37
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by jordanlund@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

I'm putting this up early since it's likely I won't have time tomorrow.

Monday, 1/15, is the date of the Iowa Caucus, please direct all comments, links, and replies involving that here!

Edit - 5:36 PM Pacific, 7:36 PM Iowa time, 8:36 PM Eastern - MSNBC declares Trump the winner (shock!)

8:23 PM Pacific, 10:23 PM Iowa time, 11:23 PM Eastern. MSNBC declares Desantis #2, Haley #3.

Final Results:
Iowa had 40 delegates to assign out for the convention. A candidate needs 1,215 delegates to become the official nominee.

Donald Trump - 51% - 56,260 votes - 20 delegates
Ron DeSantis - 21.2% - 23,420 votes - 9 delegates
Nikki Haley - 19.1% - 21,085 votes - 8 delegates
Vivek Ramaswamy - 7.7% - 8,449 votes - 3 delegates
Ryan Binkley - 0.7% - 774 votes
Asa Hutchinson - 0.2% - 191 votes
Chris Christie - <0.1% - 35 votes
Other candidates - <0.1% - 84 votes

Edit Next Up - 1/23 - New Hampshire Primary!

For those unaware, a caucus is totally unlike a primary.

In a primary election, you show up to a polling place, you cast your ballot for your chosen candidate, the ballots get counted, and whoever wins is whoever wins. On to the next state!

A caucus is far, far more chaotic.

https://apnews.com/article/how-iowa-caucus-works-2024-democrats-republicans-592ab40b9b9b948c0540f2cf132bab5c

"The Republican caucuses will convene statewide at 7 p.m. local time (8 p.m. EST), and begin with the election of a caucus chair and secretary. Only registered Republicans may participate in the caucuses and only in their designated home precincts. However, Iowans may register or change their party affiliation on caucus day. Voters must turn 18 by the November general election in order to participate."

"There is no walking around the caucus room to form candidate preference groups. That voting method was a feature of Democratic caucuses from 1972 to 2020 but is no longer in use by either party in 2024."

"The binding presidential vote functions essentially like a party-run primary, only with very limited polling hours and no accommodation for absentee voting, except for a tiny handful of overseas and military voters. There are speeches on behalf of various candidates before the voting and a variety of party business after the vote. Individual caucus chairs are allowed to exercise some discretion in how to conduct the vote, but the voting is done by secret ballot and there is no set list of candidates. Voters must be given the option to vote for any candidate they choose. In the past, some caucus sites have pre-printed the names of major candidates and provided a write-in option, but typically, voters vote by writing the name of a candidate on a blank slip of paper."

The "limited polling hours" is key here, because if you decide to step out for a smoke, or to hit the bathroom, or grab a sandwich when the vote is called, you might not get counted at all.

In previous years this has led to accusations of under-counts, over-counts, and all other manner of shenanigans.

Here's the history of the past few Iowa Caucuses and how it related to the general election:

2016:
Ted Cruz - 8 Delegates, 51,666 votes
Donald Trump - 7 / 45,429
Marco Rubio - 7 / 43,228
Ben Carson - 3 / 17,394
Rand Paul - 1 / 8,481
Jeb Bush - 1 / 5,238
Carly Fiorina - 1 / 3,485
John Kasich - 1 / 3,474
Mike Huckabee - 1 / 3,345

2020:
Donald Trump - 39 Delegates, 31,421 votes
Bill Weld - 1 / 425

Sources:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Iowa_Republican_presidential_caucuses

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Iowa_Republican_presidential_caucuses

General Elections:

2016:
Trump/Pence - 800,983
Clinton/Kaine - 653,669

2020:
Trump/Pence - 897,672
Biden/Harris - 759,061

Sources:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_Iowa

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_Iowa

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] gregorum@lemm.ee 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

the only way any of this matters is if - in a few months - Trump is, somehow, stricken from the ballots in enough states to matter or is ruled as ineligible to run at all. or if he dies.

otherwise, he'll be the GOP candidate, and these also-rans will be as irrelevant then as they are now. if he chooses on as a running mate, it'll be based on their ability to kiss his ass, not really on the polls.

[-] aew360@lemm.ee 8 points 10 months ago

Yeah, we need more than Colorado and Maine to step up

[-] gregorum@lemm.ee 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

well, since it's gone to SCOTUS, don't expect much movement until they make a ruling. Honestly, i expect them to realize that the only thing they can do is say, "it's a state issue," and kick it back down to the states to decide who gets on what ballot.

the only thing they might dip their toe in on is what is or is not "insurrection", although i rather doubt it because i don't know whether that's actually an issue being challenged.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

I don't think they're going to rule on Trump and insurrection at all because that's the subject of a criminal case.

There's no way they're going to put the thumb on the scale and determine guilt or innocence in a case that hasn't even happened yet.

Saying "Yes, Trump is an insurrectionist, remove him from the ballot" or "No, it's fine, he can stay." would do exactly that.

[-] gregorum@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

well, it’s 2 issues there, really— 1) whether a state can remove Trump (or anyone) from a ballot (or maybe just a primary ballot) and 2) whether Trump committed insurrection (an issue which may preclude the other issue). They may decide to rule on issue 1 and ignore issue 2 for the reason you mentioned, or they may (more likely) decide to say that issue 1 is a state issue (which it is) and ignore issue 2 altogether as, like you said, it’s an ongoing matter in lower courts.

[-] derphurr@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

They literally cannot kick it back to states. It would mean anyone could file civil lawsuit in any state and it would be arbitrary up to whatever judge to bar federal candidate from the ballot. Then it might go to judgment call by a state Supreme Court (with or without appeals courts) and/or a secretary of state.

If SCOTUS kicked it back to states it's already been declared that about 30 states will immediately remove Biden from the ballot.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

Biden's not in violation of the 14th Amendment. There's no basis to remove him.

But also, largely, in this case, we're talking about a primary ballot and Biden isn't even on all of them in the first place. See New Hampshire.

[-] derphurr@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

If SCOTUS leaves it up to states, and leaves it self executing for 14th. It means anyone can file civil action.

You might think Biden is not in violation of 14th, but many Republican secretary of states DO think so. It's very vague just like used in CO, "given aid or comfort to the enemies" will be up to courts to interpret.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

The big argument they are making for Biden and the 14th is failing to secure the border, the problem with that argument is that the people gathering at the border are not enemies and the countries they come from are not enemies.

[-] gregorum@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

If SCOTUS kicked it back to states it’s already been declared that about 30 states will immediately remove Biden from the ballot.

this won't happen because there would need to be cause, which there isn’t. Trump wasn’t just arbitrarily removed from the ballot in CO and ME. He was legally disqualified for violating the 14th Amendment. So, unless Biden also did that, is under 43 years old, or was born in another country, there’s no legal basis to remove him from any ballot or disqualify him from the office of President.

They literally cannot kick it back to states.

of course they can by saying that the state’s ruling stands because it’s up to the states to run their own elections, which it is.

[-] derphurr@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

they can by saying that the state’s ruling stands because it’s up to the states to run their own elections, which it is.

Do you know what SCOTUS even if? No states cannot interpret 14th Amendment because it's "their" election. SCOTUS has final say.

And there are many arguments against Biden giving aide to the enemy, which if you are paying attention to the Republicans have listed their many arguments they will use in court. I suggest you read their articles of impeachment as a starting point.

[-] gregorum@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It’s funny, you mention that, because they’ve been trying that shit for a year in Congress, and it’s gotten absolutely nowhere. But go on like it’s actually something that might happen.  There has to actually be a crime, and proof that that happened. Since there isn’t either…

[-] Bye@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Trump will be on the primary ballot in CO. The court put a stay on its own order.

load more comments (9 replies)
this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2024
37 points (83.6% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2503 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS