Huckabee and Obama Triumph in Iowa

[ZenGum]

Yeah, it kind of freaks me out when Radar goes and says something I agree with. It's just so... unexpected...


EDIT:

an illiterate, military deserting, recordsetting deficit spending, psycho who violates our civil rights, openly admits to treason (spying on Americans), tosses out habeus corpus, starts an unwinnable, unwarranted, unprovoked and unconstitutional war of aggression against a nation that never posed any harm to ours, who outs CIA operatives, refuses to disclose meetings with energy companies, has evidence of torture destroyed, etc...

"That is not true. I am no longer illiterate..." [/Mayor Quimby]

[richlevy]

Just remember that Iowa is different from most primaries and elections in that the Democratic ballot is not secret. I thought the Republican wasn't, but it appears I am wrong about that.

This means that the Obama vote may be skewed by peer pressure but not the Republicans.

However, the caucuses require a large block of time so they may be skewed by people who could not take 2 or more hours off from work.

It could be interesting in that a number of Republicans are unhappy with the last President to play to the religious base and may not want a repeat performance. Bush and the Republicans promised 'family values', floated all kinds of Constitutional amendments that had no chance of succeeding, and basically raped and pillaged the economy and environment in order to cozy up to the business lobby. Huckabee talks like a populist, but he will be held to task by moderates who want to get past vague talk and hear specifics.

I don't think his campaign will survive the scrutiny.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by richlevy

Just remember that Iowa is different from most primaries and elections in that the Democratic ballot is not secret. I thought the Republican wasn't, but it appears I am wrong about that.

Wouldn't that skew toward Clinton? She's the one with the machine behind her. I heard the Hillary excuse train rolling at work, but I'm guessing a lot of voters just don't want to hear that voice scolding them for the next 8 years. (If Bush was re-elected, I'm thinking they all will be barring economic collapse.)

[ZenGum]

As an outsider, I am startled by the difference between the numbers of voters for the two parties. Over 100,000 in the Republicans, and under 3,000 for the Democrats. 3,000 seems a tiny number of people for what seems to be a fairly important first test.
Would anyone care to explain this difference to me?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

As an outsider, I am startled by the difference between the numbers of voters for the two parties. Over 100,000 in the Republicans, and under 3,000 for the Democrats. 3,000 seems a tiny number of people for what seems to be a fairly important first test.
Would anyone care to explain this difference to me?

I think they messed those up because the articles states that about two or three times as many Democrats voted than Republican. I am assuming that you have to add two zeros to the end of each number on the Democratic side.

[deadbeater]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

As an outsider, I am startled by the difference between the numbers of voters for the two parties. Over 100,000 in the Republicans, and under 3,000 for the Democrats. 3,000 seems a tiny number of people for what seems to be a fairly important first test.
Would anyone care to explain this difference to me?

I thought the number of Democrats voting was 244,000, mostly college kids on winter break.

[ZenGum]

Thanks guys, now it makes sense. relatively

[Radar]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

Yeah, it kind of freaks me out when Radar goes and says something I agree with. It's just so... unexpected...


EDIT:

"That is not true. I am no longer illiterate..." [/Mayor Quimby]

I've got to do it once in awhile to keep you on your toes. Otherwise you wouldn't read anything I post.