And this is why Iowa is good for democracy

[cali]

Obama just took the lead in Iowa according to a new WaPo poll. If we had a national primary, Clinton would have the nomination. I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't be a rotating primary with other small states from different regions going first, but we should never have a national primary or a large state going first.

[BeyondGeography]

1. I agree

but only if Obama ends up winning this thing.

:P

[kimmerspixelated]

2. Obama's cool, but I'm hoping that Edwards will

surprise the crap outta everyone and be the winner. I think he is the most progressive liberal of the front runners, and we desperately need that.

[cali]

3. I'm not a JE supporter but Iowa

gives him a chance to pull it off. A national one day primary? No way.

[tammywammy]

4. I agree with your sentiment here

It's still anyone's guess who's going to win Iowa, but you're right if we had a national primary Clinton would be the nominee.

[Adelante]

5. I love Iowa

I love that it's not all about money there (not that Obama doesn't have money), but that it's possible for a less well funded candidate to break through. It could still happen, too.

[EV_Ares]

6. and I am sure if Hillary was winning Iowa, you would love the idea

of a Iowa caucus for your candidate.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rufus dog]

10. I have seen some annoying posts from Hillary supporters

But sure don't see one here.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jonnyblitz]

17. wow, you COMPLETELY missed the point of the OP.

this is far from being "pro-Hillary" or pro ANYBODY. it's a thread about the process. this must be the post you were yammering on about in another thread that made me scratch my head. Now I understand. :crazy:

[Life Long Dem]

9. You can't base things on one poll. And states change the direction of national polls.

And the reason CNN keeps saying it is a 3-way tie is they know there are other polls out there. Like this one for instance.

The Iowa Independent went out and burned some shoe leather and phone time talking to influential caucus goers. Here's their top 3:

#1 John Edwards -- Edwards started about a year ago with the best organization in Iowa, and most of the foundation he built here is still in place. Although concerns persist that his sharpening rhetoric may be alienating a few of his earliest supporters, his solid performance at the Jefferson Jackson dinner, his endorsement from Caucus 4 Priorities (and the potential 10,000 caucus-goers it could bring him), and his ongoing commitment to retail politicking keep him in the top spot -- for now.

#2 Barack Obama -- Obama's organization was fairly inconsistent over the summer, with some counties getting a lot of attention and others getting barely any. Still, his campaign's ability to build crowds -- as evidenced by his huge and geographically diverse group of supporters at the Jefferson Jackson dinner -- are as good a measure of his strength as anything. And as Clinton continues to receive sharper attacks from Edwards and subtler attacks from Obama himself, the Illinois Senator could move up in the coming weeks -- particularly on news of his United Auto Workers endorsement. As things stand now, he would still place second behind Edwards.

#3 Hillary Clinton -- Different sources tell vastly different stories about the Clinton campaign in Iowa. Some expect it to flop completely, but others point to poll numbers showing Clinton in the top spot among Democratic candidates in Iowa. All that said, her aura of inevitability has been all but shattered by increased criticism over the past few weeks, and she seems to lack significant second choice support. And her latest swing through Iowa highlighted her energy policy, something which may not resonate among working class women, which continues to be her key demographic. Frankly, although the polls show Clinton in first place in Iowa, many of us have been hard pressed to find solid Clinton supporters whose names have not already appeared on a campaign press release.

[ruggerson]

11. I agree about the national primary

but I still think the states should be rotated. It's wildly unfair to people in large states like NY and CA to have the nomination decided by others before they even have a chance to vote.

I also think, in general, if we rotated the order we'd end up with stronger general election candidates.

[cali]

14. Life is wildly unfair.

And if a large state goes first, it's unfair to the rest of the nation. Had CA gone first this year, Clinton would be the nominee. It would be unfair for CA or NY or Illinois to go first. And I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who lives in a state with a March primary- and I don't feel it's unfair.

[ruggerson]

16. so small states have more intrinsic rights to make this decision

than large states do?

I don't buy that at all.

I think it needs to be rotated so that all states get a shot at being in the first group.

[cali]

19. yes. small states are more about retail politics

and less about money and the mass media. it's that simple. If California ever goes first, the primary is over when the last vote in CA is cast. No thanks.

[ruggerson]

21. I don't buy that small states

own retail politics. If larger states were in the mix, the candidates would be crisscrossing THOSE states too. Yes, the media markets are different, but that doesn't mean that the results would be worse or less legitimate than what the same two small states give us. There is nothing in the constitution, last I checked, that said that Iowa and NH had to be first in the nation. IT's time to mix it up and let others in on the process. It's known as democracy.

[cali]

22. Sure they would... with large events. There wouldn't be any

"living room" politics. Advertising in large states is prohibitively expensive, and voices like Kucinich's and others would be completely drowned out. This has nothing to do with the Constitution. I'm baffled as to why you think it does. And I have no problem with Iowa and NH NOT going first- as my OP makes clear. But now way should large states go first. It would be disasterous.

[ruggerson]

27. Your procedural bias against large states

is undemocratic. There just isn't any good reason not to have ALL states in the mix, other than some vague objections to "money." What you are advocating is disenfranchising people who live in large states, because of YOUR theories about retail politics. Doesn't hold up. Again, I agree about the rotation, but totally disagree you exempt large states from participating. Perhaps if they formulated a new system, the first two primaries would always have to be one large state and one small state. That way you'd have both in the mix early on.

[Township75]

13. I am so grateful they gave us Kerry instead of someone else who would have lost

we owe em big!

[cali]

15. They didn't give us Kerry, anymore than they'll give us whoever

wins this year. What they give us is the opportunity for candidates who are less well known to emerge as contenders.

[ozone_man]

23. Less well known like Kucinich?

It seems he was excluded from a few events in Iowa. And Iowa is home to DLC (Clintonite) Vilsack, so it's a good choice for status quo candidates, but not for change candidates. That's why it was the end of Howard Dean. He was not DLC.

http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/11781/1/392/

I'm not sure what the best approach is for primaries. Maybe having a national primary in July 2008 would be best. The way it is now, whoever wins the first one or two, wins all of the rest. I prefer to let it build for another six months. Let all of the states have their say at once, but after a good period to get to know the candidates. The idea is to prevent the domino effect that starts with Iowa, New Hampshire, .... Let the candidates travel all around the country and finally have one synchronous primary. It's the only way that is democratic.

[MonkeyFunk]

24. That's really not true

Bill Clinton didn't run in Iowa in '92 and lost in New Hampshire.

Bush won Iowa, but lost New Hampshire in 2000.

Early wins certainly can help or hurt a campaign, but it's not true that if a candidate loses those two states, s/he will lose altogether.

[ozone_man]

29. It's not always true

but in this day of manipulation by the main stream media, I think it's more and more the case.

I'm not sure what the best way to deal with that is, but there is certainly a momentum effect that winning one or two primaries has. A cascade.

Look at it another way, why don't we have the general election one state at a time? Start with Iowa, then go to NH, ... I think the primary should be run as a general election, just several months earlier, in July or August. Why this staggering? It doesn't give California or New York much of a chance to have their say?

[THUNDER HANDS]

18. I still support a national primary

why regionalize your message to one group of people and then ride a wave of publicity to the finish line. That's what happened to Kerry in '04 and that's what's going to happen to whoever wins Iowa.

It's really not fair.

[cali]

20. then it will become even more about money than it already is

you'll never see another Clinton running- or Kucinich. There would be no point.

[THUNDER HANDS]

28. there's no point now

Just run to win one state and you've locked up the nomination. Whoever wins Iowa will win New Hampshire, that's just the way the media works now. They'll pump up whoever wins Iowa until it becomes less of an election and more of a coronation.

[suston96]

25. Iowa good for Democracy?

Uh, how do you figure? Can you explain the 15% rule?

If a candidate doesn't get 15% of the picks in a county he/she gets nothing? And that is democratic where every vote should count? I hope I got that wrong.

We need a national primary with national rules. Maybe after we get rid of the electoral college.

Oh, and Obama had the lead in the same poll last July. In this one, Obama picked up 3 points, Hillary remained the same and Edwards dropped 4 points.

Yeah, Iowa is really good for democracy.

[Alexander]

26. No, Iowa is bad, regardless of who wins.

Every single candidate has to kiss the ass of Iowa corn farmers to the point where supporting ethanol as fuel is turned from a joke into a valid campaign promise.

How many minorities live in Iowa again? Wasn't it Iowa that was found to have the whitest county in the entire United States?

I prefer rotating regional primaries. No more Iowa and New Hampshire monopoly.