FARK.com: (6856780) Motherfarkin' caucuses, how do they work? Fox News readers want to know

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		Motherfarkin' caucuses, how do they work? Fox News readers want to know (foxnews.com)		97
		More: Obvious, beauty pageants, RNC

• • •

6301 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jan 2012 at 8:32 AM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/6856780

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

97 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

Hillbilly Jim		2012-01-03 09:53:53 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, I know you farkers will, but didn't Iowa swing for Obama in 2008? Whole lotta butthutt ITT.

Carth		2012-01-03 09:54:41 AM

Carth: Shaggy_C: Does the Republican caucus use the preferential voting like the Democrats? Remember, the instant runoff was the way that Oamba won in 2008, as he picked up all of the other candidate's supporters who did not meet the threshold. Would Ron Paul gather similar votes, or does Romney become the de facto second choice?

I think Santorum would benefit more from an instant runoff than paul. As bachmann/perry fail to meet the threshold he is the leading christian coalition candidate.

and no there is no viability threshold for republicans.

theknuckler_33		2012-01-03 09:56:26 AM

I'm no fan of FauxNews, but shiat... every major media outlet runs a 'WTF is a caucus?" article every 4 years.

Shaggy_C		2012-01-03 09:59:07 AM

Carth: and no there is no viability threshold for republicans.

Ah, well, in that case it's looking like a Romney day! Too bad, things could get interesting if they went for the runoffs.

slat1040		2012-01-03 10:07:53 AM

The article does fail to point out that the Dems and GOP run their Caucuses differently. The GOP really only does a Straw Poll, somewhat secret ballot, results announced, get on with other stuff. The Dems are much more fun, there is first a public vote, either raise a hand or move to a candidate group, if no candidate has a majority, then lowest count group(s) are disbanded, and everyone is given a chance to move their vote, this continues until a candidate has a majority, and is indicated the winner. The difference is that second (or third) preference plays a role in the Dem process and you have to "stand up" for your candidate. Overall, it is a very interesting evening...except this year...there will really be no debate or choice on the Dem side (Yes, the Dems are still having a caucuse.

Guidette Frankentits		2012-01-03 10:10:07 AM

According to 538, which makes clear that the Iowa caucus is pretty farked up and impossible to predict, they have Romney down as the favorite, but it looks like the media's crazy political coverage cycle has just happened to get around to Santorum.

I think RON PAUL will win just because he is the only one who hasn't been the flavor of the month (excluding Huntsman)

bboy		2012-01-03 10:12:18 AM

I will admit that I had only a sort of vague idea of what a caucus was going into that article. I'm not sure why I never learned.

But now I have to ask... how could such an archaic, half-ass process yield any sort of useful result?

coeyagi		2012-01-03 10:17:09 AM

funk_soul_bubby: coeyagi: I'll let you figure out what is wrong.

He fixes the cable?

Don't be fatuous, Jeffrey.

coeyagi		2012-01-03 10:18:32 AM

Guidette Frankentits: According to 538, which makes clear that the Iowa caucus is pretty farked up and impossible to predict, they have Romney down as the favorite, but it looks like the media's crazy political coverage cycle has just happened to get around to Santorum.

I think RON PAUL will win just because he is the only one who hasn't been the flavor of the month (excluding Huntsman)

Just furthering the point that "You never go full retard". Except in GOP primaries.

LarryDan43		2012-01-03 10:18:37 AM

Butt, butt calluses?

Launch Code		2012-01-03 10:18:51 AM

Hey Looney libs! If you hate Fox and Conservatives so much, why do you watch? Why do you care?

There's plenty of places you can go that support democrat agendas. Man on man butt sex, killing babies, giving taxpayer money to lazy people, giving high praise to the child king etc. Those places are filled with people salivating over all your favorite democrat issues.

coeyagi		2012-01-03 10:19:24 AM

coeyagi		2012-01-03 10:20:01 AM

Launch Code: Hey Looney libs! If you hate Fox and Conservatives so much, why do you watch? Why do you care?

There's plenty of places you can go that support democrat agendas. Man on man butt sex, killing babies, giving taxpayer money to lazy people, giving high praise to the child king etc. Those places are filled with people salivating over all your favorite democrat issues.

1/10.

brigid_fitch		2012-01-03 10:23:32 AM

part of the problem: Mrtraveler01: part of the problem: People in Iowa with nothing better to do on a Tuesday are the most important people in America the world this morning. Yeah, I'm scared too.

This was the top story on BBC this morning.

Great. If there was anything left to say about loss of American prestiege abroad, you just said it.

I heard the broadcast, too, and it was actually quite good. They had their own specialist (American political journalist stationed in London) in-studio and some herp-a-derp call in from the US. The reporter did a nice job of actually presenting opinions as such and kept going to their own correspondent whenever the other guy started going into WARRGARRBL territory. Example:

Caller: "Obama has alienated his biggest investors & his young base--the ones who donated $10-$100. They'll vote Independent now & he'll come up short in campaign funds."
American BBC corrrespondent: "Goldman-Sachs has gone to Romney and there are some disappointed people on the left. But given the stark choice of a GOP candidate or Obama, they'll re-elect Obama. And Obama is on track to raise nearly $1B for his 2012 campaign, up from $750K from the 2008."

/Quoted from memory, but the gist is right

Tusz		2012-01-03 10:24:34 AM

Launch Code: Hey Looney libs! If you hate Fox and Conservatives so much, why do you watch? Why do you care?

It's hilarious. Imagine that annoying guy from work doing the old "stop hitting yourself" routine... to himself. On national TV. When he's competing with you for a promotion. We're talking aged single-malt schadenfreude here.

It's a Sunshine Day!		2012-01-03 10:28:22 AM

Persnickety: It's a Sunshine Day!: The caucuses and primaries suck. There's no point in them anymore, other than to re-shuffle the deck of candidates every couple of days/weeks.

I stick by my proposed Sunshine Day 6-month presidential election plan:

June: Candidates declare themselves as such; talk about their platforms.
July: Preliminary debates among party candidates (dems vs. dems, reps vs. reps, whoevers vs. whoevers)
August: Parties hold conventions, choose final pres and VP candidates
September: Final candidates travel, advertise, etc.
October: Two debates held for pres candidates, one debate held for VP candidates
November: General election.

DONE. With today's technology, there's not a lot of need for billions of polls, primaries, etc. They're just confusing and make most folks aggravated.

Soooooo what's to stop candidates from campaining before June? Long before they formally declare, most potential candidates do a lot of exploratory visiting and fact finding and "testing the waters" and whatnot. Neither Trump nor Sarah Palin ever declared themselves but they traveled all over the country giving speeches and hiring PR and polling firms in the early half of 2011.

The problem with setting any kind of rules for campaining is that no one will ever follow them and trying to enforce them, especially via gov't regulation, is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. Reasonable people can argue whether or not our founders intended things like lap dances to fall under 1A but there's really no argument that they whole heartedly intended for political speech to be free of gov't regulation.

Sure, but it's still better than 2 years of blah-blah-blah-polls-PR stops-blah-blah-blah-polls-pointless debate-blah-blah-blah-bus tour-etc. I think it's ridiculous that a presidential term is 4 years, but apparently it takes at least 2 years for Americans to choose.

g4lt		2012-01-03 10:40:28 AM

Hillbilly Jim: Correct me if I'm wrong, I know you farkers will, but didn't Iowa swing for Obama in 2008? Whole lotta butthutt ITT.

So Iowa was a swingin' caucus?

Jake Havechek		2012-01-03 10:41:13 AM

Doc Daneeka		2012-01-03 10:42:26 AM

Pants full of macaroni!!		2012-01-03 10:43:33 AM

mrshowrules		2012-01-03 10:49:46 AM

Lost Thought 00		2012-01-03 11:04:38 AM

bboy: I will admit that I had only a sort of vague idea of what a caucus was going into that article. I'm not sure why I never learned.

But now I have to ask... how could such an archaic, half-ass process yield any sort of useful result?

It chooses the person that is most likely to have strong support with the party base and activists, which is an important factor in winning a national election, although certainly not the only factor which should be considered.

What's less important than who wins is who doesn't. If you can't perform respectably in Iowa, you won't do well nationally because you won't be able to spark the base to drive Get-Out-The-Vote efforts. That's why we are likely to see the 3-4 distinct losers drop out soon.

BilltheThrill		2012-01-03 11:18:00 AM

You know we're a blue state right? Please don't judge the rest of us just because the western Iowa dipshiats have been getting a bunch of media attention the last few weeks. We are, for the most part, normal people who don't live on farms and have seen a black person outside of television.

Doc Daneeka		2012-01-03 11:20:42 AM

BilltheThrill: You know we're a blue state right?

In the last 10 presidential elections, Iowa has gone to the Republican five times and to the Democrat five times.

Isn't that a swing state?

Mr_Fabulous		2012-01-03 11:22:54 AM

Mrtraveler01: We get this story everytime there is a caucus going on. Are we that forgetful?

Could you repeat the question?

Boxcutta		2012-01-03 11:28:15 AM

Launch Code: Hey Looney libs! If you hate Fox and Conservatives so much, why do you watch? Why do you care?

I hate terrible car crashes, too, but damned if I can keep myself from watching the aftermath of one.

Ctrl-Alt-Del		2012-01-03 11:30:08 AM

The Onanist		2012-01-03 11:38:59 AM

some_beer_drinker: [Paulus.jpg]

knows a thing or two about caucuses.

/oh...nevermind

Well played, comrade.

The Onanist		2012-01-03 11:40:07 AM

Jake Havechek: So man on woman butt sex is still okay?

It's encouraged!

vpb		2012-01-03 12:06:06 PM

hillary		2012-01-03 12:06:24 PM

I started watching the vid clip with Bachman.

I don't know why I clicked on it, but I did.

I watched some of it.

I'm so ashamed. I feel dirty.

Out, out damned spot.

hillary		2012-01-03 12:08:02 PM

vpb: Because stupid people are dangerous if someone organizes them and gets them wound up, which is what Fox does.

www.fairfaxunderground.com

that bosnian sniper		2012-01-03 12:34:49 PM

What's not to understand, the plebes gather in a large hall and yammer among themselves while the party powers that be congregate in a small room and select delegates who'll vote for the predetermined candidate. Easy peasy.

"Polling that takes place during the caucus is a metric for popular opinion, not an actual vote, and not meant to be factual".

anfrind		2012-01-03 12:36:29 PM

that bosnian sniper: "Polling that takes place during the caucus is a metric for popular opinion, not an actual vote, and not meant to be factual".

So it's like the right-wing rhetoric about Planned Parenthood?

that bosnian sniper		2012-01-03 12:41:03 PM

anfrind: So it's like the right-wing rhetoric ~~about Planned Parenthood~~?

One tiny amendment, but close enough.

Remember, even directly quoting candidates and politicians is a left-wing smear attack.

JohnCarter		2012-01-03 12:51:17 PM

Not sure why a small state with 1% of the US population that does not even remotely reflect the traditional republican and definitely not the traditional democratic demographic holds such sway over the presidential race

mrshowrules		2012-01-03 01:05:55 PM

JohnCarter: Not sure why a small state with 1% of the US population that does not even remotely reflect the traditional republican and definitely not the traditional democratic demographic holds such sway over the presidential race

Well according to the article it doesn't. In fact it doesn't even have sway over the Republican nomination. It is a counter indicator if anything.

verbaltoxin		2012-01-03 01:39:26 PM

I want Ron Paul to win the Iowa caucus. I want it so bad. I want it because it will be f*cking hilarious on Fark when he does. I will go out and by the good popcorn for this, seriously.

sethstorm		2012-01-03 02:01:46 PM

hillary: I started watching the vid clip with Bachman.

I don't know why I clicked on it, but I did.

I watched some of it.

I'm so ashamed. I feel dirty.

Out, out damned spot.

You will never look at a corndog in the same way again.

Do you know the way to Mordor		2012-01-03 02:29:16 PM

What's the difference between a caucus and a cactus?

A cactus has pricks on the outside!

angry_scientist		2012-01-03 02:41:11 PM

verbaltoxin: I want Ron Paul to win the Iowa caucus. I want it so bad. I want it because it will be f*cking hilarious on Fark when he does. I will go out and by the good popcorn for this, seriously.

I do too! So I answered a few stupid poll phone calls, answered RON PAUL!! to a couple of them... now he won't leave us alone. I get mail from his campaign every few days, mail from pro-life bs places, they've already called 6x today! 4x yesterday! So I (and mostly the wifey home on maternity leave) is paying dearly for this.

But if he wins. If Ron Paul! truly wins the caucus, it would be telling the repubs to go get F'd in the A.
/Ron Paul!

mrshowrules		2012-01-03 03:04:16 PM

angry_scientist: verbaltoxin: I want Ron Paul to win the Iowa caucus. I want it so bad. I want it because it will be f*cking hilarious on Fark when he does. I will go out and by the good popcorn for this, seriously.

I do too! So I answered a few stupid poll phone calls, answered RON PAUL!! to a couple of them... now he won't leave us alone. I get mail from his campaign every few days, mail from pro-life bs places, they've already called 6x today! 4x yesterday! So I (and mostly the wifey home on maternity leave) is paying dearly for this.

But if he wins. If Ron Paul! truly wins the caucus, it would be ~~telling~~ the repubs ~~to go~~ getting F'd in the A.
/Ron Paul!

Doubleodoug		2012-01-03 03:06:33 PM

Iowa is a nice place to caucus (new window).

Doubleodoug		2012-01-03 03:19:04 PM

Doubleodoug: Iowa is a nice place to caucus (new window).

oh yeah, NSFW language

UCFRoadWarrior		2012-01-03 04:12:35 PM

This is how the caucuses will work:

1. People go to their precinct to vote

2. All votes for Ron Paul will be tossed.

3. Depending on the brand of Rederpican at the precincts...votes will go to either Romney or one of the other RinoBots

4. Lather. Rinse. Repeat

RedVentrue		2012-01-03 05:35:57 PM

g4lt: Hillbilly Jim: Correct me if I'm wrong, I know you farkers will, but didn't Iowa swing for Obama in 2008? Whole lotta butthutt ITT.

So Iowa was a swingin' caucus?

Don't you mean Iowa has a swingin' caucus? It's because of the way he walks...