I read that the same way, ora. Supposedly there's strong emphasis on the "a", but we're still waiting to hear who exactly it is.

I was talking about Paul Ryan, who has been trying to spearhead effective welfare reform that tries to make it not only a less expensive but also more productive system for helping get people out of poverty, attempting to get bipartisan support for this task.

Also, if the elites never helped the poor, most of us wouldn't be able to vote, so take that Marx ;)

voter fraud in the Clinton camp? http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4578575/clinton-voter-fraud-polk-county-iowa-caucus

truly shocking that an organization in which hillary clinton is deeply involved would be involved in a corrupt enterprise.

Glad to see Rubio do well.

Prado, reasoning that something could be worse does not mean that it couldn't be better. The poor may be eligible to vote in the USA but it is a hell of a lot more difficult for them to a) get to the polls, and b) influence an election campaign through funds. The elite still has a huge upper hand.

KC, did he do well? He is facing a 50+% crowd in favor of an extreme right candidate in either Trump or Cruz. Carson dropping out (eventually) will pad that number. I feel like he is closing in on his ceiling so long as Republicans nationwide are growing more extreme.

yea, Rubio did well, bo. I think Rubio won the nomination tonight, as sweeping and reckless a claim as that is. Trump has plateaued and Rubio can actually win people in the anti-establishment crowd over, while still being the establishment GOP's choice going forward.

The anti-establishment crowd among the GOP is going for Trump, and I still believe he'd split the vote just to fuel his own ego and run third party if he really has hit his ceiling. Cruz is more appealing within the party for that group if Trump drops just because they love dangerous rhetoric coming from a total drivelling douchebag.

Maybe there are quieter anti-establishment sects within the GOP. Libertarians I guess?

bo, Iowa picked Santorum last time around, and he's just a little to the right of Hitler. I wouldn't put much stock in who they pick. It's not like they represent a cross section of the country.

No offense to anyone stuck in Iowa :)

I know that, trip. They're just the first so it's a big show. I just left Davenport, peopleare starting to drink near the river and that's just a bad place to be.

I still think (yet again) the winner of the night is Bernie Sanders, unquestionably.

Most people stuck in Iowa realize that they are stuck in Iowa.

What happens if it's a tie?

It was a very good night for Sanders.

A tie in a single precinct?

A tie is a win for Sanders, even a predicted 23/21 margin of the 44 delegates is a huge win.

I'm not surprised about Rubio at all. For almost a year I have said the best chance for the GOP in 2016 is Rubio/Kasich, but they still have no chance.

Hillary 23:21 Sanders (WashPost projection)

I was thinking overall, but I don't even know if that's possible.

A tie overall is just 22-22.

In what world is this a good night for Sanders and not Rubio?

Sanders is beating the polling numbers by a little bit. I love that, and it gives me hope that he can still win the nomination, but Iowa is one of the most friendly states to Sanders demographically and it's approaching a tie. He's still gonna need to pull a big-ass rabbit out of his hat.

Rubio did much better than expected in Iowa, which is always good for a candidate because of what the media will do with that, and more than that, Trump just did poorly, and he's probably more of a threat to Rubio than Cruz is.

I like a lot of what Bernie talks on but i feel he isn't moderate enough to be president. I want a president who can act as a go between for either party; a mediator of sorts. and i just don't see that in bernie

CommanderByron: He has a great record in Congress as a mediator. He also is walloping each of the Republicans in head-to-head polls.

I don't want a President who can be a go-between for either party. That is the job of Congress. The President can push for an agenda, but Congress has to pass the legislation.

ghug: What's friendly about Iowa's demography?

"I dont have an answer and I dont think anyone does. How do you convince people what an education is worth? Especially when its currently unaffordable for a lot of families and people living in poverty are rightly disillusioned by the current systems? Where can change truly start? "

Just to be clear, the question you are asking is 'how do we make people who don't share my values aspire to the same middle class definition of success as i aspire to'

That question is an essentially part of the problem. Most successful people tend to assume that if more people were just like them, everything would be alright. Whereas diversity is actually a strength; and if everyone was just like you, there would be a whole lot more demand for all the things you like, and a whole lot more waste of the things you waste... Generally a mono-culture is a bad thing, whether it is in agriculture, or an investment portfolio, or a democracy...

@" I want a president who can act as a go between for either party; a mediator of sorts. and i just don't see that in bernie"

Yeah, it is not like he has a record of compromising with the other party...

oh wait, this:'Sen. John Mc­Cain, who ne­go­ti­ated the VA deal with Sanders after Sen. Richard Burr, then the rank­ing mem­ber on the Vet­er­ans Com­mit­tee, said he couldn’t get any fur­ther in the ne­go­ti­ations with Sanders, gave the in­de­pend­ent high praise, not­ing that “his word is good.”
But he ac­know­ledged that Sanders can be can­tan­ker­ous, adding with a laugh: “Both of us have that repu­ta­tion.”
“We worked very, um — with a lot of con­ten­tion and a lot of spir­ited de­bate. We were able to come to an agree­ment be­cause both of us wanted an agree­ment. And I found him to be hon­or­able and good as his word. And his word was good. So I found it a very sat­is­fact­ory and some­times, shall I say, col­or­ful ex­per­i­ence,” Mc­Cain said.'

ora, how does being educated stunt diversity? I would think it does just the opposite.

* by educated I don't mean just college educated. Trades, arts, or really anything that gives a person a skill would qualify to me.

I am not anti-education. But i am aware that the education system idolizes middle class aspirations. And it fails many lower class kids - whose parents it also failed - partly because they don't have the same aspirations.

It fails because the teachers, however well meaning, didn't have the same experiences growing up. Leaving then as less effective role models. And it fails because it assumes that if everyone aspired to the same set of values then everything will be alright. The education system is a monolith, a state-run monopoly, and a monoculture.

A one size fits all solution to a complex social problem. Talk about square pegs in round holes. An accepted hierarchy of subjects within academia, with logical 'right-brain' activities at the top, creative 'left-brain' activities below them, and non-brain activities below that again (be it dance, woodwork, or anything else with your hands or body) And this system teaches children to either live up to middle class standards or to give up.

Private education allows the wealthy escape this monoculture, into a system tailored to whatever they demand (different expectations mostly, based on their parent's values...)

Being educated doesn't stunt diversity; but being told to act a certain way else society will view you as a failure must be damaging psychologically. It must be limiting. And it is a waste both of tax payers money and young people's time.