The low Iowa turnout....what does it mean? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Owner59 -> The low Iowa turnout....what does it mean? (1/4/2012 5:34:52 PM)

This is supposed to be a race about passion, angst and anger over President Obama`s agenda.

That`s what rightist media says anyway.

The weather was good.Nothing extraordinary happening to prevent folks from participating.

But many didn`t.

Why?

What happened?

Does this mean that folks aren`t in fact as pissed off at President Obama as rightist media would have one believe?

Does this portend a low republican turnout in the general election next Nov.?



mnottertail -> RE: The low Iowa turnout....what does it mean? (1/4/2012 5:37:41 PM)

The angst seems to be concentrated in a select few, 5 or so, by my count. 



servantforuse -> RE: The low Iowa turnout....what does it mean? (1/4/2012 5:53:48 PM)

Iowa has a caucus, not a primary. They usually have small turnouts as they take a few hours of a voters time. You just don't walk in, vote and walk out again.



Owner59 -> RE: The low Iowa turnout....what does it mean? (1/4/2012 5:59:01 PM)

So these low numbers are normal and happen every election there?






servantforuse -> RE: The low Iowa turnout....what does it mean? (1/4/2012 6:28:42 PM)

I think they are normal. My understanding is it is more like a meeting (many small meetings )where voters debate each candidate before voting.



BitaTruble -> RE: The low Iowa turnout....what does it mean? (1/4/2012 6:53:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59


Does this mean that folks aren`t in fact as pissed off at President Obama as rightist media would have one believe?

Does this portend a low republican turnout in the general election next Nov.?



I don't think it has to do with Obama as much as the party itself is not as united against Romney as it believes .. or as the uber fringy would desire.



MasterSlaveLA -> RE: The low Iowa turnout....what does it mean? (1/4/2012 7:13:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

The low Iowa turnout...



Ahem...

"Republicans had the largest turnout in the history of our caucuses and we've had 34 straight months of Republican registration gains in a swing state"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/jan/4/gop-chairman-iowa-turnout-spells-trouble-obama/




Clickofheels -> RE: The low Iowa turnout....what does it mean? (1/4/2012 7:49:20 PM)

If you'd like to know what an Iowa caucus is like, you are welcome to review my post about it in the other Iowa caucus thread under this category.

As for the numbers turnout, it could be many reasons...including the fact that there's been a lot of sickness going around in the state lately.




MasterSlaveLA -> RE: The low Iowa turnout....what does it mean? (1/4/2012 8:05:24 PM)

 
According to the Washington Times story, the "turnout" was NOT low -- but high?!!




Hillwilliam -> RE: The low Iowa turnout....what does it mean? (1/4/2012 8:20:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

 
According to the Washington Times story, the "turnout" was NOT low -- but high?!!



Washington Times????????? Come on. I used to read that paper every time it came into the office and they think Limbaugh is a Lefty.



Owner59 -> RE: The low Iowa turnout....what does it mean? (1/4/2012 8:25:38 PM)

The numbers tell the story: of the 2,250,423 voters in the state (using the higher voting-eligible population), only 147,255 came out last night. And of those, only 122,255 voted in the Republican contest, for a turnout percentage of 5.4 percent. And if any of the hype about Democrats, Occupiers, Anarchists, interlopers, and stray ACORN activists (those that haven't been secreted off to Bagram Air Force Base for indefinite detention) -- all voting on the GOP side to gum up the works -- is true, it's possible that there was an even smaller percentage of sincere GOP voters.
And former Massachusetts Gov. Romney won by 8 votes, a percentage of the voting population that even Wolfram Alpha cannot calculate into a percentage that my mathematically-challenged mind can handle.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/iowa-caucus-results_n_1184479.html



InvisibleBlack -> RE: The low Iowa turnout....what does it mean? (1/4/2012 9:30:34 PM)

http://news.investors.com/Article/596643/201201040722/iowa-caucus-results-rick-santorum-mitt-romney-ron-paul-rick-perry.htm

quote:

Early this morning as the GOP field flew swiftly East toward next Tuesday's electoral battlefield in New Hampshire, the Iowa Republican Party announced that former Gov. Mitt Romney, who was upset there four years ago, finally won the state's caucuses -- by a total of 8 votes out of a new record of 122,255 cast.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/iowa-caucus-results_n_1184479.html

quote:

This year's caucus also set a record for turnout, with 122,255 total votes cast. The previous record for the GOP caucus was 119,000 votes, set in 2008.



Apparently the Iowa turnout for the Republican caucus is an all-time record high turnout, so your thread title is misleading.

I'd say this is indicative of conservative/Republican voters being concerned/active/interested enough to come out in record numbers.


Also, the 2004 Democratic caucus in Iowa had a ~124,000 turnout - so if you regard the Republican turnout as indicative of a lack of anti-Obama sentiment then logically in 2004 the Democrats in Iowa must have been fairly comfortable and happy with Bush.

I draw exactly the opposite conclusion. The conservative, right-wing and libertarian groups are all fervent and motivated and looking to push Obama out and it resulted in a record turnout. Whether they can sell their eventual candidate to the critical "independent" swing vote will be the big question.



MasterSlaveLA -> RE: The low Iowa turnout....what does it mean? (1/4/2012 9:53:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack

http://news.investors.com/Article/596643/201201040722/iowa-caucus-results-rick-santorum-mitt-romney-ron-paul-rick-perry.htm

quote:

Early this morning as the GOP field flew swiftly East toward next Tuesday's electoral battlefield in New Hampshire, the Iowa Republican Party announced that former Gov. Mitt Romney, who was upset there four years ago, finally won the state's caucuses -- by a total of 8 votes out of a new record of 122,255 cast.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/iowa-caucus-results_n_1184479.html

quote:

This year's caucus also set a record for turnout, with 122,255 total votes cast. The previous record for the GOP caucus was 119,000 votes, set in 2008.



Apparently the Iowa turnout for the Republican caucus is an all-time record high turnout, so your thread title is misleading.

I'd say this is indicative of conservative/Republican voters being concerned/active/interested enough to come out in record numbers.


Also, the 2004 Democratic caucus in Iowa had a ~124,000 turnout - so if you regard the Republican turnout as indicative of a lack of anti-Obama sentiment then logically in 2004 the Democrats in Iowa must have been fairly comfortable and happy with Bush.

I draw exactly the opposite conclusion. The conservative, right-wing and libertarian groups are all fervent and motivated and looking to push Obama out and it resulted in a record turnout. Whether they can sell their eventual candidate to the critical "independent" swing vote will be the big question.


Good points and well said. [:)]




DaNewAgeViking -> RE: The low Iowa turnout....what does it mean? (1/4/2012 9:57:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

The numbers tell the story: of the 2,250,423 voters in the state (using the higher voting-eligible population), only 147,255 came out last night. And of those, only 122,255 voted in the Republican contest, for a turnout percentage of 5.4 percent. mathematically-challenged mind can handle.



Keep in mind that roughly 25% of those voted in favor of Drippy-Shit or Rumpot - somewhere around 30,000 each out of 2.25 million - .0136% Even if you allow for an awkward caucus process as someone stated, those numbers are statistically negligible. If the embittered Radicals in this country supposedly number 10 - 15%, that says that even those head cases don't give a damn.

One only hopes this will translate into the degree of support for the Radicals in Congress...
[sm=boohoo.gif]



Owner59 -> RE: The low Iowa turnout....what does it mean? (1/4/2012 10:02:44 PM)

"We are dismayed to learn that the Iowa Republican Caucuses on the evening of January 3rd plan not to count “Uncommitted” or “No Preference” ballots. This is in contradiction of past caucuses where those votes were counted in the GOP caucuses. We condemn this and all other attempts at voter suppression and planned electoral fraud at the Iowa Caucuses. We agree with Governor Branstad when he said: “I think it’s tragic that you’ve got people trying to do this—prevent other people from expressing their freedom of speech and participating in the electoral process. We have a long and proud tradition in this country and in this state of open, honest elections and we want to do all we can to make sure that the Iowa precinct caucuses—which are very important in our nation’s history because this is where the presidential selection process starts—and we want to make sure that they are open and accessible and they’re not disrupted by any groups.”
Refusing to count votes and report accurate vote totals is something that happens in Putin’s Russia or Ahmadinejad’s Iran, not Iowa. We call on both parties to keep the Iowa Caucuses a democratic process where all voices can be fairly heard and respected. We also ask Governor Terry Branstad, Senator Chuck Grassley, Representative Steve King, and Representative Tom Latham to clearly reiterate that the Iowa Caucuses are a fair, open, and honest process where all votes are counted."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/31/1050279/-Iowa-GOP-caves-Votes-of-no-preference-will-NOT-be-Hide-Rated!




Lucylastic -> RE: The low Iowa turnout....what does it mean? (1/5/2012 12:59:00 AM)

What it means is that now conservatives can distance themselves from Romney, avoiding any responsibility for the shit coming soon!



tazzygirl -> RE: The low Iowa turnout....what does it mean? (1/5/2012 4:11:46 AM)

Fun little political fact... who is the only President to have given his paycheck to charity?



Sanity -> RE: The low Iowa turnout....what does it mean? (1/5/2012 5:10:52 AM)


Turns out the Washington Times was accurate re the Iowa numbers and HuffPo was feeding leftists shit, as usual  [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA


According to the Washington Times story, the "turnout" was NOT low -- but high?!!



Washington Times????????? Come on. I used to read that paper every time it came into the office and they think Limbaugh is a Lefty.



Lucylastic -> RE: The low Iowa turnout....what does it mean? (1/5/2012 6:04:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Turns out the Washington Times was accurate re the Iowa numbers and HuffPo was feeding leftists shit, as usual  [:D]



Actually not...
Huffpo, said it was a low turnout, they didnt feed the wrong figures.
They JUST DIDNT state it was the highest figure , just over 3000 more than 2008.The previous record was 119,000 votes, set in 2008.
Huffpost stated the same numbers 122,255.
quote:

And yet, this was an election that was decided by a teensy fraction of the available humans in Iowa who could come around and cast a vote last night. This year's Iowa Caucus is being billed as one of the best ever -- a record turnout, in fact. But if last night was a record turnout, then the Iowa caucuses are some sort of "tallest hobbit" contest.
The numbers tell the story: of the 2,250,423 voters in the state (using the higher voting-eligible population), only 147,255 came out last night. And of those, only 122,255 voted in the Republican contest, for a turnout percentage of 5.4 percent.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/iowa-caucus-results_n_1184479.html

If you actually look and READ instead of jumping the gun again
its a matter of perception not bad figures.



Sanity -> RE: The low Iowa turnout....what does it mean? (1/5/2012 6:13:03 AM)


I read enough of the shit they feed leftists on certain forums such as this, which is more than enough to prove that its worthless lies and spin, just as bad as DailyKOS MSNBC and thinkprogress

Why read any more than that, whats the purpose 



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875