Should Iowa keep its position?

[dsc]

The main, and the only reasonable, justification for Iowa's special role in our elections is the supposed fact that money doesn't matter nearly as much there. It is exceptionally hard to make that case now. Yes, Edwards spent less than Clinton and narrowly beat her. But, Edwards is, by any standard from the past, a very well funded candidate. He accepted federal funds and maxed out in Iowa. Plus he had independent expendatures on his behalf of a couple million dollars. He outspend Richardson by at least several million dollars. In addition he had his work from 2004 to fall back on. It is hard to make any kind of case that money didn't matter much in this result. Biden and Dodd got all but shut out despite Biden running an exceptionally good campaign. Richardson, admittedly, ran a bad campaign.

On the GOP side, it is a little easier to make a case. Huckabee was vastly outspent and won while Paul and McCain beat the much better financed Guiliani by large margins. If we refuse to control spending on our primaries I fail to see why Iowa should keep its special role. It is exceptionally unrepresentative and that non represenativeness made some issues non existent. Either limit the money or pick a more representative state.

[monktonman]

1. so how did Hill Inc. do with her money?

Just askin'

[dsc]

2. Obama spent at least as much as she did

but again, the point is that all three of them did. Incidently, I don't have a candidate at this time but I think Iowa and NH are not representative of the nation as a whole. Would Richardson have done better in a state with some number of Hispanics? We will never know. Would McClurkin have become more of an issue in a state with a gay mecca (say Minnesota or Illinois)? We will never know that either. In a party in which well over a third of our votes come from African Americans, Hispanics, and gays we have the first two contests in states where maybe 6% of the total primary or caucus vote is any of those. That isn't representative at all.

[monktonman]

6. So tell us more about Hillary.

I know you dont have a candidate yet but you seem to know
an awful about everyone else but Hill Inc.
why is that?

[dsc]

7. because I was originally going to support Richardson

but then I saw how poorly he debated and interviewed. I am old enough to recall Biden's first Presidential run (my first time voting in a Presidential race was 1988) and have always had a fond spot for him because of his frankness while speaking. I live in NC so I know Edwards fairly well from that. I also had figured Edwards would wind up being my flawed choice in my late primary. In all honesty, I don't know Hillary all that well. I was an active alchy for much of the 90's and not nearly as politically active then as I am now. I have been impressed with her as a Senator (I have been sober since 2000) so I actually have paid attention but she hadn't made the sale for me. I hope I have satifactorly answered your extremely snarky question.

[monktonman]

8. Snark , snark...

not really but thats ok.
Just wondering why Hillco is absent from your post.
Thats all.
Thanks!

[dsc]

9. Incidently the second line of my post

had Clinton in it. I mentioned Edwards alot to justify putting him in the big money category. Otherwise Clinton got the exact same amount of mention as any other candidate.

[monktonman]

10. Yes, in reference to someone else....

Its ok dude....snark,snark.

[dsc]

11. whatever

[CarbonDate]

3. Wisconsin!

Slightly more diverse than Iowa, but they're not nearly as squeamish about negative campaigning as Iowa... they just say they are. But it's a truly purple state that went for Kerry by less than a percentage point, but produced such diverse personalities as Bob LaFollette and Joe McCarthy... Tommy Thompson and Russ Feingold.

That and I'd love to see Presidential candidates fawning over my home state the way they do Iowa.

[dsc]

4. that wouldn't be so bad

I know Milwakee is a fairly diverse city so that would help.

[Sparkly]

5. I'd rather see a primary happen before a caucus.

And I'd like to see different states involved early on, even if it rotates from election to election.

[CK_John]

12. How would you get the state of Iowa to give up their position. n/t

[BenDavid]

13. maybe caucus should change and cast votes like the repubs do.

[Occam Bandage]

14. I'd like to see Ohio first, personally, as it's the most nationally-representative state.

[dsc]

15. I am from Ohio and it is representative for the most part

and it seems we have awakened from our stupor.