Why Iowa Sucks
Political Wire has some early 2008 news from the state whose caucus-goers think they deserve to hand-pick the leader of the free world :
According to Hotline On Call, the unofficial “Corn Poll” at the Iowa State Fair is bringing good news to Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC), and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Clinton and Edwards were each supported by 33% of Iowa voters in a potential 2008 presidential match-up. Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack (D) came in third with 13%, while Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) came in fourth with 9%.McCain was supported by 24% of Iowa voters, while Rudy Giuliani (R) and Condoleezza Rice (R) tied for second with 22%. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) came in fourth with 10%.
As far as I’m concerned, the people of Iowa are the reason Democrats lost the 2004 election. Going into their primary caucuses, Iowans had a huge slate of Democratic candidates to choose from, but at the end of the day their lack of vision and courage led them to give into their “anybody but Bush” impulses and pick the safest candidate, John Kerry. I can understand why they may have been turned off by Howard Dean and his hype machine, but John Edwards and Wesley Clark were much more engaging and inspiring candidates that actually offered people a reason to vote for them. Needless to say, Kerry’s dramatic upset in Iowa all but handed him the Democratic nomination.
Screw the argument that early primary states deserve their king-making role because it’s the only time they ever get any attention. Why should people in Iowa or New Hapshire get their asses kissed more than residents of Indiana, Oklahoma, Montana, or any other state? Having grown up in a bright red state and settled in a dark blue one, I’m sick of being part of a population that one party takes for granted and the other one barely tries to woo. We should all be lucky enough to have Presidential candidates pander to our local concerns.
6 comments »
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
I am all in favor of requiring electoral votes to be apportioned proportionately to the popular vote in a state. Winner-take-all was a great system for the few states who did it first, because it gave them more attention from candidates, but now that most states do it, it just means the vast majority of us are completely ignored in every election while the few “battleground” states are fought over.
Comment by Nathaniel — August 19, 2006 @ 7:50 pm
Forgive the cursing, but…
Fuck Iowa and New Hampshire. No state deserves that much influence. Not New York. Not California. Not these two places.
The whole election process here is flawed in the extreme. If we can do anything to improve it–and this is a good start–then we must.
Comment by Joe — August 21, 2006 @ 1:27 pm
HEAR,HEAR!!!
Comment by Mike Meyer — August 21, 2006 @ 4:52 pm
“Going into their primary caucuses, Iowans had a huge slate of Democratic candidates to choose from, but at the end of the day their lack of vision and courage led them to give into their “anybody but Bush” impulses and pick the safest candidate, John Kerry.”
I must say this confuses me. Seeing as none of the Democratic candidates were Bush, I can’t see how the “‘anybody but Bush’ impulse” would affect the outcome of the Democratic caucuses.
Comment by CR — October 21, 2007 @ 11:05 pm
Before being allowed to vote, American citizens should be required to pass a simple intelligence test. Too many votes are cast by idiots and illiterates. These are not the people who need to be choosing the leaders of this country.
Comment by Greg — January 4, 2008 @ 11:40 am
Yeah- John Edwards- good call.
Comment by Topher — August 13, 2008 @ 8:02 am