Republican 2012 Nomination Thread

[Rex Kickass]

I don't know, I'd rather my party be disorganized versus committing criminal activities, but that is just me apparently.

Unfortunately, for both parties - both things can be and too often are true.

[Reddy]

Iowa is so NOT worthy of that money. Time for a different state, or better yet, several states, to be first.

read my dad's book:

 

http://www.whyiowa.org/

 

Buy it on Amazon!

[Reddy]

Why Iowa? Because the state offers important lessons detailed in our book for the presidential candidates in 2012. While presidential candidate Mitt Romney outspent his Republican counterparts he lost to underdog Mike Huckabee in the 2008 Iowa caucuses. This is because Romney ran a mass media campaign heavily reliant on radio and television ads. Presidential candidate Obama also outspent his fellow Democratic competitors, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, but he spent his money on grassroots campaigning, including door-to-door canvassing, field offices, in-person telephone calls, as well as a campaign fought over the airwaves. In our surveys, more Iowans reported being contacted by Obama supporters-in person, mail, phone-than any other Democratic contender. Thus grassroots politics-where candidates meet voters face-to-face, or are convinced to participate via in-person contacts-is key to winning in Iowa. When average turnout in the Iowa caucuses is low compared to primaries, mobilizing people to turnout on a cold January night to caucus can mean success. Turnout in the 2008 Iowa caucuses was 12 percent, compared to the average turnout of 6 percent. Obama's campaign was effective at mobilizing many new voters to caucus. Why Iowa? finds, remarkably, that 50 percent of caucus attenders in 2008 were first timers. This meant caucus participants were younger, less educated, less affluent and more moderate in terms of partisanship than in normal election years. And finally there is the media game. Even if a candidate loses in Iowa, doing better than expected based on the mass media predictions is the key to momentum coming out of the caucuses and into primaries in other states.

 

- In Iowa it doesn't matter how MUCH you spend, it matters if the people have MET you and how they feel about you. I feel like that's a pretty good barometer. Better than the rest of the primaries where you base a decision off a tv ad.

 

- In Iowa the voters are, thus, more informed.

 

- Higher percentage of people turn out

 

Why NOT Iowa?

[Balta1701]

CNN Poll showing some serious Santorum Momentum, jumping to 3rd in Iowa, 16%, with Paul out in front at 25% and Mittens at 22%.

 

With less than a week left there's not a lot of time for shifting, but these "Bumps" have come mighty quick, and with the crazy Iowa setup where it's not an actual vote, these things could still be in flux until the end.

[EvilMonkey]

- In Iowa it doesn't matter how MUCH you spend, it matters if the people have MET you and how they feel about you. I feel like that's a pretty good barometer. Better than the rest of the primaries where you base a decision off a tv ad.

 

- In Iowa the voters are, thus, more informed.

 

- Higher percentage of people turn out

 

Why NOT Iowa?

I think your first point can be rephrased as In IOWA, it doesn't matter how much you SPEND, it is how much ASS YOU KISS. They want to feel 'important' and if you don't show them whatever level of 'respect' they think they deserve, they pout and go to whoever kisses up to them the most. If they were so informed, Ron Paul would be no where NEAR the lead, would be lucky to get 5%, unless all those Iowans are secretly racist, isolationists.

[Reddy]

I think your first point can be rephrased as In IOWA, it doesn't matter how much you SPEND, it is how much ASS YOU KISS. They want to feel 'important' and if you don't show them whatever level of 'respect' they think they deserve, they pout and go to whoever kisses up to them the most. If they were so informed, Ron Paul would be no where NEAR the lead, would be lucky to get 5%, unless all those Iowans are secretly racist, isolationists.

haha so you suggest candidates go in and make them feel UNimportant?

 

or do you suggest that would be different in ANY other state?

 

also, they're not racist - however they very well MAY be isolationists. There's a very big "live and let live" sentiment in Iowa. Thus why gay marriage was so quickly adopted, as well as civil rights in the 60s.

 

 

[mr_genius]

I think your first point can be rephrased as In IOWA, it doesn't matter how much you SPEND, it is how much ASS YOU KISS. They want to feel 'important' and if you don't show them whatever level of 'respect' they think they deserve, they pout and go to whoever kisses up to them the most.

 

^^^

[Reddy]

^^^

 

it is SO much different in New Hampshire.

[jasonxctf]

you're all kidding yourselves if you don't realize that this is about the all mighty dollar. Iowa, New Hampshire, etc fight like crazy for these "first in the country rights" because they realize the huge amount of $ being brought into the state. Everything from TV ads, Hotel Rooms, Gas for statewide bus trips, restaurants, commercial real estate for headquarters, etc.

 

Personally, I'd love to see a national lottery done the day after the election to determine the order of the first 5-10 states for the following presidential election. Get more states involved.

 

Maybe Alabama would be first, or Ohio, or Minnesota. Why give those rights always to Iowa/New Hampshire?

 

Sh*t, how awesome would it be if Hawaii or Alaska won the right to go 1st?

 

 

[Reddy]

you're all kidding yourselves if you don't realize that this is about the all mighty dollar. Iowa, New Hampshire, etc fight like crazy for these "first in the country rights" because they realize the huge amount of $ being brought into the state. Everything from TV ads, Hotel Rooms, Gas for statewide bus trips, restaurants, commercial real estate for headquarters, etc.

 

Personally, I'd love to see a national lottery done the day after the election to determine the order of the first 5-10 states for the following presidential election. Get more states involved.

 

Maybe Alabama would be first, or Ohio, or Minnesota. Why give those rights always to Iowa/New Hampshire?

Sh*t, how awesome would it be if Hawaii or Alaska won the right to go 1st?

 

f***ing terrible since they dont represent the majority of americans. that's why it's iowa. swing state, has a little bit of everything

[JorgeFabregas]

Iowa is a swing state, yes, but I think Hawaii would have a stronger claim to "a little bit of everything."

[StrangeSox]

how does Iowa represent the majority of Americans that aren't overwhelmingly white, rural and in the middle of the country?

[southsider2k5]

how does Iowa represent the majority of Americans that aren't overwhelmingly white, rural and in the middle of the country?

 

I was wondering the same thing. Iowa is way more white, and way less black, asian, and latino than the rest of the country.

[Reddy]

I was wondering the same thing. Iowa is way more white, and way less black, asian, and latino than the rest of the country.

 

haha and you republicans WANT more minority input?

 

you realize that'll make you lose right?

 

here's the reality - 1) minorities don't vote as much as white people do, 2) there still are fewer of them, especially outside of big cities - and there is NO reason to have a first primary in a state dominated by a big city, because it will inevitably be liberally leaning.

 

IDEOLOGICALLY Iowa is one of the most centrist, non-partisan, and rational states out there. Go ahead and look up their supreme court rulings over the years. You don't pick a dark blue or red state to hold the FIRST primary, because that will sway the rest of them. I mean, look at media coverage these days - they'd ignore the fact that the candidate won ALABAMA and they'd claim it should impact whether they win, say, Vermont.

[StrangeSox]

Yeah, who cares about minorities anyway, right? Lily-white Iowa represents real America!

 

The 'average' American is not a real person or a real set of people, and you can't assume that a state that kinda-sorta resembles that average in some ways but really doesn't in others represents a good sample of American voters.

[StrangeSox]

btw is their some sort of support you can show me for the claim that Iowans are more rational and better informed than people in other states? The recent Santorum surge there seems to point to the exact opposite.

[southsider2k5]

haha and you republicans WANT more minority input?

 

you realize that'll make you lose right?

 

here's the reality - 1) minorities don't vote as much as white people do, 2) there still are fewer of them, especially outside of big cities - and there is NO reason to have a first primary in a state dominated by a big city, because it will inevitably be liberally leaning.

 

IDEOLOGICALLY Iowa is one of the most centrist, non-partisan, and rational states out there. Go ahead and look up their supreme court rulings over the years. You don't pick a dark blue or red state to hold the FIRST primary, because that will sway the rest of them. I mean, look at media coverage these days - they'd ignore the fact that the candidate won ALABAMA and they'd claim it should impact whether they win, say, Vermont.

 

Thanks racist.

[Reddy]

Yeah, who cares about minorities anyway, right? Lily-white Iowa represents real America!

 

The 'average' American is not a real person or a real set of people, and you can't assume that a state that kinda-sorta resembles that average in some ways but really doesn't in others represents a good sample of American voters.

*sigh*

 

there is NO state that completely represents a good fair and balanced sample of American voters, all I'm saying is Iowa gives you the BEST sample. If you're gonna fight this, give me an example of a politically moderate state that is full of all colors of people in the exact proportion as the entirety of the United States. One that WOULD give the best cross-section of America.

[Reddy]

Thanks racist.

and there's an intelligent response. but, yep, you're a republican, so that's all you're good for.

[southsider2k5]

and there's an intelligent response. but, yep, you're a republican, so that's all you're good for.

 

As opposed to your assumption that I am Republican so I don't care about anyone but white people? You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

[southsider2k5]

*sigh*

 

there is NO state that completely represents a good fair and balanced sample of American voters, all I'm saying is Iowa gives you the BEST sample. If you're gonna fight this, give me an example of a politically moderate state that is full of all colors of people in the exact proportion as the entirety of the United States. One that WOULD give the best cross-section of America.

 

Better than Iowa? Most states are more representative of the country than Iowa.

[Reddy]

btw is their some sort of support you can show me for the claim that Iowans are more rational and better informed than people in other states? The recent Santorum surge there seems to point to the exact opposite.

The Santorum surge is because all the people that were voting for Bachman then Perry then Cain then Gingrich are just now going to Santorum. Listen, it doesn't help that the crop of candidates is horrible. The voters who didn't want Romney or Paul last time STILL DON'T, there just isn't a viable alternative so they're jumping from ship to ship. Not all that irrational if you don't support one of the two candidates who you saw last time.

 

And by DEFAULT Iowans are more informed of the candidates views because they actually get to talk to them face to face.

 

While living in Iowa (moved to Chicago in 05) I met and spoke to:

 

Bob Graham

Dick Gephardt - spoke at my house

John Kerry

John Edwards - spoke at my house

Dennis Kucinich

 

how many of those have you had a conversation with? I know this is obviously a biproduct of BEING first, but it's also just the reality now.

 

 

[Rex Kickass]

and there's an intelligent response. but, yep, you're a republican, so that's all you're good for.

Neither of these responses are appropriate for this forum. If you two have issues, you should probably take it to PM.

[Reddy]

Better than Iowa? Most states are more representative of the country than Iowa.

give me an example, son. don't just throw s*** at a wall.

[Rex Kickass]

*sigh*

 

there is NO state that completely represents a good fair and balanced sample of American voters, all I'm saying is Iowa gives you the BEST sample. If you're gonna fight this, give me an example of a politically moderate state that is full of all colors of people in the exact proportion as the entirety of the United States. One that WOULD give the best cross-section of America.

Illinois, Michigan, California.