The Iowa Caucuses

98 comments on “The Iowa Caucuses ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Sabine 1

   2 February 2016 at 3:37 pm

   life blog on daily kos,
   its gonna be tight.

   will it be Ted Cruz
   “I’m a Christian first, American second, conservative third and Republican fourth. I’ll tell ya, there are a whole lot of people in this country that feel exactly the same way.”

   or Don the Trump
   “Donald Trump continued to talk up his relationship with Vladimir Putin today.
   ‘He’s right, I am brilliant,’ Trump declared at a rally this afternoon. ‘That’s a good thing. That’s not a bad thing.'”

   ahhh, interesting times

   http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/1/1478358/-Daily-Kos-Elections-Iowa-caucus-liveblog-thread-3
   • miravox 1.1

     2 February 2016 at 9:51 pm

     Jeez, I’m almost wanting Trump to win – at least you don’t really know what Trump thinks with all his statements over the years, who knows what his decision-making position on a topic will be?

     With Cruz, we know exactly what he thinks – and what he thinks is really, really scary.
     • sabine 1.1.1

       2 February 2016 at 10:05 pm

       Nope i think the one to watch is Rubio. He almost kicked Trump off his second (bwhahahahahahahahah looooser!!!) place and gave Trump a good run for his money.

       Cruz is so disliked by pretty much anyone, but was voted for to not have to vote for Trump.
       Rubio is just as rabid as Cruz but less outspoken and with that fake ‘softer’ attitude.
       Interesting times. No matter what, if it is a Republican that is gonna run the Madhouse that is the US Of A, the world is fucked. If it is Hillary, the world might have a chance, If it is Bernie the world would have a chance as he is neither a complete warhead nor a religious nutter.

       Feel better now?
       • miravox 1.1.1.1

         2 February 2016 at 10:15 pm

         Noooo, I’m not feeling better now!

         Just have to hope for the Democrats – and that Bernie pulls Clinton to the left. And away from being an establishment pollie (although that would be difficult).
         • sabine 1.1.1.1.1

           2 February 2016 at 10:27 pm

           I don’t think anything can pull Clinton to the left. She is calcified in her position.
           I would however suggest to Bernie Sanders to stay away from small aircrafts. They tend to fall from the skies in the USA when flying popular socialistic minded politicos in the states (remember Paul Wellstone?)

           🙂
2. mickysavage 2

   2 February 2016 at 3:48 pm

   The Democratic race is narrowing. Lead to Clinton down to 2% points. Who would have thought this a month ago?
   • Phil 2.1

     2 February 2016 at 4:16 pm

     Lead to Clinton down to 2% points. Who would have thought this a month ago?

     Pretty much everyone with more than a cursory understanding of the Democratic Party and the demographic makeup of Iowa.
   • lprent 2.2

     2 February 2016 at 4:28 pm

     Yeah but it is Iowa. Useful for getting rid of some of the me too.

     New Hamshire is the same.

     Super Tuesday determines widespread support and is when it gets interesting.
     • weka 2.2.1

       2 February 2016 at 4:39 pm

       “Useful for getting rid of some of the me too.”

       What does that mean?
       • Phil 2.2.1.1

         2 February 2016 at 5:18 pm

         Useful for getting rid of some of the me too.

         I think LP means the candidates that are clearly non-viable drop out of the race. There’s already talk of O’Malley suspending his campaign.

         On the Republican side, I could see Santorum and Huckabee giving up now (they have no hope of getting a decent result in New Hampshire) and people like Bush and Christie calling it quits once N.H. results are in.
         • weka 2.2.1.1.1

           2 February 2016 at 10:21 pm

           thanks Phil.
   • weka 2.3

     2 February 2016 at 4:41 pm

     Under 1% now

     “Clinton 50.1 percent, Sanders 49.3 percent with 85 percent in.”

     http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/iowa-caucus-presidential-election-2016/
   • Pasupial 2.4

     2 February 2016 at 5:02 pm

     0.3% lead for Clinton with 90% counted:

     http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2016/feb/01/iowa-caucus-vote-live-donald-trump-ted-cruz-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-2016

     Not only is Cruz beating Trump by 3.3%, but Trump only has 1.4% more than Rubio! (89.77% counted)

     [edit: Why the delay in the counter above? It’s still on 85.9 & 84.53%]
     • Pasupial 2.4.1

       2 February 2016 at 5:19 pm

       Clinton just got a huge bump from somewhere: 50.2 to 49.3% with 91.85% counted. Does she still own stock in Diebold?
       • Colonial Viper 2.4.1.1

         2 February 2016 at 5:26 pm

         The NSA is probably voting as well.
       • Phil 2.4.1.2

         2 February 2016 at 5:28 pm

         Nope – much simpler than that.

         Clinton is leading in the largest county (Polk County, where Des Moines is located) by 54% to 46%, or 10,600 votes to 9,000. There’s still a big chunk of votes to b counted there, whereas the smaller counties in which Sanders leads have largely finished counting.
         • Pasupial 2.4.1.2.1

           2 February 2016 at 5:49 pm

           Back to 0.3% for Clinton; 49.89% vs 49.58% with 93.9% counted.

           Phil – this breakdown of the Iowa vote by County is interesting, but I don’t know enough about the geography of the state to make much sense of it. Hancock County is only at 60%, Decateur at 71.4%, Mitchell at 72.7% – all favouring Clinton so far:

           http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2016/feb/01/iowa-caucus-results-live-county-by-county-interactive-map

           [edit: Mitchell is up to 81.8% counted, percentages the same 0.31% gap with 94.1% counted – was briefly down to 0.23% gap]
3. Phil 3

   2 February 2016 at 4:36 pm

   Nate Silver, as usual, nails it:

   … not yet any proof in tonight’s results that Sanders can expand his performance beyond his base of white and liberal voters, which are plentiful in Iowa and New Hampshire but less so elsewhere. Instead, Sanders’s supporters seem to have been exactly who we thought they were. Sanders did really well among “very liberal” voters and extraordinarily well among young voters, but not very well among moderates, women or older voters.

   http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/iowa-caucus-presidential-election-2016/
   • Ad 3.1

     2 February 2016 at 6:42 pm

     I’m loving Nate’s coverage as usual.

     Also HuffPost, just for the leftie amplifier.

     Very impressed with Rubio’s surge. Looking forward to the Republicans winnowing down to 3.
     • mickysavage 3.1.1

       2 February 2016 at 7:56 pm

       Rubio is the least terrifying Republican and possibly the most dangerous. I would not be surprised if he wins.
       • sabine 3.1.1.1

         2 February 2016 at 10:07 pm

         i tend to disagree with you on that one.

         Rubio is as mad and as bought as the other, he is just not as noisy.
         I agree that i would not be surprised if he wins, and fuck it that would be horrible.
4. Sabine 4

   2 February 2016 at 4:56 pm

   oh my oh my

   Hillary 50%
   Sanders 50%

   biggest winner on the red side, Marco fucking Rubio……oh dear……lol. hahahahahahahahahahahahahah.

   and frankly with all the dead talking of sanders it is a wonder he got a vote at all. Cause clearly the establishment and paid media parrots just can’t see him gain any traction at all.

   He has a 0.2 % difference to Hillary at the moment, rounded they both get 50%, i think considering that Hillary comes with the Dog and money, Sanders won. Comfortably. Maybe not all the delegates, but he won the popular vote.

   edit: 90% in, 628 HRC, 625 Feelin’ the bern. (from a comment of Daily Kos)

   http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/1/1478362/-Daily-Kos-Elections-Iowa-caucus-liveblog-thread-7
5. Richard Christie 5

   2 February 2016 at 5:02 pm

   Please let it be Trump. Better a grandstanding buffoon than a young Earth, science denying, religious maniac.
   • joe90 5.1

     2 February 2016 at 5:06 pm

     Religious maniac Santorum was the 2012 Iowa winner and that didn’t work out too flash.
   • alwyn 5.2

     2 February 2016 at 5:58 pm

     This reminds me of 1964.
     Barry Goldwater ran with a slogan of
     “In your heart you know he’s right”.
     The Johnson campaign had a wonderful parody
     “In your guts you know he’s nuts”.
     I think the voters in Iowa chose the first option for Trump when they were polled.
     Then when it came time to vote they took it seriously and chose the alternative.

     On the other hand I hope that we don’t get the equivalent of the rather bitter Republican bumper sticker of 1966 in a couple of years time.
     “They told me if I voted for Goldwater there would be 500,000 troops in Vietnam by 1966. Well I did and there are”
     If Hillary makes it will it be back to Iraq?
     1960s slogans and dates from memory. I can’t be bothered checking them.
6. weka 6

   2 February 2016 at 5:07 pm

   Does it go off the % or the delegate numbers? (Democrats).
   • Lanthanide 6.1

     2 February 2016 at 6:04 pm

     Iowa doesn’t report votes for the democrats, instead they report a % of the delegates available.

     There are 44 up for grabs. As of right now, Clinton (apparently) has 22 and Sanders has 21, with 1 outstanding. So at best Sanders can only tie her in delegates.

     Now in terms of %, Sanders could finish 0.1 or 0.2% ahead of Clinton, and that will get him declared the ‘winner’ etc, but in terms of actual delegates they would still be tied.
   • alwyn 6.2

     2 February 2016 at 6:08 pm

     For the democrats it is totally confusing. Here is the Guardian’s attempt at explaining it. They are pretty good at explanations but Iowa for democrats is a doozey.
     Easier to just wait till the papers tell us.
     http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/19/iowa-caucuses-explained-2016-election-democrats-republicans
     Good luck with that.
     Then there is the party explanation.
     http://iowademocrats.org/about-iowa-caucuses/
     You’ll have even more fun with that
7. Michael 7

   2 February 2016 at 5:58 pm

   49.9-49.6%! C’mon Bernie!
   • alwyn 7.1

     2 February 2016 at 6:00 pm

     Is this the same Bernie who was in the 2011 film?
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_(2011_film)
     • North 7.1.1

       2 February 2016 at 8:30 pm

       Yeah yeah yeah Trollwyn…..that NEEDS to be the same Bernie, wah wah wah, if you must. And we know you must of course. Reading your first few comments I’d started to take a different view of you but no, you’re still the same old Trollwyn.

       Oooh look……there’s a panda !
   • Lanthanide 7.2

     2 February 2016 at 6:12 pm

     He’s not going to beat her; the counties that are yet to return their votes are strong Clinton supporters.
     • Pasupial 7.2.1

       2 February 2016 at 6:43 pm

       La

       Sanders may not beat Clinton, but how do you know which Iowan counties support whom in advance? Decateur was favouring Clinton at 71.4% of the count, now at 85.7% it’s a tie:

       http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2016/feb/01/iowa-caucus-results-live-county-by-county-interactive-map

       Eyeballing the county breakdown, I would say that those counties that supported Cruz were most like to vote Clinton. The Sanders counties’ republicans were more likely to have gone with Trump. Hancock county is still only on 60% [now 70%] counted. 0.29% margin for Clinton at 96.5% democratic counted.
       • Lanthanide 7.2.1.1

         2 February 2016 at 6:58 pm

         http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/iowa-caucus-presidential-election-2016/?#livepress-update-13638297

         The ones where Sanders is ahead are small, the ones where Clinton is ahead are large.
       • swordfish 7.2.1.2

         2 February 2016 at 7:54 pm

         Clinton appears to have won the Capital, Des Moines, but Sanders has won the counties of the next 6 largest cities (marginally in 5 of them, easily in the 6th, Iowa City – known as a College Town, home to The University of Iowa, less White than Iowa as a whole, High % BA degrees or above).
8. joe90 8

   2 February 2016 at 6:25 pm

   America
   /

   Andrew Tadlock
   ‏@andytadlock

   Unbelievable coin toss decides a dead heat in west Davenport! @HillaryClinton wins! @chucktodd @CNBC @NBCNews

   https://twitter.com/andytadlock/status/694340486908088320
9. BM 9

   2 February 2016 at 6:54 pm

   Clinton will be the next prez.

   We’ve had white guys
   We’ve had a black guy.

   Next in the pecking order is a white woman.
   • Pasupial 9.1

     2 February 2016 at 7:02 pm

     BM

     With notions such as that, I guess this’ll be your Saturday night out?

     http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/371747/crisis-group-alarmed-pro-rape-meetings
     • BM 9.1.1

       2 February 2016 at 7:45 pm

       I don’t get it?, are you saying I want to rape women?
       • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.1

         2 February 2016 at 7:52 pm

         I reckon we might have a Maori Woman PM come 2020.
         • BM 9.1.1.1.1

           2 February 2016 at 7:56 pm

           Paula Bennett?

           Good chance i’d say, certainly won’t be Collins, too much baggage and aggression.
           • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.1.1.1

             2 February 2016 at 8:04 pm

             Just think about it. Paula Bennett matched up against Grant Robertson in the 2020 election. You saw it here first.
             • BM …

               2 February 2016 at 8:06 pm

               Yeah, I’d say Bennett would bet Robertson hands down.
             • b waghorn …

               2 February 2016 at 8:14 pm

               If either of them become pm I’m going to give up voting and go live in the bush.
             • millsy …

               2 February 2016 at 9:48 pm

               I actually think it will be Bennett v Davis myself.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 2 February 2016 at 9:56 pm

                 That would be an interesting twist.
           • North 9.1.1.1.1.2

             2 February 2016 at 8:22 pm

             Paula Bennett’s as Maori as that tiki made in Japan hangin’ round your gnarled old neck BM. Likewise that showboat chappie Simon Bridges – ‘Maori when it matters, Mana in tatters’. Bullshit Bennett’s Maori. A tortured whakapapa (until of late always disowned) might say so, but nah, not really. No wairua.
         • Roy 9.1.1.1.2

           2 February 2016 at 8:25 pm

           Mariana Davidson, baby!
         • Roy 9.1.1.1.3

           2 February 2016 at 8:25 pm

           Marama Davidson, baby!
       • Pasupial 9.1.1.2

         2 February 2016 at 8:28 pm

         BM

         My point was that your comment seems to ascribe to the “neomasculinist” notion that males are superior to females (and blacks inferior to other races).
     • greywarshark 9.1.2

       3 February 2016 at 10:21 am

       Pasupial
       In your opinion is your comment about BM aggressive, hostile, passive-aggressive, or a strawman one? How would you define it, inserting your own prejudices perhaps?
       • Pasupial 9.1.2.1

         3 February 2016 at 2:16 pm

         greywarshark

         I’d probably go with; hostile, there wasn’t enough swearing for aggressive.

         I was trying to wryly express the point I elaborated on in comment 9.1.1.2, but obviously failed at that. I’ve not got much time for BM at the best of times, and having been reading about the “Return of Kings” crew did let myself get baited a bit by the whole; white guy>black guy>white woman, ranking. In retrospect I should have just commented: “This is the pet shop”.

         http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/02/02/neomasculinist-is-a-long-word-for-prick/
         • greywarshark 9.1.2.1.1

           4 February 2016 at 11:53 am

           Hi Pasupial
           Seems to be a good reason to keep sex off the range and keep gender on a leash. Let it off and it only frightens the horses and puts the wobbles on the points of discussion. It actually is an amorphous Mata Hari that undermines every attempt at intelligent discussion into which it waves its bosom or hairy chest.

           (To bolster my point – the real Mata Hari actually carried her confusing ways right to her death, according to Urban Dictionary.
           Mata Hari was a beautiful spy that was playing both sides of the field (Double Agent).
           Born 1876 Mata was a Dutch exotic dancer and a famous courtesan who was executed in 1917 by firing squad by the French for espionage during World War I i.e. Mata was a (French & German Spy)
           It is said upon her execution that she flung off her coat to expose a naked body to the firing squad.)
10. North 10

    2 February 2016 at 8:16 pm

    Busy busy workwise lately but with Iowa just tonight, been catching up. How bloody exciting ! The Bern’ ! This is Amerika’s immediate opportunity to be a REALLY great country. Give the US and The World another Roosevelt ! (New Deal edition not the earlier).

    Great to see T-Rump (thinks he’s T-Rex and not just on account of looks) given a little bit of a “ka kite”…….with the “ano” doubtful. See what money does in the US ?……enough money behind it a used condom could make it (almost).

    Go Bern’ ! New Hampshire’s gonna be good for him ! Senator, adjacent state, known there etc etc.
    • Lanthanide 10.1

      2 February 2016 at 8:27 pm

      Sorry to burst your bubble, but Bernie just don’t have the demographics behind him.

      Iowa and New Hampshire are the best two states for him, and he couldn’t win Iowa.
      • North 10.1.1

        2 February 2016 at 8:54 pm

        No bubble here Lanth’……ye who’s made ‘sour’ a (questionable) art form. I’m just putting myself back in ’08/’09 when it was “Who’s this black guy Obama ? No ! Could never happen !”

        Not to say that turned out too well necessarily.
        But ya gotta live your dreams Lanth’ ! Live them ! No more passive aggression/magisterial presence……please.
      • Olwyn 10.1.2

        2 February 2016 at 9:03 pm

        There is a sense in which Bernie is winning whether he officially wins or not – he is breaking TINA’s stranglehold over the public imagination, and the genie that has been let out out of the bottle will not docilely return to it. As with the UK, the sleek professional politicians who are almost indistinguishable from news anchors, along with their wealthy backers, no longer have the floor to themselves.
        • North 10.1.2.1

          2 February 2016 at 9:19 pm

          Insightful comment Olwyn……shame it’s missed on Trollwyn. And Sour Old Lanth’.
          • Olwyn 10.1.2.1.1

            2 February 2016 at 9:23 pm

            Thanks North 🙂
        • Colonial Viper 10.1.2.2

          2 February 2016 at 9:59 pm

          Indeed – pulling neck and neck with the Clinton political mega machine is a massive moral victory for Sanders.

          End game – Sanders keeps dogging Hilary at every step, eventually forcing her to offer him the position of VP.
          • millsy 10.1.2.2.1

            2 February 2016 at 10:18 pm

            No such thing is a ‘moral victory’ IMO. the only victory is the one where the number beside your name is bigger than the the number beside your opponents.
            • Olwyn 10.1.2.2.1.1

              2 February 2016 at 10:26 pm

              I disagree. Once a large enough body of people are willing to shout “enough” they have to be taken into account. Especially right now, when the game has been sewn up for about 30 years. As Weka says below, turning the tide is a victory in itself.
            • crashcart 10.1.2.2.1.2

              3 February 2016 at 9:59 am

              Not true in a caucus where the media wrote him off essentially. One of the biggest sticks Clinton and the media have been beating Bernie with is that he is really a fringe candidate and that his support is really puffed up by social media. Running her so close when not long ago she had a massive lead will encourage Bernie supporters in other states to come out and vote.

              So yes she gets the tick in the box for winning Iowa but the close result is clearly beneficial to Bernie.
              • Phil …

                3 February 2016 at 1:00 pm

                the close result is clearly beneficial to Bernie

                Nope, totally wrong.

                If you look at the relative mix of Democrat voters in each state (White vs ‘minority’, liberal vs moderate, young vs old) then Iowa is about the sixth most favorable state for Sanders. Iowa, like New Hampshire, is an overwhelmingly White state with many more self identified liberal democrats than moderate democrats.

                If Sanders can’t expand his voting base enough to pull out a win in Iowa, then the rest of America looks quite far beyond his reach.
        • weka 10.1.2.3

          2 February 2016 at 10:25 pm

          Completely agree Olwyn. This is why Corbyn has already won whether he becomes PM or not, or whether as PM he has to compromise too much. The victory is in turning the tide.
          • Lanthanide 10.1.2.3.1

            3 February 2016 at 9:43 am

            I think anyone who says “not winning the PM is still a victory” is kidding themselves. And they also have very low standards.

            The whole point of competing is to win. If you don’t win, you lose.
            • Colonial Viper 10.1.2.3.1.1

              3 February 2016 at 10:01 am

              Lanth, binary thinking becomes computers, not humans.
              • Lanthanide …

                3 February 2016 at 10:11 am

                In America, the sitting president gets to select new supreme court judges. It’s arguably the largest impact a president will ever have.

                If you’re not president, because you didn’t ‘win’ your party’s nomination, then you can’t make that selection.

                Ergo, you didn’t win.

                Yes, it might be “a win for liberal politics”, but it’s not a win for the actual thing the candidate is trying to achieve. You can tell by the way they lost.
            • weka 10.1.2.3.1.2

              3 February 2016 at 10:20 am

              @ Lanth, I’m sure that’s how MPs feel about it too. But it’s not the whole story. I want change not power. It’s very difficult for the left to gain power at the moment without becoming centrist. If all Corbyn, Sanders etc do is turn the tide on the neoliberal experiment, that’s huge. And by turn the tide I mean re-engage mass numbers of people around fair society principles. Those kinds of changes have very long range influence, far beyond getting hold of the treasury benches for a term or two.

              If winning means turning into a proto-fascist, or National lite, or giving up on one’s values, then what is the win exactly? I’m not saying there aren’t compromises to be made. I basicaly now believe that Labour are doing the right thing given the circumstances. They don’t have a Corbyn in their ranks, they still have a bunch of Rogernomes that prevents the party from becoming more solidly left again, so they may as well work with what they’ve got and I think that’s what Little is doing. At some point if they do have a Corbyn and the Rogernomes are gone, then it will be easier for the party to go left if they’ve built some solid ground in the meantime. So getting Labour into government in a way that’s not a complete neoliberal sell out but still gets them there is a high priority for the next year or two (and preferably with the Greens along side).

              That’s all a way of saying that NZ is in quite a different situation than the US or the UK, and it makes sense here for Labour to focus on getting power. But in the US and the UK, the democrats or Blairites in power is not as important as changing the culture and that’s what Corbyn and Sanders are doing. In terms of social change, it’s huge.
              • Olwyn …

                3 February 2016 at 10:24 am

                +1 – great comment Weka.
      • North 10.1.3

        2 February 2016 at 9:13 pm

        He couldn’t NOT win Iowa either Lanth’ ? And two months ago, who woulda thunk it ? Sorry, meant to say that earlier. Like who would thunk Obama late ’08 ?
        • Colonial Viper 10.1.3.1

          2 February 2016 at 10:05 pm

          CNN Nov 25 2015:

          Hilary leads Sanders in a poll of Iowa Democrats, 51% to 42%: “The results mark very little change from a similar survey released October 23.”

          This tells me that to pull neck and neck since Oct and Nov 2015, Sanders has been gaining ground on Hilary, big time. The momentum is still behind him, not her.
          • North 10.1.3.1.1

            2 February 2016 at 10:37 pm

            Cha CV ! You’re inspirational ! Completely meeting my mood tonight. ‘T-Rump T-Rex T-Gone T-Sulk’.

            Now……let’s get back to adult things.

            Absolutely everything there applies to T-Key……

            Imagine the bitch’s piss when he’s not made ‘Duke of Maui’ ?
11. greywarshark 11

    2 February 2016 at 9:06 pm

    When you get tired of trying to make out what is going on in the USA here is a link to one of the famous Wayang shadow puppet plays for a different approach to human drama,
    and probably just as intelligible if one watches closely.

    Indonesian
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fVxPoRu2bw
    Balinese
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfufT0qkwCE

    Chinese play
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j26wCBe8pFk
    2nd Chinese play with English description
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6C6m3aKjzLk

    Turkish shadow play
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHe6ne6KcyM

    Yes Dorothy there is life outside Iowa and North America.
12. Manuka AOR 12

    2 February 2016 at 9:26 pm

    The beginning of a revolution?

    “When Sanders finally spoke on Monday night, he drove home the message behind their virtual tie. “What Iowa has begun tonight is a political revolution”, he said, as the crowd erupted in screams. “When young people and working people and seniors begin to stand up and say loudly and clearly enough is enough … that the government of our great country belongs to all of us and not just billionaires, when that happens, we will transform this country.” ” http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/02/iowa-caucus-bernie-sanders-can-win-hillary-clinton-beatable
13. millsy 13

    2 February 2016 at 9:53 pm

    According to Wikipedia Cruz was born in Canada (meaning his parents didnt have to pay a cent for the birthing care).

    I was under the impression that to be eligible for the presidency, you have to be BORN in the USA. The only exceptions are pretty much those who were around in 1790-odd.

    Can someone help me out here..?

    Am I the only person, a humble office worker who lives in Taranaki, NZ to notice this?
    • swordfish 13.1

      2 February 2016 at 10:16 pm

      Trump’s been making a big thing of it lately.
    • Andre 13.2

      2 February 2016 at 10:28 pm

      A search for cruz birther should get you more than you ever want on the topic.

      In short, it’s not “settled law” whether Cruz is eligible or not. His particular circumstances have never been tested in court.

      Strict Constitutional originalists (which Cruz is) say that according to a strict interpretation of the exact words and intent of the writers of the constitution and relevant amendments, combined with legal judgements of the time, mean that Cruz is not eligible.

      Liberal interpreters of the Constitution that allow a degree of flexibility in interpreting the constitution according to changing social values (whom Cruz despises) claim that Cruz is eligible.
      • millsy 13.2.1

        2 February 2016 at 10:47 pm

        Im probably not alone in thinking that this would be made a bigger deal if, say Sanders was born in Canada.
        • Grant 13.2.1.1

          2 February 2016 at 11:09 pm

          It would make an even bigger deal if either of them were black and bigger again if they were muslim with it.
        • Colonial Viper 13.2.1.2

          2 February 2016 at 11:31 pm

          Yep.

          But a Cruz presidency would clear the way for a Schwarzeneggar presidency!

          😀
    • North 13.3

      2 February 2016 at 11:50 pm

      Mills’……enough of your 20% ‘humbles’ – quite a hoot ! Then there’s the ‘ascerbic’ in your last paragraph which put my mind to rest at once. Kia Ora !

      Question never occurred to me frankly. Me just swept over by the sense that Sanders would make a magnificent president. For his truth and his honesty and his heart. Has there been such a one ? Roosevelt, 75 years ago ?

      In the optimum we need someone for president who could always be trusted for his honesty and his true heart ?

      Something’s gotta happen sooner or later. Otherwise already very rich people make slaves out of you and me.

      Fuck Dat !
    • lprent 13.4

      3 February 2016 at 8:34 am

      Wikipedia is your friend – try using it a bit deeper.

      Both his parents were US citizens. Cruz was born while they were in Canada.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_eligibility_legislation
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause

      The U.S. Constitution uses but does not define the phrase “natural born Citizen”, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The consensus of early 21st-century constitutional scholars, together with relevant case law, is that natural-born citizens include, subject to exceptions, those born in the United States. Many scholars have also concluded that those who meet the legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at the moment of birth”, regardless of place of birth, are also natural born citizens, but the matter remains unsettled.[2][3] Every president to date was either a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution in 1789 or born in the United States; of those in the latter group, every president except two had two U.S.-citizen parents.[4]

      Note that this is a matter for the congress to decide. It just happens to be a Republican congress.
14. rhinocrates 14

    2 February 2016 at 10:14 pm

    Cruz is as awful as Trump, so it’s hardly a cause for celebration, but if you want a look at the sorts of people supporting Trump as an exercise in anthropology, have a look at this. They’re almost all old, white, emotionally immature, obsessed with guns, incapable of putting forth a coherent thought.

    “Like the man they idolize, these people tend toward simplistic slogans when asked questions; but when pressed or pressured, they lash out like bratty children.”

    http://www.vice.com/read/this-short-film-takes-you-inside-the-strange-world-of-donald-trump-supporters
    • Colonial Viper 14.1

      2 February 2016 at 11:35 pm

      Nah, Trump appeals to a lot of very ordinary Americans who feel like they have to vote for someone, anyone, who is not part of the entrenched political establishment.

      The MSM demonisation campaign of Trump to me mirrors the one they launched against that past-it old has been unelectable Commie git, Corbyn (tongue in cheek).

      Also, note that Trump at the moment is speaking and messaging to the crowd that matters most to him at this stage: Republican electors.

      Once he gets the candidacy we are going to see an extremely charming, much more middle of the road Trump on the nationwide campaign trail.
      • Andre 14.1.1

        3 February 2016 at 9:51 am

        I don’t think Trump’s ever managed to do “charming” in public before.

        If he pulls it off, that would be an impressive new trick for an old dog.
      • Phil 14.1.2

        3 February 2016 at 1:22 pm

        The MSM demonisation campaign of Trump

        I’m sorry, what?

        Trump has dominated the headlines for the best part of six months. He has had more media coverage than all the other presidential candidates (both Dem and Rep) combined.

        There has been no ‘demonisation’ of Trump, only a struggle to understand his support-base and frequent tittering at some of his (relatively speaking) more outlandish statements.
15. North 15

    3 February 2016 at 12:28 am

    It may mirror in your mind CV but a megasecond of thought tells you that the respective phenomena are a million miles apart. Corbyn and T-Rump ? Are you satisfied they should be in the same sentence ? T-Rump is a backfiring pre-’48 Ford V8 . Corbyn is a man of honour. Just like Sanders. We gotta be inspired ! Look at the capital The Boy Prime Minister/Child Emperor made outa ‘aspiration’.
    • Colonial Viper 15.1

      3 February 2016 at 12:36 am

      The men are a million miles apart, yes. But the common electorate cynicism, distrust of both the political establishment and the establishment candidates, are highly aligned.
16. Andre 16

    3 February 2016 at 9:02 am

    Being a currently controversial political issue, I’m not sure Wikipedia is actually a good source for answering this question. Too easily hijacked by nutters.

    At the time of Ted’s birth in Canada, his father Rafael Cruz was not a US citizen. Ted’s American citizenship is due to his mother being an American citizen at the time of his birth. There’s no doubt Ted is a citizen, the question is whether he’s a “natural-born” citizen in the context of the Constitution.

    That his citizenship comes only from his mother is one of the points the constitutional originalists use to claim Ted is not eligible, citing the lack of rights women had in those times and specific precedents from the time denying citizenship to people born abroad to American mothers and foreign fathers. Whereas the liberals are saying, come on, it’s the 21st century not the 18th, gender equality and all that, of course he’s eligible.

    Congress could pass a law clarifying who’s eligible, but I suspect that it could be challenged all the way to the Supreme Court. Congress could pass a Constitutional amendment, which would then have to be ratified by the states. Or someone could take a court case now which would go to the Supreme Court. But I’m not sure if the Supreme Court can actually take a hypothetical question, or would feel obliged to wait until Cruz was an actual president-elect before considering the question.

    Stock up on popcorn.
    • Andre 16.1

      3 February 2016 at 9:11 am

      sorry, the above was meant to be a reply to lprent at 13.4.
    • Lanthanide 16.2

      3 February 2016 at 10:08 am

      Typically the Supreme Court does not hear theoretical cases, because the specifics of every case matters, and in recent decades they try and write very specific rulings with as narrow applicability as possible, which very much relies on the specifics of each case.

      A fairly straightforward constitutional question like that could (IMO) be addressed by the Supreme Court, but I’d expect they’d probably require a specific case as well. However the Supreme Court is able to hear cases at extremely short notice, if required (as in Bush vs Gore re: Florida in 2000).
17. Pasupial 17

    3 February 2016 at 10:12 am

    The USA electorial system is hard enough for someone from an MMP country to wrap their head around. But the nuances of party primary selection caucases baffle me (but then I guess they would have trouble getting list-ranking processes in Aotearoa).

    Clinton won 49.86% of the vote, according to the Associated Press, with Sanders on 49.57% – a margin of just 0.29 percentage points. The two appear to have split the number of delegates Iowa will send to the national Democratic convention roughly evenly, with Clinton collecting 23 and Sanders 21.

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/02/hillary-clinton-wins-iowa-caucuses-bernie-sanders-young-voters

    I make that 52.3% for Clinton, 47.3% Sanders in delegates. Was that because of blind chance?

    A coin toss — that’s what it came down to in one Davenport, Iowa, precinct as a tiebreaker between Democrats Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton…

    With the first count, Schlue said the results were in favor in Sanders, “95 to something.”

    A second shift saw some people switch sides, but also brought to light that a few caucus-goers had apparently not signed in.

    With one last realignment (and everyone signed in), the numbers were counted and the 168 votes were split — 84 for Sanders, 84 for Clinton…

    The Davenport coin toss wasn’t the only one to settle between Sanders and Clinton. A similar situation took place in Ames, Iowa, as well as a precinct in Des Moines, according to The Des Moines Register.

    The paper said Clinton won all three coin tosses.

    https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/02/02/iowa-coin-tosses-decide-between-sanders-and-clinton/45CjNuPfGfRT26dzJsthOK/story.html

    Some Sanders staffers have argued Sanders definitely did win if you count raw totals and not state delegates; given the geographical layout of Iowa, that claim is likely if unproven. (More than a quarter of Sanders’ supporters come from just three counties – which awards only 12% of delegates; the caucus structure is thought to favor Clinton significantly).

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/02/iowa-caucus-bernie-sanders-can-win-hillary-clinton-beatable

    But then again; you contest within the political system you have, not that which you wish for.
    • Andre 17.1

      3 February 2016 at 10:46 am

      If you really want to do your head in, look up the Electoral College system for electing the President.

      Most states allocate their “electors” on a winner-take-all basis, a few by congressional district.

      The number of electors each state gets is the number of Representatives it has in the House plus two for its Senators. So a small state like Wyoming (pop 584,000) gets 3 electors (1 per 195,000 residents) while California (pop 38,800,000) gets 55 electors (1 per 705,000 residents). Since most small states lean Republican, this system favours them.

      There’s no law requiring electors to actually vote in the way they were elected to, although there really haven’t been recent incidents of “faithless electors”.

      It’s one of the reason why even though Gore won the popular vote by a substantial margin, we got stuck with Bush the lesser.
      • Phil 17.1.1

        3 February 2016 at 11:27 am

        Since most small states lean Republican, this system favours them

        On the other hand, most of the current ‘swing’ states with large electoral college votes (e.g. Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Colorado) have demographics that are trending in favour of ‘minorities’ and other democratic-leaning groups, so you’re unlikely to see the Dem’s complaining about the electoral system any time soon.
      • Pasupial 17.1.2

        3 February 2016 at 11:32 am

        As I understand it, each state is entitled to at least two senators plus one congressional representative. Additional congressional representatives are added by voting population, but the amount is pretty grainy in the lower population states compared to the more populous where each increase is a smaller proportion of total vote. Also recent voter ID laws & caging lists, plus children and undocumented immigrants have no representation. This graph is a good representation:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29#/media/File:State_population_per_electoral_vote.png
        • Andre 17.1.2.1

          3 February 2016 at 11:40 am

          Yep. Nice graph.

          Washington D.C. gets the same numbers of electors as the state with the least electors, ie 3. Even though they don’t get a Representative or any Senators.
18. aerobubble 18

    4 February 2016 at 3:10 pm

    So Trump came second with Sanders. Hah.

    Seriously Crux, Trump and another candidate all got more than 20% and less than 30%

    its just Ohio people

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS