Okay, I'm confused. Maybe some friendly buckeye out there could explain this.

What the hell are the Iowa Caucuses? I was assuming that they were primary elections under a different name, but that doesn't seem to be the case, given that two significant candidates didn't even run there: Clark and Lieberman. I find it hard to believe that they would intentionally throw away votes.

So, what's the deal?

Aren't buckeyes from Ohio?

I hope Bush wins, but I'm really bummed out Lieberman didn't do better... I wouldn't mind him either.

Oops.

Yeah, since Lieberman's a Republican in sheep's clothing.

Seriously, why would you want Bush to win? I cannot come up with one positive thing about him (okay, I like space exploration, but that's a new one) other than he likes to attack other countries, which, to me, is not positive.

I honestly don't understand what his appeal is, unless you're making millions and millions of dollars a year and you think that his tax breaks are really going to be that big a boon to you. It's certainly not his fiscal conservativeness, since he seems not to have that quality.

I've wondered why Iowa and the opinions of the citizens of the state are so important myself. For as long as I can remember the "Iowa Caucuses" were pivotal, but really, what does Iowa have as an advantage vs the rest of the nation to have that make them better to determine who should possibly run our nation?
I don't think they could use the logic that the real issues are in Iowa, that it's the heart of the nation. It's rather sparsely populated, and the morals and lifestyles are, more than likely, very different from say the East Coast or the Pacific Northwest or Florida. Why are they so important? I hope someone can enlighten us...

I still equate Iowa to Idiots Out Wandering Around...

It's the first public election. That's the only real thing, in that you get real people whose numbers are not biased by a poll and who will actually get out there and vote. It's the first time you hear from the silent majority. Kerry certainly came out of nowhere to win it.

FAQ

I'm glad you didn't let a setup go to waste!

Buckeye is the inedible nutlike seed of the horse chestnut or a name of many towns, like one in Iowa...

Buckeye, IA (city, FIPS 9100)
Location: 42.41839 N, 93.37593 W
Population (1990): 105 (56 housing units)
Area: 2.6 sq km (land), 0.0 sq km (water)

Oh Bitt, I'm not getting into this. This is your thread and I'll leave it to you. No fighting.

(oh, many Republicans say Bush is a Democrat is sheeps-clothing too w. the spending and affirmative action, medicare entitlements, etc).

I read that and it still wasn't clear. Is it Iowa's official primary election or not? It doesn't sound like it could be very official the way that they talk about the seeming infomality of it:

Presidential preference on the Republican side is done with a straw vote of those attending the caucus. This vote is predominately taken by a show of hands or by ballot. Democratic caucus-goers express their presidential preference through a short of hands, a sign-in sheet or by dividing themselves into groups according to candidate.

But then they say:

Democratic candidates must receive at least 15 percent of the votes in that precinct to move on to the county convention.

Is this a separate election that's the official one and what just occurred was done in order to weed out the laggers?

The hawkeye cauci (pronounced cauckeye).

I honestly don't understand what his appeal is

I don't either, I don't understand why Republicans can't open their fricking eyes. I honestly think If this country has to suffer another 4 years with the chimp in office I'll puke then move to Canada.

they said on the news last night that Iowa was ~90% white.
I wonder how things would go if they started on the west coast.

I don't understand why Republicans can't open their fricking eyes.

Just to point out the obvious, it's not like Republicans have a lot of choice in the matter. It's either Bush or a Democrat, and unfortunately (at least for me) there are simply too many ideological differences that prevent me from voting for a Democrat. That is, after all, why I'd consider myself a Republican. Not to say that I agree with everything that the Republican party stands for, but I'm a lot closer to them than the Democrats.

To be sure I don't really dislike Bush, but I'm disappointed in a lot of the things he's done, and I wish I had some kind of choice other than Bush vs. Democrat.

ideological differences

To me, ideologies falter in the shadow of evil. Fortunately, I've not been placed in that predicament. Yet.

"I still equate Iowa to Idiots Out Wandering Around... "

I love this Iowa bashing. I'm from Sioux Falls, SD and we have nothing good to say about Iowa people. We call one of their big cities Sewer City (Sioux City), becasue that is what it smells like. Everytime we see them drive in town here we refer to them as Iowegians (No offense to the Norweigens on this board), and there is my favorite joke...

"Did you here they are building a new zoo southeast of town? Yeah, they are gonna fence in Iowa!"

there are simply too many ideological differences that prevent me from voting for a Democrat

So you rather vote for a guy that'd sit on his rear ignoring 6 seperate blatant warnings for terrorist activity leading to 9/11, a guy that would use something horrendous like that to roll out something like Afghanistan (which was on his agenda before he even entered office), and in the process outright lie to the entire country, someone that would put us unbelievably in debt just to aquire oil assets that only bennefit a select few, you'd rather vote for a guy like that rather then democrat? Democrat or Bush? No choice in the matter? I repeat, when are people going to open their eyes? Not trying to bust on you too much, but I never understood how people could blindly follow such an idiot and support him. The mentallity that you have no choice is silly, but it's a Rebublican thing I've never understood.

The mentallity that you have no choice is silly, but it's a Rebublican thing I've never understood.

Oh come on. It’s not a “Republican thing.” If the Republican’s came up with the best candidate in the world politically who was firmly Pro-Life (just to choose an example), there would be plenty of Democrats who wouldn’t vote for him or her because of that single issue. They’d probably end up voting Democrat even if their guy was a terrible political leader.

I think the point is more that he claims to stand for things, then acts in manners opposed to that.

Would you vote for a candidate who claimed he was pro-life but then voted against laws banning abortions?

> oh, many Republicans say Bush is a Democrat is sheeps-clothing too w. the spending and affirmative action, medicare entitlements, etc

Never heard that before. It's funny, the spending aspects of a politician really mean little to me, I am pretty middle of the road when it comes to fiscal decisions. I support welfare but think it should reformed. I support increased govermental regulation of businesses but am pro-free trade. I think neither socialism nor capitalism is the final answer, but society requires a mixture of both. But really none of that can get my blood boiling.

It has always been the civil rights and freedom aspects of politics that matter to me, and in that regard Bush has been the most diametrically opposed president in my lifetime. I consider that so much more important that it dwarfs those other considerations, they are not even worth considering if a politician fails to believe in and abide by the constitution.

Would you vote for a candidate who claimed he was pro-life but then voted against laws banning abortions?

Well, actually I might, but only because I think the whole abortion thing is pretty complicated when it comes to politics.

Regardless of that, however, your point stands. I think integrity (being what you say you are) is the MOST important quality a leader can have, and this has been my biggest source of frustration with Bush. Which is why I wish there were another conservative I could vote for.

Exactly. As an extreme example (and I'm not making comparisons), Hitler did a lot to improve the Germany of the 1930s, especially fiscally. But nothing can begin to excuse murdering millions of people, no matter how great the gain in other areas.

And, to me, Bush's foreign policy is a make-or-break thing for me. In fact, the major reason I like Howard Dean (not to the exclusion of all others) is because of his outspoken stance against Bush's foreign policy. If nothing else, he's gotten the rest of the Democratic party (other than Lieberman) on board with that. One of the reasons I dislike most of the other candidates (not to the exclusion of Dean) is because they voted for Bush's nigh unlimited power overseas.

Oh come on. It’s not a “Republican thing.”

Your right, and I probably was a bit harsh, so I'm sorry. I do have strong feelings on that whole issue. Why do we feel compelled to vote just because of our "party"? I mean I hope that if it were a question of voting for the best interest of our country I'd vote for the best possible choice not party. I think I would.

I don't think the "Pro-Life" thing is really a deal breaker anymore. Now for me? The deal breaker is who's not going to blatantly lie, put us deeper in debt and keep losing jobs. I was never really into politics that much until this presidency. I've been sickened by every move our boy has taken. People say he's got morals and maybe thats why they like him. He's got no more morals then anyone else, they just covered the crap up better this time, he's got a cocaine past, and DUI's, some even say he was AWOL for 2 years (but that doesn't really have much proof). But all that aside, I too wish we had more choices when he was elected, yeah I voted Gore, but it was because I thought he'd have done a better job and from where I'm standing now, I think I was right.

If the Republican’s came up with the best candidate in the world

The Republican is came up? How's that work?

Your right,

What of his right? Ashcroft is trying to take it away?

Heh, you realize you're Bitting him in Bitt's own thread, right?

oh, many Republicans say Bush is a Democrat is sheeps-clothing too w. the spending and affirmative action, medicare entitlements, etc

Yeah, I'd like this explained. I'd like to know how many Democrats would have spent that much money on a war. Bush is so far right it's not funny. Seriously, it isn't.

I have to ask, and this is in response to FerretBoy's post in the other Bitt thread: what has he done? I mean, I have no problem with you siding with a Republican nominee if his morals align with yours and that's what you consider most important. I cannot argue with that, and I challenge anyone to. However, I would like to hear what Bush has done in his term in this regard to warrant your faith in him. So far, I've only noticed political stances in regards to foreign policy and the environment. I would like to hear how he's fared in your most highly-regarded areas. It may be that I'm simply more interested in the politics side than the morals side of things so I haven't noticed, but that's just me.

Lastly, I don't think all Democrats (and I don't think all Rebuplicans) are as you think they are. My parents and I are very liberal. We've always been that way. However, in a local election, the best choice was a candidate running as a Republican. Sure, we didn't agree with all of his policies, but we're not about to back someone we think will do a poorer job just because we're categorized as Democrats.

Never heard that before.

I don't believe i've heard it put exactly that way either but doesn't his new immigration proposal lean pretty far left? Essentially he is rewarding illegal immigrants.

I support increased govermental regulation of businesses

All business, both public and private? I think the government already has too much of a role in small business. For example, why should it be a small business' responsiblity to pay an employees alimony, child support or bakruptsy bills? Why can't the employee take the responsiblity? The check to pay these items STILL has to be written it doesn't magically get sent out.

It has always been the civil rights and freedom aspects of politics that matter to me,

Like fingerprinting people who visit this Country by airplane? I've got a Georgia drivers license and have to (and have for quite some time) give a digital fingerprint every time I renew my drivers license. This rule was definately put in to effect before Bush took office and our previous Governor was a democrat.

I don't believe i've heard it put exactly that way either but doesn't his new immigration proposal lean pretty far left? Essentially he is rewarding illegal immigrants.

Illegal immigrants with jobs. Isn't this more about supporting companies' wishes to employ illegal immigrants at salaries which no US citizen would work for?

Peter

Isn't this more about supporting companies' wishes to employ illegal immigrants at salaries which no US citizen would work for?

Whether they have jobs or not they're still illegal immigrants. In my view this is rewarding people for breaking the law and it sets the wrong example to those who obey the laws. It is not fair to the immigrant that tries to get into country the legal way.

In theory it is being said that they are taking jobs that Americans don't want but this proposal would promote more and more Americans to live off of the system instead of finding a job since the pay scale would be driven down lower and lower.

I'm not sure what exactly the solution would be to an immigration problem but I would think that the laws currently in place would be inforced until they were changed.

> doesn't his new immigration proposal lean pretty far left?

Bah! Just a political ploy to get hispanic votes during an election year. Hispanics, as a block, are actually pretty conservative; they are deeply religious and lean right on both social and economic causes.* Really the only reason they are associated with the Democrats is that the Republican party has been very anti-immigration (I don't think California's hispanics will ever forget the Republican backed proposition 187). This is a very clever plan to appeal to them, but this will never get by the Republicans in congress and Bush knows that. I doubt very highly he will push it at all to members of congress as a matter of fact, but then when it fails Bush can just say "Well, you can see I tried, I am a good guy, please vote for me". I don't buy it for a second.

* Before I get crucified again, I would like to point out that not all hispanics are any of the things I mentioned. it is a generalization based on polls and general feeling of the group as a whole, but it certainly does not apply to everyone within that group.

I've heard some hispanic folks up in arms over it, actually. They worked very hard to get into this country and are upset that others are getting a free ride. And the important point is that these hispanics who have the legitimate potential to be upset are the ones who can vote. I wouldn't be surprised if that stance becomes a huge backfire for GWB.

I don't think they could use the logic that the real issues are in Iowa, that it's the heart of the nation. It's rather sparsely populated, and the morals and lifestyles are, more than likely, very different from say the East Coast or the Pacific Northwest or Florida. Why are they so important? I hope someone can enlighten us...

I visited Iowa for the first time in my life over Christmas, as my fiancee's extended family are all in Iowa. Small town, Iowa farmers. I went into it with a bunch of expectations, none of which proved to be true. These people are certainly quieter than my own family, but they've all got these wonderful wry senses of humor. And, they play a mean game of pool.

More seriously, I'm more comfortable with Iowa's role in the process than I would be if the same thing were done here in Texas or even out in California. The Iowa culture is, perhaps stereotyping based on my limited sample, less prone to ideological outbursts and thus more likely to reach some sort of consensus. I imagine they're somewhat more resistant to being pushed around and manipulated by outsiders (possibly explaining Dean's 3rd place finish).

The more I've gotten into voting security, the more I've learned about the cultural differences between states in the U.S. Would you believe that Oregon votes exclusively by mail? The fraud opportunities are astonishing (e.g., sell somebody your unmarked ballot and they can mail it in for you), but they don't seem to happen. Not because it's impossible, but because the culture doesn't do that. Try that in other states, and you'd get a very different outcome.

Also, keep in mind that the Iowans aren't selecting the final party nominee. Their main effect is to knock off several of the weaker candidates. We've still got five major candidates standing. I'm not saying that the whole rolling primary/caucus system is in any way optimal, but given the regional differences in cultures, the limited budgets available to candidates, and the limited effect of early decisions, the system actually works better than many other aspects of our election systems.