Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Does anybody have a problem with these relatively insignificant states (no offense to the natives) with tiny populations always getting the power to basically decide the frontrunners for both parties? Doesn't this tradition seem a little screwy?
Its VERY screwy and VERY annoying. IMO, the first primary should be a "super Tuesday" type of event where multiple states are polling on the same day. Its really a sad state of affairs. Voters who don't know what to do so they sit around being brainwashed by Fox, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, and NPR about who's "hot" right now. If a person is only voting for the "hot" candidate, they are ignorant and really shouldn't be voting at all. Thats how we get media endorsed, country wrecking clowns in office.
Ha! You are saying you hate the Republicans and Democrats?? They are the ones that set it up to be a two-party system and the used the MMS to send out the propaganda. Its because there is basically a two-party system that we have "swing" states, those insignificant states you mentioned. Then the Republican and Democrats try to "use" those swing states to their advantage. Why do Republican and Democrats want to "win"... if you think they want to win to make things "better", I don't think you are understanding human nature very well.. ultimate power brings money... wouldn't you want your bloodline to be rich forever, the presidential candidates do? What if you could make socialized programs that relied on a companies and bringing it BILLIONS of profits... what could they possibly offer you? How about forever wealth for you and your future offspring... wealth brings power and power begets wealth... the circle of corruption..
Technically just cause Iowa votes first in caucuses, it still is only important to Iowa. It's the media that's thrown this all into whack. This should be something people look at (who wins in Iowa) to get general predictions, but it's SUPPOSE to be just as important in every other state.
This year above all others, the canidates are just FLOODING Iowa and making this some "make or break" situation. The media is totally going along with it as well. It's not like anyone HAS to drop out just cause they don't win in little ole Iowa.
I think it's become outrageous and stupid, but it's not really Iowa's fault.
Its VERY screwy and VERY annoying. IMO, the first primary should be a "super Tuesday" type of event where multiple states are polling on the same day. Its really a sad state of affairs. Voters who don't know what to do so they sit around being brainwashed by Fox, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, and NPR about who's "hot" right now. If a person is only voting for the "hot" candidate, they are ignorant and really shouldn't be voting at all. Thats how we get media endorsed, country wrecking clowns in office.
Thanks for posting this - very well articulated!
What comes to mind is how without doing any research before-hand, I can make the assumption that a greater percentage of Iowan's and NH residents alike probably are offline and unknowledgeable about Ron Paul than let's say Californian's, NY'ers, or people in other states with much larger, and much more educated voter populations. It's disgusting actually. The only solution is for each of us to ignore what happens in the first few caucuses, and to hope that corporate donors do as well (even though I know better than to believe this will happen).
I don't know the history of the caucuses, but just this past holiday week, I was talking to my children about the upcoming elections, and while both are reasonably interested and involved in politics, and certainly elections, they both said, "by the time the primaries come to PA, it will be all over."
A most discouraging response, so like tnbound2day said, a super primary might be more fair, but then, what is fair is fairly unknown and infrequent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bily4
Does anybody have a problem with these relatively insignificant states (no offense to the natives) with tiny populations always getting the power to basically decide the frontrunners for both parties? Doesn't this tradition seem a little screwy?
Fairness seems to be alien to the whole system. If things were fair you wouldn't have to be a member of the two primary parties to run and win office. If things were fair, our current President wouldn't be serving his 2nd term. If things were fair you wouldn't have members of Congress voting for their own raises and raiding what should be tomorrow's Social Security funds for ridiculous expenditures today.
I hope people for this election do their own research and come to intelligent conclusions for who to vote for rather than voting with the herd and in line with however the initial Primaries turn out. If that happens we might see real change. If not, then I guess we'll just see another 4-8 years of the same political nonsense we've all been living since 2000.
The media tells us that if in the Democratic contest if anyone other than Clinton does not win in Iowa- their chances are basically nill. Clinton because she is ahead in National Polls can lose in Iowa and still stand a chance, but not the other candidates.
They want Clinton to win so the whole nomination is wrapped up before 98% of the country votes. the results One or two States should not have that type of power.
Last edited by questioner2; 01-03-2008 at 10:29 AM..
Does anybody have a problem with these relatively insignificant states (no offense to the natives) with tiny populations always getting the power to basically decide the frontrunners for both parties? Doesn't this tradition seem a little screwy?
No, actually it makes perfect sense.
The small populations make it possible for lesser candidates to have a shot against the big money candidates. A person can go town to town, talk to small groups of people, really get their message out, and have a chance to come out of Iowa and N.H. with a real shot to get on a roll and maybe take the nomination.
If you had a general primary election, you'd have simply the big $ candidates dominating. They may ultimately win out anyway, but with this system, far more perspectives from each party get a voice.
It's a good thing for the democratic process.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
