Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 1/4/2012 4:34:42 PM EDT
I've never understood why we allow these tiny, insignificant states like Iowa and New Hampshire to have such sway in deciding our future presidents? Why don't TX, FL, CA, NY move up their primaries?


Link Posted: 1/4/2012 4:35:29 PM EDT
fuck them both. the only idiots that care are the candidates and media outlets. fuck them too, fuck BHO and fuck romney.
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 4:36:22 PM EDT
Cause undecided voters are the biggest idiots out there.
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 4:37:10 PM EDT
It's all Iowa has going for it.
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 4:37:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Credge:
It's all Iowa has going for it.


Beat me to it.
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 4:47:04 PM EDT
This is a legitimate bitch.

The states that should be first in the primaries, should be the states with highest percentage in the previous election voting for the party's previous Presidential candidate. Iowa and New Hampshire do not deserve all the attention they get.
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 4:48:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By buckwheat762:
fuck them both. the only idiots that care are the candidates and media outlets. fuck them too, fuck BHO and fuck romney.


Well said.
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 4:49:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2012 4:50:58 PM EDT by iowa_hawkeyes]
...
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 4:52:07 PM EDT
I'm of the crowd that believes they knew who the candidate is going to be 4 years ago and that it's all a facade.
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 5:00:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By buckwheat762:
fuck them both. the only idiots that care are the candidates and media outlets. fuck them too, fuck BHO and fuck romney.




Link Posted: 1/4/2012 5:03:15 PM EDT
A lot of money and support depend on making a strong early showing.


Link Posted: 1/4/2012 5:04:44 PM EDT
Because we're the most free state in the Union, and pretty much rule.

Link Posted: 1/4/2012 5:06:34 PM EDT
Who cares?
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 5:07:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MK262:
I've never understood why we allow these tiny, insignificant states like Iowa and New Hampshire to have such sway in deciding our future presidents? Why don't TX, FL, CA, NY move up their primaries?




Or Illinois...
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 5:07:07 PM EDT
You mean that you don't like having two states with a combined population of about 5 million deciding the fate of candidates?
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 5:07:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MK262:
I've never understood why we allow these tiny, insignificant states like Iowa and New Hampshire to have such sway in deciding our future presidents? Why don't TX, FL, CA, NY move up their primaries?




What state are you from?

It is the United STATES of America.
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 5:07:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Gunnerpalace:
Cause undecided voters are the biggest idiots out there.



No shit there. Worthless, I-don't-know-what-I-want-from-one-election-to-the-next pieces of wishy-washy excrement.
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 5:08:08 PM EDT
Ideally we should have 10 states caucus on the same date to better represent the electorate.
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 5:08:43 PM EDT
Originally Posted By heavily_armed:
This is a legitimate bitch.

The states that should be first in the primaries, should be the states with highest percentage in the previous election voting for the party's previous Presidential candidate. Iowa and New Hampshire do not deserve all the attention they get.



NO!!! They should all be in one day. Let the chips fall where they may after that. Too bad so sad for the perennial compromisers.
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 5:09:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By buckwheat762:
fuck them both. the only idiots that care are the candidates and media outlets. fuck them too, fuck BHO and fuck romney.


quoted for truth. fuck'em all with a bent rusty knife
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 5:10:10 PM EDT
Because lemmings aren't happy until they have a leader.
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 5:10:17 PM EDT
People are sheep. Groupthink takes over, and they follow each other single file.
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 5:12:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2012 5:13:01 PM EDT by MK262]

Originally Posted By entropy:

Originally Posted By MK262:
I've never understood why we allow these tiny, insignificant states like Iowa and New Hampshire to have such sway in deciding our future presidents? Why don't TX, FL, CA, NY move up their primaries?




What state are you from?

It is the United STATES of America.

Why? Are you feeling inadequate by living in NC? Little butt-hurt are we?
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 5:13:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Infallible:
Originally Posted By buckwheat762:
fuck them both. the only idiots that care are the candidates and media outlets. fuck them too, fuck BHO and fuck romney.


quoted for truth. fuck'em all with a bent rusty knife


There sure is a whole lot of fucking going on
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 5:13:45 PM EDT
We should all vote on the same day across the country. That's the way it is for the general election. The primaries should not be any different. That would eliminate the preferential treatment some candidates get for winning the first few states.
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 5:16:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2012 5:16:47 PM EDT by usptac]
My opinion of everyone on both sides of the Dem/Repub argument anymore..

Link Posted: 1/4/2012 5:16:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By rightnotleft:
We should all vote on the same day across the country. That's the way it is for the general election. The primaries should not be any different. That would eliminate the preferential treatment some candidates get for winning the first few states.












Link Posted: 1/4/2012 9:43:36 PM EDT
Because they really have nothing else going for them?
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 9:49:09 PM EDT
Because nobody wants to have a caucus in their state.


Imagine getting a phone call every half hour asking you who you're going to vote for, not once an election cycle, but twice.
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 9:51:00 PM EDT
To all you people bashing a State because it isn't yours and they are doing something that yours isn't. PUT your big boy pants on and GROW UP
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 9:54:53 PM EDT
They don't.
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 9:55:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By heavily_armed:
This is a legitimate bitch.

The states that should be first in the primaries, should be the states with highest percentage in the previous election voting for the party's previous Presidential candidate. Iowa and New Hampshire do not deserve all the attention they get.


Eff that, make it a Jan 30th nationwide vote so all these damned Ron Paul threads can quiet down.
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 10:07:53 PM EDT
I don't think many people understand the economics of presidential primary campaigns, and what mass media advertising costs in a large state.

The primary process is what it is for a host of reasons. It isn't arbitrary.
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 10:08:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By WatchDog762:
To all you people bashing a State because it isn't yours and they are doing something that yours isn't. PUT your big boy pants on and GROW UP


Weak rant... Work on it!
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 10:15:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By WatchDog762:
To all you people bashing a State because it isn't yours and they are doing something that yours isn't. PUT your big boy pants on and GROW UP

Yeah, there's a little more involved than just 'not doing it.'

Try again, weaksauce.
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 10:16:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Local:
I don't think many people understand the economics of presidential primary campaigns, and what mass media advertising costs in a large state.

The primary process is what it is for a host of reasons. It isn't arbitrary.

Absolutely correct, if it was all done on the same day throughout the country the party would have almost no say in the outcome.
Link Posted: 1/4/2012 10:23:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By PinePig:

Originally Posted By Local:
I don't think many people understand the economics of presidential primary campaigns, and what mass media advertising costs in a large state.

The primary process is what it is for a host of reasons. It isn't arbitrary.

Absolutely correct, if it was all done on the same day throughout the country the party would have almost no say in the outcome.


Long shot candidates, like Santorum, wouldn't ever have a chance in a nationwide primary. The winner would simply be who ever had the most money available to buy name recognition. You could argue that's still the case, and make a fair argument for it, but at least you've got a chance in a small state.

Link Posted: 1/5/2012 3:35:40 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MK262:
I've never understood why we allow these tiny, insignificant states like Iowa and New Hampshire to have such sway in deciding our future presidents? Why don't TX, FL, CA, NY move up their primaries?




Because outside of being the first two primaries, both states are essentially ignored from then on. Therefore both states will (and one has, I believe) moved their primary date(s) in order to believe themselves revlent.

But I've said this for years & agree with you 100%. However, I also don't believe I'd wish to see a quick CA-NY-FL-OH pattern & then the thing essentially be over. Going in reverse order of state population might not be a bad idea...............
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 3:44:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2012 3:46:14 AM EDT by thunderw21]
A lot of herp derp and gnashing of teeth in this thread.

First of all, they don't. Unless people in other states are sheep... The Iowa caucuses rarely pick winners, they weed out the losers.

Secondly, Iowa is a cheap state to run in so even the lowly, unknown candidates with little money still have a chance.

Not to mention Iowans are the kind of people who appreciate face-to-face meetings with candidates. Just running TV ads won't get you far; a candidate needs a good ground game and a well-ran campaign to get anywhere in Iowa.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 3:56:43 AM EDT
What power are you talking about OP? What planet are you from?

The 2008 results in Iowa were Huckabee with 34%, Romney with 25%, Thompson and McCain each with 13%, Paul with 10% and Giuliani with 4%.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 4:10:43 AM EDT
You would think the GOP would start a primary season in a state that went for the GOP in the last general. To do anything else is more than a bit retarded. Why reward a state that did not bring home the bacon in the general.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 4:17:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2012 4:18:24 AM EDT by dyezak]
Originally Posted By heavily_armed:
This is a legitimate bitch.

The states that should be first in the primaries, should be the states with highest percentage in the previous election voting for the party's previous Presidential candidate. Iowa and New Hampshire do not deserve all the attention they get.


It's actually a bad thing to have such an early primary. The candidates haven't been vetted enough, and the voters aren't as educated as they can be a few months later. This has to be one of the reasons that Iowa isn't a true primary and the delegates aren't bound to the straw poll results. Iowa's delegates are free to switch their vote later if they wish.

If Texas were to have their primary in Jan. I'd be pissed. Remember, this isn't just for the president, this is for all your local officials. For example, our mayor and sheriff...they file on 12/20/2011. And I'll know 14 days later who I want to vote for? Fuck that. Give me time to hear the candidates out and research them before having me vote. So what I believe:

Jan. Primaries = Stupidity
Iowa = Stupid
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 4:21:10 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 1srelluc:
You would think the GOP would start a primary season in a state that went for the GOP in the last general. To do anything else is more than a bit retarded. Why reward a state that did not bring home the bacon in the general.


The RNC has nothing to do with when a state has a primary. The states are free to determine that for themselves. Not to say the RNC or DNC don't spend money to sway the decision one way or the other to help their perceived cause.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 4:45:13 AM EDT
Originally Posted By dyezak:
Originally Posted By 1srelluc:
You would think the GOP would start a primary season in a state that went for the GOP in the last general. To do anything else is more than a bit retarded. Why reward a state that did not bring home the bacon in the general.


The RNC has nothing to do with when a state has a primary. The states are free to determine that for themselves. Not to say the RNC or DNC don't spend money to sway the decision one way or the other to help their perceived cause.



Then why was the RNC threatening to take away delegates from states that wanted bump their primaries ahead of Iowa?

Iowa and NH can have their early primaries just so long as other states such as Florida are allowed to as well. I don't want states with demographics that do not represent most of the country weeding out candidates that might have a shot in a less white, less evangelical state.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 5:01:06 AM EDT
Originally Posted By LoadedDrum:
Originally Posted By dyezak:
Originally Posted By 1srelluc:
You would think the GOP would start a primary season in a state that went for the GOP in the last general. To do anything else is more than a bit retarded. Why reward a state that did not bring home the bacon in the general.


The RNC has nothing to do with when a state has a primary. The states are free to determine that for themselves. Not to say the RNC or DNC don't spend money to sway the decision one way or the other to help their perceived cause.



Then why was the RNC threatening to take away delegates from states that wanted bump their primaries ahead of Iowa?

Iowa and NH can have their early primaries just so long as other states such as Florida are allowed to as well. I don't want states with demographics that do not represent most of the country weeding out candidates that might have a shot in a less white, less evangelical state.


A guest host for Rush Limbaugh two weeks ago was talking about this. He is an RNC primary official and he came on the show to explain the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary. Basically based on state charter in New Hampshire and Iowa there is no way that any state could ever have a primary before them. New Hampshire's primary date is set by the state to be the first primary in the nation as of the election of 1906. The only state that New Hampshire allows to have a primary before them is any state that set their primary before them in 1906. In that election Iowa was before New Hampshire. So, from now till eternity (or until the state legislators change their stance), it will always be Iowa then New Hampshire.

If Florida decides to have their primary on December 12, New Hampshire will automatically move their primary to December 11 in accordance with their state law. And because Iowa has the freedom to be first if they so choose, they will most likely move to December 10 just to keep their historically first position.

RNC can say whatever they want about it, but state law trumps everything in this instance... Hmm...what article is that?
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 5:36:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2012 5:37:48 AM EDT by Vegitan]


Then why was the RNC threatening to take away delegates from states that wanted bump their primaries ahead of Iowa?

Iowa and NH can have their early primaries just so long as other states such as Florida are allowed to as well. I don't want states with demographics that do not represent most of the country weeding out candidates that might have a shot in a less white, less evangelical state.




What in the blue fuck does the color of my skin and religion have to do with my political leanings?

Iowa doesn't eliminate anyone from continuing on with their campaign, that is completely up to that candidate. Bachmann and Cain fell out but because they chose to not because they were told to take their ball and go home. Also the caucus is well covered nationally, candidates do take polls in other locations to see how they would fair there.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 8:25:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MK262:

Originally Posted By entropy:

Originally Posted By MK262:
I've never understood why we allow these tiny, insignificant states like Iowa and New Hampshire to have such sway in deciding our future presidents? Why don't TX, FL, CA, NY move up their primaries?




What state are you from?

It is the United STATES of America.

Why? Are you feeling inadequate by living in NC? Little butt-hurt are we?


No, actually quite proud of my state. You appear to be butt-hurt because your state isn't first. WAAAHHH! MY STATE IS MO IMPOTENT THAN IOWA!!!!! Where do you live again?
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 10:40:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dyezak:
If Florida decides to have their primary on December 12, New Hampshire will automatically move their primary to December 11 in accordance with their state law. And because Iowa has the freedom to be first if they so choose, they will most likely move to December 10 just to keep their historically first position.


And this is exactly what needs to happen. Several States should simply continue pushing their primaries back to an absurd point, and therefore make New Hampshire and their asinine law follow suit.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 10:50:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ABNAK:
Originally Posted By heavily_armed:
This is a legitimate bitch.

The states that should be first in the primaries, should be the states with highest percentage in the previous election voting for the party's previous Presidential candidate. Iowa and New Hampshire do not deserve all the attention they get.



NO!!! They should all be in one day. Let the chips fall where they may after that. Too bad so sad for the perennial compromisers.


This
Everyone votes on the same day
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 10:56:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By USMC6177:
Originally Posted By ABNAK:
Originally Posted By heavily_armed:
This is a legitimate bitch.

The states that should be first in the primaries, should be the states with highest percentage in the previous election voting for the party's previous Presidential candidate. Iowa and New Hampshire do not deserve all the attention they get.



NO!!! They should all be in one day. Let the chips fall where they may after that. Too bad so sad for the perennial compromisers.


This
Everyone votes on the same day

Well. Everyone is supposed to vote on the same day. Down here we've managed to drum up like two weeks' worth of 'early voting' for some damned reason.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 11:15:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2012 11:23:20 AM EDT by Cargo]
The Media is the one that makes a big deal about it, so that draws the candidates in to get more media attention. That draws more media. See the circle. Iowa and NH are just smart enough to keep the pot boiling so the money is spent here.

ETA:

I don't think you all realize. This is not a primary. This is a caucus. An informal, non binding poll. It really means nothing other than to create hoopla for the media.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top