New President

[Pcdunn]

No dumb questions...

'another dumb question, from a dumb Aussie, when you talk about being a registered Dem. who are you registered with? Just the party? And what if anything are the implications of being registered, like does it mean your vote goes to the party even if you don't show up.

Well, if you want to vote in Presidential elections, you pick one of the two major parties (in my case, Democratic), and register with your county voting official, either in person, or by returning a post-card via the mail.
The Election Clerks compile lists of registered voters for each party.
In a presidential primary and main election, you may either vote in person at a polling place, or (popular in my State) via mail. In both cases you are required to sign your name. A voter who doesn't vote is a vote uncast, and doesn't count.

The voters attending Cacuses need to sign up and get training ahead of time, I think (haven't done one of these myself, but someone told me about her experience), and will often come from campaigners for a particular candidate. I think again, someone needs to be there, casting votes, for them to count.

[Rosella]

I'm afraid it's going to be a narrow Trump victory for the Republicans in Iowa. Sitting watching him and spouse now, with people coming up wanting to take selfies! As far as the Dems are concerned I'm afraid the Benie Sanders' voters might be all talk online and no bothering to vote. To an Aussie it's all a bit circus-like, but I'm a political junkie and find it all interesting.

[GUT]

I'm afraid it's going to be a narrow Trump victory for the Republicans in Iowa. Sitting watching him and spouse now, with people coming up wanting to take selfies! As far as the Dems are concerned I'm afraid the Benie Sanders' voters might be all talk online and no bothering to vote. To an Aussie it's all a bit circus-like, but I'm a political junkie and find it all interesting.

I find it intriguing too.

Once I was a fan of the prospect of businessmen who had been successful going into politics, but not so sure anymore with big Clive and even Mal.

[GUT]

Well, if you want to vote in Presidential elections, you pick one of the two major parties (in my case, Democratic), and register with your county voting official, either in person, or by returning a post-card via the mail.
The Election Clerks compile lists of registered voters for each party.
In a presidential primary and main election, you may either vote in person at a polling place, or (popular in my State) via mail. In both cases you are required to sign your name. A voter who doesn't vote is a vote uncast, and doesn't count.

The voters attending Cacuses need to sign up and get training ahead of time, I think (haven't done one of these myself, but someone told me about her experience), and will often come from campaigners for a particular candidate. I think again, someone needs to be there, casting votes, for them to count.

Thanks Dunny, can you vote in the Presidentials if your not registered?

[Errata]

Thanks Dunny, can you vote in the Presidentials if your not registered?

you have to register with the feds in order to vote. Registering with a party is a separate and largely unnecessary thing. I registered as a democrat when I was 15 (which is weird since you have to be 18 to vote) and got some mail out of it but not much else. I did it because I was volunteering at Planned Parenthood at the time and one day they had the forms lying around the office for some reason. Not a lot of minors register, but some do. More republicans than democrats.

[GUT]

you have to register with the feds in order to vote. Registering with a party is a separate and largely unnecessary thing. I registered as a democrat when I was 15 (which is weird since you have to be 18 to vote) and got some mail out of it but not much else. I did it because I was volunteering at Planned Parenthood at the time and one day they had the forms lying around the office for some reason. Not a lot of minors register, but some do. More republicans than democrats.

Thanks Errata, didn't realize minors could register.

[Pcdunn]

Results from Iowa: for the Republicans: Ted Cruz 28% over Trump, 24% and Rubio at 23% / Huckabee dropped out

For the Democrats: Hilary Clinton at 50% and Bernie Sanders at 49%. Still not quite called, I think.
O'Malley dropped out.

[Mayerling]

Results from Iowa: for the Republicans: Ted Cruz 28% over Trump, 24% and Rubio at 23% / Huckabee dropped out

For the Democrats: Hilary Clinton at 50% and Bernie Sanders at 49%. Still not quite called, I think.
O'Malley dropped out.

Hilary declared a victory, although she treated Sanders with respect as an opponent (stressing their unity). Trump comes in second, and treats it like he won (he didn't), and he barely beat Rubio in third place.

I am hoping something really embarrassing smashes Trump.

Jeff

[Pcdunn]

Hilary declared a victory, although she treated Sanders with respect as an opponent (stressing their unity). Trump comes in second, and treats it like he won (he didn't), and he barely beat Rubio in third place.

I am hoping something really embarrassing smashes Trump.

Jeff

The Canadian Birther controversy concerning Cruz will probably be trotted out again, and I imagine Trump gets nasty when he comes in second. As for "really embarrassing"-- The Donald just has to open his mouth for that to come out!

[Patrick S]

I've checked out of the electorate. I can't see myself holding my nose and pulling the lever for any of the candidates. I've been a Republican my entire life but, over the past 5 to 10 years my attitudes and the attitudes of Republicans have gone in opposite directions. I'm asked to believe that two guys getting married somehow invalidates or diminishes my marriage. Really? How is that? I have to sit and listen to 'conservative' candidates talk about God and Jesus and the Bible. Meanwhile, I don't believe in God and I find the idea of organized religion repellent. That said, I AM PERSONALLY conservative. Yet, I don't feel like my conservatism should be modeled by everyone else, and that seems to be what Republicans believe these days.

On the other hand, I have never voted for a Democrat and I can say with 100% certainty that I never will, and Democrats like Hillary Clinton are the reason why. She is a typical 'Do as I Say' politician and I find her participation in the political process disgusting. Full disclosure: I'm a government employee and I'm WELL acquainted with the laws governing not only the protection of classified information but the protection of CPI (confidential/personal information). And if ANYONE other than a select group of elected officials had done what SHE did, they'd be fired, prosecuted and jailed. That's a simple fact the media simply will not state.

So, until someone invents another party that reflects what I think is important (lower taxes, better education, strong defense, a reasonable safety net that does not discourage participation in the economy, less government regulation, intelligent decriminalization of victimless crimes, reign in the police and get back to 'protect and serve' rather than 'target and humiliate (and occasionally beat, taser, shoot and kill), and discourage political 'service' as a career (i.e. end the rampant corruption in government).

[Elamarna]

I do hope you don't mind an outsider commenting, but as a Brit , and one who has taken part in politics in the UK and been elected twice at local authority level, I find the American system very sad.

it seems that ONLY the extremely wealthy can stand for the position of President, that is a real affront to democracy in my opinion.
It is still possible here in the UK for the Prime minister to come from a humble background.

I would say that from my understanding the British Prime Minister (of what ever party) actually has more power than the American President.
The Prime Minister must command a majority of the Members of Parliament, whereas, and if I am wrong please tell me, the President's Party can be in a minority in both Houses.


And while our system is far from perfect, it is not controlled by religious groups, which to me appears to be at least partly true of the Republicans.

I would by choice be supporting Sanders but if he was not selected I would with a heavy heart vote for Clinton.

Please forgive this intrusion from across the water.

[JadenCollins]

Hilary Clinton FTW! haha.

[Mayerling]

I know what Pat and Steve mean. Our system has been hijacked by money since about 1968 or so. The irony is that the most obnoxious of the candidates in this race is Trump, a billionaire himself - who does not need Pac money or have to "officially" sell himself out to the rich. Sanders seems to be most honestly opposed to the rich, at least at this point. But who wants his increased taxes?

I can't stand Hillary - she is fully competent for the post, but she's totally untrustworthy. Cruz and Rubio don't make sense on immigration (even with the ISIS threat from the middle east), as both are second generation Latino Americans.

The funniest thing I find about the issue of Cruz and the "Canadian" birth question. Trump has been bringing it up as he once brought up questions as to Obama's birth in Hawaii (because he claimed Obama was born in Kenya). The Federal Constitution said that all Presidential candidates born after a certain date in the 18th Century (an exception to protect most of the "Founding Fathers" who were born as British Citizens before that date) had to be born on U.S. territory. Only one President was ever suspected of not being born in the U.S. That was our 21st President Chester Arthur (born in Vermont in 1831) who some believed was born in Canada to Canadian parents (sound familiar?). The requirement for a native born President seems a bit dated now, but it has never been seriously questioned with the suggestion of amending or changing the requirement in the Constitution. Yet, oddly enough, Britain was ahead of us on this. In 1922, when Lloyd George was tossed out of office as P.M., he was succeeded by the head of the Tory Party, Andrew Bonar Law, who was born in Canada! Nobody in Britain (as far as I know) questioned this - Bonar Law had been head of the Tory opposition in the House of Commons from 1911 on and was the Tory leader in the wartime coalition cabinets of Asquith and Lloyd George. One could argue that in 1922 Canada was part of the British Empire, but in the period of negotiations for the Versailles Treaty in 1919, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the Union Of South Africa all insisted on having independent representation in the League of Nations. The ties of the empire were fraying (and in 1922 Northern Ireland and Eire were created as well). Bonar Law's selection was based on his identification with British issues and policies, not on where he was born. Gee, doesn't that sound like an attitude we could grow up and use now?

Jeff

[GUT]

Can someone fill me in on the Cruz Canadian birth thing.

I know someone not born in USA can't be President.

Is it alleged Cruz was born there?

[Rosella]

Yes, isn't it that no-one knows whether Cruz's mother had taken Canadian citizenship at the time of Ted's birth, (yes he was born in Canada) or just that the Cruz's were simply living there for convenience? If former, Ted's out, if latter he's OK. Strange that Trump's people have done no investigating!

I and my family watched yesterday on CNN and Fox. Glad to see those huge numbers of Trump supporters didn't materialise. Isn't Cruz too Evangelical for most of the US though? Isn't Rubio the one to watch? The Sanders-Hillary contest was a nail-biter but it's odd that Iowa Dems don't post the actual number of voters.
On to New Hampshire!