Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    9,002
    Thanks (Given)
    36
    Thanks (Received)
    209
    Likes (Given)
    20
    Likes (Received)
    101
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1187318

    Default are the Iowa caucus' relevant?....

    a review of the the history of the Iowa caucus shows that only once has the winner of the Democratic Iowa caucus become president..... (oops, a miscalculation of dates......if would appear they have NEVER been right)........they nominated Carter, but in the year he was beaten by Reagan, not in the year he won).........

    the Republicans were twice as successful.....

    they had Bush I as a winner, coming out of the Reagan VicePresidency, and they nominated Bush II in 2000


    now, as far as picking the candidate both parties did a bit better....

    the winner of the Iowa caucus was the final party candidate three out of the last nine elections for the Democrats and four out of nine for the Republicans.......

    http://www.desmoinesregister.com/app...1114028/0/NEWS
    Last edited by PostmodernProphet; 01-02-2008 at 06:02 AM.
    ...full immersion.....

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    9,002
    Thanks (Given)
    36
    Thanks (Received)
    209
    Likes (Given)
    20
    Likes (Received)
    101
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1187318

    Default

    and is New Hampshire any better?.....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_primary

    Democratic winners who went on to be president.....
    Clinton, for re-election in 96
    Carter in 1976

    who became the party nominee
    Kerry, Gore, Clinton (re-election, but lost NH first time around), Dukakis, Carter (both when he becamse president and when he lost re-election)

    Republicans
    picking president
    Bush II (for re-election, but did not win NH first time around)
    Bush I (won NH twice but national election only once)
    Reagan (won NH twice)
    Nixon (won NH twice)

    picking nominee
    best record of all, 7 of last nine.....
    ...full immersion.....

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    7,727
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    8
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    8
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    243661

    Default

    Apparently they are relevent for somebody (spin doctors and fund raisers ?).
    The media sure as hell wants me to believe it's important.

    Eleven months of this crap.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Biggest Little City In The World
    Posts
    1,569
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    2
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Iowa is bunch of corn raisin' pig farmers. I don't think who they'd pick for president has much of anything to do with the rest of the country. It sure doesn't here in Nevada.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    9,002
    Thanks (Given)
    36
    Thanks (Received)
    209
    Likes (Given)
    20
    Likes (Received)
    101
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1187318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pale Rider View Post
    Iowa is bunch of corn raisin' pig farmers. I don't think who they'd pick for president has much of anything to do with the rest of the country. It sure doesn't here in Nevada.
    having grown up on a corn and pig raising farm in Iowa, I will take exception to the idea that who I like for president has anything less to do with the presidency than some pokerchip-flipping pimp from Nevada.......

    that being said, I WILL say the caucus system is a very bad tool for identifying who might get elected for president......
    ...full immersion.....

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    7,727
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    8
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    8
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    243661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pale Rider View Post
    Iowa is bunch of corn raisin' pig farmers. I don't think who they'd pick for president has much of anything to do with the rest of the country. It sure doesn't here in Nevada.
    All I can think of is that the winners are going to claim that thier message resonates with the "people" and that will bring in more money?

    I bet NONE of them campaign there after tomorrow---they don't give a shit about those people.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    12,504
    Thanks (Given)
    6
    Thanks (Received)
    210
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    565784

    Default

    there are only two reasons its relevent:

    1)Its the first one
    2)It causes some candidates to drop out.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,417
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    545

    Default yes

    Yes, Iowa has significance way out of proportion to its population. Because it is the first test, the national media, which is so hungry for campaign news that they'll report how much ketchup Hillary put on her burger at lunch, gives enormous publicity to Iowa.

    So someone like Edwards, who's third in the national polls, can get tremendous momentum by winning in Iowa. It's a slingshot effect. If Edwards and Huckabee could manage to take both Iowa and New Hampshire, they'd become the new front runners.

    It's all about momentum.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    12,504
    Thanks (Given)
    6
    Thanks (Received)
    210
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    565784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GW in Ohio View Post
    Yes, Iowa has significance way out of proportion to its population. Because it is the first test, the national media, which is so hungry for campaign news that they'll report how much ketchup Hillary put on her burger at lunch, gives enormous publicity to Iowa.

    So someone like Edwards, who's third in the national polls, can get tremendous momentum by winning in Iowa. It's a slingshot effect. If Edwards and Huckabee could manage to take both Iowa and New Hampshire, they'd become the new front runners.

    It's all about momentum.
    side note: i am just curious. Are you going to change your screen name after Bush is gone?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,417
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by avatar4321 View Post
    side note: i am just curious. Are you going to change your screen name after Bush is gone?
    My screen name has nothing to do with George Bush. I was GW online while he was still bumbling his way through Texas.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums