Presidential Election (as a current event- watch the tone or it's gone)

Besides these only give citizen consensus on a Party Nominee, it doesn’t decide it…

GG

i never heard much about Clinton warnning about attacks, his actions in many ways showed that he didn’t act enough, he down sized the millitary and cut millitary spending. not realy the actions of some one expecting an attack IMO. not that we can change that now, i’m just stating that all the blame can’t go on Bush for the attacks as has been seen.

yes it’s so much a states right to do it as they see fit that WY who decided to get in on the action was mostly ignored and you can’t say it wasn’t, or that it was due to a small population as Iowa dosn’t exactly have a huge pop. not only were they over looked but they also suffered a penelty in lossing half there delagets for going early so “there state would matter”. i’m not saying the federal government should step in, but i think that the parties need to find a better way along with the states. it’s stupid to have people who are viable canadents pushed out of the running because they don’t have the money to keep up the campaighn, and it’s stupid that you should have to spend so much money to get so few votes and then move on to a larger state and spend less money. it’s a broken and stupid system that should be fixed.

It seems to me that Iowa is like a big poll that allows many canidates to quit when they realize thier odds are slim.  The majoraty of the canidates it seems are just trying to push thier pet issue in to the spot light.  Iowa gives them the chance to do that then drop out and throw thier support toto the camp of someone who actualy has a chance of winning.  I can’t wait to see who Ron Paul supports when he finaly admits that he can’t win…

I imagine he won’t support anyone if he loses… No one holds his views…

@Guerrilla:

I imagine he won’t support anyone if he loses… No one holds his views…

witch is too bad as for the most part he holds the views that are closest to what the founding fathers were. his only problem is that he sounds crazy and that he hasn’t made any adouptions of ideas to make the ideas fit with the modern world and situation going on now.

@dezrtfish:

It seems to me that Iowa is like a big poll that allows many canidates to quit when they realize thier odds are slim.  The majoraty of the canidates it seems are just trying to push thier pet issue in to the spot light.  Iowa gives them the chance to do that then drop out and throw thier support toto the camp of someone who actualy has a chance of winning.

if you look at it like that, then it’s not so bad, but if you see it as the way i do then it’s broken IMO as lets say i’m a Paul supporter and he sticks it out to the end, but my state is one of the last to put it’s support out, now in my scenario lets say Paul can’t win by the time it gets to my state, even if he wins 100% of my state and all states voting at the time i do and after. so now when i go to vote my primary choice is a dead duck so i have to chose a viable caniadate. now that sounds good in the aspect of my vote will count, but that is not how it should work, my vote should go how i want and it should be able to count in the aspect of i don’t know that the guy i’m supporting dosn’t have a chance.
if Obama wins the next few states then it raises the chances that other voters will side with him over Edwerds or Clinton as well. not just that but if say it becomes prity even between Clinton and Obama then it may become evident that Edwerds supporters may not have any real say any more and then chose there secound pick when in fact Edwerds may still have enough support out there to pull it off but because he lost too much too soon he gets pushed out of the running.

@Pervavita:

@Guerrilla:

I imagine he won’t support anyone if he loses… No one holds his views…

witch is too bad as for the most part he holds the views that are closest to what the founding fathers were. his only problem is that he sounds crazy and that he hasn’t made any adouptions of ideas to make the ideas fit with the modern world and situation going on now.

Well, the real problem is people aren’t educated about Economics enough to understand it. I support him and have known about him since when I studied Free Market Economics in High School… The Modern World is the issue that worries me. I wish he would debate the War better, and “Islamic-Fascists”. And he never discusses transitions enough…

GG

@Jermofoot:

You just need to read up on State primaries because you obviously don’t understand it.  Many states have moved theirs up in recent years.

If I don’t understand it…. then why did you just state, nearly the same thing here?

Also, California, NY, and Texas don’t use caucuses…… Iowa is basically a preview of what other states might do, and is the first to do it, so it gets a lot of attention.

That’s my point. We can label it a “preview” yet if it was only that, candidates would not take it as seriously.

Hell, have an Oregon caucus or a Arkansas one… I just don’t find it justified for other states is what I am saying if Iowa always gets to be the leader of the choosing. Oh sure, it may not have a direct effect on super tues… but it does carry an underlying one.

thats what i mean, his plans and ideas don’t fit or atleast he hasn’t made the effert to let people see them fit into modern problems such as the war. from what i understand he has the opinion to pull our troops out right away and only work on a deffence strat where we react to attacks but even reacting dosn’t allow us to go on the attack if attacked. although i heard he was in support of going after Osama, he was not in support of the US going into Afganistan to drive the Taliban out. now he may have a reason for that that makes sence, but on face value it sounds crazy and makes him sound like he is as well.

When you think about the Iowa Caucuses or the NH primary keep in mind the numbers effect that those states have on the election.  For example, the county I live in ± 4Mill is realy close to equal the population of the States of Iowa ±2.9Mil and NH ±1.3Milcombined.  And I live in Arizona, not exactly know for it’s grand metropoli…

So what I’m saying is if your going to have a “preview” primary it might as well be in a state that has virtualy no effect other wise on the outcome of the election.  I am sure that is what the NH primary is all about.

i’m not against the idea, but we have it so spread out, even with super tuesday, i think we still have states after that. also we have a spread of states up untell that time. ya they are small states, but they do effect how others will vote when they add up together. your vote should not be effected by how the majority of people before you voted, and we all know people do that.

WOW, a political topic, how did I miss this all this time!?

Just my 2 cents, I think Obamma should win…not going to give a lecture why, just sayin. Also I don’t like Clinton

Can’t remember who it was, but someone had said “Oh, it’s just Iowa” when they were voting, it ended up screwing the guy over as he lost.

I changed the topic name to make more sense…

Thanks Dzrt, I was getting worried. :-D

Perv,

Why do we have to spread it out?  We manage to have a general election in one day.

i don’t want it spread out, i’m saying “IF” we keep it spread to do it in blocks, i would much rather have it all on one day so that no state with a low pop gets specal treatment well others with larger and thus more vital pops are ignored.
also add an “a” to the end if you want to shorten my user name, other wise i feel like your calling me a “perv” as in pervert  :wink:
also Perva is a word.

@Pervavita:

accually Clinton had all the intell leading up to the 9/11 attacks, Bush just came into office right before the attacks; he may have had the intell too, but it dosn’t change that Clinton did as well. before that i don’t know as i’m not that old.

This type of speculative post regardinf 9-11 conspiracies or other such issues are EXACTLY the type of post that will result in this thread being locked and removed and preclude any future discussions on the election.

Posters may continue to discuss the candidates, and FACTS relating to their positions or past acts.  Conspiracy theories, flames, slander, libel, etc. are not acceptible whether made against Democrat, Republican, or Independent.

STAY ON TOPIC or there will be no topic!

Just as a point of information…

It is not the Federal OR State governments that set all of the rules regarding primaries.  THe politcal parties set the primaries and the standards, and then the States have the opportunity to ratify those decisions (and if they do not, the Party can theoretically run their primary or caucus or whatever independent of the State Board of Elections).

NOMINATION primaries/Caucuses are purely a Party function.  Some parties (such as the Libertarians) select their candidate at state then a national Convention w/o primaries (though the Libertarians have had primaries in some states in the past such as in North Carolina in 2004)

The order of the Primaries/Caucuses was set nearly a century ago, and it coincides with the removal of such things as Poll Taxes.  Not sure if there is a causal link between the removal of poll taxes and setting 2 nearly 100% caucasuan states to lead off the nominations for both parties, but there is at least a correlation even if not a cause and effect relationship.  And any change in the order of primaries/caucuses is up to the political parties.  For example, the Democrats have fought to keep Iowa/NH first harder than the Republicans.  When Michigan moved their Primary ahead of the national party mandate “earliest date” for non Iowa/NH/SC states of 5 FEB, then the DNC voted to strip ALL Michigan delegates oc their right to vote at the Convetion.  The Republican party was not QUITE as severe and only removed HALF of the voting delegates, which is why Wyoming only had 12 delegates decided instead of their normal 24… they violated the “earliest date allowed” rule from the RNC and lost half their delegates (which went to Romney).

@ncscswitch:

@Pervavita:

accually Clinton had all the intell leading up to the 9/11 attacks, Bush just came into office right before the attacks; he may have had the intell too, but it dosn’t change that Clinton did as well. before that i don’t know as i’m not that old.

This type of speculative post regardinf 9-11 conspiracies or other such issues are EXACTLY the type of post that will result in this thread being locked and removed and preclude any future discussions on the election.

Posters may continue to discuss the candidates, and FACTS relating to their positions or past acts.  Conspiracy theories, flames, slander, libel, etc. are not acceptible whether made against Democrat, Republican, or Independent.

STAY ON TOPIC or there will be no topic!

i can argue that it was relavent and there are facts to back it, but i see no reason to argue it. it was simply a statment directing at when some one passed the buck to the wrong (IMO) man.

edit: seeing as your on, if this is considered flaming or such deleat this post in favor of keeping the thread open. it was not and still is not my intent to inflame.

Well at the very least it’s off topic, let it go and move on…

thats part of what i was saying is that i am moving on  :wink:

Clinton and Mccain won NH.
any one else find it odd that Clinton stool a line from Edwerds and also got teary eyed right before? i think both were just ploys to gain votes and it worked.