Are the iOwa caucuses harmful to the overall election process?

[Bowfinger]

I think Iowa is losing its influence and this election and last are signs of that happening.

With Florida moving up its votes and South Carolina following so close to Iowa there is no longer a big gap between Iowa and the rest of the country.

And the fact that several candidates are not even trying in Iowa hurts it too.


I think the cable media and all the early debates are almost pushing us towards a national primary. People are 'voting' via polls and those polls are being reported in the media and that is shaping the race as we have seen with Cain this last week.

I think you're right and that's unfortunate. It highlights the continuing subversion of a true representative democracy by big money. Government of the wealthy, by the wealthy, and for the wealthy.

The benefit of starting the primary process in smaller states like Iowa is that it is accessible to candidates who lack deep pockets. It gives good candidates a chance to establish themselves by literally going from town to town, and even from door to door, meeting people and spreading their message face to face. At least in theory, this means a great candidate of modest means still has a shot at building the name recognition and credibility needed to attract the contributions required to compete in the big states.

With a national primary, those candidates' campaigns will die before they ever start. The primaries will be limited to party titans and billionaires. That's not good for democracy.

 

[Lanyap]

Wow, eskimospy vs Bowfinger. I gotta go get the popcorn.

 

[ProfJohn]

I think you're right and that's unfortunate. It highlights the continuing subversion of a true representative democracy by big money. Government of the wealthy, by the wealthy, and for the wealthy.

The benefit of starting the primary process in smaller states like Iowa is that it is accessible to candidates who lack deep pockets. It gives good candidates a chance to establish themselves by literally going from town to town, and even from door to door, meeting people and spreading their message face to face. At least in theory, this means a great candidate of modest means still has a shot at building the name recognition and credibility needed to attract the contributions required to compete in the big states.

With a national primary, those candidates' campaigns will die before they ever start. The primaries will be limited to party titans and billionaires. That's not good for democracy.

Not sure how what is going on now says anything about deep pockets.

Cain is not running a big money campaign ala Romney.

The fact that Cain is moving up may actually signal a lose in influence by the big money candidates. It suggests that a small time candidate who has the right message and who can get that message across can overcome the big money big time candidates.

OR this could all be a factor of the 'anyone but Romney' movement within the GOP. First it was Bachmann, but she failed. So people moved to Perry, but he failed. So now they move to Cain. Expect him to fail or people to decide that they like his message and ideas, but don't think he is ready to be President. The whole draft Christie thing is just an extension of the 'anyone by Romney' movement. If Perry was doing as well as people expected no one would be talking about Christie.

 

[Bowfinger]

Not sure how what is going on now says anything about deep pockets.

Follow along. We're not talking about now. We're talking about if we move to a national primary.

Cain is not running a big money campaign ala Romney.

The fact that Cain is moving up may actually signal a lose in influence by the big money candidates. It suggests that a small time candidate who has the right message and who can get that message across can overcome the big money big time candidates.

OR this could all be a factor of the 'anyone but Romney' movement within the GOP. First it was Bachmann, but she failed. So people moved to Perry, but he failed. So now they move to Cain. Expect him to fail or people to decide that they like his message and ideas, but don't think he is ready to be President. The whole draft Christie thing is just an extension of the 'anyone by Romney' movement. If Perry was doing as well as people expected no one would be talking about Christie.

Bear in mind that we're not into the primary season yet. This is just the warm-up. Also, as I understood it, Cain did spend quite a bit in Florida (compared to his opponents) campaigning to the relatively small pool of party die-hards who participate in their straw poll. This is much the same approach Bachmann took to win the Iowa straw poll.

 

[ProfJohn]

Follow along. We're not talking about now. We're talking about if we move to a national primary.

When I said national primary I didn't mean a 'real' national primary where everyone votes in the same day.

But a system where everyone gives input based on polling results and how it effects the day to day race.

The current primary race is a sign of that and how candidates are moving in the polls based on their debate performances and how the country as a whole sees them.

A decade ago there would have been very few if any national primary debates this early and people across the country did not a get a good look at candidates and only got what the media reported.

Now everyone is involved. After the next debate if Cain fails or Perry does good then the poll numbers and the race will change again.

Thus it is a national primary because people from across the country are having an impact via polling.

 

[fskimospy]

Yet that's the implication of your continued sniping about Iowa's results often don't match the ultimate "winner" of the nomination. It's obvious that campaigns expect to be able to change those early results or they'd hang it all up after the first two or three contests.

Of course. So what if campaigns think they can change the results? That doesn't have anything to do with what I wrote.

Interesting claim. Can you produce actual data to support it? Can that data account for candidates who skip Iowa? Can it account for major campaign flubs, e.g., the infamous (and manufactured) Dean scream incident? If not, you're reaching your conclusions first, based on emotions, and then searching for any "evidence" you can use to support you.

Of course I can provide actual data to support it, I already did in noting that the winner of Iowa is only the national nominee half the time. It should not account for major campaign flubs. (discounting that seems silly) There is exactly one case of a candidate skipping Iowa and winning the national primary that I am aware of, and that's Clinton in 1992. If anything, accounting for candidates skipping it would likely lead to more wrong choices, thus supporting my argument further.

Who said otherwise? The point you're avoiding is this isn't unique to Iowa. It is inherent in the primary process. The people who participate in primaries are a small subset of official election voters. That subset tends to be more of the hard core ideologues and other fringe elements since they're the ones who are most passionate in their views. It is especially prevalent early in the campaign cycle, when most "regular" voters are far more concerned with their daily lives than they are with an election that's nearly a year away.

I don't think you understand what I wrote. Of course primaries attract more ideological voters, and that problem is not unique to Iowa. Caucuses such as Iowa's however attract a subsection of already highly ideological voters, meaning ones that not only care about primaries, but care about them enough to stand around in a gym for a few hours to prove it.

 

[airdata]

I agree that major things shouldn't be left in the hands of small states like Iowa.

I'm sure they have the internet up there in Iowa, but I suspect many of the residents are living in the past. Elections are a current event and should be led by people who are on the bleeding edge.

Not by farmers who live on government and monsanto subsidies.

 

[Bowfinger]

I agree that major things shouldn't be left in the hands of small states like Iowa.

I'm sure they have the internet up there in Iowa, but I suspect many of the residents are living in the past. Elections are a current event and should be led by people who are on the bleeding edge.

Not by farmers who live on government and monsanto subsidies.

So you're suggesting we leave it to people who make decisions based on ignorant stereotypes?

 

[Moonbeam]

Any other place where Republicans are chosen would also be a danger to the nation.

 

[Munky]

And I suppose you'd prefer the pretentious liberal lefty commie douchebags from Cali instead?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Holy F. Bowfinger and I agree? It must be pretty chilly in hell right now...

 

[ElFenix]

corn mafia

 

[Moonbeam]

corn mafia

LOL

 

[Fern]

If it were not for some backward hick state like iOwa having the first shot at deciding the election process, maybe we would not have to put up with all these nut cases like Bachmann, Mike Huckabee and Perry.

So if MN or Arkansas voted first instead we wouldn't have Bachmann or Huckabee?

The caucus system in itself is highly flawed. Few people take part, and many people are locked out. No allowance is made for the night shift worker, the absentee voter, or people that just don't have the time or desire to engage in some 3 hour neighborhood sit-down. And there are many where no allowance is made.

IMO, it's their state and they vote as they wish. Also, unlike another poster here, the point of voting in your state's primary is NOT to choose the candidate most popular to other states; it's to choose who YOU prefer.

So here we have some backward Bible belt, tea party, out of touch, living outside of reality, farming state giving someone totally unelectable like Bachmann, Perry or Huck underserved national attention.
Is this abnormality, especially during this current election cycle, causing the republican party to self destruct so early on?

Iowa is not in the Bible Belt. Never has been. It's too far North.

My point... iOwa should NOT lead the troop in spring-boarding any presidential candidate.

I don't think it much matters who goes first, somebody has to. I don't think a one-day, all states vote at the same time, type primary is any good. Too large an advantage to the candidate who starts out with the most money. I think at this point Romney would be the only candidate who could afford a truly national campaign effort.

The current system allows lesser known candidates to build support and momentum.

My problem, which has been corrected, is that with a 'winner-take-all' delegates system often when the later, often larger, states voted it didn't matter - the primary was already over.

The result will be exactly what we are witnessing....
A total dysfunctional political process. Totally unelectable persons gaining false and undeserved attention. Political insanity.
And only because a few Bible belt farmers, isolated from reality, are pulling all the shots.

I see nothing necessarily wrong with unelectable persons getting attention. If that were the only criteria Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich would never be heard from. I think it best to hear from different candidates. Even some of the more idiotic ones have an occasional good idea to add to the debate.

I'm gonna guess that from the farmers POV, it is YOU who are isolated from reality. Different people have different perspectives. I see nothing wrong with that, at all. Sounds like you expect everyone to be clones/drones.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

IMO, it's their state and they vote as they wish. Also, unlike another poster here, the point of voting in your state's primary is NOT to choose the candidate most popular to other states; it's to choose who YOU prefer.

I hope you didn't mean me by that because if so, you need to go re-read what I wrote more carefully.