how odd that the media just now wants to point out that Iowa doesn't matter since Ron Paul will win. If it was a candidate they liked they'd be saying how it's extremely important.

As someone tweeted this morning. Iowa doesn't choose the winners. It chooses the losers.

bravian: As someone tweeted this morning. Iowa doesn't choose the winners. It chooses the losers.

They've got a pretty good track record

Now the Aimes straw poll, that thing is pretty good at picking losers.

bravian: As someone tweeted this morning. Iowa doesn't choose the winners. It chooses the losers.

Or as Romney said (I think it was Romney), "Iowa picks corn, New Hampshire picks presidents."

i.e., just in case RON PAUL wins.

So RON PAUL hasn't even won yet, and that damned liberal media is already trying to marginalize his victory by running stories of how the Iowa Caucuses really don't mean much and we really shouldn't pay as much attention to them as we do....has nothing at all to do with the establishments darling not polling well, I'm sure. Nothing at all.

/RON PAUL

falcon176: how odd that the media just now wants to point out that Iowa doesn't matter since Ron Paul will win. If it was a candidate they liked they'd be saying how it's extremely important.

Fail. People were declaring the Iowa caucus overrated last time around even though Huckabee was a media darling.

They are a joke.

Please, Republican Party, for the love of god, hang it up this year.

None of your idiots can beat Obama.

Yeah, we realize that the Caucuses aren't _supposed_ to be direct democracy, right? I mean, it's pretty obvious that they're using a republic model to try to ensure that the caucus members are those with the time and inclination to actual due diligence is the entire farking point, much like how the actual government works. PRetty easy to understand, unless you're a complete retard...

Oh, right, journalists. Got it.

falcon176: how odd that the media just now wants to point out that Iowa doesn't matter since Ron Paul will win. If it was a candidate they liked they'd be saying how it's extremely important.

itsaconspiracy.jpg

Jim_Callahan: I mean, it's pretty obvious that they're using a republic model to try to ensure that the caucus members are those with the time and inclination to actual due diligence is the entire farking point, much like how the actual government works.

That's kind of along the reasoning of why the founders only wanted property holders to be allowed to vote....

Idiots
Out
Walking
Around

Too bad the caucuses aren't more like an in-person Ranked Choice Voting or Instant Runoff Voting system. That might be newsworthy.

Constitutional amendment: Primaries happen between February and May of election year. Every other week, an equally representative number of delegates is up for grabs, so the states are grouped together. Rotates every 4 years. There is never 1 state that has a lone primary.

Who's with me?

/kind of based on A More Perfect Constitution by Sabato.

Have some pitty for Iowans as they take this one for the team once again. Do you like campaign ads? That's pretty much all of their commercials during these things. It's not even entertaining. The attack ads are monotonous and unwatchable while ruining your shows for you.

This isn't the kind of attention you want.

Bronzed War God: Constitutional amendment: Primaries happen between February and May of election year. Every other week, an equally representative number of delegates is up for grabs, so the states are grouped together. Rotates every 4 years. There is never 1 state that has a lone primary.

Who's with me?

/kind of based on A More Perfect Constitution by Sabato.


How about we get rid of the primary system and just let the party officials pick a candidate at a convention the way they used to? It'd get people involved in local politics again (as their local party is the one that sends the delegate), and we wouldn't have to put up with a year of campaigning.

DarnoKonrad: Bronzed War God: Constitutional amendment: Primaries happen between February and May of election year. Every other week, an equally representative number of delegates is up for grabs, so the states are grouped together. Rotates every 4 years. There is never 1 state that has a lone primary.

Who's with me?

/kind of based on A More Perfect Constitution by Sabato.


How about we get rid of the primary system and just let the party officials pick a candidate at a convention the way they used to? It'd get people involved in local politics again (as their local party is the one that sends the delegate), and we wouldn't have to put up with a year of campaigning.

Why do we have to anyway?

Why can't EVERYTHING election-related be done the same year as the election itself, starting in the spring or summer?

An alien world inhabited by cows and white people is the only place where Rick Santorum could be considered a "front runner".

In My Universe, no one starts "officially" running for president until March 1. If you think you're a candidate, spend the previous fall and the first two months of the calendar year honing your message in private, more or less, then burst onto the scene in the first of five 10-state geographically based primaries.

I endorse a shortened window because in our new era of mass individualized messages - OK, the Internet - a long, inefficient period of scrutiny isn't needed.

Dracolich: Have some pitty for Iowans as they take this one for the team once again. Do you like campaign ads? That's pretty much all of their commercials during these things. It's not even entertaining. The attack ads are monotonous and unwatchable while ruining your shows for you.

This isn't the kind of attention you want.

THIS. As an Iowan, right now all I want is the derptrain to leave for points east. The GOP evangelicals here are embarrassing me. Although to be fair, I live in the Republic of Johnson County where, when a teabagger screamed "Soshulism!" at a Dem in a public meeting, the vast majority of the crowd started started cheering for socialism. The bagger thought they were cheering for her at first but then she figured it out and the look on her face was priceless.

whidbey: DarnoKonrad: Bronzed War God: Constitutional amendment: Primaries happen between February and May of election year. Every other week, an equally representative number of delegates is up for grabs, so the states are grouped together. Rotates every 4 years. There is never 1 state that has a lone primary.

Who's with me?

/kind of based on A More Perfect Constitution by Sabato.


How about we get rid of the primary system and just let the party officials pick a candidate at a convention the way they used to? It'd get people involved in local politics again (as their local party is the one that sends the delegate), and we wouldn't have to put up with a year of campaigning.

Why do we have to anyway?

Why can't EVERYTHING election-related be done the same year as the election itself, starting in the spring or summer?


Because the 50 states are like herding cats. The parties have some influence, but as long as there are elections involved, the states can pass whatever front-loaded attention-whore bullshiat they wish.

Have our candidates been better since we went to a primary system? Not really. In many regards they're much worse as pre-packaged candidate 'brands.'

cryptozoophiliac: i.e., just in case RON PAUL wins.

Pretty much. Now begins the year of lowering Republican expectations.

You can already tell this was the gameplan because the news stories around it are offering a variety of talking points: "Santorum has a chance! Romney makes a breakthrough! Gingrich is now taking Iowa seriously!"

No, the real truth is that the Republican field is full of losers who are staying in this to see if they can manage a 2016 run or gain some party power. The reality is that the constant ups and downs of all the candidates (except Romney) show that none of these losers have a solid base. It's all a reaction to Romney and his multiple issues that don't sit well with the ideological purity test that Republicans still seem to want. It's symbolic of a serious problem that the Republicans have: that the base doesn't see the representatives as being representative.

2011 really farked the Republicans. And this year we will see the results of that.

DarnoKonrad: Have our candidates been better since we went to a primary system? Not really. In many regards they're much worse as pre-packaged candidate 'brands.'

I dunno, I'd rather reform that process than go back to smoke-filled rooms at some over-hyped convention.

whidbey: DarnoKonrad: Have our candidates been better since we went to a primary system? Not really. In many regards they're much worse as pre-packaged candidate 'brands.'

I dunno, I'd rather reform that process than go back to smoke-filled rooms at some over-hyped convention.


The people in the smoke filled back rooms at least really cared about the direction of the party and who would represent it in a general election. Now candidates spend all their time trying to appeal to flippant "independents" who don't seem to care about anything other than a sense of false balance.

Our elections are being held hostage by people who pick candidates the way they pick laundry detergent.

DarnoKonrad: Our elections are being held hostage by people who pick candidates the way they pick laundry detergent.

And with just as much care.

Dracolich: Have some pitty for Iowans as they take this one for the team once again. Do you like campaign ads? That's pretty much all of their commercials during these things. It's not even entertaining. The attack ads are monotonous and unwatchable while ruining your shows for you.

This isn't the kind of attention you want.

The moneyed interests have enough influence, in both parties, to change party so that other states might go first and/or the whole thing would start later. Obviously this is how they want it to work. I'm in Florida, so it'll be my turn to be barraged in 2 weeks. Good thing I have a DVR.

change party rules, that is.

It is ridiculuous how a number of small states that a fairly unrepresentative of the country as a whole (Iowa, NH, and SC) basically wind up picking our presidential candidates for us.

I live in New York, one of the most populous states, with a fairly diverse population, both racially and ethnically, and economically, and demographically, with very urban areas, as well as a great deal of very rural areas upstate. Yet our primaries mean basically nothing, since the candidates are almost always already decided by then.

cryptozoophiliac: i.e., just in case RON PAUL wins.

This.

Iowa loves them some some crazy men of the "correct religion"
This is why I would be surprised if Romney or Bachmann won.

falcon176: how odd that the leftist drive-by MSM media just now wants to point out that Iowa doesn't matter since Ron Paul will win. If it was a candidate they liked they'd be saying how it's extremely important.

FTFY

DarnoKonrad: whidbey: DarnoKonrad: Have our candidates been better since we went to a primary system? Not really. In many regards they're much worse as pre-packaged candidate 'brands.'

I dunno, I'd rather reform that process than go back to smoke-filled rooms at some over-hyped convention.


The people in the smoke filled back rooms at least really cared about the direction of the party and who would represent it in a general election. Now candidates spend all their time trying to appeal to flippant "independents" who don't seem to care about anything other than a sense of false balance.

Our elections are being held hostage by people who pick candidates the way they pick laundry detergent.

Which is why when I run into people who say they don't vote, or that they don't care one way or the other who wins, I see red. You live in this farking country, you're of voting age, and you don't care? I don't get that, and I never will. I don't treat voting like it's some religious or solemnified occasion, but I take the time to make sure that when I vote, I know who I'm voting for and why.

There's just too much stupid and lazy in this country, basically.

The problem with the Iowa caucuses is that they've let their "kingmaker" label go to their heads. The dream of beating Obama with an "anyone but Obama" win due to unemployment means they dream of starting the trend to the most conservaderp candidate possible. They're getting greedy, if, heaven help them, they go full derp like that and a nomination that isn't Romney follows, they've likely sealed their own fate come November.

So in other words, the guy who wrote TFA is backing Gingrich.

DarnoKonrad: whidbey: DarnoKonrad: Have our candidates been better since we went to a primary system? Not really. In many regards they're much worse as pre-packaged candidate 'brands.'

I dunno, I'd rather reform that process than go back to smoke-filled rooms at some over-hyped convention.


The people in the smoke filled back rooms at least really cared about the direction of the party and who would represent it in a general election. Now candidates spend all their time trying to appeal to flippant "independents" who don't seem to care about anything other than a sense of false balance.

Our elections are being held hostage by people who pick candidates the way they pick laundry detergent.

So we regulate it like we do advertising.

Why do you want party bosses to have more power than the American people?

whidbey: So we regulate it like we do advertising.

Citizens United made that impossible.

whidbey: Why do you want party bosses to have more power than the American people?

Because it's their party, they do all the hard work organizing it and promoting its platform. We'd have a lot more third parties as well if people had some direct input instead of being a rounding error in a primary system that's just a lowest common denominator marketing campaign.

DarnoKonrad: whidbey: So we regulate it like we do advertising.

Citizens United made that impossible.

So it's the end of the world now? No more challenges will ever be allowed? If that were true, Plessy v Ferguson would be the Supreme Law.

whidbey: Why do you want party bosses to have more power than the American people?

Because it's their party, they do all the hard work organizing it and promoting its platform. We'd have a lot more third parties as well if people had some direct input instead of being a rounding error in a primary system that's just a lowest common denominator marketing campaign.

I agree we need more "direct input," but putting the reins back in the hands of the political machine isn't going to further that concept. Unless you prefer their "direct input" and not ours.

whidbey: So it's the end of the world now? No more challenges will ever be allowed? If that were true, Plessy v Ferguson would be the Supreme Law.

60 years is a long time to wait for some sanity in Brown v. Board of education. Besides, Dred Scott v. Sandford might be the better comparison. Citizens United is that bad.

DarnoKonrad: Citizens United is that bad.

Which is why it needs to be overturned.

You're suggesting we just do something else in the meantime.

All this over 28 delegates out of 2200+. When Mitt gets his 25%, he will get 7 (seven) freaking delegates.