Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was amazed at how few Democrats voted, compared to Republicans.
In my experience - and I'll say up front that it isn't necessarily the same as everyone else's - Iowa Democrats tend to be pretty partisan. The majority are perfectly willing to let the active minority choose the nominees, and on election day are more than happy to mark the box for every candidate with a "D" beside his or her name.
Just now back in Georgia after attending the caucus weekend & the Monday event, I have found a tally that gave a total of 186,000 r votes & 171,000 d votes. I'm not sure I'd put it as "...how few..." Democrats voted. That type of language has connotations of a wipeout in comparative terms which was not the case in turnout by any means.
Where did any of the forum members here Caucus?
I attended a Democratic caucus (as an observer & volunteer) for a near northside Des Moines precinct which oddly enough was held over on the east side at Amos Hiatt Middle School.
2 different precincts met there in separate parts of the school so there was a lot of confusion with finding out the correct residence precinct as the caucus-goers arrived through the various entrances & then directing the attendees to the appropriate place in the building.
As an aside, I saw a lot of it & am now AMAZED at how the 46th Precinct & the rest of the near north side of Des Moines has improved for the better since I left the city & Iowa in 1979. Thankfully the area has also made additional & noticeable great strides since my prior last visit.
I believe that there is a lot of fear & unfamiliarity about the near north side which go together hand and hand & lead to misconceptions about that region and the City of Des Moines as well.
I suspect that my viewpoint of the near north side is impacted & viewed through a different lense since it's a case of my having been gone for half of a lifetime & now having seen grinding urban and rural poverty elsewhere in the U.S. & the world.
Meeting so many northsiders in Des Moines over the weekend was a wonderful opportunity for my own personal growth & I'll never forget my experiences there & with the caucus attendees.
In my experience - and I'll say up front that it isn't necessarily the same as everyone else's - Iowa Democrats tend to be pretty partisan. The majority are perfectly willing to let the active minority choose the nominees, and on election day are more than happy to mark the box for every candidate with a "D" beside his or her name.
While of course there are exceptions as people aren’t robots, I believe this is spot on. Democrats in recent history tend to support whomever ends up being the nominee. I think that it is a by-product of a lot of the identity politics you see on that side. E.g…”I’m a women, of course I vote D. I’m a minority, of course…..etc.”
On the other side, that is not the case. The Republicans have different factions that vote based more on their belief system and don’t give a free pass to a candidate just because they have an “R” behind their name. If you look at the last 9 Prez elections, the Republican candidate has won only when they held a majority of their base together. That base is made of liberty types, tea party, fiscal conservatives, constitutionalists, strong defense, small gov’t, evangelicals/born again Christians, etc.). When the base supports the candidate, they win. When they don’t, they lose. It doesn’t matter who the Democrats nominate as they are loyal to “their guy” and will support them.
Most recent example is four years ago. Romney won a far larger percentages of independents than anyone said he needed to be elected. This is always the mass media and establishment talking point – must win over moderates and independents! Well, that doesn’t work if the base doesn’t come out in full force first….and it predictably (outside of anyone besides Karl Rove) didn’t happen. 54 million evangelicals stayed home four years ago. Romney, “the most electable candidate” lost.
My opinion (based on recent history): R’s will lose again in November if the candidate “they” select can’t hold these factions together. History doesn’t lie. That rules out any establishment candidate as they’ll experience the same fate as Bush 41 re-election, Dole, McCain, and Romney. Therefore: Jeb, Christie, Kacish aren’t winning options. Note: It is almost like clockwork – almost without exception, any of my Democrat friends always offer up Kacish as who’d they’d vote for if they were voting R. No surprising...at all….and also validation that he’d lose because they’ll vote D anyway, and a chunk of the R base won’t vote at all.
Trump is not “establishment” but when you look at the list of factions of the base he has to pull together, it is unlikely IMO he’ll be able to do so on his campaign that is short on specifics and long on rhetoric. He also doesn’t have a conservative history to point to that many in the Republican base need see to be won over. After all, they aren’t called “conservatives” for nothing. Also, Trump has the highest negatives of any candidate and is very few peoples’ “2nd choice”. Trump = D win.
That leaves Rubio and Cruz as the only viable candidates that have an opportunity (Note, I didn’t say “guarantee”) to hold the base together first, and then work towards bringing in a few independents and a few of the old Reagan Democrats (a label that describes both my parents – so I kind of have a feel for that label/demo).
Rubio’s challenge – can he hold together the base given his one very huge, big misstep – supporting amnesty and siding with the establishment as a part of the Gang of 8. This isn’t a nonstarter for every faction, but it MAY BE for some. Is he able to overcome this?
Cruz – can he overcome the “likeablity” factor and the fact that all the heavy, well-funded, special interest groups and establishment backers want NO part of a candidate that shows zero signs of wanting to joining the “old boys club”. Money has and will continue to pour in to try and defeat him. That said, the difference between him and say other conservative candidates coming out of Iowa in the past (e.g…Huckabee, Santorum), is that he has built an organization and a war chest. (i.e…coming out of Iowa, he has more money in the bank then Rubio, Bush, Christie, and Kasich COMBINED) to run a 50- state campaign. He also has a strong ground game in the bulk of the primary state that matter. We haven’t seen this in most of our lifetimes….since Reagan anyway… from a non-establishment R trying to earn the nomination.
Should be a fun ride!
(full disclosure to consider my biases: I caucused for Cruz. Rubio/Paul were generally my 2nd choice/3rd choice).
What you're discounting though is the makeup of the country has changed. Any candidate that offends an increasingly growing Hispanic population (or other racial segments of the population) is already at a disadvantage in a national election, based on pure math (provided that said minority groups actually do show up to the polls). I can understand the want to try a new approach with a candidate that sticks to "conservative principals", but if these principals end up offending, Latino voters, black voters or women voters consecutively, it's game over.
I would argue that any far right Christian Conservative candidate (which is what I would label Ted Cruz) is going to be a big victim of this strictly based on where they stand on the issues that is needed to appeal to their base. I do believe that Ted is a man of his word and will not compromise on his principals much even if he did get the nomination, but that is what will sink him nationally too. I think a candidate must moderate a little bit to broaden their appeal, because there just aren't enough far right voters to get the electoral college math job done at the national level.
Also, I would predict establishment money will start to flow in to Rubio as it becomes increasingly clear that he is a (or perhaps even THE) viable candidate. Cruz may not have the lead in the war chest for long...
Yes, demo’s have changed, but it was only 4 yrs ago that Romney won the independents needed, but lost due to not having the base behind him. Too many stayed home. Not that much has changed in 4 years regarding demographics.
You bring up valid points Ryan so let me expand on my other comment to help address.
The candidate needs to also be transformative. By that I mean he/she must be a superior communicator to help persuade those outside the base to vote for them too. That is what Reagan did. The message has to resonate with the average American. Right now Cruz’s probably doesn’t, as he is trying to win the nomination first. A national campaign and messaging would be different…I assume.
You may in the end be more correct on your points than me, but the difference -- you can’t point to any real life examples of a candidate that won over the R base, but lost a general election due to not winning enough of the independent vote. Why? Because that candidate hasn’t been tried since Reagan….and we all know how that worked out. On the other hand, we have several examples that help to prove my point (Bush 41, Dole, McCain, and Romney) that moderate R’s = defeat. In reality, yours can’t be validated until a true conservative has a chance in a general election.
Agreed? At this point, it is all conjecture.
I would also add (and feel free to disagree) , that your opinion is the same this is often communicated by the consultants, the beltway Republicans, the media talking heads, etc. that said that Romney was R’s best hope 4 years ago….and not long ago kept beating the drum that Jeb Bush was the front runner for the R nomination this year. I would submit that these people don’t want a true conservative standard bearer and thus their opinions on what “is needed to win” are intentionally bias. If they can’t have Bush or Christie, then they’d rather have Hilliary as Prez.
Capital
What you have been claiming about the Democrats & straight ticket voting I don't believe is necessarily accurate. You have cited the last several elections to support your idea but one needs to be mindful that you are basically really only referring to the presidential cycle years. In the off year elections, that supposed mentality you ascribe to Democrats has lately been absolutely missing (due to disenchantment & apathy,etc.) & has led to a to a fall off in their voting numbers, much less any trend of them to straight ticket vote. Hence, an off year election is now more likely bad for Democrats than it is for Republicans who are showing up then and largely voting straight ticket.
Though I just returned from the Iowa Caucus event weekend, I live in Georgia & it is highly accurate to say that the Republicans down here are of an almost straight R ticket mentality while at at the voting booth. I think that the last Democrat to hold statewide office retired from his office & a Republican won the next election & thus that party took complete control of every statewide elective office.
You ought to see the disaster that complete control of government by one party has become in Georgia! The Republicans control both houses of the legislature too w/ about 1 vote keeping from achieving an absolute super-majority in one of the chambers. A large part of their control here is due to the Republican straight ticket voting.
Sadly, too often the conservative Republican control of our government has resulted in harsh & vindictive legislation being passed. That is something that I do not understand. What is up with all of the supposedly Christian Georgians who readily cloak themselves in the flag & the Bible writing such vindictive & mean-spirited legislation & for the citizens to vote to elect & re-elect such politicians? I'm missing something! My evangelical brother who lives in Wisconsin does not understand that behavior either. But he tends to look at the compassion exhibited by Christ.
As for straight ticket voting patterns, I think that without doing a careful analysis of the facts in voting patterns & records, it can be an easy mistake for us to ascribe straight ticket voting to the other political side if we are of the opinion that straight ticket voting is not a good thing. But, we need to be careful in thinking that & making assumptions without knowing the facts.
Unfortunately now I am short in time here today but, speaking of Cruz, who was mentioned in this thread earlier today, before I left to head to Iowa I did promise to find & post something outrageous that he did while serving as the Attorney General of Texas which I will do soon. Once I post it, I will be anxious to know if it indicates the temperament that Republicans here on this forum would like to see in an elected president.
Regarding your Cruz article, I’m guessing I’ve read it. There have been a lot of “hit pieces” written about Cruz…and I expect a lot more in the next few months. He is not the only one, but he tends to be more of a target IMO because he is most feared by people in power (both sides). They don’t like the thought of not being able to control policy and power.
The attacks against those that tend not to “go along to get along” are exactly why we rarely get good people running for national office and instead, get exactly the types of people we don’t want. (see congress 9% approval rating) and an out of control $19+ million dollar federal debt.)
I take this election stuff seriously. In part because I have a natural interest in politics and secondly, because of our unique access to candidates every 4-years living here in Iowa. I feel very fortunate to have this opportunity most don’t have, so I don’t take it lightly.
Because of this, I feel I vette candidates thoroughly. I usually have a chance to meet them at least once and if not them directly, plenty of people that know them personally…and sometimes both. This isn’t because I am somebody, but rather, it is the same opportunity anyone serious about gathering information can do living in Iowa given the incredible access we are afforded due to the caucus.
I’m pretty confident in saying that there is nothing written in article by someone that for numerous reasons might have an ax to grind or simply a polar opposite political viewpoint, that is going to provide anything of real substance that is worth considering for this election. All the titillating articles were widely circulated here in Iowa by rival campaigns in an effort to sway voters away from, and to, their guy.
I am one of those “grassroots” Republicans from the base of the party who will NOT vote for just anyone with an R behind their name. I’m probably most closely identified with the “liberty movement” label. I was a natural fit for Rand Paul and still have his picture next to my desk at home…hung there 4 yrs ago in the hopes he would run for President. He did (obviously) but then this highly intelligent, former Harvard debate champion, junior senator for Texas started standing up to the Washington establishment, including leaders of his own party, and demonstrating that it wasn’t necessary to rollover and mortgage our future and our children’s future by doing the politically expedient things(e.g…raise the debt ceiling). We are at a point where we must fundamentally look at how we fix problems, not just band aid them.
One of my big pet peeves is people that confuse activity with accomplishment. Some fall into that trap when looking at congress. i.e…to them it is more important they are doing something…anything….rather than considering if that “anything” really accomplishes the intended. Politicians love when we eat that up. Look here – see what we did to address “X”!
Bottom-line: I took a lot of time in deciding to support Cruz and feel very confident about his positions, his track record, and his moral foundation. Would he be more easily electable if he was more slick, not such a policy nerd at times, more dynamic on the stump, etc? Sure. But again, we have plenty of that already in DC. How’s that working for us?
Last edited by capitalcityguy; 02-03-2016 at 03:14 PM..
Just now back in Georgia after attending the caucus weekend & the Monday event, I have found a tally that gave a total of 186,000 r votes & 171,000 d votes.
Okay, I found a page that gave those numbers (and mentioned the whole SDE nonsense). I feel a little better now. LOL
I am hearing a story that Trump is upset because some Cruz people pushed a rumor that Ben Carson was dropping out of the race. Trump is saying that effected the outcome of the vote. For those that are in the know, did this effect the outcome at all? Was Carson that much of a factor that the numbers would sway that much toward Cruz?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
