Talk:Iowa caucuses

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Iowa portal This article is supported by WikiProject Iowa (assessed as High-importance).

Ron Paul's Name Spelled Paul Ron

I just wanted to note that, under the heading of "2007 Process", Ron Paul's name was spelled "Paul Ron". Could someone with access please correct that?

Olienh (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Erik Olsen, Auburn, NH[reply]

Remove pornography

It would be nice if someone could remove the version which contains the pornography (23:33, 3 January 2008 65.79.135.239); I just UNDID it, but it should be removed completely, if someone can do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.250.142 (talk)

How do you get the loser who put the porno stuff on here forever banned?

Lock this page

can someone please restrict editing rights for this page?

some Obama nut keeps vandalising this page.

Vandals attacking

Protect this page, im seeing an ugly picture of obama and i can't read the article because it follows me everywhere.

I'll second that. 199.8.239.178 (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll third it. While I'd be happy if Obama does come out on top, I didn't come here to see a static pic of his mug follow me down the page. --67.65.35.110 (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, am seeing the Obama picture. Perhaps the page could be locked until the morrow. Updates being viewable via the news section.

Obama comes and goes. Lock the page.

I also am annoyed by the Obama picture which keeps apearing. Please lock it until tomorrow at least. I wanted to read about the Iowa Caucus, not be assailed by vandalism! ---Tobias

I'm seeing this photo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Elephant_near_ndutu.jpg but can't find any links and the photo isn't behaving normally. Does anyone know what's going on. -Vcelloho (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll, fourth that! But, could someone please un-bold Barack Obama's name under results. It is still WAY too close to call! No official results should be posted on this page yet! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.97.76 (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

Can we make this the section where people can post their blogs if they are covering the event tonight? There are some great blogs out there reporting on the subject.

List of Blogs covering tonights Caucus:

http://www.curtismclaurin.com

If there are any other blogs directly covering this event please list them here

Election winner versus popular vote winner

There is a ton to debate on this issue, and I don't care to do it. I think it's important to have the actual president highligted in the section, but would be willing to compromise with an "*won popular vote" after Gore if you think it is prudent. - Jaysus Chris 21:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many political scientists and other academics in their calculations of prediction systems for presidential elections classify 2000 as a "win" for Gore since it is the popular vote that they are predicting. This is important, esp. in this context. pls leave this info. EdwinHJ | Talk 02:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the highlighted candidate in the Past Winners section of the Iowa Caucus article is the candidate who won the popular vote for their party's nomination? If that's the case, I think we just need to make that a little more clear and we're in complete agreement. I was under the impression that you were trying to indicate who won the general election. - Jaysus Chris 04:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction of Al Gore as the 2000 popular vote winner is no more relevant in the context of the Iowa caucus than it is to show George Bush as the winner of the presidency. To eliminate the appearance of political bias this distinction should be removed or it should be added that George Bush was elected president by the electoral college.

Native American word???

I'm deleting this sentence:

The term "caucus" used in this sense is believed to be a Native American word meaning "a meeting of tribal leaders."

A Native American word? That's like saying "a European word" or "an Asian word". A short glance at Native American languages shows that there are, to put it mildly, quite a few Native American languages. You'd think an encyclopedia would say which word and in which language, for example "the word xxxx in Creek, meaning yyyy". Also, the phrase "is believed to be" is suspect at best. Also, see the Caucus article for further etymological theories. --Smithfarm 17:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa was rarely first

Heck, the Republicans have had earlier caucuses most of the elections between 1976 and '04. 1996 is an excellent case in point. Buchanan's victories in the little attended Alaska and Louisiana caucuses prior to Iowa were pivotal to his later successes, the same thing with Pat Robertson's victory in Hawaii in 1988. For one moment in time, it looked like they could go all the way.

huh?

"While they have been a financial 'boon' to the state, (the candidates have spent sometimes years campaigning) the political value of the Iowa caucuses has gone up and down over the years. In 1988, for example, the candidates who eventually won the nominations of both parties came in a poor third, and Walter Mondale in 1984, Bob Dole in 1996 and George W. Bush in 2000, all of whom went on to win the nomination, were badly beaten in New Hampshire."

Financial BOON? I thought the word was "boom"? Badly beaten in New Hampshire? I thought the article was on Iowa? 201.21.96.49 13:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC) ŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ[reply]

The word is boon, meaning "good thing". Boom is a different word, meaning "the sound an explosion makes". And the article is on Iowa and its consequences, and New Hampshire is partly a consequence of Iowa. - Shaheenjim (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa not first?

The article currently says, "While the Democrats have tried to preserve the position of Iowa and New Hampshire in their nominating schedules, the Republicans have not. Alaska and Hawaii generally have their caucuses before Iowa." What? I thought Iowa was first. I think it's first this season (2008). Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 says Iowa's caucus is January 3, 2008, then Alaska isn't until February 5, 2008, and Hawaii isn't until March 2, 2008. - Shaheenjim (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This transition is very confusing.

The section titled: Republican Party process reads:

For the Republicans, the Iowa caucus follows (and should not be confused with) the Iowa Straw Poll in August of the preceding year...

But the next paragraph begins:

The Republican caucuses are a straw poll where each voter casts his or her vote by secret ballot...

This is really unclear. I changed it to "In the Republican caucuses, each voter casts his or her vote by secret ballot..." because mentioning a "straw poll" again just seems to contradict the penutamelt statement.

--Jrgsf (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Past winners

Why does the Past winners section only go back to 1972? Kingturtle (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time of caucus in 2008

I've put in the time that the Democratic caucus starts, sourced from CNN. I don't know when the Republican caucus starts, but I'll try to find it. --Elperlman (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy update

I think the controversy section could use some work. The section lists a laundry list of criticism, but the last sentence could really use its own section, or least a much more prominent part of the controversy section. I propose expanding this criticism, and filling in the other side's argument (e.g., the value of retail politics (http://blogs.britannica.com/blog/main/2007/12/why-iowa-a-defense-of-the-iowa-caucuses/)). This item is by far the most prominent of the controversy items, and therefore deserves more attention. --Elindstr (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soldiers "lose" their vote?

I have a problem with this sentence: "Absentee voting is also barred, so soldiers who come from Iowa, but must serve in the military lose their vote."

First off, it needs a comma, but more importantly, how can a soldier "lose" something he never had? The sentence assumes that primaries are the normal thing and therefore these weird caucuses cause people to "lose" their votes. It would be better to say they don't have a vote or can't vote. 68.219.59.81 (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the only problem with that sentence. Each soldier is entitled to a vote, so the soldiers do not "lose their vote". They "lose their votes." This "singular they" crap is now so out of control that some people seem to have forgotten how to use plurals altogether. 170.140.210.108 (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This "'singular they' crap" has been around since at least the King James Version of the Bible, not to mention Shakespeare. It's a useful part of the English language. You are, however, correct that it should be "loser their vote." Then again, if things were how they should be, it would say "a soldier loses *his* vote." ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.44 (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on page

'RAPTOR JESUS' whatever the heck that nonsense is, appeared when I loaded the page. I consider the small paragraph to be out of place, not pertinent to the topic of the page, and senseless vandalism. I hope someone removes it soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.240.207.71 (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a picture of Obama plastered as a winner. I would like to make it clear though that my screencap of the Huckabee win was simply to demonstrate the surprise early predictions not to cause trouble. Thompsontough (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the code to remove the Obama picture. Anyone? --Milton (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ObamaBarackIA.jpg the image in question.216.161.151.193 (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone beat me to it by seconds, it was the CNN Image. Augustz (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was? Image:CNN Iowa caucus.jpg had nothing to do with the vandalism which was my point. Thompsontough (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will you stop posting that image? It is a terrible image to use for this article.Omjeremy (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, particularly given the Obama vandalism. My main concern in all the confusion was the removal of the Iowa template. Although ironically CNN did predict Obama would win as well, just not as easily. Thompsontough (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media:Media:Example.oggItalic text

Resolved

– thanks.--69.118.143.107 (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Could someone remove "[[Media:Media:Example.oggItalic text]]" from the bottom of the page?--69.118.143.107 (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to lock this article

I would like to make a suggestion to lock this article. It seems that there has been a rash of vandalism that probably will not cease until long after this is over.Dianaraven (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Omjeremy (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get the Obama hack banned?

Jesus! Maddyfan (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image vandalism

Leave this article alone! Any images of candidates (Obama, Huckabee, etc) are not appropriate for this article and should be deleted immediately. --Michelleem (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the intent was not to vandalize the page but to demonstrate the upheaval on the Republican side. I could have just as easily used a cap without a face in it; either way, I'm content with the argument that it gives unnecessary and undue attention to one candidate in one year. I didn't intend to argue about it. Cheers. Thompsontough (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa Caucus finished=

CNN stated that Obama won in the Democrats and Huckabee won in the Republicans. I don't know the intricacies of Wikipedia so can someone please edit this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.210.176 (talk) 03:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Ballots

The article says the caucuses do not have secret ballots as a criticism. The Democratic caucuses do not have secret ballots. The Republican ballots do have them. I just came from a Republican caucus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxlotus (talk • contribs) 03:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance

"after candidates had spent tens of millions of dollars on television ads[1] and hundreds of paid staff[2] in dozens of field offices.[3]"

this seems to be better placed in a section/article describing opinions of the US political process. This seems to cast an aspersion and is out of place in the head of the article without attaching it some relevant subtopic.

peace...

Mondatti Mondatti (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Registering

I'm a bit upset because I registered to edit this page, and now I can't. Under the Republican section, there have been six Ames polls, and in 1987 and 2008 the winner did not win the Iowa Caucus. Thanks. --Weditor08 (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blank sheet

I removed the statement about the Republican vote being cast on a blank sheet since that's not true. However, I would assume that it was probably true at some time or place since some editor put the remark in there. Having a source indicating where (or when) that's the case would be nice, but I'm not aware of one myself. -rasd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasd (talk • contribs) 10:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the Politico article linked right after.

On the Republican side, there is no rural vs. urban tilt, no delegates to worry about and no viability.

Whoever gets the most votes wins.

Though, because it is Iowa, they didn’t want to make it too simple: In most precincts, there are also no ballots, just blank pieces of paper.

The voter writes down a name.

(Those who caucus in schools get the benefit of a desk for this; those meeting in living rooms, gymnasiums or church basements may have to use the back of another voter.)

Any name can be written down.

Spelling doesn’t have to be accurate — a relief for Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani — and you don’t have to remember a candidate’s entire name.

“If somebody writes down Mitt or Rudy, that would be counted,” said Mary Tiffany, spokeswoman for the Iowa Republican Party.

See also [1] and [2], again quoting Tiffany of the state party. Thus, I am reverting your edit. Calwatch (talk) 11:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Both this year and in 2000, my precinct had a ballot with names. I guess we need a source for that, then. -rasd