Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Black and Hispanic voters usually are considered a strength of former Secretary of State Clinton’s campaign in other states. But in a tight race where as few as 140,000 participate in the Democratic caucuses, Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley have invested much time and effort to connect with potential first-time voters among these groups even though more than 90 percent of Iowans are white.
Clinton has a small lead of 47 percent to Sanders’ 44 percent in an average of recent polls, according to Real Clear Politics.
Veteran observers of Iowa’s caucuses say Clinton’s campaign has largely targeted reliable Democratic caucus-goers who religiously show up at their precincts every four years, while Sanders and O’Malley have made extra efforts to recruit new voters into the state’s complicated nominating process. Latinos make up 5.6 percent of the state’s population and blacks comprise 3.4 percent, according to U.S. census data.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/01/31/iowa-caucuses-clinton-sanders/79621372/
edited 1st Feb '16 7:11:46 AM by SolipsistOwl
All right, Iowa voters, let's inject some much-needed sanity into the Presidential election.
Let's show the country we demand better than a reality show star with a habit of running his mouth and someone whose most notable accomplishment is who she's married to.
I'm counting on you, guys.
edited 1st Feb '16 7:25:06 AM by Bense
I would prefer there to be a national primary voting day, TBH. Unfortunately, the Constitution punts on this one by explicitly leaving the nomination process to the individual states.
edited 1st Feb '16 8:10:56 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"It's also too impractical. Primary candidates don't get the same about of funds and support as a party candidate does, and retail politics kind of demands focus as it is. It's for that same reason, I've heard Super Tuesday states aren't too happy with their status because even though they got a lot of delegates, they get very little focus because candidates have to pick and choose which states to hold their ground in.
EDIT-
Once upon a time maybe, but now that is almost certainly not the case. Iowan democrats are more to the left than the average democrat, and republicans there are super evangelical compared to just about every other state. It's also very very white, so minority issues get no traction.
edited 1st Feb '16 8:33:20 AM by FFShinra
The media blitz in the early primary states is almost entirely due to their unnatural focus and the one-upmanship that's part and parcel of the escalation of spending enabled by Citizens United. If we were to intentionally dilute the primary media craze by having all of them held at the same time, it would force the candidates to pay attention at a national level, or at least diversify their efforts.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
More like never. It was just an accidental result of some bureaucratic changes after the Democratic convention of 1968 that made them go early in 1972 which lead to them getting more attention in 1976 and then Iowa decided that it liked the attention and the extra money that gets thrown at the state economy.
Well, a quick google search leads me to this
So I gotta ask, why is the Iowa thing important
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesIt's important because it's important. Tautology, but a very real one. People focus on Iowa and New Hampshire because they are the first states and so they are the first indicator of what people think of the candidates for real.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"And if it accomplishes that task, so much the better.
@Fighteer I'm not even talking about the media blitz, I'm talking about the practical campaigning the candidate has to do, retail politics, network building, yadda yadda. It's an expensive business as it is and making it nation wide all at once means a lot of states get no love, if at all. You may think thats okay, but at the state level, being ignored by a candidate actually does affect how people will vote. And also, national issues are a lot less important locally, depending on the issue and the state. Now, because its currently the same couple of states at the front of the line, their issues get more exposure than necessary, such as farm sudbsidies and ethanol for Iowa. Randomizing it puts less permanent importance to an issue only one state cares about while also bringing to national attention other local issues in other states that otherwise wouldn't get the needed coverage.
It's a better bargain than we currently get since states get the attention they want, while everyone else can be freed of the Iowa yoke. It would also, I think, generate more interest and turnout than currently because depending on the year, their state can actually make a difference.
I like the idea of a random "who's on first" for primaries. I don't see how such a thing would be accomplished, however. The states would have to agree to it, meaning the current "firsts" would have to decide to give up that place.
It would be nice to move the primaries further back in the year as well. Say, to June instead of the first day of February. I think everyone would benefit from a shorter Presidential campaign over all. Again, I don't see how to practically accomplish such a feat.
![]()
You remain mired in this idea that states matter, or should matter, at all for the voting process. Obviously, as long as it's wired into the process, focusing on specific states that are likely to vote your way is crucial to the process, but I would rather everyone have some say than a few people have a huge say and most of us have none at all.
edited 1st Feb '16 9:51:11 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"States are obsolete, or should be, for political purposes. They should be jurisdictional entities only.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Au contraire. They don't have to believe in Satan to want to put up statues of him, because of his value as a symbol. (And remember that there's a fair bit of Aleister Crowley neopaganism in their religious chop suey - symbolism matters.)