Iowa gets considerable media attention and economic benefit from being the first state in the nation to assess presidential candidates every four years. So its political insiders surely were heartened by the 68 percent of Americans who told the national Iowa Poll that they don’t care whether the Iowa caucuses continue to get first crack at candidates (only 9 percent said Iowa’s primacy should end). But in the “don’t care” number you see the real problem: Iowa and New Hampshire have so dominated the primary process that Americans elsewhere have no clue about the kind of door-to-door presidential politics they’re missing. This primary system needs to change.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- Chas on Open thread 11/24
- Chas on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
14 Comments
It isn’t clear that the 800 people polled know much about how the nomination process works in the various parties, or how a change from Iowa might affect it.
Do the Libertarians or Greens use Iowa?
More interesting to me is how the relatively close showing between Kerry and Dean in Iowa was touted as a “big win” for Kerry. It appears that the media decided Kerry was more “electable” and started tipping their commentary in Kerry’s favor. By the time New Hampshire’s primary happened, the media had all but buried Dean.
The Democrat nomination seems to have been influenced less by Iowa than by the media. The real question is how the major paries could avoid that.
Rhonda, do you really WANT them at your door?Don’t we get more than we need, right off the ol’ boob tube?
As a matter of fact the Libertarians don’t use a primary system unless forced into it. We don’t want to spend taxpayer money so we can vote on issues that are really internal to our own party.
But there are many more important issues regarding elections. The ‘matching federal dollars’, the suppression of free speech, and the closed debates are the big hitters with national elections. Does the taxpayer realize that they are paying for the campaigns of the Republicans and Democrats and not donations? That the last round of campaign finance reform quells open and free debate? Or that the presidential debates are closed to candidates based solely on polling data?
Ennis–
That’s exactly right. Why did these staid, middle-of-the-roaders get to decide that Kerry was more “electable.”
It may take another Democratic loss to finally shake things loose unfortunately . . .
Ennis–
We can avoid the media manipulation by having more primaries (not caucuses, which are a huge waste of people’s time) in different parts of the country.
There’s no doubt in my mind that the Des Moines Register’s front page banner story that “Dean was running third” in the polls killed his chances more than Kerry could.
Bush’s new name: ” The Worst thing That Ever Happened”…..”TWTTEH”
Dean is a nutcase that is why he lost!
I’m glad he heads up the DNC now. LOL
Cannot wait until 2008.
Yeah, Joe, not like Mr. Rationality, Ralph “Spoiler” Nader.
Dean had a lot more support than your guy, dude.
And you know what else, Dean actually HELD elected office before he ran for flipping PRESIDENT.
But yeah, you’re right, Dean was nuts compared to Nader . . . whoa . . .
Can I say boob tube without being scolded by some self appointed saint?
Yes, you can, Tracy. Right wing nut jobs only get bent about language when it is directed at them. When Andy diatribes the left in the foulest of terms, you won’t hear CKD complain . . .
Thank you kind sir.My parents would not correct me for saying ass or bitch, why in the world would I let some nut on a blog do that?I guess I’m not.
Any state with less than 10 electoral votes can get by a lot cheaper with caucuses.The caucus process takes a little longer, but it forces people to take a look at all the candidates, as opposed to a primary.It also offers a choice we don’t have on the ballot (but often wish we did): None of the Above, aka, uncommitted.If more voters would consider this choice, we might get better candidates.
MrC.–
Ask all the people in Iowa who never go to caucuses because caucuses take two hours (and they have to work nights) whether its a good deal . . .
Ask the people whose vote ISN’T secret and who are subject to browbeating and haranguing by the oppositions if its a good deal . . .
That reminds me. When Kansas had caucuses before the 2004 presidential election, I couldn’t take part because I went to the wrong entrance of a very large building and I was two minutes late.
I couldn’t vote.
Do we want to make democracy easier for people to exercise? Then to heck with the caucuses . . .