Skip to main content

View Diary: '08 Watch: New Poll Says Edwards Beating Hillary in Iowa (202 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Do you think grassroots politics is important? (3+ / 0-)

    Then Iowa should be first.  There are very few states where every citizen can personally ask a candidate a question, if they want.  

    And I'm not sure what you are referring to as an "emotional" pick.  In 2004, they made a pretty rational pick.  Let's review:

    Edwards - Very impressive ground game, especially from a relative no-name.  
    Kerry - Pretty good ground game.
    Dean - Horrible ground game.  

    Incidentally, I'm pretty sure Edwards 2003/2004 time in Iowa is why he is ahead of HRC.

    •  Iowa is so 'different'. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ranting Roland

      First, I agree no state should always go first.  Second, I'm in total agreement with the movement underway in California to change the way they award their electoral votes.  They are trying to get them to go to the "winner of the popular vote".  The millions of people who don't live in Iowa and NH are sick and tired of having them pick their candidate.  This change will force the candidates to run a 50 state race.   Iowa has more pigs than people and is not representative of me or Michigan.  

      ....although the future is unknown, it will not be unblogged. David D. Perlmutter

      by dkmich on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 06:21:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh My God, NO!!! (0+ / 0-)

        I am completely, totally opposed to the California proposal. This is unilateral disarmament, pure and simple. I would support eliminating the Electoral College and electing the popular vote winner. But to do it on a state-by-state basis, starting with the blue states, is totally fucking insane.

      •  If milllions are sick of it, perhaps they should (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RunawayRose, bawbie

        vote for the candidate of their choice, instead of echoing the choices of IA and NH.  And the entire POINT is having states with small populations go first - that way they can actually meet the candidates, instead of just seeing who looks the prettiest on the TV.   A 50 state race would do nothing but insure that only candidates like HRC had a shot of winning the primaries, since they are the only ones with the massive piles of money necessary to do it.

        •  Not if we have publicly funded elections....n/t (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ranting Roland

          ....although the future is unknown, it will not be unblogged. David D. Perlmutter

          by dkmich on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 09:42:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Sigh (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dkmich

          I did vote for the candidate of my choice (DEAN!) but by the time it was primary day in my state AND MANY OTHERS, my candidate had dropped out of the race.

          In matters of conscience, the Law of Majority has no place. -- Mahatma Gandhi

          by Ranting Roland on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 09:43:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If Kerry and the Dems had tried to back stab Dean (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ranting Roland

            in a bigger state, it wouldn't have worked; AND we might have Dean as Pres. now.   Iowa is too small and too rural and too provincial.

            ....although the future is unknown, it will not be unblogged. David D. Perlmutter

            by dkmich on Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 09:49:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Look, there is NO CHANCE that Dean would have (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ThunderHawk13

              won any state.  If you saw his campaign up close, that was evident.  The orange hats were a joke, Dean couldn't give a speech to save his life, they couldn't target their likely voters with any accuracy, and they didn't prepare their precinct captains.  Dean's loss had nothing to do with the demographics in Iowa.

              •  what the dean campaign did wrong (0+ / 0-)

                "they couldn't target their likely voters with any accuracy"

                did you see this up close & personal?

                this is not a trick question; I honestly want to know what the dean campaign did wrong in 2004, but I am seeking hard observed evidence, not mere guesses by outsiders.

          •  You're candidates campaign was in clusterfuck (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Shawn

            mode, which was no fault of Iowa.  Dean was still in the race when my primary was held, and I very nearly didn't vote for him because I have reservations about a person's ability to run a country when they can't run their own campaign (and keep in mind, I volunteered and donated to Dean).  The crap campaigning that happened in Iowa (mass disorganization, huge disconnect in what voters want and what Dean was handing out) would have happened in any state that went first.  

    •  Every Citizen (4+ / 0-)

      Then Iowa should be first.  There are very few states where every citizen can personally ask a candidate a question, if they want.  

      Sorry, but that's a silly argument.  Every Iowan has that opportunity precisely because they do go first.  If NM or DE went first, every citizen in those states would be able to personally ask a question.

      You're right to the degree that I would oppose the first state being a giant state like CA or NY, or even big like MI.  The limit should probably be around 5 million population.  But there's no good reason for it to be IA and NH every year, and for us, there's a good reason it shouldn't be.  Those states - white and rural - just don't represent who votes for our party.

      •  Except Iowa quite frequently votes Democratic. (0+ / 0-)

        And when we win, so do other white, rural states (Minnesota, Missouri, Arkansas, etc.).  In changing the state, do you think there would be a different?  I can guarantee you Kerry would have won big in DE, and in NM as well.  

        The mistake you are making is assuming Iowa determines the winner.  It doesn't.  The Democrats chose to have a compressed primary schedule in '04, which inflated the importance of Iowa.  Then again, I don't see a different result being reached give the list of candidates to chose from.  

        •  Iowa (0+ / 0-)

          In 2004, Iowa clearly did determine the winner.  Kerry rolled right through in other states where he had had no visible campaign and very little support before IA.

          And although Kerry did have his strengths, he wasn't the best candidate for the general election.  If there's one thing we should know by now, it's that we can't nominate a New England or Great Lakes region liberal and expect to win.  Especially if he's also a Senator.

          Would Kerry have done as well in another state?  Maybe, maybe not.  I seriously doubt he would have won NM, where he was challenged even after winning IA and NH, but we'll never really know.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site