The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: gunman42782 on January 03, 2012, 04:29:44 PM
-
Why does Iowa get to go first in the primaries? Why are the primaries not like the general election, where the entire country votes the same day? By the time we get to vote in KY, the winner has already been decided for us. Seems it would be much fairer, and more in line with what everyone wanted, if the entire country voted the same day. Maybe they did it like this so the powers that be can choose who they want to run. Sure felt that way last time when McCain won the primary, and if Romney wins this time around, it is gonna feel the same way.
-
How the hell else could they get so many people to go to Iowa in the middle of January? ;D
-
Umm, because its always been thus, and Iowa has all that corn, and corn is important since it gets made into ethanol which frees us from dependence on foreign oil, and weakens Al Queda,..... and why are you defending terrorism anyway? You probably hung out with Bill Ayers. Traitor! Muslim! ;D
Seriously, the whole scheme is set up by the parties, and in theory its not an unreasonable one. They want to road test the candidates a bit to see who gets traction so that they don't get stuck with a well funded turd in the general. It actually does take some of the power of money out of it, as only an establishment candidate or a rich guy like Romney can mount a fifty state run. Building up to it slowly lets a dark horse gain traction and edge out an early favorite. BO and Hillary are a classic example. I actually like the idea of the early votes in SC, Nv, Nh, and Iowa. Its a representative slice of all the various regions. Now, why those states and not others, say rotating Georgia, Arizona, Connecticut and Minnesota or the like into the mix I have no idea. But I do think that having one national primary day would only increase the power of money.
FQ13
-
It looks just the opposite to me. Take the last election for example. No one that I knew wanted McCain to win, and yet by the time we got to vote in KY, he was the nominee. No one that I know this time wants Romney to win, but the news media have all but annointed him the nominee. I would rather have ANY of the other candidates than Romney, and most everyone I have talked to about it feels the same way, and yet he supposedly is the highest in the polls. Looks like the news media in this country chooses who we vote for.
-
Iowa is not a primary it is a caucus. From living rooms to libraries, it is an en mass group, including being a "Republican For A Day" crowd that can vote for anybody.
Surrogates are allowed to give brief speeches in support of "x" candidate, and votes are cast either by hand or handwritten paper.
Andrea Mitchell, called in a prejudice statement Iowa, "Too White, Too Evangelical, and Too Rural". Like these are bad things....
What if it was in NYC, or San Fran,..." Too Jewish, Too Gay, Too Rich". ??? ???
How would that go over,...?
Either way, only 3 of Iowa caucus winners have won the election...while in South Carolina, that winner has won...
But it is steeped in tradition....from what is "supposed" to be a bell weather state....Which the Libs of course despise...unless they have a "D" candidate...
-
The other thing that it accomplishes for those of us out here in flyover country is to give us access to the candidates. If every state had their primary/caucus on the same date, nobody but California and New York would have the opportunity see and question any of these candidates.
BTW, don't blame Iowa for McCain's nomination in '08........we went with Huckabee.
-
If they didn't start is some small states the race would be decided by the shear numbers of a few large states before many of the rest of us even knew something was going on. Besides, if the candidates are serious and if the party is serious about them they will still be around for the big states later on. Be thankful that states like Iowa shake out some of the chaff before they get into serious campaigns.
-
Why does Iowa get to go first in the primaries? Why are the primaries not like the general election, where the entire country votes the same day? By the time we get to vote in KY, the winner has already been decided for us. Seems it would be much fairer, and more in line with what everyone wanted, if the entire country voted the same day. Maybe they did it like this so the powers that be can choose who they want to run. Sure felt that way last time when McCain won the primary, and if Romney wins this time around, it is gonna feel the same way.
It's all up to KY. If KY wants to be the first primary, you can be. Just get your legislature to pass a law saying your primary is the first Monday of the election year.
-
It's all up to KY. If KY wants to be the first primary, you can be. Just get your legislature to pass a law saying your primary is the first Monday of the election year.
NOPE !
NH would set theirs on the last Monday of the year before. It's already State law that has been held up in court.
That was the wrangle in setting dates this year, we nearly had the primary before Christmas.
Doesn't matter to me, I'll likely be freezing my butt whenever they have it.
-
NOPE !
NH would set theirs on the last Monday of the year before. It's already State law that has been held up in court.
That was the wrangle in setting dates this year, we nearly had the primary before Christmas.
Doesn't matter to me, I'll likely be freezing my butt whenever they have it.
And Iowa would set the Hawkeye Cauceye for the week before New Hampshire. Again, by state law.
-
I'd be happy to be fairly early in the process with a few weeks after the last/before the next one.. I wouldn't want to be first or second in the process, but thire or fourth would be great..
In a debate, I want a non-sound bite driven discussion, moderated my like minded, conservatives who want accurate, in depth answers to the questions that matter to conservatives.. Social, Constitutional, Fiscal, Religious, Foreign Policy, all of it needs to be aired out, and challanged if it's a lie, without letting them try to BS their way around a bad position.. Which ever State can pull that one off first would be doing a tremendous service to the rest of us..
-
I'd be happy to be fairly early in the process with a few weeks after the last/before the next one.. I wouldn't want to be first or second in the process, but thire or fourth would be great..
In a debate, I want a non-sound bite driven discussion, moderated my like minded, conservatives who want accurate, in depth answers to the questions that matter to conservatives.. Social, Constitutional, Fiscal, Religious, Foreign Policy, all of it needs to be aired out, and challanged if it's a lie, without letting them try to BS their way around a bad position.. Which ever State can pull that one off first would be doing a tremendous service to the rest of us..
You are asking for politicians to be honest? ??? :o ;D
I have heard of honest politicians, but they don't stay that way very long. They either lie or the die pretty quickly.
-
What really drives me crazy is the Catch-22 of presidential politics. If someone wants to run for president and they've held elected office before, they're said to be career politicians, and insiders, and are all crooked and corrupt. But if someone comes along who's never been in politics before, people (often the same people) wring their hands and cry that the candidate's inexperienced, and they don't have a record, and they don't know how Washington works, etc., etc.
Going by those criteria, there is no one qualified for the office except Washington lawyers and lobbyists (who've not held elected office previously). Do we really want that? Seriously?
Incidentally, I was not speaking of anyone in particular in the above rant; and if I was, you know who you are.
-
Bac raises a good point.
There is no one left in the race who doesn't qualify as a "career politician", and "Washington Insider"
But lets look at the careers.
Perry - successful Gov.
Huntsman,- same, plus Obama's former ambassador to China
I don't know what either of them did for previous work
Santorum ?
Romney - Lack luster Gov, imposed MassCare, and AWB, instituted corrupt "approval list" for gun sales.
Son of a former Gov, had to move to get elected.
Gingrich - Historian, Reagan's "guy on the Hill"
Paul - MD, only 1 minor bill passed in 14 years.
Bachmann - gone
-
Going by those criteria, there is no one qualified for the office except Washington lawyers and lobbyists (who've not held elected office previously). Do we really want that? Seriously?
Isn't that kinda what we have running the place now?
-
Isn't that kinda what we have running the place now?
Now you're getting it!