What really might have happened in Iowa.

[earth mom]

Just found this over on the Edwards blog.

I find it outrageous that there is only a 10 day residency requirement in Iowa. We should all be outraged. This is DIRTY politics. :grr:


Field of Dreams in Diaries
1/09/2008 at 6:52 PM EST
(This was originally posted as a reply to Edwards/Obama Deceptive Numbers in Iowa) My husband and I were the caucus chair and precinct captain respectively,in our precinct. There is much misunderstanding of the caucus process in the public and in the media. The caucus process benefitted Edwards in that rural communities are given more power than if individual votes are counted as in a primary. However, there are SERIOUS problems with the Iowa caucuses...

First of all, the ONLY requirement to caucus here, is that you must have lived in Iowa for 10 days. You do NOT need to show ID, you do NOT need to show proof of residency upon registering at the caucus site. How many of you knew this? It is strictly an honor system. Your signature is an afidavit and if you are falsely signing in, there is a fine of several thousand dollars. However, this is virtually unenforcable. As a result, especially in the chaos of the huge Jan 3rd turnout, people caucused who should not have. It's easy. For example, visit a friend or relative for Christmas (more than 10 days before 01/03) and stay to caucus. We've lived in our neighborhood 10 years and I grew up here. We've been canvassing for months. (In other words, we are familiar with most folks in our neighborhood.) 2004 saw a record turnout in our tiny precinct of 60 some people, this year 139. Of the 61 Obama supporters at our caucus, 47 were unregistered, 15 had no ID with them (not required, remember) and 2 of them talked openly with each other about being from California and Wisconsin. And before anyone calls me a racist, almost all of us present at the caucus, including Obama supporters, were of the same color. The caucus chair called the Iowa Democratic Party hotline with concerns about lots of people with no ID that did not appear to be from the neighborhood - again, NOT BASED ON COLOR - and was told that chaos was happening all over the state and that there was basically nothing to be done. Does Obama deserve credit for having a phenomenal grassroots organization? Absolutely, yes. Did his campaign have non-Iowans caucusing? I believe, yes. Were there enough to determine the outcome? We'll never know. The national Democratic party should become involved in figuring out a fair way to regulate the Iowa caucuses. How about a 30 day residency requirement with proof of residency required at caucus site (like a utility bill)? With Iowa wielding this much power, this problem cannot be ignored.

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2008/1/9/18523/95650

[rateyes]

1. k & r

[Kittycat]

2. So do you think you should forfeit your right to vote because you moved?

eom

[SeattleGirl]

16. I think the OP was referring to those people visiting, not those who

actually moved to Iowa.

Big difference.

[Clarkansas]

3. The 10 day policy doesn't bother me

as much as Iowa always getting to go first.

[Stewie]

4. Huh?

QUOTE: "Of the 61 Obama supporters at our caucus, 47 were unregistered, 15 had no ID with them (not required, remember) and 2 of them talked openly with each other about being from California and Wisconsin. "

That adds up to 64.

[Ravy]

5. Sometimes subtraction is in order. nt

[jlake]

7. The numbers may overlap....

[Emit]

8. The numbers could be inclusive.

Meaning some of the unregistered also had no ID or the 2 who talked about being out of state may also have been unregistered or had no ID.

[beberocks]

6. No doubt in my mind Edwards should have won Iowa

But the main problem is how much emphasis was placed on the votes of a mere 220K caucus goers of a relatively small state. No candidate should be declared the "winner" of the nomination until more voices are heard. I'm a Californian that is disgusted by the process and not getting my voice heard. Edwards is my first choice, but after a just two states voting, the talking heads are trying to shove him out of the race. If he had won Iowa, it would be a completely different situation.

[earth mom]

9. I have NO doubt Edwards won Iowa. But no matter what the talking heads would ignore him.

They have nothing bad that they can say about Edwards, so the game plan is to annihilate him by making him invisible. :grr:

[earth mom]

10. kick!

:kick:

[earth mom]

11. Shameless Kick!

:kick:

[midlife_mo_Jo]

12. K&R for my candidate!

[ellisonz]

13. Barack Obama shot Kennedy.

[tblue37]

14. K&R

[Clinton Crusader]

15. K&R!

[FlyingSquirrel]

17. Just... wow.

[Inspired]

18. It was a bizarre caucus, that is for sure.

I haven't said much about this because I didn't want it to look like sour grapes. However...there are reports coming in from all over Iowa that something just wasn't right this year. What I keep hearing is this:

"Who were these people and where did they come from? I've never seen them before. I live in a small town and thought I knew everyone."

Iowa needs to fix this. I think you should be required to be a registered Democrat or Independent and have proof of residency. I don't think this is an outrageous idea. I also think there needs to be a better system of counting votes. The raised hands doesn't quite work when you have almost 500 people in a small room and candidate groups are running into each other.

It was chaos in my precinct.

I hope they do some type of audit.

[whatdoyouthink]

19. Ya but

He beat us in NH as well

I just think Hillary and Obama PEOPLE just fighting harder! and a little dirtier! thats all

Fair = No

But in war AND politics as the saying go's

Go Johnny Go!!!

[UTUSN]

20. I got flamed for saying this back then.

That the Rethugs in Texas learned how to manipulate the system back when the Dems controlled everything. Since there were virtually NO Rethugs in office or competing in November, the only say-so that was meaningful was the Democratic primary. So the Rethugs would vote as "Dems" in the primary to select the most Rethug-like of the Dems.

Later, when Shrub gave Rethugs a boost and the November elections became competitive, the Rethugs of the operative type would vote in the Dem primaries as a dirty trick, to swing it towards the WEAKEST Dem, to help the Rethug nominee in November. Of course, ALL the Rethugs (or "Independents") would vote for the Rethug in November.

[Kermitt Gribble]

21. Kick!!

[earth mom]

22. Kick!

:kick: