U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Iowa
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-16-2016, 05:32 AM
 
387 posts, read 549,586 times
Reputation: 473

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by RonnieJonez View Post
The caucus is simply an extension of the town crier mentality that dominates every aspect of Iowa's culture.
Pretty much. Iowa and New Hampshire's out-sized influence in running our presidential elections is woefully misguided and produces bad results. It needs to end.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-16-2016, 07:01 AM
 
Location: Jonesboro
3,637 posts, read 3,614,471 times
Reputation: 4511
Perhaps the answer is that we need massive overhaul of our entire political system. It seems never-ending & begins far, far ahead of the earliest caucus & primaries.
There are now too many televised debates, as compared to back when they were a rarity and not cheapened by the overexposure & clownish behavior that we now see occurring in them.
I live next door to South Carolina which is 3rd in the national primary/caucus lineup. I think my own state of Georgia is woeful when it comes to politics but by comparison, Georgia is almost an Eden when I look at the extremist crap that passes for political discourse as well as at the type people South Carolinians generally elect to office.
Additionally, I just saw some commentary out of Texas that was an eyebrow-raiser for me. That state is already ruminating about what it feels should be it's out-sized national influence in it's upcoming primary. I gag when I consider what that state has already brought us in politicians.
So, which state should be first or second? Does it really matter & would one produce better results than another? If so, by whose standards?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2016, 08:28 AM
 
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
2,401 posts, read 3,846,640 times
Reputation: 1444
IMO, if you start changing things, you only risk giving the bigger states more, not less influence. Additionally, you open the door for the elites and politically connected to nationalize the primary season so that they can have more influence on eventual nominee. Grassroots then loses its ability to affect change. i.e....no more Barack Obama's or Ronald Reagan's ( to pick examples from each sides). More Clinton's and Bushes.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2016, 01:35 PM
 
2,652 posts, read 7,997,222 times
Reputation: 1887
Quote:
Originally Posted by funksoulbro View Post
Pretty much. Iowa and New Hampshire's out-sized influence in running our presidential elections is woefully misguided and produces bad results. It needs to end.
Not really. If I remember correctly Iowa has only picked the president once in the past 30 or so years...
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2016, 01:37 PM
 
2,652 posts, read 7,997,222 times
Reputation: 1887
Quote:
Originally Posted by capitalcityguy View Post
IMO, if you start changing things, you only risk giving the bigger states more, not less influence. Additionally, you open the door for the elites and politically connected to nationalize the primary season so that they can have more influence on eventual nominee. Grassroots then loses its ability to affect change. i.e....no more Barack Obama's or Ronald Reagan's ( to pick examples from each sides). More Clinton's and Bushes.
Lol. Clinton, Bush, Obama, whoever's next. Won't see much actual change.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2016, 07:10 PM
 
Location: Jonesboro
3,637 posts, read 3,614,471 times
Reputation: 4511
The thread topic is based on an open letter to Iowa that is critical of the state's early place in the political process.
As I wrote earlier, South Carolina is next on the big stage at place number 3 in the early primary season.
I saw the Google Trends data on trending questions asked by South Carolinians about Jeb Bush during the last tv debate broadcast. I found that trends data info again today at another site so here it is linked below.
If some of you on this thread are complaining about Iowa leading the pack, do you think that these online google questions asked about Jeb during the last debate indicate that South Carolina can improve on Iowa? Really?
Fyi: I found similar coverage of the data at the Fox News Insider site.

Hullabaloo
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2016, 11:30 PM
 
28,703 posts, read 42,036,331 times
Reputation: 37520
Actually it's critical of caucus vs. primary.

Since it comes from California the rest of the country can safely ignore the whine uh, opinion.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2016, 04:30 AM
 
Location: Jonesboro
3,637 posts, read 3,614,471 times
Reputation: 4511
Indeed, I should have phrased part of my last comment differently to note that. But since then, the thread has sort of morphed into a piling on directed at Iowa's early & prominent role. Even New Hampshire, which hosts a regular primary, has come in for criticism here.
You know how it can get around here.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2016, 08:24 PM
 
28,703 posts, read 42,036,331 times
Reputation: 37520
Yup.

I've considered asking a mod to move this to the political forum.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2016, 04:12 PM
 
387 posts, read 549,586 times
Reputation: 473
Quote:
Originally Posted by capitalcityguy View Post
IMO, if you start changing things, you only risk giving the bigger states more, not less influence.
So Iowa always has to be first? Right.

There needs to be a rotating calendar of various-sized "early" states each primary season. No way Iowa gets to go first every time there's a presidential election. It makes the state look extremely desperate for public attention.

...Which is precisely why Des Moines folks love this unbalanced "Iowa First" arrangement which has been in place for decades. Time to make it more fair for the other 49 states.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Iowa
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top