Iowa cannot be that important. [Archive]

The_Elucidator

01-03-2008, 12:05 PM

Where the f*ck did you pull peice of crap from? Your horse's ass? Or Ron Paul's?

Everyone here... except for you clearly, knows I dont like FDT. Stop being a presumptuous ass.

My dear Prez, I was gonna jump in and defend you but knew that I couldn't do this Paulbot justice the way you could...

And for the record dear; horse's ass is a synonym for Ron Paul... :smirky:

PrezLeefun

01-03-2008, 12:11 PM

^^^ Thank you Elucidator.... I figured horse's ass was his nickname or something....

jayson

01-03-2008, 12:29 PM

Iowa is worthless delegates-wise. I think it only has 30? I'm not sure... but it's FAR from a place like Texas. What makes it worth it is the media hype. Everyone wants to vote for a "winner"... so whoever wins the first one gets the most coverage.

Problem is New Hampshire isn't exactly a haven for people like Ghouliani, Thompson or the Huckster. It's a very liberal and libertarian minded state... so it will be interesting to see how momentum carries over.

Personally, I think we should have all 50 states vote on the same day. I think it's unfair that a very small contingent of people are basically allowed to dictate the election for us.

Well, I should clarify that. THEY don't dictate it to us... the media hype does.

PrezLeefun

01-03-2008, 01:10 PM

I agree Jayson.

Eagle1

01-03-2008, 01:24 PM

Iowa? I am sorry but I have a hard time beleiving that this the determining factor in an election. Practically none of the registered voters are gonna be able to vote and its not even a huge state.

right, because unless new york city is involved it is automatically worthless

the reasons for not liking a lead off for Iowa should involve facts. Such as, it puts an undue emphasis on ethanol, something that should have no support.

Iowa may be full of backwards hicks, but I would put my faith in any Iowa town before any major city.

Rhino

01-03-2008, 01:37 PM

Iowa is worthless delegates-wise. I think it only has 30? I'm not sure...You mean electoral college? They have seven.

PrezLeefun

01-03-2008, 01:39 PM

posted by Eagle1

right, because unless new york city is involved it is automatically worthless

the reasons for not liking a lead off for Iowa should involve facts. Such as, it puts an undue emphasis on ethanol, something that should have no support.

Iowa may be full of backwards hicks, but I would put my faith in any Iowa town before any major city.

Did I say that???????????? At all? Did I infer that at all? No I didn't. I said that Super Tuesday is a much better, and more accurate determining factor in this election instead of a single small state where more than half of the voters wont be able to vote in the caucus.

Same that went for The Bird now goes for you. Stop being a presumtuous ass.

Lubbock

01-03-2008, 01:44 PM

Iowa cannot be that important. Can it?

That is a question that I have asked myself more than once over the years. Every time the hype reaches a fever-pitch in IOWA, I scratch my head.

And it doesn't have a damned thing to do with it not involving Lubbock, Texas.

[Where in the cat-hair does a comment like that come from?]

Rhino

01-03-2008, 01:50 PM

I think he somehow misinterpreted the "Practically none of the registered voters are gonna be able to vote" comment to somehow mean "full of backwards hicks", but I'm not sure how he managed to do that.

mkafrica

01-03-2008, 01:51 PM

This is something that I failed to understand at first until I kind of came to my own conclusion about it. Iowa doesn't really count much toward the actual Presidential election, as it only has 7 electoral votes.

However, historically (that is, historically according to the MSM, which we all know how accurate they always are...) the winner of Iowa and New Hampshire wins the party nomination. Right...

The reason why they're of such 'import' is because those are the first opportunities we have to see who really is in the lead. It's a poll that counts, if you will. While we've had polls of a thousand people here, and a thousand there, this is an actual poll that counts, because it's an actual vote.

I think you therefore have a more concrete opinion as to who has a chance.

Is it accurate? I don't think so. I don't think the opinion of one or two states accurately reflects that of the other 48, much the same way a 1,000 person poll reflects the opinion of a 300 or so million person country.

But of course, if the media is avidly reporting it, it must be important, right?

In essence, no, it's not really important. However, due to media hype, and what was pointed out by jayson, people like a winner. A lot of swing voters are just that, because, IMO, they don't really know what they think, and change their mind easily. The winner of those first couple of states will get the most coverage as a 'winner' and will therefore get some momentum from it.

Well, that's my read on it, anyway.

Rhino

01-03-2008, 01:53 PM

Eagle1 has somewhat of a point that Iowa is probably a better indicator of 'flyover country', but Prez wasn't making any such comparison. And, as she pointed out, the likeliehood that their caucus will accurately gauge the opinion of those people is in serious doubt anyway.

Rhino

01-03-2008, 01:57 PM

However, historically (that is, historically according to the MSM, which we all know how accurate they always are...) the winner of Iowa and New Hampshire wins the party nomination. Right...McPain won New Hampshire in 2000.

mkafrica

01-03-2008, 02:01 PM

McPain won New Hampshire in 2000.

Yeah, that's kind of what I meant by the MSM always getting it right... lol

I was watching CNN the other day (against my will... *sigh*), and they made that comment, that the winner of Iowa and New Hampshire always got the election... which I thought was kind of off, lol.

DoctorDoom

01-03-2008, 02:03 PM

You mean electoral college? They have seven.I think the reference is to convention delegates.

Rhino

01-03-2008, 02:07 PM

Oh.

32 Total Delegates: 15 Congressional District & 17 At Large. The total number of delegates nationwide is 2488.

Eagle1

01-03-2008, 02:11 PM

posted by Eagle1

Did I say that???????????? At all? Did I infer that at all? No I didn't. I said that Super Tuesday is a much better, and more accurate determining factor in this election instead of a single small state where more than half of the voters wont be able to vote in the caucus.

Same that went for The Bird now goes for you. Stop being a presumtuous ass.

the reason for the low turn out is that a caucus is actually an involved process. you sit down with your fellow citizens and actually talk about the issues and which candidate best representes that party. many people do not want to take the time to do that. they would rather fill in a bubble and go home.
no, iowa does not matter in the general election. but people need to be upset about what having iowa first does to certain issues. (such as ethanol and family values) they need to stop this talk about it being iowa and that not being fair.

and prez I am not being presumptious. I just took your ideas to the logical conclusion. :DYou don't like the focus on Iowa, and I understand that. But you reson for not liking that focus needs revision.
If you don't want small states to have such an impact bring it up with the party.

Rhino

01-03-2008, 02:11 PM

Oh.

32 Total Delegates: 15 Congressional District & 17 At Large. The total number of delegates nationwide is 2488.That's about 13% of the total either way.

ColonialMarine0431

01-03-2008, 02:13 PM

Caucus shmaucus. I've never understood the whole process. Or why IA and NH get so much credence given to them.

PrezLeefun

01-03-2008, 02:13 PM

On Foxnews last night I think it was on the O'reilly factor or maybe it was Shepard Smith who said something about Iowa not even being a big deal until Jimmy Carter in the 70's.

(can anyone here back that up? cuz I dont surely dont know)

Because if that is the case and it was only big deal when it came to maybe one of the worst and more liberal presidents how important could it really be?

Just cause it was important for a nanosecond nearly 40 years ago doesnt mean it is important now.

MrSanity

01-03-2008, 02:14 PM

I think Iowa is important, but it's not the bottom line.

It foreshadows a very possible outcome, but each state has its differences.

Eagle1

01-03-2008, 02:14 PM

And, as she pointed out, the likeliehood that their caucus will accurately gauge the opinion of those people is in serious doubt anyway.

And that is the point. This is simply the contribution Iowa will make towards the convention process. The anger should go to people who change who they vote for simply because of who won in Iowa. That is the stupidity of the process.

MrSanity

01-03-2008, 02:15 PM

If Thompson isn't in the top three, I think we have some worrying to do.

Rhino

01-03-2008, 02:15 PM

the reason for the low turn out is that a caucus is actually an involved process.Not what she was referring to. She was reffering to the fact that absentees are not allowed, and that the poll hours severely limit who can vote.

and prez I am not being presumptious. I just took your ideas to the logical conclusion. :DYou don't like the focus on Iowa, and I understand that. But you reson for not liking that focus needs revision.
If you don't want small states to have such an impact bring it up with the party.Again, not what she said. Now I can understand your response, because you completely misunderstood her post. Besides their system not being an accurate sample, by virtue of sheer numbers, the results in Iowa cannot be accurately extrapolated to the nation as a whole. She was not in any way dissing small states.

Rhino

01-03-2008, 02:17 PM

And that is the point. This is simply the contribution Iowa will make towards the convention process. The anger should go to people who change who they vote for simply because of who won in Iowa. That is the stupidity of the process.She posted no anger. You did. You probably owe her an apology.

Rhino

01-03-2008, 02:18 PM

If Thompson isn't in the top three, I think we have some worrying to do.I don't think he will be, but I'm not worried at all about that.

PrezLeefun

01-03-2008, 02:21 PM

the reason for the low turn out is that a caucus is actually an involved process.

Ummm no.....

Because the caucuses, held in the early evening, do not allow absentee voting, they tend to leave out nearly entire categories of voters: the infirm, soldiers on active duty, restaurant employees on the dinner shift, medical personnel who cannot leave their patients, parents who do not have babysitting and many others who work in retail, at gasoline stations and in other jobs that require evening duty.

From this thread.... http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=54227

you sit down with your fellow citizens and actually talk about the issues and which candidate best representes that party. many people do not want to take the time to do that. they would rather fill in a bubble and go home.

All folks who care about voting do that. In all states, regardless of thier party or political preferences.

no, iowa does not matter in the general election. but people need to be upset about what having iowa first does to certain issues. (such as ethanol and family values) they need to stop this talk about it being iowa and that not being fair.

That was not the point and not what I said. This thread was about addressing the numbers and there real value and significance. Not about judging the folks of Iowa. So get off that little soapbox.

and prez I am not being presumptious. I just took your ideas to the logical conclusion. :DYou don't like the focus on Iowa, and I understand that. But you reson for not liking that focus needs revision.
If you don't want small states to have such an impact bring it up with the party.

I dont need to revise anything. If making a nonsense jab at NYC (as if I thought one city could determine an election when I clearly dont think a whole state can) is logic then you have some work to do.

Eagle1

01-03-2008, 02:22 PM

She posted no anger. You did. You probably owe her an apology.

After careful review I have decided that the only emotion in my posts was a big grin.

So no dice.:D

The_Elucidator

01-03-2008, 02:26 PM

Actually, I think that Iowa, NH, Mich, NV, SC are all individually important in their own way. Momentum, whether real or perceived, is huge to the human psyche. A prime example was a story I posted a few weeks back where Blacks in SC were keeping their eye on how Obama did in Iowa and NH to see if White people would vote for him. If he does even partially well with the White vote it will give him momentum in Mich and SC both of which have huge Black communities. So for those who don't hold stock in each state having a part in the build up of momentum think again. Just like a kick-off return to start a football game can pump up a teams fans so can a kick-off return in Iowa to start the Primaries...

Bob Novak had an article talking about Hillary's big problem if she finishes third in Iowa... If she does, and Obama is shown to be able to draw the White vote... SHE is toast!!

Rhino

01-03-2008, 02:26 PM

After careful review I have decided that the only emotion in my posts was a big grin.

So no dice.:DA false accusation then. That was there.

Rhino

01-03-2008, 02:28 PM

Actually, I think that Iowa, NH, Mich, NV, SC are all individually important in their own way.Of course they are, but not as predictive indicators of the overall race.

Momentum, whether real or perceived, is huge to the human psyche.True, but I think that is more a creation of the media hype than anything else.

Eagle1

01-03-2008, 02:29 PM

I dont need to revise anything. If making a nonsense jab at NYC (as if I thought one city could determine an election when I clearly dont think a whole state can) is logic then you have some work to do.

This is how I understand your position. You don't like having such a small number of people who aren't necessarily representative of the nation as a whole having such a massive influence on the start of the election.

This is my position. Having only Iowa first causes candidates to shift from a true message and pander to the population of a rural state. This hurts those who choose to stick to principle and bash ethanol and farm subsidies. (not to mention weak candidates who make compromising promises to rural voters for a first win) And the morons in other states who will dump their candidate because he did not do well in Iowa are bad for the party. It has nothing to do with numbers and everything to do with message.

mkafrica

01-03-2008, 02:30 PM

Bob Novak had an article talking about Hillary's big problem if she finishes third in Iowa... If she does, and Obama is shown to be able to draw the White vote... SHE is toast!!

Maybe she can become the White House cook... After all, she is comfortable in the kitchen!

PrezLeefun

01-03-2008, 02:31 PM

posted by Eagle1
This is how I understand your position. You don't like having such a small number of people who aren't necessarily representative of the nation as a whole having such a massive influence on the start of the election.

This is my position. Having only Iowa first causes candidates to shift from a true message and pander to the population of a rural state. This hurts those who choose to stick to principle and bash ethanol and farm subsidies. (not to mention weak candidates who make compromising promises to rural voters for a first win) And the morons in other states who will dump their candidate because he did not do well in Iowa are bad for the party. It has nothing to do with numbers and everything to do with message.

Then that is what you should have said to begin with. Instead of trying to put words in my mouth with sarcasm and bad logic.

Rhino

01-03-2008, 02:32 PM

This is my position. Having only Iowa first causes candidates to shift from a true message and pander to the population of a rural state. This hurts those who choose to stick to principle and bash ethanol and farm subsidies. (not to mention weak candidates who make compromising promises to rural voters for a first win) And the morons in other states who will dump their candidate because he did not do well in Iowa are bad for the party. It has nothing to do with numbers and everything to do with message.It has to do with both, because one is used to affect the other. So you guys really aren't that far apart.

Rhino

01-03-2008, 02:33 PM

Oh, and the point about different priorities in different states is a good one too.

The_Elucidator

01-03-2008, 02:33 PM

Of course they are, but not as predictive indicators of the overall race.

Agree,as predictive indicator, no; but as a cumulative contributor, yes!

Eagle1

01-03-2008, 02:35 PM

Then that is what you should have said to begin with. Instead of trying to put words in my mouth with sarcasm and bad logic.

but that took a while to type out. and was not nearly as fun to write.

The_Elucidator

01-03-2008, 02:38 PM

Oh, and let me add 1 more point about Iowa being important. It gives political junkies like myself a serious high!! :biggrin:

PrezLeefun

01-03-2008, 02:39 PM

oh well I am so pleased you had fun. whoopdeedoo.

DesertFox

01-03-2008, 02:42 PM

She was not in any way dissing small states. But she wanted to! :D

Eagle1

01-03-2008, 02:43 PM

:rotflmbo:

Rhino

01-03-2008, 02:48 PM

But she wanted to! :DGot a poll to back that up? :evilgrin:

PrezLeefun

01-03-2008, 02:48 PM

oh ya'll be hatin.......lol

ColonialMarine0431

01-03-2008, 02:57 PM

oh ya'll be hatin.......lol

Dont be hatin' !

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y53/ColonialMarine/dontbehatin.jpg

The_Elucidator

01-03-2008, 03:07 PM

oh well I am so pleased you had fun. whoopdeedoo.

Prez dear, take a nap so you're not so damn cranky for tonights caucus results... :biggrin:

Rhino

01-03-2008, 03:09 PM

Is there any way around that? :lol:

PrezLeefun

01-03-2008, 03:09 PM

I am gonna take a nap. And will not watch the news......

ok just the first part.

Rhino

01-03-2008, 03:10 PM

It'll be a long time before we know, and like you, I don't care very much.

Suzie

01-03-2008, 03:16 PM

I think it's just the first way to measure what people are thinking and the candidate is wondering how much weight the rest of us will give those opinions. A lot of people who don't think for themselves tend to be like the Rudy supporters who think they have to vote for whoever seems like they will win.

The_Elucidator

01-03-2008, 03:19 PM

It'll be a long time before we know, and like you, I don't care very much.

So you don't want us to wake you when the say that FDT took the Hawkeye Cauci? :biggrin:

DesertFox

01-03-2008, 03:22 PM

:roar: Hawkeye Cauci

Rhino

01-03-2008, 03:29 PM

So you don't want us to wake you when the say that FDT took the Hawkeye Cauci? :biggrin:Nah. I'll catch it in the morning. However, I'm on standby tonight, so I may be back in here anyway.

Naturalized-Texan

01-03-2008, 03:38 PM

The_Elucidator

01-03-2008, 03:42 PM

According to Rush, the Republican results should be in about 8:30PM EST since the Republicans just go in and vote. However, the Dim results won't be in until much later because the Dims talk and talk before they vote.

Plus they have to rebury all the old Democrats they dug up for the dead vote that is so vital for their campaign.

DesertFox

01-03-2008, 03:47 PM

Yeah, and it ain't easy shoveling in that cold.

Rhino

01-03-2008, 03:47 PM

And get the prisoners back to their cells.

PrezLeefun

01-03-2008, 03:51 PM

They also have to finish their Dairy Queen.

Lubbock

01-03-2008, 03:59 PM

Where the f*ck did you pull peice of crap from? Your horse's ass? Or Ron Paul's?

I'm bookmarking this.

When the "Killer Bee" awards come up next year, I know who gets my vote.

:thumb:

Rhino

01-03-2008, 04:01 PM

:lol:

The_Elucidator

01-03-2008, 04:05 PM

I'm bookmarking this.

When the "Killer Bee" awards come up next year, I know who gets my vote.

:thumb:

No kidding! Our usually mild mannered Prez goes wild. :rotflmbo:

Eagle1

01-03-2008, 04:22 PM

According to Rush, the Republican results should be in about 8:30PM EST since the Republicans just go in and vote. However, the Dim results won't be in until much later because the Dims talk and talk before they vote.

It probably won't be that soon. The pubs start at 8 EST and wont go for more than an hour. After deciding on the candidate, delagtes to the state convention are chosen. Then the results are sent to the media.
The dems start at the same time I think, maybe a half hour earlier. But after they do all that they go over platforms and county and district business. Now that should be riveting.