Why don't we let Iowa alone pick the president?

[_Jumper_]

We let it pick our nominee...

[Old and In the Way]

1. Deep.

[_Jumper_]

3. Iowa

I need approval from Iowa to write further.

[InhaleToTheChief]

2. Well said!

What a bunch of crap the primary system is. A tiny state like Iowa, with the population of my very rural county, weilds so much influence via their wacky, arguably archaic caucus system???

If we had all voted in primaries on the same day, we would be looking at a different picture right now.

[trumad]

4. You do know that Clinton lost Iowa....??

AND..the guy in your Pic didn't even run there....

[_Jumper_]

6. 2004

Kerry was dead--at 7% nationally--and he won Iowa and soared to 29% and then skyrockted to 49% after NH. Obviously, this wasn't because they liked his policies. We had a bunch of people voting for who the media hyped plain and simple. Those people deserve Bush...

[trumad]

7. Then Clark should have gotten in earlier

and ran in the damn state.... You're sounding like Sour Grapes...

[Alex146]

20. he's right

Iowa has waaaay too much say in who is nominated.

[Debi]

27. Hold on there...

Clinton didn't run in Iowa in 1992 because Tom Harkin (Iowa Senator) was running and would win hands down (which he did) - smart move on Clinton's part. You can't use that race to guage success outside of Iowa....after all, Gephardt won here in 1988, how'd he fair???

[Catch22Dem]

5. Don't bogart that joint, my friend

Seriously? Clinton did horribly in Iowa.

[Monte Carlo]

8. Iowa alone did not pick the nominee.

I don't think the voters of the nation don't appreciate being thought of as machines.

[_Jumper_]

16. Ok, NH played a major role too

7% to 49% in two weeks? Do you honestly think that happened because they liked his viewpoints or because the flock followed the media hype?

[Monte Carlo]

9. Iowa alone did not pick the nominee.

I don't think the voters of the nation don't appreciate being thought of as machines.

[Monte Carlo]

10. please delete

double clicked...

[foo_bar]

30. also double negative

[leyton]

11. Yeah, it has nothing to do with the strength of candidate Kerry.

Sheesh. *rolleyes*

[JHBowden]

12. Kerry won more than one primary.

A lot more.

[_Jumper_]

15. Why?

People merely followed what Iowa did.

[JHBowden]

21. How do you know this?

Perhaps people thought Kerry was the best candidate.

[Rose Siding]

33. Then they pulled some all-nighters since this poll

last week- unless you just meant Iowa voters :shrug:

WASHINGTON -- Just over a third of voters who plan to vote Tuesday say they know enough about the candidates to make an informed choice in the Democratic presidential race.

That's about the same level of awareness as voters in the 21 states that vote later in the year, according to a National Annenberg Election Survey released Friday.

Adam Clymer, political director of the survey, said the poll findings suggest the campaign has had little impact on the voters in those 10 states holding contests Tuesday. But he said knowledge of the campaign is generally higher among voters around the country than it was a month ago.

People were generally more familiar with Democratic front-runner John Kerry's history than they were with John Edwards, his strongest challenger.

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/...itics-headlines

[WI_DEM]

13. well I guess it would save some time

but I'm honestly beginning to think that regional primaries would be a better answer. Having one or two states (Ia/NH) which are not really demographically representative of this country pretty much set the pace and momentum is not the best idea, imo.

[_Jumper_]

18. They are the ideal

We likely would have multiple winners if we had regional primaries at the beginning and we wouldn't have people flocking to one candidate like we did this year.

[Gman]

14. Its kinda hard to argue with what you say

since you likely would not say it if you were not convinced it were true.

Its a shame you don't give so many people more credit. Then, that's your opinion.

[mlawson]

17. How many of you didn't get to vote in a primary / caucus??

Thanks to the morans of the NC Dem party, our primary is in May!! Who the HELL will care, then???

:argh:

[DU9598]

19. Thanks

We appreciate you all following our lead. I was an Edwards fan and his sign is still in my front yard. But, I took two Kerry signs from the caucus and they will be going up in the front yard tomorrow.

Congrats to John Kerry, you earned this nomination. You ran a great campaign and I am sending a check in to your website tonight.

[Old and In the Way]

22. Unfortunately for you that's because Democrats have given

John Kerry a strong and obvious mandate that we want him to be our candidate in November. Under the cricmstances that we've lived with for the past 3 years, I think it's great that we have unified around a great progressive candidate that will provide a credible alternaive to the unelected fraud stumbling around in the WH now.

[salin]

25. ours has always been in may

my biggest concern is apathy... instead of energy that is important going into the GE... and while it is unlikey that Indiana goes Dem at the top of the ticket (even with Bayh... for those silly nonhoosiers who think otherwise)... the energy is important to keep the Governorship (please.. no "My Man Mitch"!)... to keep the state House of Reps (only a 2 seat margin)... and to try to narrow the significant state senate margin. Presidential generals often get more energy, and that can be tapped into to get folks involved in other races. Always lower energy in May... but now it will be TWO MONTHS after the candidate was determined. I am very concerned about the impact this will have on our state wide elections.

[zoeyfong]

32. Me. Guess i don't need to bother not jumping on the kerry bandwagon.

[GreenPartyVoter]

23. Think of how much time and money could be saved

if we just got rid of democracy!

[janx]

24. Nah. Let the DLC choose one for us!

It's so much simpler!

[dolstein]

26. Actually, New Hampshire and Howard Dean's scream picked our nominee

The fact is that if South Carolina had followed Iowa instead of New Hampshire, things could have been very different. In addition, Howard Dean's campaign meltdown took a lot of attention away from Edwards, who finished a close second to Kerry in Iowa.

[Debi]

28. Agreed.

Edwards got the shaft on what should have been an Iowa 'bounce'

(needless to say, I supported Dean and could have done w/out the scream footage for the next week!)

[Debi]

29. Where else

can a candidate run for so little money?

There are less than 3 million people in the state and the state isn't all that big.

Imagine the expense of trying to run in New York/California/Florida?

Plus, the Iowa victor is not always the nominee.

(However, if we had let Iowa choose our President in 2000 - Al Gore would have won by 2000 votes solid - and all 7 electoral votes were recorded for Gore - got newspaper clips to prove it).

[zoeyfong]

31. Yes; we might as well vote for the Prez over several months.

Or start releasing exit polls at 9am. The bandwagon factor is a well-known reality; it should be law that all primaries take place on the same day, just like the presidential election.

[arewethereyet]

34. oh dont be silly, the DNC revived Kerry

Iowa were just the first to do their part. And its so easy there since you can truck in caucus goers.