A final hello from Iowa

[Debi]

x( I was going to post the final photos with my new crush Jeff and my old crush Hunter but I had my camera set on video and can't upload them. (but yes, I have played and played and played the videos for myself!)

I hope the threads I've read here about the unfairness of Iowa are only being put up out of the hurt felt about Sen. Biden's withdrawal from the race. If you all jump just a few threads down (and go back through the history of GD-P) you'll see yourselves raving about and defending the caucus process. If Iowa had held a primary roughly the same result would have been had.

With over 115,000 new voters participating in the caucuses the smaller campaigns could not compete (and no the majority of those new voters were not republicans - the Iowa GOP had their hands full with a 40% increase of their turnout). New Hampshire is experiencing the same increase in participating voters (Bill Gardner is already talking about 400,000 people voting in Tuesday's primary).

We can blame lack of funds (for voter outreach - which both the Obama and Clinton campaigns were able to do), or lack of press coverage (which I'll agree with), or a bunch of other things that swayed 57% of the newly involved voters to support Barack Obama in the caucuses.

But please, don't blame the process.

[Eurobabe]

1. Thanks for all you did Debi, I blame the

frickin' MSM for marginalizing candidates that "won't grab the ratings, or won't make the BIG story." I seriously wish the US would adopt what Germany has done, no campaigning until 2-3 months before elections, free air coverage for all candidates.

But I do wish we had regional primaries. :shrug:

[1corona4u]

2. Exactly, It was two-fold.

A toxic mix for both Dodd, and Biden.

Debi, I don't think a lot of us understood it completely, until we saw it. I understand about Iowa wanting to build the party, but maybe Iowa needs to think about what I said, and that maybe people don't show up to vote in large numbers, because they don't like the process. Maybe it's time for Iowa to do some surveys, and ask people what would make them turn out more, instead of just insisting that they have the right format now.

Of course it's always easier for someone detatched from the situation to be an armchair quarterback, but from where I sit, I would encourage Iowa to be objective about the whole process, and not continue to insist that it's working.

Don't take this personal, it's not. I know all of you here from Iowa did your best. I appreciate all you have done. But I am not in love with the rest of Iowa, and I hope you can understand that. I don't like my own state much right now, and I won't bother to defend it anymore.

[Debi]

4. Explain how it was not objective? Do you truly believe that if Iowa was a one person one vote

that Joe Biden would have performed better?

He doesn't.

[1corona4u]

5. Not entirely Debi....

as I have said many times now, if they would have been given the same amount of time, and respect by the media, it would have made a difference. If the media would have been saying "Joe can win this thing", people would have been all over him. That's what I truly believe.

[Debi]

6. Then blame the media and not the process performed in Iowa

Your letter clearly blamed the Iowa Caucuses along with the media.

The process did not do this to Joe Biden.

[cbear70]

8. I live in Iowa

Yay.. i can post now..

Ok..I have to say that I agree that it was not fair. I am not trying to start anything but in talking to so many people who liked biden but felt pressured to go to hilary or obama..if we had one vote per person i do feel that Joe would have faired much better, at the least 4th place... so many husbands came up to me and told me that they would have voted for Joe but their wives were making them go in one direction. That is not fair. If the vote was private, it might have made a difference.

I have done primaries in other states and now caucuses ... this was my second caucus. It was not fair that my husband and I sat there standing our ground and joe doesn't get any showing for us. We talked to so many people that night who liked Joe. When you read the accounts of people pressured to go for Bill or the other guys just because our group was not viable, how is that fair? In the end , these people are not showing their support for the candidate of their choice. Therefore the candidates don't really have a fair showing of people who truly support them.

jmo.

[1corona4u]

13. Welcome!

:-)

[Debi]

14. What would have a fourth place finish done for Joe Biden?

He still would have dropped out of the race (he stated that only if he was a 'close' fourth would he have stayed in - since Bill Richardson saw more first round success in several precincts and Biden/Dodd splitting the rest - there is no way he would have ended up close to the top three 'vote' getters).

In my (very small) caucus Biden (with his 5 supporters) would have ended up in fifth place behind 18 Clinton votes, 16 Edwards votes, 16 Obama votes and 8 Richardson votes - then 4 Dodd votes. He would have dropped out of the race all the same.

I'm amazed that people actually said their spouses 'forced' them to support another candidate, which county/precinct did you caucus in? W#hat was the initial count for candidate preference? Where was Biden in that count? Please go over to the Iowa Forum and post your experiences there. I know there are other Iowans that will be interested how your caucus night ended up similar to all the horror stories that we've heard about on DU.

[cbear70]

22. i did post over there

I think his count would have been higher had it been done by ballot. JMO. We each have a right to our opinion but having done it both ways, I like the primary , I believe its more accurate. I have no qualms with IA being first, but it could be done better. I loved meeting the candidates.. I met Dodd at a carnival and Biden hugged my kids and sat next to me on a picnic bench.. he used my son as part of his speech... he talked football with my son.. I never got that in the other states.. true.

but my vote was not counted and that is not fair. At least in a primary, I would have counted. In my precinct of 67 total...Joe only had 2 people.. but thats two votes more than he had with a caucus. I was forced to go either with another party or go undecided. I could not in my heart go with another party, thats not who i voted for. I wanted biden so i went undecided, along with the edwards clan who refused to give up but were not viable. They were not happy either. We didn't count. Our votes for our candidates didn't count. That does not seem fair.

[Debi]

24. I hope you attempted to join your central committee or signed up as an alternate to the

county convention or signed up to be on the platform committee. If you truly believe that Iowa's process is not representative democracy there is only one thing to do. Get involved and change it. If you truly believe that 2 votes out of 67 would equal more that 1% of the 'vote' in a primary then jump in. Only those involved will make waves.

Had you participated in a primary you never would have been asked to join any of these groups. You would have walked in, cast a ballot and left. Because you participated in a caucus I hope you took advantage of the opportunities presented there. I hope you will stay involved.

I believe your 'vote' did count. You were there and you were counted. Unlike a primary you were give a chance to change people's minds or to change yours. I'm sorry you don't see it that way.

[Frustratedlady]

51. Debi...thanks!

One thing people must understand about the caucus process is the following scenario.

In normal times, we would have needed 14 people in Biden's corner for me to win him a viable position. Our precinct ballooned from approx. 120 to 231. At 15% x 231, we needed 35 to get Joe viable.

We started out with 14. What we tried to do was bring in the Dodd (3), Richardson (1), Kucinich (1) and undecideds (2) to get our numbers up. Still not enough. At that point, our caucus chair checked the top 3 and was going to take their extras to give to Joe to make him viable. Now, you could hardly take one of their full counts away from them to make Joe viable, but we could take their extras. That would have given us 7. So, 14 + 3 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 2 + 2 = 28 Joe still needed 7 to make viability.

It it had been a ballot vote, Joe would have had 14.

It was the same in every precinct my children and grandchildren were in. There was no way they could take the extras and wring enough out to add them to Joe's votes to make them viable.

Someone said that if a spouse wanted to vote differently than the other, that they wouldn't be able to. That isn't a caucus problem. They should be able to work that out with their spouse or accept it. It isn't that unusual to cancel each other out. I can't imagine a man wouldn't have enough backbone to vote for whichever candidate he wanted or vice versa.

My children and grandchildren had never been to a caucus before, but they are still so excited about what a good feeling it was to work with their friends and neighbors in an open forum, the other night. They can't wait for the next one.

[Eurobabe]

15. the Republican process is different, you don't have to openly

go to a corner to chose a candidate, you write your choice on a ballot and put it in a box, there is no arm twisting involved. It is what it is for the Cons. Maybe it is an issue with the Democratic process there?

[demommom]

26. cbear70:

Thank you so much for informing us of what ACTUAlly took place.
I never really new what actually takes place in the Iowa caucuses,but now that I have sen and heard from folks like you who participated,It seems like such an archaic process
and I wonder why it has stood as long as it has. Maybe I'm just not as
worldly about these things,but it seems to me that a candidate should get credit for the support that he or she did have. I am not totally blaming the caucus system in Iowa,but imo it certainly is a big part of it. It appeared like a very ugly process to me.

[Debi]

31. Please read this:

http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/01/03/inside-the-quaint-chaotic-caucuses.aspx#comments

And go over to the Iowa Forum and read other's posts before you make your decision based on one posters story.

Also, ask yourself if Joe Biden had come in third - as a result of the realignment process - would you be denouncing the caucus process?

[demommom]

56. You know what Debi,

After seeing how the numbers are arrived at,yes I think I would have felt the same. I do not think it had to do with Joe's performance, he did nothing campaign shattering that I remember. Maybe you are too much of the process to convince me. I don't speak for anyone else. I never fully understood EXACTLY how it worked until I watched it this time and I stand by what I have said. No matter what you say,the process is oudated, IMO

[Debi]

58. Sorry to hear that. n/t

[Debi]

3. I agree with public financing of primaries/caucuses and with equal time in the media

for the candidates.

My concern with regional primaries/caucuses is that the smaller states would still be ignored for more condensed - voter rich - urban areas and we would see tarmac-to-tarmac campaigns and virtually no voter-candidate interaction. That's why I will defend small states going first allowing the voters to vet the candidates - ask them the hard questions and put their views/plans to the test.

What am I supposed to do..NOT defend my state? :hi:

[1corona4u]

7. No, of course not...

defend your state. It's what you know and love. But think about this. What if, there was election reform, that didn't allow candidates enough money to campaign on the ground in ANY state? How then would people decide?

Answer; Their own research. The Internet. Word of mouth. Referrals. A much more involved process if you ask me. Those who were either apolitical or not into being proactive, would turn to the media. If the media gave equal time to all, then it would come down to that person's ideology, and what's important to them.

[Debi]

10. Then why blame the caucuses? n/t

[Eurobabe]

9. My Dad lives in NH, but he agrees that NH and Iowa

have got to give way to regional primaries. Even Dad feels it is not fair to the rest of the country that these two small states get the lion's share of attention from the candidates. With that argument, why not let Rhode Island and Delaware try their hand at being first?

I am not bashing IA or NH, I just think things need to change. Alot of us do.

[Debi]

11. It's too bad your dad feels that way

I will never get bored with having the potential president of the united states spend time in Iowa. How someone would actually want to give up such a privilege is beyond my comprehension.

[Eurobabe]

12. Basically because he thinks the process is outdated

and unfair to the rest of the country. He says the only reason it's continued in NH is because it is a cash cow for the state.

Believe me, alot of us would not get bored with the potential president spending time in our state either.

[Debi]

17. When Iowa and New Hampshire were initially the first states

they were 'testing grounds' for the candidates - helping them hone their stump speeches and learn crowd reactions and concerns in their face-to-face candidates. Almost a 'training session' for the national race. In the past Iowa and New Hampshire held their processes and then there was a long 4-6 week lull in the process allowing candidates and their campaigns to assess the results and re-group. Front-loading is the problem now.

Imagine allowing smaller (contiguous) states to go early and having time in between the primaries/caucuses and then having a contest in a large state (and only that state) and then another lull in the calendar. That would allow candidates to be on the ground and interact with people in more states than just Iowa/New Hampshire. (Although I doubt retail politics will ever occur in CA/NY/FL/TX and other large states).

[Eurobabe]

19. No retail politics won't play in big states

too chaotic and crazy, recipe for disaster. The increased front-loading is a disaster, we thought it would be different this year, but I personally think it is worse than ever. Imagine how the candidates must feel, like Linda Blair in the Exorcist!

[Debi]

25. I can't imagine how they feel (other than exhausted)

I can tell you that, when Iowa and New Hampshire were trying to defend their positions on the calendar created by the DNC that one candidate had no problem with the front-loading. She came in third in Iowa, hope that front-loaded calendar works out well for her :eyes:

[Eurobabe]

28. I think when it's all said and done

she will rue the day that she signed onto that front-loaded calendar. Guess that was when she thought she was the annointed one? :rofl:

[Debi]

30. I can tell you that her 'co-chair' in Iowa - Former Governor Tom Vilsack

Did all he could to make Iowa irrelevant. Now I wonder 'who' is irrelevant?!

[Tashca]

32. I've been thinking about Tom

I was convinced that if Clinton won Iowa....He would be a part of the administration.


I'm thinking if she was asked now....she would say...."Tom who?"....:o

[Debi]

35. I hope all of Iowa feels the same.

He (and his friends) did Iowa alot of damage with the DNC. All to promote his crazy-assed Presidential bid & then his support for the 'inevitable one'. I could NOT imagine eight more years of exclusion of folks who weren't big donors or high-up labor officials. I'm sure Tom and Christie will be fine with their multitiude of jobs working for companies that hope the next 'President Clinton' will smile down on her biggest supporter x(. Unless those compaines don't need his services any more.....

[Tashca]

50. been thinking about a reply to this

I am torn with Tom.....while I would no longer support him.
I have known Tom for a very long time. I got to know him well when he was Mayor of Mt. Pleasant. He toured me around to show me some of the achievements the town had made. He never took credit....he always said it was the townspeople who deserved the credit. When he decided to run for the state Senate in 92 I jumped on board. We had long discussions.....for me it was mostly on Ag. policy.
He was open to all views. I can tell you from experience that he is an quick learner and obviously very intelligent.
I still remember the first time he went to shake hands with citizens at a small town parade. In private he was very shy.....he thought he was going to pass out by putting himself out in front of all those people. By the time he got done walking that parade he was grinning ear to ear...It was an exciting time. I helped on some of his advisory committees on policy.
This was all an eye opening time for me. I finally saw how party politics worked. I remember how he all of a sudden had knowledge of about any topic. When we first met he had knowledge on some things and not a clue on a few things. I asked him how he learned all this so fast.....he said..."The Democratic party helps me with all these issues. I can ask them about anything and can get an answer back immediately."....At first I was quite immpressed.....then the more I thought about it...I could see how the system could be corrupted. I began my aversion to party politics.

I left Iowa in 97 and haven't been in contact with Tom since that time. I saw that he was a major contributor to the DLC and that did it for me...

People ask if corrupt people go into politics....or if the politics corrupt the individual. I suppose it's alittle of both.....but my feeling is that the system corrupted in this case.

I guess I needed to get that off my chest..:)

:) :)

[Frustratedlady]

53. I think Tom is basically the same as he was,

but I can see he is getting caught up in the big-time politics. That is too bad, as he and Christie are both good people.

Politics is not much different than show business. Same dogs/same fleas.

[Frustratedlady]

52. Debi

Do you have any history of the early caucuses and the general feeling from other states once they were up and running? Do you recall any complaints about being the first, or has it just been since the candidates have been dropping so much cash in Iowa and NH? Just curious.

[Debi]

54. From 1976 forward there have been challenges to the process

and to Iowa being first (at least that's what my husband tells me - I moved here in 1986 but didn't get involved until 1996).

I'll get links for you if you want - I'm sure they'er out there.

[Frustratedlady]

55. It would be interesting, rather than misrepresenting.

I was around, but didn't get involved with the caucus process because I thought it was basically the party machine that did the voting. Later, I realized I was wrong and that it is a simple gathering of friends and neighbors.

[nyc 4 Biden]

16. Debi,

While I agree with you on many points, I do think Joe would have received higher than 1% if Iowa had a primary vote, rather than a caucus. I would expect a result closer to 12%.

[Debi]

27. Which by his own words would have put him in the same place he is today

Back in Deleware.

And I disagree - I think that percentage would have been lower. I think he would have still ended up behind Richardson. (JMO)

[gateley]

18. I love that in Iowa, the candidates get more face-to-face with the voters, and

in many cases (like Biden, Dodd, Richardson), you actually have the opportunity to sit in your living room and meet with a potential President of the United States. And the candidates are there for so long beforehand, that they really do have the opportunity to present their platform and win voters.

It is so much better than what generally happens in the other, larger states -- the candidate flies in, holds a big rally, gives the same spiel that is given in all the OTHER states, then flies out.

I think I would prefer a straight vote rather than the caucus process, though, after seeing how it works. At least we would know that people were able to vote how they wanted, and not how their wives told them to.

I don't have any problem with Iowa and NH being first. I've just become un-enamored (if that's a word) with the caucus process. But maybe that's to be expected after Joe's results were so dismal.

Ultimately, I feel this discussion wouldn't even be taking place if there was campaign financing, and the media was required to give all candidates equal time.

[cbear70]

20. completely agree

I don't mind that Iowa is first.. and I loved that Joe hugged my kids and used my son as a talking point... I wouldn't trade that.. but I don't like the caucus and how in some cases, you are made to feel bad and go to other candidates.. my vote didn't count at all. I wish it was like the republicans...put my candidate on a ballot...the numbers were way higher for them.. I wonder what the numbers would have been like had they had to caucus...

just wish Joe would have stayed in... one state is not enough to determine the nation.

[1corona4u]

23. Agreed.

[gateley]

33. A couple of things you said sum it up perfectly for me:

my vote didn't count at all

and

one state is not enough to determine the nation



I disagree about Joe staying in. His next chance to woo voters would have been the ABC debate, and since he doesn't qualify (assholes) - he has no national platform from which to be heard.

[Eurobabe]

21. Amen to your last line

The US process is so fucked up. The media plays WAY too much of a role in determining a candidate's viability.

[Debi]

29. So one poster told you that a couple of men told them that their wives

said that they 'couldn't' stay with Joe Biden and that's all it takes?

People 'voted' how they wanted. Their candidate did not get the 'votes' necessary. At that point they were given options that do not exist in a primary. Here's a link to a story where the process actually worked for Joe Biden:

http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/01/03/inside-the-quaint-chaotic-caucuses.aspx#comments

I wonder if Biden had been able to capitalize on the realignment process (which was the campaigns plan all along) and come in third I'd be reading about a 'straight vote' that would have sunk his campaign.

Get over to the Iowa Forum and read what Iowan DUers are saying about the process and about Biden. I hope you rethink your feelings about a process that you seemed to agree with up until Biden's loss.

Edited b/c I want to know where the poster caucused before I make up my mind (and I want to talk to other folks that caucused in their precinct).

[cbear70]

34. Excuse me Debi???

Ok... now you are not being fair... I do exist... I live in conesville... we went to roundy elementary to caucus.. there were two rooms.. one for columbus junction and one for what I thought read Oakland/Concord Township....two very tiny townships mostly made up of farmers, rural people.

And second, I am not the only disenfranchised voter to go to a caucus and be disappointed. Opinions were made from just not my post but others. I just joined Bidens group today, this discussion was already happening.

Wow...my very real opinion of caucuses will not change and I am entitled just as you are entitled to your love of caucuses...I don't denounce you or your opinions, I respectfully disagree but for you to come and say I am not real... that is wrong. If I got the tiny township wrong, than forgive me. Please contact your network and ask who the townships were .. I know I am close... I have lived in this rural area only a year and a half. I went to the area where I was directed. Last caucus was held in the very real Muscatine and I held the same opinion and my guy won the caucus. So yes, even if Biden had won, I would feel the same way.

[Debi]

37. You'll see that I changed my post - I believe you might mean the

Concord/Oakland township that is if you are in Louisa County.

I didn't realize that in rural Iowa counties there were so many oppressed husbands that were not entitled to their own opinions of whom to support in the caucus process. Are they allowed to work outside the home and drive themselves to the shopping centers or do their wives control those aspects of their lives as well?

Sure, you are entitled to your opinion. I hope you stand up and give it at the next Central Committee meeting of your County. I hope you stand up and give it at County Convention time and continue to voice it. Take it all the way to the State Convention and work to get it to the National Convention.

Denounce the process all you want. And I will defend it. Sour grapes is what I am hearing, people who didn't get what they wanted so they blame the process - if it is not the case for you, since you got what you wanted in 2004 - tell me, what did you do in the following four years to change the process? Did you attempt to join the State Central Committee the body that chooses the process and date? Did you attempt to become a member of the Iowa representatives of the DNC so you could have a national platform to voice your displeasure in the process?

It's pretty fun to find a group of individuals who are angry and feel betrayed and jump in and stir things up isn't it? Glad to have your imput.

[cbear70]

39. you know...

I joined the biden group to be with fellow people who were sad at what happened... I joined in on an ongoing discussion of the caucus and voiced MY opinion. You are taking everything I said and blowing it up... oppressed husbands... geez Debi...I am not even going there.. husbands that talked to me and said they would vote for Biden...so yes.. I think that if you had a primary and everyone had a private vote it would have been different.. a win maybe not.. but different... but in a caucus, especially a tiny one.. you have a very causual get together...this one was not even as formal as the one in muscatine was....like i said.. it lasted all of 45 minutes and then we were home watching the news.....i do volunteer and do as much as i can.... no my political activity is not up to all that... I do alot of volunteer work for other organizations...

i only expressed an opinion.. i am not sure why you are jumping down my throat... why do i have to like the caucus??

[Debi]

42. You don't, I just hope that if you don't like a political process that you

do something about it. I hope that you don't just post negative comments about the process on a national message board (which happens to feed the 'Joe was robbed' meme), but get to your local central committee meeting and voice your opinion there or get on the platform committee and get your idea of changing the caucuses on the the county convention platform. As Joe Biden would say - not words but Action.

I also wonder what difference it all makes? What would you be saying to these Biden supporters today if Iowa had held a primary and Biden had come in 5th on a straight vote? How would Iowa have changed our process then? Would Joe have not dropped out?

In several conversations with the Biden campaign staff they always knew JRB would not be viable in several precincts in the first round - which means he would have lost a primary straight out - the plan of the campaign was to work the non-viable supporters of other candidates to try to push JRB's level of support up while attempting to keep delegates out of the hands of his biggest competitors during realignment. They were working within a process that would not exist in a primary situation (a second chance)- and had a great plan. The enormous voter turn-out blew that plan out of the water.

In conversations with the campaign on Thursday night and since no one has expressed a desire to have seen a straight vote in Iowa. Nothing would have changed with a straight vote - except that Iowa would not have over 26,000 new central committee members - or platform committee members (or a platform representative of all participants in the process across Iowa)or over 13,000 county convention delegates.

[cbear70]

48. not sure why you are attacking me?

Debi, I agree with what you are saying about involvement.. but I am one person who voiced her opinion while agreeing with others about their views of the caucus. I didn't come to the biden board for that reason, I was sad and wanted to be with others who were upset over Joe. I know this is a national message board but I have been a member for a long time now...I just don't post alot. I mainly read.

My husband was elected the delegate to go to the county convention, thats all we had... everything else you are talking about I never heard on caucus night.. like i said in and out. You are extremely involved and that is great. I do what I can, I make phone calls and write letters and help out campaigns..I have involvement in other areas that receive my undivided attention for example my work with bereaved parents and other charities and my family gets alot of my time...I always vote and that entitles me to complain..

I feel like you are attacking me for voicing an opinion and I don't feel that is right. I may not be as active as you are, kudos to you by the way, but I still am entitled to an opinion on this board, just as you are even if I don't join all the committees.

As for Joe.. like I said.. my opinion! You are very defensive about Iowa.. wow.. that is just great. AGain.. my opinion.. but I feel my vote did not count. It didn't make a difference in the end. And when the numbers are posted at the end of the night, it would have been nice to know that I was up there and that other biden supporters were up there and not delegated to other campaigns. That was my point all along. I don't like the caucuses and that is my opinion. It works for other Iowans, like yourself.. that is great. But I do not like them nor do I agree with them...again my opinion, thats all.

[gateley]

36. I'm thinking about what Debi said -- about even if it had been a straight vote

Joe wouldn't have made it to 4th place. That makes sense. If he'd had enough supporters there to begin with, he would have been viable. I'm thinking he just didn't have the numbers there to make it either way. :shrug:


EDIT: So I'm back to blaming the Media and, my old standby, $$$$$$.

[Debi]

38. And I 100% agree with you there - with one small caveat

seeing that 115,000 people joined in the process that hadn't been involved before - we may be seeing a revolution of younger voters and unfortunately Biden didn't have the 'draw' of young voters that Obama did.

Had the playing field been level financially and MSM-wise, maybe he would have had it (especially if he'd had Hunter and Ashley out there revving up the crowds).

The man is a genius and has a brilliant brilliant political mind (and charisma coming out his ears!) - but would it have been enough to woo the 18-25 year old voting bloc? I just don't know.

[1corona4u]

40. Well, I hope for the Iowa democrats....

they weren't just short term gains. I think they will prove to be, but it remains to be seen. I think this election will be all about the youth vote, because Obama's 'cool' to them. Nothing more. I bet 90% of them have a very limited view of the world at large, and the issues facing this country. After watching 'Jaywalking' a few hundred times, I can say that a lot of the youth in this country really shouldn't be picking our presidents.

[Debi]

45. I don't think they will be - here's why

In 2004 we saw a record turn out b/c of Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich - okay, 2004 didn't go so well, but it created a base to build on for the 2006 elections. And Iowa Democrats kicked ass in 2006. (and I think it's six of the Democratic statehouse members are under the age of 30). I don't know that young voters = bad choices (was JFK or Bill Clinton a BAD choice? They drew young people into the party and the process). Jaywalking isn't representative of young people as a whole - you know they highlight the worst of the worst and throw out the intelligent responses. I'm convinced Iowa young people who are involved in the process are ready to take on the responsibility that comes with their involvement. (After all, Debi, Jr. may someday run for office...are you going to say that having him join the Biden campaign was a bad thing?)

[1corona4u]

47. No, I'm not going to say that Debi Jr. joining Biden was a bad thing

but what I am saying is, there are plenty of young voters that don't know jack shit. There's no denying that. Not all of them are informed like Debi Jr. I don't think the ones that voted for Obama know what they voted for. That's my opinion. It's based on Obama's campaign. He ignored the baby boomer vote, because he knew we were far too intelligent to buy the "hope" spiel and "change". Of course there were older voters that voted for him as well. I would submit that most of their votes were because they were;

1. Sick of Edwards
2. Hate Hillary




Look, this whole argument has grown totally out of proportion. As Joe says, it's like squeezing a water balloon on one end, and the other end gets bigger, LOL...we're never going to have the same thoughts, or the same opinions. :-) That's why having choices are so important.

[gateley]

41. In one of the articles Corona linked to, the number of people participating

was mentioned as well. (I know it's been mentioned before, but it just didn't sink in.) That in a NORMAL caucus year, Joe would have been viable.

Ironic that THIS is the year we really need him MORE THAN EVER!

I think he would have appealed to a lot of 18-25 year olds -- and he did -- but to a larger extent had he had the resources and press that the others did. Everybody loves hearing someone tell it like it is - and he engendered a trust I think would have been appealing, too. Just look at Debi Jr! He knew the real deal when he saw it!

[Debi]

43. I hear you - but I don't think this is a NORMAL year anywhere

Like I said earlier, Bill Gardner is already predicting record voter turnout in New Hampshire. I wonder if we aren't going to see it in all the states (and in November as well).

[gateley]

44. I certainly hope so. We need to win by a HUGE margin so their attempt to

fuck with the votes again would be futile.

[Debi]

46. Yep. Although Iowa didn't see that problem

(instead we saw a campaign concede before all the absentee ballots were voted here in the state) x(

But I agree that having a large pool of Democrat votes is a good thing to have (and remember - we grew by 91% Thursday night, the GOP? 40% - heh do the math!)

[Frustratedlady]

57. One other comment to add to yours

The youth of today probably don't know Joe Biden. Shoot, even adults have said, "Joe Biden? Who's that?" I kid you not.

So, they don't really have any history on Joe. However, I did notice young people asking Joe questions at his local appearances and Joe was really impressed at their knowledge of current events. The kids' faces lit up when he complimented them on their questions. As a result, my co-captain for Joe was one of those kids. He is in the National Guard and was gung-ho for Joe. (That would have been a good slogan...Gung Ho For Joe!

[jillan]

49. Debi - thanks for all you did.

And for all your great stories.

Please understand that we are all trying to work through our loss.
There are alot of questions about what happened in Iowa. There is even an op-ed in my paper today about
Iowa - the money that was poured into that state. It came down to $200/vote. The writer was saying how unfair it is to the other states. There are two sides to this story. There are alot of people, such as yourself, that defend the system in Iowa... and there is the other side of the coin.

Please don't take it personally - ok?

Again thank you for all your family has done for Joe!:pals: <----- with a special hug to your son.

(edit for typo)