| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Why Do Iowa and New Hampshire Get to Decide? |
Topic: Why Do Iowa and New Hampshire Get to Decide?
| Author | Message |
| Olbypocrisy | Posted – 1/4/2008 6:25:41 PM | show profile Guess you lost your bet Did Obama get the Democrat Nomination while i was gone?? |
| catlondon | Posted – 1/4/2008 6:39:51 PM | show profile The topic of the thread in which you posted your remark was the Iowa caucus. You made no mention of the nomination. |
| crimedog | Posted – 1/4/2008 8:20:16 PM | show profile Ignore the fool he says this crap everyday.. |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 1/4/2008 11:10:32 PM | show profile " "The fact that Obama can win in a rural white state makes me feel a little more hopeful for this country though." Because everyone in a rural white states is racist?" True, I'm sure there we who don't live in rural America maintain a lot of stereotypes about those who do. On the other hand, when I hear that a black person in Iowa is over 13 times as likely to be arrested as a white person in Iowa, its hard not to think racism has something to do with it. |
| chucho | Posted – 1/5/2008 11:41:33 AM | show profile >> State's rights is why there is no federal day for primary elections or no one-size-fits all driver's license etc. Didn't y'all take civics? And Iowa has a great university system and is a very educated state--so stop with the hayseed generalizations, please. << Correct m if I'm wrong, but isn't there a difference between a primary and a caucus? I seem to recall that from my civics class. In any case, I think the caucus should be outlawed because it's unconstitutional (votes are supposed to be private, I think it says that somewhere but we ignore it because of "states rights" just as we ignored segregation being unconstitutional for so long). I also don't buy the state's rights argument in this regard. It's a federal electoral process and I think the rules should be the same everywhere. I don't care about the dates as much as the actual selection process. They should all be primaries voters registered to one party or the other (itself a dumb concept, IMO) should only vote in their party's primary and independent should be able to choose whether to vote in the primaries of one o the other. (This would encourage more independent voting, rather than across party lines.) Anyway, just my solution. I like tabling solution more than whining about problems. (Though I like to whine about problems sometimes, too.) PS: I agree on the hayseed generalizations, though. PPS: Olby i right: progressives shouldn't be concluding that white people won't vote for a black candidate, esp. white progressives. On the other hand, the Republican party lost its "black thing" a long time ago (Wiki: Isaiah Montgomery) and for decades it has been a party with little more than "token" minority representation, and I think it would be extremely unfair to accuse me of being racist for pointing that out. The modern Republican Party is not the party of Abraham Lincoln any more than the Democratic Party is any more the party of FDR. To make either of these comparisons is hyperbole. |
| keltoi2 | Posted – 1/9/2008 11:03:42 AM | show profile More People Ride the NYC Subway During a Single Rush Hour than voted in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries combined. Yet the Nooz Media treats it like it's a national mandate. Pathetic. |
| crimedog | Posted – 1/9/2008 11:20:31 AM | show profile I don't think either state carries much influence. Oh , how the media got it wrong last night. |
| keltoi2 | Posted – 1/9/2008 11:34:34 AM | show profile That's because the media treats every election like a g-d football game to add "drama", rather than focus on what matters. It's all polls and soundbites, and woefully little substance. |
| Bleak Spouse | Posted – 1/9/2008 11:39:20 PM | show profile the entire election process should be flushed down the toilet. the only way to find a decent president is to have 12 honest Americans walk around America for 4 years holding a lantern up to every American's face, until they find the perfect person for the job. |
| Mag Girl | Posted – 1/10/2008 10:02:41 AM | show profile keltoi, I totally agree with you there.... I just wrote an op-ed to that effect. |
| keltoi2 | Posted – 1/10/2008 1:02:54 PM | show profile You get to write Op-Eds? OK, NOW I'm jealous. :-) |
| Mag Girl | Posted – 1/10/2008 1:14:07 PM | show profile Keltoi, nothing to be jealous about here, trust me! If you enable your e-mail, I'll send it to you. I don't want to post this for the whole site, but I trust you, as a regular, will not share it and my name? |
| Yam | Posted – 1/11/2008 6:33:51 PM | show profile Can I just add--a little bit late--that as a Californian, the Iowa Democratic caucus sounded fun? I don't like that a lot of the candidates have dropped out before other states have had a chance to vote on them as a result of the Iowa caucus, but I do like the idea of voters gathering in a room and having discussions/conducting negotiations. That's as more and more people I know here in California are voting by absentee ballot in every election. Don't people want the experience of voting in a voting booth at the very least? I certainly do... |
| keltoi | Posted – 1/12/2008 1:37:53 AM | show profile | email poster Mag Girl, all confidences will indeed be kept. Look forward to your op-ed--thanks. |
