I was just saying...
(62 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-04-08 10:26 AM
Original message |
The subtext of Iowan voters is "we're not racist, we're hip and cool" |
|
and we'd like all that media attention (read money) back in four years.
America needs a better way to pick candidates other than a state known only for hyping itself. Here's to PRIMARY elections in the next go round.
|
Cameron27
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-04-08 10:27 AM
Response to Original message |
1. I'm not sure that was their motivation, |
|
but I don't like caucuses either.
|
sniffa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-04-08 10:28 AM
Response to Original message |
2. do they know how to do the Hustle though? |
Inspired
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-04-08 10:30 AM
Response to Original message |
3. Your thread is just silly. n/t |
Bitwit1234
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-04-08 10:30 AM
Response to Original message |
4. American Idol is coming back on the air they'll forget this distraction |
|
as soon as it does and their "hip and cool" will gravitate toward that. See where they loaded up some of the busses to take the students back to Illinois, wonder if they'll vote there also. CNN had it on their show this morning.
|
beberocks
(219 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-04-08 10:32 AM
Response to Original message |
5. Amen to that! Here is to letting other states have a crack at being first! |
|
As a Californian, I am disgusted by how much importance was attached to the Iowa primary. So few people vote that the results can be manipulated by the number of bodies a candidate gets to the caucus. Is is time for bigger states to have the first primaries!
|
CoffeeCat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-04-08 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
I am in Iowa, and I am totally for a system in which states are on a rotating basis, so that all states experience what it's like to be one of the first states to have their primaries.
I am a firm believer in the one-state-at-a-time method at the front end of the primary season. States can really test candidates, ask them questions and challenge them. This process forces politicians to be real and accountable. It is more likely that an authentic, viable candidate passes these one-state test--and the weaker, dishonest, puffed-up politicians are weeded out.
This would enable candidates with fewer dollars and less name recognition to go out and prove themselves. Isn't that what America is all about?
I would gladly give up my state's "first" status in order to preserve this amazing process that truly puts "We The People" in charge of democracy!
|
Teaser
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-04-08 10:32 AM
Response to Original message |
6. So you were "just saying" that,huh? |
|
Try not to "just say" anything else.
|
Sparkly
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-04-08 10:33 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Why isn't it possible that a larger percentage liked Obama than the others, as a politician?
|
9119495
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-04-08 10:35 AM
Response to Original message |
8. Umm...us Iowans aren't racist on the Democratic side... |
|
So what is your point?
Is the free republic site down this morning or something?
|
BeyondGeography
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-04-08 10:37 AM
Response to Original message |
9. The subtext of your post is "my candidate lost last night" |
Bitwit1234
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-04-08 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
11. So Dean won in 2004 and Kerry got the nomination and bush didn't |
|
even show up to campaign and McCain won Iowa. What's Iowa prove they are a red state who have never gone democratic. And they can cross over party lines to vote, in the primaries. If they hadn't and the bus upon bus load of students hadn't shown up, hard to tell how much Edwards would have won by.
|
NYCGirl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-04-08 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #11 |
15. Hey, Einstein. Dean didn't win Iowa in 2004. NT |
emulatorloo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-04-08 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #11 |
21. Um, Iowa went "blue" for GORE in 2000 |
|
and it was damn purple in 04 for Kerry.
|
9119495
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-04-08 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
|
or nitwit? Iowa was Blue in 2000, '96, '92, and '88.
Perhaps you were thinking of South Carolina.
|
CoffeeCat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-04-08 10:37 AM
Response to Original message |
10. You are misguided and mistaken... |
|
No one in Iowa is saying or thinking what you just said.
Lovely straw man argument you built up---and tore down yourself.
You don't know what in the hell you're taking about.
Iowans take the caucuses very seriously. We meet the candidates. We take time off from work to attend their events and we make the effort to ask them questions and test them.
This is not about Iowa, you nimrod. This is about democracy.
I could care less if Iowa is "first". We don't want your money. We want a system in which candidats are forced to be "real" and answer tough questions. I would rather have this system have states rotate every four years--so ill-informed whiners like yourself stop making this about one state.
We absolutely must have a system that allows single states to test these candidates and force them to answer to "We The People."
Primary elections foster an impersonal, vacuous system of campaigning. Candidates don't have to answer questions from voters. They can read their canned speeches, conduct their orchestrated media events and barely get next to an American citizen. Is that what you're into?
Relying on fluff television ads that push poll-tested soundbytes---yeah, right. That's so much better than "We The People" getting in these candidates' faces and asking them questions about matters that directly impact their lives.
You are advocating a position that leverages candidates who have the most money (most likely obtained from special interests and lobbyists) and denouncing "retail politics"---which is one of the last vestiges of democracy that this country still has.
Just what exactly is your agenda? Because it's sure not anything that is in the best interests of "We The People".
|
I was just saying...
(62 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-04-08 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #10 |
16. Oh please. "Iowans take democracy seriously" , you don't care |
|
if Iowa is first.
Give me a break. So the rest of the country DOESN'T take democracy seriously. I don't consider 'caucusing' democracy. If caucusing was all that important why is process in Republican and Democratic so different. In fact, the Republican process is far more DEMOCRATIC that the Democratic process which could be construed as institutionalized intimidation.
And you actually don't care if Iowa comes in 'first'. If this Iowa Caucus Noise wasn't if our faces for two plus years, if the caucus was held two weeks later after the real primaries in big states, do you seriously believe that YOU would care let alone the 12 journalists that might show up.
|
DrFunkenstein
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-04-08 10:42 AM
Response to Original message |
12. Subtext: We Participated in Active Democracy in Record Numbers |
|
Especially people who never participated before. Obama inspired people to take part in democracy and will remain a call to service for as long as he serves.
|
Lurking Dem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-04-08 10:45 AM
Response to Original message |
youthere
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-04-08 10:50 AM
Response to Original message |
17. Actually I think the subtext was... |
|
"we're sick and tired of the way things are going and we want the candidate that is our best chance for true change." Jeebus...if you're wondering what that bad taste is in your mouth, it's sour grapes.
|
Sulawesi
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-04-08 11:29 AM
Response to Original message |
18. Wow, you just psychoanalyzed an entire state because you're in the minority politically |
emulatorloo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-04-08 11:33 AM
Response to Original message |
19. This is insulting and absurd -- you need to shake yourself out of your fantasy world |
|
that Iowans are racist. Or full of misogyny. Or whatever the stereotype of the month is.
Quite frankly the majority of Iowa Democrats are damn progressive.
As to Iowa Republicans, that is a different story.
|
LanternWaste
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-04-08 11:46 AM
Response to Original message |
20. I'm sure you're basing that statement... |
|
"The subtext of Iowan voters is "we're not racist, we're hip and cool"
I'm sure you're basing that statement on some rather in-depth analysis. Maybe you could post that analysis here to validate what appears to be nothing more than a mere opinion erroneously stated as fact... no?
Maybe you're well acquainted with the majority of Iowa democrats? No?
Wait-- I got it! You somehow got a hold of the one of the last three Soviet miond-reading machines left and during the night when they were asleep, you placed them on all the Democratic voters in Iowa, like a sleepy version of Santa Claus.
"America needs a better way to pick candidates other than a state..."
Hmmmm.... you do know that Iowa is only part and parcel of a larger process? That Iowa isn't in fact the only state involved in the election process, yes? You are aware that a few other states pplay a pretty relevant factor in deciding the eventual nominee, yes?
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon May 06th 2024, 01:02 AM
Response to Original message |