Why the hell do we let Iowa decide anything anyway?
“Why the hell do we let Iowa decide anything anyway?”
Good question!!
What’s wrong with Iowa, besides their SC justices that the Iowans kicked out?
I believe it is a test of how candidates do getting out the vote — money, muscle....
The fact that the candidates pick and choose (just like the msm and the party establishment do) makes a lot of these opening numbers very suspect.
Hell, everyone isn’t even in the race yet.
But we have 24/7 news cycles to fill.
And conservatives are chomping at the bit to make Obama a one term president.
While the Left will do ANYTHING to pick our weakest horse in the race.
Politics!
As a lifelong Iowan, I also wonder why anyone would let Iowa decide anything. The day of the stalwart, independent farmer has been gone for a half century, leaving the state a Section 8 residence for a variety of tax-sucking, special-interest parasites.
North of I-80 and west of I-35, you'll still find some trad Iowans, but they are an endangered species.
Mr. niteowl77
Why do let New Hampshire?
Because in Iowa, candidates for local, county and statewide office are still expected to do door-to-door campaigning, answer questions at town halls from ordinary citizens who can sometimes make well-polished professionals look like idiots, build a precinct-level organization from the ground up, and generally do the sort of politics that used to be normal throughout the United States.
Same for New Hampshire.
I don't think it's a bad thing that we force our candidates for president, many of whom are from major states where money talks, to act like candidates for a city council or county commission race.
One **HUGE** benefit is that candidates who don't have a lot of money but do have a lot of grassroots support have a fighting chance. Money can buy lots of organizing ability, but so can “connecting with the grassroots” — and having real grassroots support is more effective.
It's not a bad system, though obviously no system is perfect. I'm well aware of the problems (niteowl77 is entirely correct about the change in the Iowa electorate, which I'd argue was caused in part by dependence on government farm programs), but I'd rather take the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary than have a “money talks” system being the filter through which viable candidates must pass before the rest of us get a chance to vote.
One reason is because a candidate doesn't have to be Mitt Romney or Donald Trump or the darling of the RNC to run an effective campaign and win there.
Why not?