DMD Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 So far I have been almost shocked - shocked I say - that I have not seen a reason to delete political threads (which I asked to not be posted obtw). And if they continue to NOT be negative in nature, they may be able to continue. There are important issues worthy of dicsussion and I appreciate that thus far they have remained on point and not disintegrated into nothing more than negative slams. Anyway... The question is this - I am not entirely familiar with how caucases work other than they determine the convention delegates who will vote for particular candidates as their party's choice for POTUS (though they are not forced to actually vote for whoever won in their state obtw). The question is why do they have certain states have their caucuses before other states? Is the order of the caucases always the same? It appears that it is and doesn't that give an unduly importance to certain states and obviously relegate other states to never deciding anything if they go last? Why would they not rotate which states go first? There are some rather sharp differences across the country in how their states would likely vote, why would they allow only certain states to set the pace? Nothing against Iowa or New Hampshire, but why do they go first? How fair is that to middle america, the western and southern parts of the country? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 So far I have been almost shocked - shocked I say - that I have not seen a reason to delete political threads (which I asked to not be posted obtw). And if they continue to NOT be negative in nature, they may be able to continue. There are important issues worthy of dicsussion and I appreciate that thus far they have remained on point and not disintegrated into nothing more than negative slams. Anyway... The question is this - I am not entirely familiar with how caucases work other than they determine the convention delegates who will vote for particular candidates as their party's choice for POTUS (though they are not forced to actually vote for whoever won in their state obtw). The question is why do they have certain states have their caucuses before other states? Is the order of the caucases always the same? It appears that it is and doesn't that give an unduly importance to certain states and obviously relegate other states to never deciding anything if they go last? Why would they not rotate which states go first? There are some rather sharp differences across the country in how their states would likely vote, why would they allow only certain states to set the pace? Nothing against Iowa or New Hampshire, but why do they go first? How fair is that to middle america, the western and southern parts of the country? Iowa and New Hampshire go first in the caucases because there are otherwise irrelevant in the actual elections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemonKnight Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 I heard this discussed on NPR and basically it boiled down to tradition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 I heard this discussed on NPR and basically it boiled down to tradition. That's pretty much it, plus it gets states national attention and on the TV, hence the rush from some states to move their event to an earlier date. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Iowa and New Hampshire go first in the caucases because there are otherwise irrelevant in the actual elections. Well, to a degree, they should be. There's simply not that many people living in either. Isn't the fact that they have a disproportional amount of electoral votes compared to the population of their states enough? I agree with DMD here that it seems to place undo importance on how a candidate does in two rather random places in the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 It's also a NH state law that they have the first primary. Since 1972. Not that this law really matters, as any other state drafting the same law would then nullify NH's law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted January 9, 2008 Author Share Posted January 9, 2008 Given the importance of California, llinois, New York, Texas and Florida which has to crush all other states in delgates, it just seems odd that they would not lead off with the states that should be most determining the POTUS candidates. Iowa and New Hampshire? Most people could not find them on a map of the US. Just seems to be more politically contrived than about finding the best candidate. Those tiny states can be canvassed by candidates to whip up support WAY more easily than any of the big 5. And yet those states should have almost no bearing on anything given their tiny delegate contribution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexgaddis Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Iowa and New Hampshire? Most people could not find them on a map of the US. Iowa is right below Minnesota...it's where our waste goes when we flush our toilets... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Iowa is right below Minnesota...it's where our waste goes when we flush our toilets... na it just passes threw it stops in arkansass and loui Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 The small states also give the candidates an opportunity to "practice" their schtick. Or in Hillary's case, to "find her voice". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 So far I have been almost shocked - shocked I say - that I have not seen a reason to delete political threads (which I asked to not be posted obtw). And if they continue to NOT be negative in nature, they may be able to continue. It's almost like the good ol' days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 It's almost like the good ol' days. Spoken like a true bleeding heart commie loser. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.