Jump to content

Talk:Iowa caucuses/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Media:Media:Example.oggItalic text

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

{{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)

Can we get the Obama hack banned?

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

Vandalism on page

Under Democratic Party process, 2nd paragraph: clog dancing?

'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)

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)

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

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

Someone beat me to it by seconds, it was the CNN Image. Augustz (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
Will you stop posting that image? It is a terrible image to use for this article.Omjeremy (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)


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)

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)

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)


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)

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

spending notes in lede

i see nothing notable about the spending, certainly not notable enough to be in the lede. unless it can be shown that the spending was enormously more than in past elections - and taking into account the longterm trend for election spending to rise with each election - i see no reason for it to be specifically noted in the lede. Anastrophe (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Huh. Both this year and in 2000, my precinct had a ballot with names. I guess we need a source for that, then. -rasd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasd (talk • contribs) 16:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, I found this article about a Quad Cities area precinct: However, the Republican committee had only 240 printed ballots. Jack Willey, a Jackson County supervisor, said blank paper would be used for the remaining ballots. Names of all the Republican candidates had been printed on the ballots. http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2008/01/04/news/local/doc477dd615f255a667562716.txt There are also some places where they use hands, like in Worth County: http://www.albertleatribune.com/articles/2008/01/04/news/news2.txt After the speakers were finished, the large group broke into nine precincts. People continued asking questions among each other and in most cases, the precincts took the vote by show of hands. Unlike the Democratic caucus, there is only one round of voting, with no minimum number of votes required.
Of course, with only 179 people in seven separate precincts, hand raising is probably pretty efficient. I'm going to change it to have the official statement first but then place links to the other methods as well. Calwatch (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Caucuses

I think the article should have the title "Iowa Caucuses." There are more than one, the plural is the only appropriate usage. The first sentence should therefore read: "The Iowa caucuses are collectively an electoral event..." or some such wording.

Seaneboy44 (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

So leave the article name in the singular and begin the article with an indefinite article:
"An Iowa caucus is an electoral event..."
Now how difficult is that? See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Prefer_singular_nouns
-- Fullstop (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


But the rest of the article refers to the "Iowa Caucuses" and there is no particular "Iowa Caucus." They are singular as applicable to the individual precincts only, not the state. It doesn't make sense to have one form at the article title and the first sentence and then abandon the form for the rest of the article.

A preference for Singular Nouns is fine, but only when applicable.

Seaneboy44 (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"iowa caucus" -wikipedia retrieves about 929,000; "iowa caucuses" -wikipedia retrieves about 1,490,000. Maybe this article should eb called Iowa caucuses because that is the more commonly used term. Kingturtle (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Other states challenging Iowa

There should a paragraph on florida wanting to be ahead of Iowa --Ericg33 (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

So fix it. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Although formidable, the challenge didn't work out. Iowa remains first, followed by NH. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

2012 Iowa Caucusing — (Items to consider for improving the Article)

What websites had the best Iowa caucuses info, (and are WP worthy) ?

A while ago, I was in the process of adding valuable info to the Article, and WP automatically prevented me because the website was 'black listed'. I don't know where to read the 'black list' or the 'WP acceptable list', if there is one. Later, I referenced an acceptable site, Fox News Network, and added what I thought was valuable, interesting, and WP-worthy, and another editor removed it saying the site was WP-unworthy. I did not put it back because without my sentence at the top, as written now, it is better. It is a 'tease' for information later in the article. Close readers know what I said.

Today I found a website that collects news-worthy information that is written by worthy news outlets in Iowa: http://IowaCaucus.com/category/headlines/ You can read through their headlines and other information listed and choose what to follow. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC) . . . What have you seen? I'll await your wise and measured replies. TIA.

I'm not seeing a reference to "Barack Obama only faced opposition from less well-funded challengers in the Democratic caucus, ..." at the bottom of the Article. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC) . . . (Section entitled: "2012 process") . . . PS: And I'm wondering if that is the best wording.

Here is a list or respected polls (as judged by those setting the requirements to be in the NH Republican primary debate) :: Polling organizations include: ABC News, AP, Bloomberg, CBS, CNN, FOX, Gallup, NBC News, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post. (You had to achieve 5% in one of these polls, or other possibilities, to be in the debate.) http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012/01/abc-releases-guidelines-for-January-7th-GOP-Debate/ . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This source collects and averages 17 polls: [4] . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Was the 1916 Iowa_caucus replaced by a primary‽

hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 16:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Apparently it was. See this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone who is up to that edit should do so.

hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 18:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Past winners

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

I believe it follows the ten-year rule. 71.146.10.10 (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

Agreed Omjeremy (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Support. —71.146.10.10 (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Iowa Caucus Result Reporting

I think caucus results should be carried out to 2 decimal places. The difference is relevant - instead of it being a 1% difference between Edwards and Clinton, the difference is .28% See official results at http://www.iowacaucusresults.com/. When the results are that close, the decimals are relevant, something the media seems to have forgotten. I'd change it but although I've made a few edits before, I've only just registered. Zzalzzal (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Here we are, entering the 7pm Iowa cauci (plural for caucus) for 2012 (Tues.Jan 3rd) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

"It's a tie for the ages." http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2012/01/19/register-exclusive-2012-gop-caucus-count-unresolved/. . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

correct name is plural

Please stop using http://www.iowacaucus.org as a source for the "official" name. That's apparently little more than a publicity website set up to promote the caucuses and Iowa, and the fact that they don't say on http://www.iowacaucus.org/contactus.html who they really are or who pays for their website fits well with them not even knowing the official name. They don't provide any electronic address, so if you're not as far away from Iowa as i am, please call the number 1.877.4.CAUCUS on that page to tell them about their unbelievable goofup. The Iowa Caucuses are plural, the official name is plural[5], and all other WP articles are plural, e.g. Iowa Democratic caucuses, 2008). --Espoo (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

In a note of levity, Rush Limbaugh calls them (plural) the "Hawkeye Cauci". FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

2016 Isn't Mentioned Yet

This does seem like an egregious lack, given that the New Hampshire Primary page already gives its date of February 9th, 2016. 71.175.176.212 (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Since the precinct voting is today, let's play some 'catch up'. The Green Papers [has] excellent information, and reports these dates. They can be verified elsewhere, including respective political party websites.
Iowa Democrat Presidential Nominating Process

  • Precinct Caucuses: Monday 1 February 20161
  • County Conventions: Saturday 12 March 2016
  • District Conventions: Saturday 30 April 2016
  • State Convention: Saturday 18 June 2016

Iowa Republican Presidential Nominating Process

  • Precinct Caucuses: Monday 1 February 2016
  • County Conventions: Saturday 12 March 2016
  • District Statutory Caucus: Saturday 9 April 2016
  • State Convention: Saturday 21 May 2016

Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Editors may want to examine the structure and content over at New_Hampshire_primary#2016 -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

1988 democratic results

What happened to Jesse Jackson???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.129.146.246 (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

He faided. -- AstroU (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Some great text for 2016 in Iowa

Quoting from FoxNews.com "The Iowa caucuses will be held Monday, the first-in-the-nation test for the 2016 presidential candidates.

Which begs the question: how does a caucus work?

A caucus -- a type of vote held in several states, and not just Iowa -- is more complex than a simple primary. Rather than checking a box for a specific candidate, caucus-goers on Feb. 1 will dive into a more interactive process.

In the case of the Democratic caucuses, Iowans may be required to give up a few hours or more of their evening. Getting in and out of a caucus venue quickly is not a realistic expectation. That is why good campaigns are measured by their "ground game" -- which involves getting people to caucus sites.

When voters arrive at the caucus site at 7 p.m. local time, they will be asked to congregate in their preferred candidate's corner.

Caucus captains will make speeches and lobby to entice voters over to their side.

Typically, if a campaign's group cannot attract at least 15 percent of the total caucus-goers in the room, the group's members either leave or join one of the other, larger groups.

Eventually, the final tally is divided among the campaigns, once voters are firmly in a corner and all "unviable" candidates are weeded out. The candidate with the most, wins. [But it is 'proportional, even at the precinct level.]"

The final tally is then forwarded to the state party. This year, the Democrats also are allowing "tele-caucusing" via satellite for military voters, students and other Iowans living abroad who cannot attend the events in person.

The GOP contest is more straightforward. [Hence, they are not in the same locale, nicht var?]

Voters go to one of the caucus sites beginning at 7 p.m. local time. There, local party precinct captains -- and perhaps in some cases the candidates themselves -- will be allowed to make brief speeches to persuade voters over to their side. Then paper balloting begins.

The results will be handed over to the state party, which will turn them over to the news media.

Voters in the Republican caucus must be registered with the party, and only registered Democrats can vote in that caucus. However, there will be same-day registration available for both parties at the nearly 1,700 caucus sites across the state. [Seemingly, there are then about 850 Repubican precincts and about 849 Democratic precincts, for a total of, as they say, "nearly 1,700" precincts in the 99 counties!]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/29/how-iowa-democratic-and-republican-caucuses-work.html?intcmp=hpbt1

AstroU (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC) PS: You can learn a lot from the content and phrasing.

Time

I came to this page to find out what time the caucus begins and ends. An obvious question, which is not addressed at all in this article. Please provide that information. ---Dagme (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, there is a lot of work to do, and quickly. Any news outlet is telling you the caucusing started two minutes ago at 5pmPT, 6pmMT, (locally at 7pmCT), and 8pmET and goes for an hour. Democrats cauci are different than Republican cauci, but you should start to see results soon. It was the first time for a news reporter (FoxNews) to be shown inside a counting room. (Before the paper ballots are to be counted.) -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC) -- PS: Obviously we need your help in this article. TNKS.

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)

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)
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)

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.

 Done -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

New NEWS, for future editing

Technology helping speed the counting/result news. 

Headline-1: Microsoft on the hot seat in Iowa

QUOTE: "Microsoft volunteered to provide the technology to help tally up the results of Iowa's caucuses, free of charge. Now it will be put to the test Monday night.

The contests in both parties are expected to go down to the wire. And the spotlight will be on precinct officials who have been trained on a new Microsoft app, which is meant to cut down on human error and speed up the reporting process.

Both the Republican and Democratic parties in Iowa have expressed strong confidence in Microsoft, dismissing late suspicion of corporate influence from the campaign of Bernie Sanders early last week." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Proposal to rename article as "Iowa conventions"

I propose that this article be renamed to "Iowa conventions".

Unless this article is expanded to include the election of party committee members at precinct caucuses (i.e., the "Iowa caucuses"), this article needs to be renamed so another article about the Iowa caucuses can be written, like this article but focused on party committees instead of the party conventions as here. Otherwise we will have two article that should equally be name "Iowa caucuses".

43.4 POLITICAL PARTY PRECINCT CAUCUSES.
Delegates to county conventions of political parties [this article] and party committee members [the to-be-written article] shall be elected at precinct caucuses held not later than the fourth Monday in February of each even-numbered year.

Iowa caucuses do more than just select delegates to county conventions. If this article should not be renamed, then it must be expanded to include the Iowa caucus system (the article being named so), which includes the political party committee selection system. (If it be like elections in Colorado, it's even more complicated than that.) This is even more important because that aspect of the Iowa caucuses is even less well known than the convention system presently discussed. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 03:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest poll results

Shouldn't the poll results posted for 2016 be rounded up? I realize that it's important to tell the difference between the two camps but either we need to keep this consistent with other results or we need to make other results more consistent with this. I think that we should at least round to the first decimal. OttselSpy25 (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The official poll just changed from 99% listed to 100% listed, and thus the numbers changed a bit. .2% is now the difference. I have updated the info and have rounded to the first decimal as that is how it is done one the site and thus that is the most reliable version. OttselSpy25 (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

"Since 1972, the Iowa caucuses have been the first major electoral event of the nominating process for President of the United States." But why?

"Since 1972, the Iowa caucuses have been the first major electoral event of the nominating process for President of the United States." But why? Why is there no random process? --Zulu55 (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Read this article, it should explain that the Republican Party has a strict rule on this. Iowa first, NH second, SC third, and NV fourth. Early voting needs to wait till Feb.1 and so Iowa has reserved this 'pole/poll position' so to speak. :-) They relish the attention/importance so don't expect this to change. -- AstroU (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
It appears that the article here needs better explanations on this. TNKS, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@Zulu55, AstroU, and Charles Edwin Shipp: I added a History section today. Feel free to expand it with other sources. GoingBatty (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The 15% Threshold

Those groups with less than 15% were asked to join the three groups that had over 15% (or they could leave for home.)

  • FYI, For 2016, some 2,472 delegates will attend the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, July 18-21 to select the presidential nominee. The winner must carry 1,237—half of the total, plus one. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Is the number of precincts in Iowa 1681 or 1682

The number of precincts is inconsistent within the article. The very first paragraph mentions 1681 but the first paragraph under "Process" mentions 1682. Thank you.

Pkbvrnath (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting question. I don't know the answer - but there is a complete listing of precincts at the Republican precinct locations page, or there are the more official maps at the Iowa Secretary of State's precinct maps page. Keep in mind that these are both for the "general" precincts that are used for the 2016 caucuses. Lists before 20122 are outdated, as they were before the last reprecincting and lists of "total" precincts may include school precincts, which are a parallel/overlapping system to "general" precincts and shouldn't be included in the count for a "general" precinct article. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
In the news this week, they keep saying "nearly 1,700" precincts, some in homes, some in barns, some in etc,etc,etc, and a silo. And our article says 1,681, which is "nearly" 1,700. The number of counties is precisely 99, and I don't suppose we need to be more accurate than what the officials and those that know say, "nearly 1,700". Our question is, "Should we leave our article at 1,681 or change to the combersome "nearly 1,700" like they are saying? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the Republicans and Democrats have separate meeting places. So does that mean there are about 1,700 for the Republican Primary caucus, and an equal number for Democrats? I think that is the case. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC) -- PS: They have to be registered as Republican or Democrat.

It doesn't really matter if we say '1,681' or '1,682' since all the TV coverage this week doesn't say. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Nobody really cares since everyone just wants to impress with the large number of of groups caucusing, and it seems that added together, the two main parties meet in separate caucus groups, adding up to a whopping "nearly 1,700 presincts" or neighborhood confabs, so to speak. -- AstroU (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC) -- Yes, they are very impressive.
Just as the discussions and voting is to begin, voting officials are saying there are 1,681 caucus groups. This must be adding Republican groups and Democat groups together. So leaving our article saying, "...meet in precinct caucuses in all of Iowa's 1,681 precincts and elect delegates to the corresponding county conventions..." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I've come to believe that there are currently 1,681 caucus groups, each with a Repubican leader "captain" and a Democrat leader "captain" with their discussion groups meeting separately. This was implied by a FoxNews reporter on the scene in their recording room, for the first time. -- AstroU (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Democrat caucusing method

I linked in walking subcaucus article, the name for the process as used in Minnesota DFL party, although it is apparently not called that in Iowa, but looks basically identical. It would be good to see what other states use this process, and find agreement for what it should be called. Tom Ruen (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Iowa caucuses. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Remove pornography

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.

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.

"white people"

A user by the name of Onionext01 seems to be injecting racially inflamed language into this page. One of their revisions was edited out and I just undid the most recent.

The text includes references to "white people" such as the following:

"the caucuses are still seen by white people as a strong indicator for how a presidential candidate will do in later contests"

But there is no citation at all about how "white people" alone consider the Iowa caucuses as an indicator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.247.239 (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


How is "white people" racially inflamed language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onionext01 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Reminds people of race, which remind us of heated arguments from the same outlets that teach us about Iowa elections. It's inevitable by now, not your fault. But adding uncited claims about white people's views on Iowa elections is your fault (or so it would seem). Pretty sure Barack Obama considered the 98% 2012 deal "a strong indicator". Not exactly the whitest man in Iowa history, per mainstream consensus, as you might agree. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iowa_caucuses/Archive_1&oldid=1240586220"