILL GAIN A LOT IF HE WINS THE PRIMARIES AND HE IS GOING TO BE VERY HARD FOR THE REPUBLICANS TO BEAT...THEY CANT USE THE SAME SCARE TACTICS ON HIM AS THEY WILL WITH BARACK OR HILLARY. AND LASTLY, I THINK GIVEN THE RIDICULOUS STRUCTURE OF THE CAUCUSES THAT EDWARDS IS GOING TO WIN. WHY? BECAUSE THE RELIABLE VOTERS PREFER HIM AND SINCE ITS NOT EASY TO VOTE THAT WILL HELP.
After he wins Iowa the media will be forced to respect him and he could turn around and win the entire election!
VOTE FOR EDWARDS IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE THE CORPORATE SYSTEM AND WANT A DEMOCRAT IN OFFICE
Dec 17, '07
Terry, I think you are blurring Obama's social security position. He is not saying that it is in trouble "today". He is addressing problems that we can all agree will occur down the road unless something is done.
If you were correct about him being similar to Republicans on the issue, then you would have to show me something about him backing "privatization." However, Barack is against this. His proposal instead is to raise the ceiling on the taxes for social security, which are currently set at $97,500.
His position is not an "attack from the right" by any means and I still have no clue where Garlynn came up with that.
It has been several weeks since this social security issue came out, but what Barack was addressing was Hillary's failure to take a position on what should be done with respect to social security. That was before she collided with Tim Russert in the Philadelphia debate, back when she was spending most of her time running in "general election mode", ie. not stating what her positions were on several issues.
Barack was correct in his criticism. We need to know what the candidates intend to do on the issues, how else we compare their positions?
Dec 18, '07
Whoops, apologies for not noticing that this thread actually had some really good replies to my query -- until now!
Matthew asks where I got the idea that Obama was attacking the other candidates from the right. That idea actually originated here, on Paul Krugman's blog. I cannot take credit for it myself.
I agree that Obama's solution is a lot better than privatization. Thanks for pointing out this detail -- I think it is important to note that he is not actually proposing privatization. However, I believe that the complaint is more with how he's using the issue to attack the other candidates.
Chris Lowe accuses me of labeling Hillary Clinton as more progressive than Obama. I did not make this assertion; rather, I proclaimed that his seemed to be the least progressive of the policy proposals. I was referring mainly to his health care policy proposal, you are correct in inferring, and I was indeed referencing its lack of complete ("mandated") coverage. I do think that Edwards has the most progressive of the health care proposals. Whether Obama's is less or more progressive than Ms. Clinton's may be up for debate, if you can identify sufficient progressive aspects of his proposal that balance out the lack of full coverage.
I'd be really excited to see Edwards win the nomination, and pick Obama as his running-mate...
Dec 19, '07
More on Obama & health care, also from Krugman (I don't know exactly why Krugman has bitten onto the Obama & health care issue like a bulldog, but he has, and he seems to have good sources and present a correct analysis).
Apparently, when Obama was in the Illinois legislature, he basically watered-down the health care proposal there so as not to offend the health-care industry. Krugman explains it better in the link above, but it seems like Obama sees himself as a deal-broker between industry and consumers. Krugman points out that, while this might work marginally well in the Illinois legislature, it isn't exactly what most progressives are looking for out of the next occupant of the White House. Yes, Bush has lowered the bar so far that anybody occupying that office will do a better job -- but what we really need is somebody who is not afraid to take the bully pulpit, offend moneyed special interests, take on the health insurance industry head-to-head, and implement the best plan for the people of the country. Obama doesn't seem to have the willpower to do that, or the desire, despite his excellent rhetoric with regards to this and other topics.
Unless Krugman is reading this issue incorrectly, or this issue really isn't as important as he apparently makes it out to be?
And, of course, in Krugman's latest book, Conscience of a Liberal, Krugman does mention the Edwards and the Obama health care plans in the same sentence. However, it is in passing, and he doesn't get into the details of the plans in the book (like he subsequently has in his blog posts and twice weekly op-ed columns).
Why all this focus on Krugman and his analysis of Obama's health care plan? I would like a better health care option available to me, and the next POTUS will have a strong role to play in potentially shaping a national health care system of some variety. I would like to elect the official that potentially will craft the best system possible, all other factors being equal.
Dec 19, '07
why does iowa have a caucus?
Dec 28, '07
Everyone is allowed to dream... Vote RED!
Dec 31, '07
More on Obama
Jan 2, '08
Yeah, poor souls. Please keep voting the dems in until your all broke. Class warfare rocks, dems divide. Grow a brain.
Jan 2, '08
Why are you anti-corporate? Do you want Americans to have jobs? If you do, you better vote for someone who wants to reduce the corporate tax. Right now, Americas corporate tax rate is second in the world. Vote for Edwards and you will guarantee yourself (and your company) a tax hike. You dont understand what taxing corporations does for the overall economy. Been to any other countries lately? Wanna live there??? Didn't think so.......
Jan 2, '08
What if you gave money to Edwards and all it went to was one more of his pretty boy haircuts? He has the prettiest hair to ever work in a saw mill. Wake up America, its time for Ron Paul. Edwards works for the CFR not the American people. Please take a look at Ron Paul all you democrats out there. Edwards wants to still leave 5-10,000 troops in Iraq. He voted for the war. This guy is a professional liar. Vote Ron Paul.
12:47 a.m.
Jan 3, '08
I have to say that it took me a while to decide who to vote for in the race. I ended up going with Edwards.
Sure, I'd love to see a woman president. And it would be great to see a minority in the White House. But I don't see Hillary being that woman. And I think Obama could really use some time as VP for the country to get to know him before they're comfortable with him as president.
Edwards is the only one I've really seen talk about the poor and the lower middle class and truly understand those groups of people. That's a hard thing to find among politically active people, whether you're talking about candidates, party leaders, or party activists.
Jan 3, '08
I could not have said my sentiments any better than Oregonian37 - I am 57, caucasion, and would not care if a woman or person of color, african-american, or hispanic, or asian, etc. was elected to president of the United States. I'm just not seeing anything that warms me to either Hilary, or Barrack at this time. I am still undecided - but leaning towards Edwards - at least his rhetoric is for the middle class working people of this country. I'm not believing the other candidates - Democratic, Republican, or Independent. In my opinion - Getting out of Iraq - and stopping the flow of money to the middle east is imperative, and even though Edwards originally voted for the war - and was in fact rather a hawk - from what I understand - he now has admittedly changed his mind (which I admire) ... and is willing to get us the hell out of the quicksand in Iraq. The middle east is currently strategically important - but mostly for oil - ... If the current administration wasn't so tied to the oil companies and big business - as well as haliburton and Brown & Root, and the Carlisle group - etc.... we could be transitioning to plug-in hybrid electric/ alternative fuel automobiles here at home for starters and not be dependent on foreign oil - I believe Edwards intends on fighting the strangle-hold that big business and corporations has on the U.S. government and politics. At least he says that is one of his goals. I'm not hearing that from the other candidates. It can't be "business as usual" ... major changed need to be made - ... the playing field needs to be pushed towards a balance - and equity - which no longer exists. (maybe it never did - i.e. the railroad barrons of the early 20th century. Well - that's it. Thanks for your opinions - everyone - ...
Tjazz of California
Jan 3, '08
I understand the "attraction for change" for folks who think it would be neat to be a part of history and help elect our first woman or our first black president. And, without argument, both candidates are fine Americans.
However, is change truly worth it IF the end result is questionable? That is to say, John Edwards is also a fine American ~ and 1) can defeat ALL of the Republican candidates...2) has proposals that will take America into change that will benefit ALL Americans 3) he steadfastly swears to bring our troops home now 4) he steadfastly swears to develop a universal health care system 5) he steadfastly swears to return America to a favorable position world wide.
America NEEDS JOHN EDWARDS!
Jan 3, '08