I totally forgot the Iowa caucuses were today! Probably because I'm a Democrat who lives in North Carolina, but I still feel guilty. Anyway, I have the news on now. But it's been a solid two days of meetings at work, including lunches, and a holiday weekend before that, so I have a ton that I need to catch up on, and I really want to avoid Chris Matthews as much as possible.
Right now it's 8:15 (my time), and the polls closed 15 minutes ago. MSNBC says that entrance polls had Romney, Paul and Santorum tied. Perfect microcosm of the Republican electorate right there - evenly split between big business insiders, libertarians and social super-conservatives. I'm off to wash dishes.
8:20ish, catching an update on the way to the bathroom - older voters outnumber younger (Paul) voters 2 to 1. More dishes.
A break while the people on TV contradict one another... caucuses aren't like normal elections, where people cast anonymous ballots all day long, and then we count when the polls close. Basically, groups of people gather, listen to speeches about whom they should vote for, and then either cast ballots (Republicans) or group together (Democrats) to pick their caucus' winner. Moreso than a normal voting day, caucuses skew toward people who are motivated and able to show up.
Interruption: one percent of the vote is in! 9, 4 and 3 votes, for Paul, Perry and Romney, respectively.
As I was saying - able-bodied people either with no kids or with child care and who are off work or retired are the ones who show up to caucus. It's not representative of the population even in Iowa, which is laughably unrepresentative of the whole USA's population. It's an interesting experiment in democracy, but other than that, why do we put so much weight on Iowa when it comes to choosing a presidential candidate? Obama won the Democratic caucuses in '08, which signaled to many that he could in fact win in a rural, largely white state (which he went on to win in the general election). But the Republicans' '08 winner was Mike Huckabee. Not exactly predictive.
9:01 - still too close to call. Catching up on my Internet reading. Apparently God told Pat Robertson who was going to win in November, so why on earth am I watching professional news reporters?
9:07. Rachel Maddow really really wants Rick Santorum to finish well. Watch how happily she reminds us that the highly reliable entrance polls have him tied with Romney and Paul. A good Santorum showing would write her show for a week. (And no, that was not a gay joke.) Over to CNN and ESPN.com. Oh, wait, is the Sugar Bowl on tonight, too? Man, I'm so out of the loop...
9:21. CNN's set looks like it was designed by a 10-year-old ADD patient on meth. And I can't believe the Colts fired Bill Polian. Paul is ahead if Santorum and Romney, then Gingrich and Perry following, with 15 percent of precincts reporting.
9:46. CNN is boring. MSNBC has J.C. Watts! The big three are still tied at 23 percent each.
10:09. 45 percent reporting, and Santorum is about 300 votes ahead of Romney; Ed Schultz is telling Rachel Maddow that Santorum is as good as Obama on the stump, and I just noticed that Rachel is wearing eye shadow. Lawrence O'Donnell and Al Sharpton are there as well. This is so much more interesting to watch than CNN.
10: 40. Only 53 percent are reporting, and I need to go to bed, y'all. This is crazy.
No comments:
Post a Comment