Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 38

Thread: Iowa: the levels of stupid

  1. #1
    Registered User Bill Cody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,255
    Thanks
    825
    Thanked 3,886 Times in 2,205 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    34

    Iowa: the levels of stupid

    I've been thinking about this for some time but since we're approaching another Groundhog Day with the Iowa Caucuses it's time for me to vent.

    It is insane that Iowa is such a meaningful contest in the Dem primary. Other than tradition what is the case to make them 1st and massively outsize the importance of a largely white state with only 49 delegates up for grabs? Yet the winner gains crucial momentum that could carry him or her to the nomination. Why Iowa? And the idea that it is a caucus state makes it worse. Much worse. The percentage of people that go to caucuses are a tiny fraction of the electorate and with good reason. Caucuses are retarded. How many people want to spend 3 hours standing around in a herd so all their neighbors know how they're voting? Absurd. That's why what you get at caucuses are the most committed people that will do whatever it takes to support their candidate. That doesn't represent the majority of Americans so I would argue that caucuses are outdated and undemocratic, not everyone can take a half day out of work to go to vote. So this tiny sliver of the electorate in a state with more cows than people could decide who's the next leader of the free world? Utter nonsense.

    And if you look at the makeup of the state in terms only of dem voters it leans strongly liberal. So what candidate is out there on the dem side that has an almost religious cult following of people all willing to spend 3 hours and let it be known to whole world who they're voting for? That's Bernie Sanders. And what candidate has had difficulty appealing to minority voters and can benefit from a lily white electorate? That's also Bernie Sanders. And who ran last time and has a strong organization on the ground that is so crucial in a state like Iowa? Again Bernie Sanders

    So forget the horse race polls. You heard it here 1st. Sanders wins Iowa and wins it handily. And then it's on to New Hampshire, a neighbor state to his home in Vermont, a state he trounced Hillary Clinton in last time. I still feel this race is Biden's to lose but if Sanders wins Iowa and NH as I expect it will make South Carolina the key to the nomination.

    But all that stuff starts because Iowa is 1st and it's a caucus state. That my friends MUST change in the next election cycle. And caucuses need to be banned, dumb dumb dumb.

  2. Post thanked by:

    denverboz (01-16-2020),Haile SpikedLemonade (01-17-2020),jimmifli (01-17-2020),notacon (01-17-2020),Swiper (01-18-2020)

  3. #2
    realultimatepower.net JoeMama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Seattle, NJ
    Posts
    12,747
    Thanks
    29
    Thanked 11,890 Times in 5,871 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    51

    Re: Iowa: the levels of stupid

    I'd also like to see the first state be A) a primary state, not a caucus state and B) have a population that more accurately reflects the diversity within the Democratic Party.
    Disclaimer: The sentiment expressed in this post is strictly for entertainment purposes only.

  4. #3
    Pucker up, Buttercup
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    9,149
    Thanks
    8,810
    Thanked 3,907 Times in 2,635 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    27

    Re: Iowa: the levels of stupid

    And at present Biden has a lock on SC.

    I do agree caucuses are total BS, and totally unrepresentative of the electorate where they are held.
    promote the general welfare..........

  5. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    41,408
    Thanks
    9,780
    Thanked 20,285 Times in 12,428 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    106

    Re: Iowa: the levels of stupid

    And yet you're more than willing to tell other countries how democracy should work.

    Let me just point out the fruits of the tree the founding fathers planted.

    Donald Trump.

  6. Post thanked by:

    jimmifli (01-17-2020)

  7. #5
    Acid Douching Asswipe OpIv37's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    87,438
    Thanks
    9,753
    Thanked 18,277 Times in 9,091 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    245

    Re: Iowa: the levels of stupid

    Quote Originally Posted by CommissarSpartacus View Post
    And yet you're more than willing to tell other countries how democracy should work.

    Let me just point out the fruits of the tree the founding fathers planted.

    Donald Trump.
    I really wish the Founding Father worship in this country would stop. Yes, they did some great things. Yes, they had some good ideas. They had some really ****ing terrible ones too, and they did a lot of things to benefit themselves and people like them rather than the country as a whole. And they did basically nothing about slavery (probably since many of them were slaveowners themselves).

    We need to stop acting like these guys from 250 years ago could possibly have known everything there is to know about how representative government should work. There's no way they could have imagined the size, diversity and technology of the country today.

    And I don't buy into religion but I really hope there's some kind of afterlife, and the Founding Fathers are watching and cringing every time some ******* mows down 30 people with a weapon they never dreamed would exist and then the right wingers start thumping the Constitution before the bodies even go cold.
    Last edited by OpIv37; 01-16-2020 at 04:59 PM.

  8. Post thanked by:

    CommissarSpartacus (01-16-2020),jimmifli (01-17-2020),Swiper (01-18-2020)

  9. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    41,408
    Thanks
    9,780
    Thanked 20,285 Times in 12,428 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    106

    Re: Iowa: the levels of stupid

    Quote Originally Posted by OpIv37 View Post
    I really wish the Founding Father worship in this country would stop. Yes, they did some great things. Yes, they had some good ideas. They had some really ****ing terrible ones too, and they did a lot of things to benefit themselves and people like them rather than the country as a whole. And they did basically nothing about slavery (probably since many of them were slaveowners themselves).

    We need to stop acting like these guys from 250 years ago could possibly have known everything there is to know about how representative government should work. There's no way they could have imagined the size, diversity and technology of the country today.

    And I don't buy into religion but I really hope there's some kind of afterlife, and the Founding Fathers are watching and cringing every time some ******* mows down 30 people with a weapon they never dreamed would exist and then the right wingers start thumping the Constitution before the bodies even go cold.
    Even the founding fathers warned about slavish worship of their work...

    "“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

    - Thomas Jefferson

  10. Post thanked by:

    Haile SpikedLemonade (01-17-2020),OpIv37 (01-16-2020),YardRat (01-19-2020)

  11. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    13,796
    Thanks
    60
    Thanked 1,306 Times in 783 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    52

    Re: Iowa: the levels of stupid

    Jefferson, though he owned them, was anti slavery.

    What is idiotically judgmental when talking about the "founding fathers," is to judge that stuff 250 years away.

    They wrote and put into practice the greatest, most freedom granting words and government to that date, and those words, proclamations and codified institutions have led to the greatest advancement in humankind.

  12. Post thanked by:

    Goobylal (01-19-2020),justasportsfan (01-18-2020),YardRat (01-19-2020)

  13. #8
    Acid Douching Asswipe OpIv37's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    87,438
    Thanks
    9,753
    Thanked 18,277 Times in 9,091 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    245

    Re: Iowa: the levels of stupid

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain gameboy View Post
    Jefferson, though he owned them, was anti slavery.

    What is idiotically judgmental when talking about the "founding fathers," is to judge that stuff 250 years away.

    They wrote and put into practice the greatest, most freedom granting words and government to that date, and those words, proclamations and codified institutions have led to the greatest advancement in humankind.
    Wow, you are all over the place here. First, actions speak louder than words. Lip service paid to abolition while still owning slaves is meaningless. And it's worse in Jefferson's case, given how many slaves he forced himself on.

    Second, if it's "idiotically judgmental" to judge the Founding Fathers 250 years later, it's equally idiotic to keep living under the same government they created. "They can't be judged by how society is 250 years later because too much has changed, but we cant change the government they created." Please.

  14. Post thanked by:

    jimmifli (01-17-2020)

  15. #9
    Victimizing The Victimizer Downinfloflo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    8,367
    Thanks
    974
    Thanked 4,665 Times in 2,988 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    25

    Re: Iowa: the levels of stupid

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain gameboy View Post
    Jefferson, though he owned them, was anti slavery..


    "You know owning slaves is wrong, But it sure is nice owning someone to do the work for you" -Thomas Jefferson

  16. Post thanked by:

    jimmifli (01-17-2020),OpIv37 (01-16-2020)

  17. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    41,408
    Thanks
    9,780
    Thanked 20,285 Times in 12,428 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    106

    Re: Iowa: the levels of stupid

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain gameboy View Post

    What is idiotically judgmental when talking about the "founding fathers," is to judge that stuff 250 years away.

    They wrote and put into practice the greatest, most freedom granting words and government to that date, and those words, proclamations and codified institutions have led to the greatest advancement in humankind.
    You don't feel that claiming its idiotic to judge 250 year old stuff and then turning around and doing that exact same thing is somewhat contradictory?

  18. Post thanked by:

    jimmifli (01-17-2020),OpIv37 (01-16-2020)

  19. #11
    Registered User Bill Cody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,255
    Thanks
    825
    Thanked 3,886 Times in 2,205 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    34

    Re: Iowa: the levels of stupid

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeMama View Post
    I'd also like to see the first state be A) a primary state, not a caucus state and B) have a population that more accurately reflects the diversity within the Democratic Party.
    Why one first state? Iowa is a terrible choice for 1 but even a good choice is still going to skew things in some direction. My take is the Dems should open with some version of Super Tuesday and go from there but have the primaries in groups of at least 4.

    The truth is the entire process is way way WAY too long. If I was running things the process it would be illegal to campaign IN ANY WAY until 3 months before election. 6 weeks for primaries, a week for the conventions and a 6 week general election period. Done. 30 second TV attack ads? Illegal. No super pacs. I'd go much further than this but you'd need a constitutional amendment to do it.

    Facebook says they don't want to fact check political ads. That's fine THEN DON'T RUN THEM AT ALL. They're getting paid millions of dollars to dump propaganda and lies onto the public. BS.

  20. Post thanked by:

    jimmifli (01-17-2020),notacon (01-17-2020)

  21. #12
    realultimatepower.net JoeMama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Seattle, NJ
    Posts
    12,747
    Thanks
    29
    Thanked 11,890 Times in 5,871 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    51

    Re: Iowa: the levels of stupid

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Cody View Post
    Why one first state? Iowa is a terrible choice for 1 but even a good choice is still going to skew things in some direction. My take is the Dems should open with some version of Super Tuesday and go from there but have the primaries in groups of at least 4.

    The truth is the entire process is way way WAY too long. If I was running things the process it would be illegal to campaign IN ANY WAY until 3 months before election. 6 weeks for primaries, a week for the conventions and a 6 week general election period. Done. 30 second TV attack ads? Illegal. No super pacs. I'd go much further than this but you'd need a constitutional amendment to do it.

    Facebook says they don't want to fact check political ads. That's fine THEN DON'T RUN THEM AT ALL. They're getting paid millions of dollars to dump propaganda and lies onto the public. BS.
    Why the first state?

    Uh, look at the title of this thread, that's why.

    It's a starting point. Not the end game.

  22. #13
    Proud Sorehead!!! Historian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Upstairs
    Posts
    47,139
    Thanks
    21,274
    Thanked 18,337 Times in 9,758 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    163

    Re: Iowa: the levels of stupid

    Quote Originally Posted by CommissarSpartacus View Post

    Let me just point out the fruits of the tree that Putin and I planted.

    Donald Trump.

    Fixed!

  23. Post thanked by:

    Swiper (01-18-2020)

  24. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    41,408
    Thanks
    9,780
    Thanked 20,285 Times in 12,428 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    106

    Re: Iowa: the levels of stupid

    Quote Originally Posted by Historian View Post
    Fixed!
    It's all my fault. Vlad just does what I tell him to do.

  25. #15
    Retired (mostly) MidnightVoice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    In the sixties
    Posts
    10,397
    Thanks
    68
    Thanked 2,303 Times in 1,362 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    38

    Re: Iowa: the levels of stupid

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Cody View Post
    My take is the Dems should open with some version of Super Tuesday and go from there but have the primaries in groups of at least 4.
    It ain't just the Dems!

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Cody View Post
    The truth is the entire process is way way WAY too long. If I was running things the process it would be illegal to campaign IN ANY WAY until 3 months before election. 6 weeks for primaries, a week for the conventions and a 6 week general election period. Done. 30 second TV attack ads? Illegal. No super pacs. I'd go much further than this but you'd need a constitutional amendment to do it.
    .
    Primaries and elections should be 6 weeks, no private funding, no advertising and a strictly controlled number of debates.

    And no Presidential "visits" that turn into campaign stops
    "If You Remember the ’60s, You Really Weren’t There" ~ unknown

  26. Post thanked by:

    Bill Cody (01-17-2020)

  27. #16
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    15,958
    Thanks
    10,132
    Thanked 6,828 Times in 4,220 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    42

    Re: Iowa: the levels of stupid

    A reminder that the present day primary system is less than 50 years old. Most states did not even have primary voting. It's a relatively new phenomena.

    Up until 1972, most states selected their delegates at their own conventions. Widespread voting that determined who the candidate would be were rare.

    Here is a very interesting opinion piece form Jonathan Rauch & Ray La Raja from The Atlantic

    Too Much Democracy Is Bad for Democracy
    The major American parties have ceded unprecedented power to primary voters. It’s a radical experiment—and it’s failing.


    A sample of their premise...

    Americans rarely pause to consider just how bizarre the presidential nominating process has become. No other major democracy routinely uses primaries to choose its political candidates, nor did the Founders of this country intend for primaries to play a role in the republican system they devised. Abraham Lincoln did not win his party’s nomination because he ran a good ground game in New Hampshire; rather, Republican elders saw in him a candidate who could unite rival factions within the party and defeat the Democratic nominee in the general election. Today’s system amounts to a radical experiment in direct democracy, one without precedent even in America’s own political history.

    The two major parties made primaries decisive as recently as the early 1970s. Until then, primaries had been more like political beauty contests, which the parties’ grandees could choose to ignore. But after Hubert Humphrey became the Democrats’ 1968 nominee without entering a single primary, outrage in the ranks led the party to put primary voters in charge. Republicans soon followed suit.

    The new system—consisting of primaries, plus a handful of caucuses—seemed to work: Most nominees were experienced politicians with impressive résumés and strong ties to their party. Starting in 1976, Democratic nominees included two vice presidents, three successful governors, and three prominent senators (albeit one with little national experience). Republican nominees included a vice president, three successful governors, and two prominent senators. All were acceptable to their party establishment and to their party’s base.

    What often went unnoticed, however, was why the nominees were so impressive: Professional gatekeeping had survived informally, in the parallel vetting process known as the invisible primary. Even after the rule changes of the 1970s, candidates still needed to prove their viability to the party’s elected officials and insiders, which meant showing that they could win influential endorsements, command media attention, appeal to multiple constituencies, attract top campaign talent, and raise money. To be competitive, they had to run a gantlet of party bigwigs, factional leaders, and money brokers. As recently as 2008, four leading political scientists argued that, as the title of their book put it, the party decides.


    Then came 2016. Neither Donald Trump nor Bernie Sanders changed the system all by himself. Rather, both saw and exploited the invisible primary’s fragility. The electorate had come to view the establishment’s seal of approval with skepticism or outright hostility, allowing outsider candidates to tout their lack of endorsements as a mark of authenticity. Candidates have learned to bypass traditional moneymen by reaping donations online, tapping deep-pocketed tycoons, or just financing themselves. And the media landscape has evolved to provide oxygen to rogue candidates.


    Restoring the old era of smoke-filled rooms is neither possible nor desirable. Primaries bring important information to the nominating process. They test candidates’ ability to excite voters and campaign effectively; they provide points of entry for up-and-comers and neglected constituencies; they force candidates to refine their messages and prove their stamina. But as 2016 made clear, primaries are only half of a functional nominating system. The other half is input from political insiders and professionals who can vet candidates, steer them to appropriate races, and, as a last resort, block them if they are unacceptable to the party or unfit to govern.

  28. Post thanked by:

    jimmifli (01-17-2020)

  29. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    15,958
    Thanks
    10,132
    Thanked 6,828 Times in 4,220 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    42

    Re: Iowa: the levels of stupid

    Of course, with Iowa and NH having so much outsized power in primary process is counterproductive and skews the whole process.

  30. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    41,408
    Thanks
    9,780
    Thanked 20,285 Times in 12,428 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    106

    Re: Iowa: the levels of stupid

    Quote Originally Posted by MidnightVoice View Post
    It ain't just the Dems!



    Primaries and elections should be 6 weeks, no private funding, no advertising and a strictly controlled number of debates.

    And no Presidential "visits" that turn into campaign stops
    You assume that a change in the process will overcome American lunacy.

    I wish that was the case.

    I fear it is not.

  31. #19
    Moderator DraftBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    92,525
    Thanks
    4,059
    Thanked 18,056 Times in 10,160 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    237

    Re: Iowa: the levels of stupid

    I like Iowa and New Hampshire being first primarily because they are so different from the other states in their process.

    A caucus is a very difficult process to navigate successfully and relies almost exclusively on your ability to mobilize an organized and effective field team to work within the caucus system and spread your message.

    New Hampshire is all about retail politics and meeting the voters in small groups or one on one. It takes time, patience and attention to detail to successfully navigate the different factors of New Hampshire's primary process.

    Both states function as a test of a campaign grassroots ability in two different ways which makes them good screening options for campaigns that can't hack it.
    COMING SOON...
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Lecter
    We were both drunk and Hillary did not look that bad at 2 AM, I swear!!!!!!

  32. Post thanked by:

    YardRat (01-19-2020)

  33. #20
    Registered User jimmifli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    6,469
    Thanks
    8,591
    Thanked 7,812 Times in 3,523 Posts
    Power to Give Rep
    30

    Re: Iowa: the levels of stupid

    Quote Originally Posted by OpIv37 View Post
    I really wish the Founding Father worship in this country would stop. Yes, they did some great things. Yes, they had some good ideas. They had some really ****ing terrible ones too, and they did a lot of things to benefit themselves and people like them rather than the country as a whole. And they did basically nothing about slavery (probably since many of them were slaveowners themselves).

    We need to stop acting like these guys from 250 years ago could possibly have known everything there is to know about how representative government should work. There's no way they could have imagined the size, diversity and technology of the country today.

    And I don't buy into religion but I really hope there's some kind of afterlife, and the Founding Fathers are watching and cringing every time some ******* mows down 30 people with a weapon they never dreamed would exist and then the right wingers start thumping the Constitution before the bodies even go cold.

  34. Post thanked by:

    CommissarSpartacus (01-17-2020)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •