Wow ! The first major caucus for the upcoming US presidential election happened yesterday with, if you ask me, some pretty lightning-like results! It had to be an historical moment (for the country and for the man himself) at Barack Obama's headquarters. Very sound victory for him - notable in many ways, but especially in that he left the "money train"/power-heavy Hillary Clinton way back in third place (even behind John Edwards *yikes!*). In my opinion only, I think Obama's showing in Iowa is extremely defining for this election. The voters there are in the heartland, not exactly in the mix or swing of the Washington fire lane. That they so soundly supported a freshman Senator who happens to be multi-racial is pretty awesome. Mike Huckabee won for the Republicans (which probably has Mitt Romney and crew in a major dither as we speak). THAT victory, though (again, in my opinion) will more than likely become less eye-opening once the political train travels next to New Hampshire. Mitt will be more on his "turf" over there (and no one will snort so much about who's 'Evangelical' and who's Mormon .... I hope ). Obama's victory, though, is a sign of momentum that looks, to me, like it will be hard to stop ~ in Iowa, Rhode Island, Miami Beach or even Provo, Utah. The dude is on a roll! Which, I HAVE to wonder, gives one pause as to just how much political influence Oprah Winfrey really has . But that's a whole other discussion. Here's the newspaper article (out of Ohio)...
Any thoughts on Iowa and what it may or may not promise, as Election 2008 begins to really heat up?

I think New Hampshire is a better test of the national consciousness - secret ballots and all that - but I am heartened by Obama's showing.

Very happy with the results.

As for Hilary, she was leading by FAR up to this point. I've gotten the impression for her that she put too much stock in the fact that she's lead most every poll taken since she started campaigning. I got the impression that it went to her head and she started feeling that her winning the Democratic primary was a given. People read her cockiness and decided to give her some humble pie.

Either way, I'm happy Obama, who personifies the melting pot this country is, won and racists like Ron Paul have been rendered irrelevant on top of Huckabee beating Mitt Romney, who not only lied about his father marching with Dr. King, but has spoken out against Affirmative Action.

You cannot believe how happy I am that Hilary came in 3rd. I'll admit it, I am Conservative Republican, but I think (no, I KNOW) I'd be able to stomach Obama a heck of a lot better than her if a democrat wins the elections in November. I am still undecided who I'll vote for, and I've been known to vote across party lines. But I'm pleased with Iowa's results.

As a Brit I must say that I am annoyed at his "we will change the world" speech. It will be great if he succeeds and becomes President but he must realise that recent US attempts at changes to the World have not been successful and have resulted in many of the world's population hating America

Ah, such an excellent point, SOTHC. My only hope is that he meant "change the world back" (to where it was, imperfections and all, before this current administration got -um- all 'aggressive')....

I liked what Romney had to say about religion and politics, but I'm glad that Huckabee won. I was a little surprised that Hillary was so behind (but not unpleasantly surprised ).

Obama and Huckabee won Iowa. My question is, How many states does one have to win to win the candidacy of the party? Also, How long does it take to win the candidacy? When is the Presidential Election?

For what it is worth, I hope Obama is the next President. However, I don't know a lot about American politics but he seems genuine to me and will help the USA. As I said, I don't know much about the issues and I could be totally off base.

Hi Trevor! Give *this site* a look ~ it explains the process without getting too far off into tangents. It's pretty much the "bare bones" of how the elections work in the US. Maybe it'll answer some of your questions.

An excellent site, Gatsby. I bookmarked it for future reference. Thanks a Million!
Trevor

And MY question is - how do you stand it? "Election hype" is at least a year long.

Here, campaigning before the writ is passed (an election is called) is frowned on, and can, if it is too overt, be illegal. Usually, an election takes place about 36 days after it is called, and that is the only time that campaigning takes place. And, frankly, it's about long enough, we are all sick of their faces and voices by then.

Ahhhh the American presidential elections ............... Best darned comedy show on TV!

Hilary ought to get an Oscar nomination - her performances are hilarious.

I loved the guy with the "we will change the world" speech - so presumably in order to achieve that if elected, he will keep his nose out of world affairs, and recall the American army from every country they occupy?

I suppose those of us who actually get to vote over here (while we DO all laugh at the comedic elements of the rather endless parade of candidates as they come and go, fling their hats in, yank their hats out) we also find ourselves in the position to find more to the agenda than just misplaced remarks, promises that can't be kept, power struggles being bandied about where one didn't even know "power" existed, etc. Especially in this time and place, when leadership seems to be a key component to getting something (almost everything?) back to an understandable cadence. Comedy? Perhaps. But, as far as this waffling American goes (or so the assumptions flourish), it feels like deadly serious comedy to me.

And I wonder: had Obama proclaimed: "We're going to keep the world as it is!", would it have sounded better? Not being a total cynic with one eye that doesn't work and the other seeing only what it wants to see, I'd say that saying nothing (of that nature) might have been the best thing. However, considering that he DID go that route, I must observe that his choice of "CHANGING the world" seemed a much more hopeful suggestion than it would had he decided to say that he planned NOT to change it.

We can all agree some changes need made over the entire planet. No matter what side of the street one drives on where they live. Yes?

David began this topic thread with the following question

Quote:

---

Any thoughts on Iowa and what it may or may not promise, as Election 2008 begins to really heat up?

---

He did not ask for comments on the merits of the American system of election, and remarks about 'a comedy show' are not in keeping with what is being discussed.
It once again lowers the tone of a thread to a juvenile level . I do wish that posters could learn to stay on topic, read other people'e posts and not throw insults about. This is not acceptable at Funtrivia and is happening all too often of late.
I , for one , am interested to learn about how the electoral system works. I am not really interested to hear that someone finds it a comedy show. What possible positive result can come from a remark like that?

The American system, in brief is this:

The primaries (and caucuses) are when the states choose delegates to send to the Democratic and Republican conventions. Back in the day, the candidates were actually chosen at these conventions (until maybe the 1950s/60s? I can't remember exactly which election...) and were not chosen as a result of the voters in the states. The delegates could basically choose whatever candidate they liked the best, whether their state's voters chose that candidate or not (and I think some states still make it possible for the delegates to change votes).

When you vote, you vote for the president and vice president as if they were conjoined twins, you can't have one without the other. (It used to be the first place won the presidency and second place became vice president, but they decided that having people of two different parties wasn't really the best of ideas... .

Nowadays, at the conventions, the winner is already known and it's more of a formality. But back in the day, the big conventions that happen the summer before the election were when the candidates were chosen in smoke-filled rooms and the party's platform was decided. Also, the candidates generally stuck to the party platform, as opposed to today where the candidates themselves have most of the input.

For example, you as a voter in Virginia just cast your vote in a primary for Obama. But you didn't elect him, you just cast a vote to your delegate saying 'hey, when you get to the convention, vote for this guy'.

Now fast forward to November's general election, you again aren't technically voting for a candidate. In the U.S., when the founding fathers set up the system, they didn't think the common man was smart enough to vote, so they wanted a 'check' in case they did something really stupid such as electing a pig to office. So you don't vote for a candidate, you vote for an elector who will go to Washington and officially cast a ballot after November's election. (Hence why we say a candidate needs so many 'electoral votes' and we don't go by popular vote.)

Now, like the primaries, the electors don't always have to technically vote for the candidate chosen by their state. I think one or two states say the votes should be divided by how the popular vote, but not all do and some don't have any rule, so the elector could again technically vote for someone completely different (although I think this has only happened once or twice in history).

So technically, you could say US citizens don't really vote for their president and vice president.

Edit to add: If you're really interested in why the American government was set up the way it was, read the Federalist papers. It was written by some of the founding fathers - they're actually articles written for a newspaper back before the Constitution was ratified, explaining why it was written the way it was.

I simply voiced an opinion that is shared by many Ren - but because it's not YOUR opinion it's unacceptable on FT - OK

And I for one am not a juvenile - please do not address me as such. MY OPINION on world events is based on considerable experience and knowledge.

I and many others on this site are getting a little fed up of the supposed "Holier than thou" attitude of certain of the hierarchy on this site - many of whom often break the strict rules that they themselves enforce upon others.

A DEBATE is supposed to take input from all sides and from all opinions. When you condescend to tell a member their opinion is JUVENILE, it LOWERS the debate into a scenario of "The opinion of the administration is the only opinion that matters"

To Dave (Gatsby)
With reference to my post regarding the "comedic" presidential elections - to which you replied.
You obviously picked up on my tongue in cheek remark about it being a comedy show. Many do consider it to be farcical, but you are perfectly right in saying thats it's a serious and perhaps even deadly comedy. There is no getting away from the fact that much of the world considers American politics to be a joke, and those same people hate the way that USA government is trying to rule the world. Notice I say American GOVERNMENT - it is my belief that the American PEOPLE do not want their beloved country to be viewed that way, and therefore can only hope that a new president will do something POSITIVE to restore the USA to being quite rightly a world LEADER, as opposed to being what many see as an oppressor.

If only those of us who walk into the polling booths to vote paid more attention and did their homework on issues and candidates insted of voting for who wore the best suit, whose hair looked the best, had the better witty repartee, etc. Personally, I take the time to actually look at voting records in the House, Senate, and Congressional turnouts. Someone may look good or be witty during a debate yet have an appalling record for NOT being present on important majority issues. The voters who go in with complete ignorance and then bemoan the outcome when their chosen candidate did little of what they purported he/she would do, make me absolutely furious. If only the caliber of most people we have on this site were the ones casting votes. I am not naive enough to think the President is in complete control of our countries actions. Unfortunately however, too many voters are. In simple terms, I equate it to not studying for an exam and then being putout by receiving a failing grade. Do your homework! This is our country for God's sake, not a popularity contest. I think the days pre-television were far more conducive to this. One had to actually read a newspaper, magazine, and listen to radio to know what was going on. They didn't know, because they couldn't see it, whether or not a candidate was wearing the proper tie with their $3000 Brooks Brothers suit. Sandy

djsgal - yes, that is mostly my point. I suspect that because it goes on so long, many people just tune right out - with bad results for democracy. I know that even after our much shorter campaign season, my main feeling is "a pox on all their houses" - and I'm a pretty engaged voter.

There is certainly every reason to postulate that US Presidential (or even state or local) elections are the source of the phrase "media circus". However, while the campaigning process might seem to non-Americans to be on the farcical side, the actual democratic process is really quite fascinating, and it's too bad that intelligent people the world over can't look beyond the media circus just as so many of us American's HAVE to do. I feel that it is a shallow view, as shallow as the campaigning itself often is. I don't mean this to be insulting, either personally or generally. It's just that this process is so very important to many Americans, myself included, and has global consequences no matter how farcical it looks in international press, and it's a good thing that there are those of us who take it seriously while the rest of the world laughs.

I'm quite pleased with the turn out at Iowa, myself. I am unapologetically liberal, and Obama is my man. Tonight while watching the New Hampshire debates I've used a few naughty words to describe Ms. Clinton, and I'm not afraid who knows it. Her "I, I, I, me, me, me" rhetoric is tiresome. To be honest, I feel that Obama would be the best president of those who have thrown in their hat, in either party. (As with all things, this is just my opinion, and I'm aware it won't be shared by everyone here. That's as it should be.) But in addition to that, I'm going to say right now that while Clinton has the best chance any woman has ever had to become president, America isn't ready for a woman in the office yet, and even if they were, I sincerely hope that we aren't ready for another Clinton. And I say that as a woman, and one who devoutly hopes there will be a day when America IS ready for a female president.

As for the "Change the world" speech... I'm not entirely sure what there is to be offended by. I know that currently American interference in world governments is a hot button issue in the global scene. I know that the current administration has done much harm to any trust the US still had amongst it's allies. But honestly, America is a global superpower, and it is not arrogance, but realism, that assumes it has an important roll in the world. I'm a US citizen, but I'm also a citizen of the world, and I want to see both my country and the world be better places. Surely everyone here can think of ways that the world could be changed for the better? Surely the world can benefit from change for the better within one of its superpowers. Does changing the world have to come from fingers in pies? Simply, no, of course not. A consistent message of leadership and cooperation in foreign affairs and concentration on domestic issues is a message I can get behind, and I hope it DOES change the world. And incidentally, in response to Delboy, Obama wants our troops out of Iraq, and he isn't shy about it. That's part of changing the world.

I have nothing but respect for your post Lothruin. Unfortunately, as a non American, I can only judge things on what I see in the media, and by chatting to any one of DOZENS of my American friends.

I obviously do not have a vote in these elections, but if I did, then I most certainly would vote for Obama - removing both the US AND British troops from Iraq would go a long way to ensuring world confidence that US and its allies are not looking to "rule the world" - because that is a growing concern the world over.

Whilst the rest of us have no say in what happens in the USA - the outcome of this election most certainly WILL affect us, and therefore we have just as much right to express an opinion, as do the US citizens.

I am just waiting for next month when it gets to the states Giuliani is strong in.