We might be heading towards a contested GOP convention. The first since the halcyon days of Ike and Taft and {gulp} Earl Warren.

Interesting like a train wreck.

As for Obama-Hillary's research team is going through their files as we speak....

Carville is still on Hillary's team and he ain't afraid to take off the gloves.

look at this stupid shat over at the Daily Kos-

This blog fromthe "kos" himself-

Bad omen for the GOP by kos Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 09:45:08 PM PST

From the Group News Blog:

Total Voter Turnout (approximate)
356,000

Percentage of total vote

24.5% Obama
20.5% Edwards
19.8% Clinton
11.4% Huckabee (R)

Says it all, doesn't it?

Honestly can anyone explain to this IDIOT the differnce between the BALLOT voting process that the Republicans do-

And the public voting herd to top three choice "caucus" mess that the Commie Democrats do.

The hell with secret ballots and forget about it if your candidate gets less than 15% in the first round of public herding they force you to choose your second choice.

Talk about "mediocracy" in action.

Remember Obama knew this. There are plenty of campaign stops in Iowa where he asked to be people's "second choice".

God, I hope Huckabee continues this and wins the Republican nomination. Hillary, Obama, or Edwards would wipe the floor with this schmoe.

Rory - "Honestly can anyone explain to this IDIOT the difference between the BALLOT voting process that the Republicans do"

Um...NO. You be better off talking to Ed Edd n' Eddy's plank.

That said, here's my nomination for the scariest image of the evening.

As Shillary was giving her final speech hovering over her right shoulder was Madeline Albright.

Is that REALLY who she wants to associate with? Shillary is allegedly the "face of change," a break from the past.

Yet there was Albright architect of the true quagmire in Kosovo, as opposed to the alleged one in Iraq, that still has U.S. forces posted on its soil, still has no operating government and looks to be a mess for the foreseeable future. (thanks to the U.N.)

God, I hope Huckabee continues this and wins the Republican nomination. Hillary, Obama, or Edwards would wipe the floor with this schmoe.

I agree ... but not because any of them are actually qualified for the office.

What will happen is that Republican voters like me will cross party lines to pick a Democrat and make sure a yutz like Huckabee never sees the Presidency.

I kinda have the same feeling as OhioVoter about Huckabee. I confess I have not followed his speeches but I listened to him on Sean Hannity's radio program late one afternoon and could not figure out how this guy generates any major interest. Hillary? Well, everyone knows she's a shrew so if she goes "Medieval" it is the reason sane people tend to steer away from her anyway. I would like to see her eliminated early so the main stream press has to begin actually working for a living.

I participated in the caucus. Since I am a democrat I can't speak for what happened re the Repubs. I do have some observations about my side though.

First, out precinct had more than twice as many participants as any other time. The turnout was enthusiastic and vocal. In the past, the turnout was mostly middle-aged folks like myself. Last night I was surrounded by youngsters 18-25 or so. It was amazing. Their enthusiasm was incredible. Forget part politics for a minute. This is good for America no matter who wins. I don't know the count of women in my group but I'd say it was at least half or more for Obama.

We had 454 people from my precinct. 228 were counted for Obama. Admittedly I am in a liberal Repubs in Des Moines but the noise and the chatter was so much louder and the folks were so much more engaged than for the other candidates

Almost everyone I spoke to had a similar view. We don't want the possibility of an uninterrupted 28 years of Clinton/Bush. People really want a change. Someone new and someone different.

What Ryan said.

Don't count Thompson out yet. Clinton only had 2% of the Iowa in 1992, and Reagan lost to H.W. Bush in 1980...

I think Thompson is hanging for the VP spot, you know - a southern conservative along with a northeaster..

It will be interesting if Senator Edwards is done. He's virtually lived in Iowa for the last year, and he still can't win. If he withdraws, I see most of his support - especially young voters - moving to Senator Obama.

Look for the Clintons to do everything possible to keep Edwards in the race until they can destroy Obama.

Romney and Thompson are viable.

Guliani, McCain and Hucklebee are toast.

Obama and Edwards are viable although Obama has zero chance in general election.

Hillary is stale toast.

Yeah, Fred ain't done yet. Wait until the southern primaries (SC, Fla.) If he doesn't do well there, then he's toast.

Last night, Jeezus of Iowa spake thunderously, and The Word was Hickaboob.

We might be heading towards a contested GOP convention

There is a possibility of a contested Dem convention as well. Clinton, Inc. is not going to take the Obama surge lying down. And Edwards isn't down for the count, either.

I first voted in the 1976 elections. In all my years, this is the wackiest, most unpredictable national election I have ever seen.

Honestly can anyone explain to this IDIOT the differnce between the BALLOT voting process that the Republicans do-

The point he was making was about Democratic vs. Republican turnout, not results. The Iowa Dems were much more enthused and participated in far greater numbers than the Reps. If this continues in other states, it won't matter who the Republicans nominate.

Go Huckabee!

If Thompson is "toast", so is the Republican party and the Conservative movement.

Huckster = Landslide November loss.

I don't know how it works for Republicans but coming out of Iowa

Obama 17 Delegates
Edwards 14 Delegates
Clinton 14 Delegates

Don't see anything other than it is clearly 3 that are in a virtual tie
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/IA-D.phtml

Jeebus-

Here is the deal.

Essentially since Democrats during their caucus' FORCE publicly the "participant" who "grouped" for a candidate that doesn't get over the 15 5 threshold to RE-ALIGN their "votes" with the more "popular" candidate-their "votes" get CONSOLIDADITED by DESIGN to just the top candidates.

Therefore you have a less FRACTURED vote get it?

You don't have a Ron Paul- for- the- Democrats like -candidate taking 10% of the vote.

(he would have not made it.)

You don't have McCain taking 14% or-
(that result would have not cut it)

Thompson taking 14%.
(that would not have made the evening news if he were a Democrat. His voters would have went to Huckabee, Mitt)

In the Democrat CAUCUS your guy doesn't even make it to the second round of "voting" unless he makes it OVER the 15% threshold.

Therefore what you have the "kos" doing is essentially comparing apples to oranges.

I do agree also that there was a larger turn out for Democrats but again that can perhaps be explained by the "process" again.

In Nevada on the Democratic side for caucusing you can as a Republican or Democrat or Independent register to participate that same day.

Republicans want you on the books as a declared Republican for at least a month in advance.

Therefore you might have had a lot of Independents and Republicans doing an anyone but Hillary vote.

I agree with you that you might have had a lot more noise because your Democrat caucus sytem allows for no right to secret balloting or privacy and participants get haragued to go over to more "viable" candidates, and Iowans Democrats have the power essentially to take Democratic candidates out of the "conversation" for the rest of the nation.

Ya with that kind of "power" I believe those dems were pretty excited.

Iowa gets a lot of pork barrel preferentiaol treatment and this is one BIG reason why.

In the end let me tell you something about who Iowa picks as the "winner" over the past years-it hasn't been a really great track record-

Democrats: 72-- Muskie, followed by McGovern. Actually, the real first place was 'undecided.' 76-- Carter. Thanks Iowa! You shouldn't have! 80-- Carter again, showing that they just didn't learn. 84-- Mondale. 88-- Gephardt. 92-- Harkin. Damn homers. 96-- Bill Clinton. They got one right, but needed him to be running unopposed for it to happen. 00-- Gore. 04-- Kerry.

posted by the commenter Egnimaticore at Althouse blog.

Reference-iowacaucus.com

And ya -Thompson is Toast.

Look I would vote for the guy if he won the nomination BUT if you guys really want him then he doesn't NEED your VOTE he needs your MONEY.

correction-

Essentially since Democrats during their caucus' FORCE publicly the "participant" who "grouped" for a candidate that doesn't get over the 15% threshold to RE-ALIGN their "votes" with the more "popular" candidate-their "votes" get CONSOLIDATED by DESIGN to just the top candidates.

Damn it the shorthand-

If that idiot "kos" even had ONE statistics class at least he'd know it was disingenuous to campare the results from two different systems and lump them together like that.

IT'S DISHONEST.

And that's what the"comparing apples to oranges" cliche means.

You're not getting it. He was not comparing the results per candidate, but highlighting that turnout was much stronger for the Dems than the Reps. I understand that because of the differences in process, there are 5 Republican candidates with respectable numbers compared to only 3 for the Democrats, and thus the percentage comparison is somewhat skewed, but that is beside the point when you consider the number of caucus voters overall:

220,588 Democratic
114,000 Republican
(current estimates from AP via IowaCaucus.com)

Based on the numbers there, you have an increase in Republican voters of 29% from the 2000 caucus, and a 78% increase in Democratic voters from the 2004 caucus.

That's the story here. Less than 1/3 of the Iowans who participated were on the Republican side, and the increase in caucus voters on the Democratic side was more than triple that of the Republicans. What does that mean for the general election? Maybe nothing (and maybe it depends on the nominees), but if this becomes a trend it won't look good for the GOP come November. We'll see if the NH voters go for the Dem primary 2:1 over the Republicans on Tuesday.

mantis-

I get what you are saying-but saying that Huckabee only got 11.4% of the vote total is dishonest.

Hypothetically-and on that basis only because by gawd I ain't no Huckabee fan- if the Huckster went through the Democratic caucus process instead of the Republican direct ballot system-he would have gained the "votes" of the Ron Paul, Giuliani, McCain and Thompson voters who did not make it over the 15% threshold.

But ya I concede your over all point that there were more participants on the Democratic side.

BUT- that goes to the process point I made earlier about Democrats allowing same night registartion of Independents and Republicans.

Even The Des Moines Register has found proof of that assertion-

But Obama's naiveté isn't their deepest fear. As the Des Moines Register's pre-caucus poll shows, the majority of Obama's support comes from independents and Republicans, not registered Democrats. This is the progressive movement's second worst nightmare: a Democratic President, elected by independents and moderates, who rhetorically rejected progressive elements to get elected.

Link

mantis-

I think the same party registration "fluidity" problem will crop up in New Hampshire.

Heck this seems cliche -but it might come down to Florida before those claims can be legitimately made.

Even The Des Moines Register has found proof of that assertion-

Did you read the Register article? Here's what it says:

Clinton remains the favorite of the party faithful, with support from a third of self-described Democrats. However, Obama is the clear choice of caucusgoers who affiliate with neither the Democrat or Republican parties, with roughly 40 percent of them backing him in the survey. The support from non-Democrats is significant because a whopping 40 percent of those planning to attend described themselves as independent and another 5 percent as Republican.

5% comes from Republicans registering as Democrats (how many of those are true supporters, and how many are just doing so to nominate what they think will be the worst Dem candidate is unknown, of course). The Register doesn't say what percentage of that 5% are Obama supporters, just that he gets 40% support from all non-dems (in the poll, anyway).

So basically the Republican participation in the Democratic caucus is, while not negligible, very small. The fact that independents are siding more with Democrats in general, and Obama in particular, only strengthens my point about turnout.

Being an left-leaning independent and not a Democrat myself, I find those results unsurprising. While not my first choice, Obama is very preferable to Clinton in my mind.

I think the same party registration "fluidity" problem will crop up in New Hampshire.

Well, party members can't switch on primary day in NH, but independents can vote in either party's primary. This, to my mind, is the way it should be. It gives you a better idea of how the state will vote come election day than a primary where party registration is required to vote in the primary.

Heck this seems cliche -but it might come down to Florida before those claims can be legitimately made.

Maybe even longer. Iowa and New Hampshire results can't make a trend all by themselves, especially in an election with so many viable (support/money-wise) candidates. South Carolina has picked the eventual Republican nominee for decades, but this year is unique. Who knows what will happen?

Another way to look at it is to see how many people attended Democratic caucuses to vote against Hillary.

That should scare Democrats once they are stuck with her.

That should scare Democrats once they are stuck with her.

If they are stuck with her.

mantis-

You know - I'm with you on your feelings about how it should be in New Hampshire.

PS -thanks for being a class act on Lorie's thread.

It's way too soon for any Republican to be dropping out. This was the Iowa caucus. A silly show designed to bring in lots of cash for Iowa hotels, restaurants and media companies. Plus get everyone committed to wasting more money on corn subsidies. New Hampshire is at least an actual election. Yet, it's got that silliness of letting independents hop back and forth between parties. The real key will be South Carolina, Florida and Super Tuesday. Then you actually have a real sampling of actual GOP voters in an election booth.