On Thursday, we saw Iowa hold the first caucus of the year. We saw that Obama and Huckabee won the first state in the election. The candidates spent over 40 million dollars on ads on TV. Some candidates even moved their family to Iowa for this one little caucus. Iowa is 5 percent minority and more live in rural communities then the average on the United States. Even tho Iowa is mostly white rural people, we still go and base the presidential election on this small state. As of last night, two democrats have dropped out of the race. In the democrat side, the caucus was different. Everyone would vote once, and whoever didn't have 15% of the vote, their candidate was thrown out and then they had to vote again. That doesn't show who the people really want to vote for. The democrats should do the exact same things as the republicans and just take a straw pole. Well this is just the start of the many primaries, so candidates come and go and different people will win and lose elections. Every time a primary happens, the media coverage will do so much that it will change people's vote as it has done in the past. I just hope everyone here on ProgressiveU can read up on everyone's information and vote for who you want to. Don't just vote for whoever is winning, vote for whoever you fill is the right president for us.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Iowa tells more for democrats than Republicans.
iowa is a blue state, so their picks for Democrats are more important than their picks for Republican.
The state will end up voting its electoral college votes for the democrat, so their telling of who that democrat should be is very important.
On the republican side, not so much, except to show how the midwest doesn't take too kindly to Rudy deciding to avoid the midwest when it comes to campaigning.
Actually, as of November 2, 2004, Iowa is a red state.
The Iowa caucus has done a historically accurate job of predicting the President. Over the last 20 years I think the only incorrect one was Bill Clinton in round 1. The caucus IS unfair in my mind, but it has a knack for picking winners.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
Yeah, those '92 numbers crack me up. They've been off a few other times as well... '88 doesn't look great
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
I was watching the news and it said that historically candidates who were from nearby states tended to get voted more likely candidates from further away states. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't Illinois next door? And the newscast didn't even name him as possibly getting inflated votes.
I personally like the Democrats' way of doing things better. Primarily, it seems like it would be more fun, but besides that, it reflects what the point of a primary actually is: to determine who would make the best presidential candidate.
Not only do the Democrats want a popular candidate, but they also want one that everyone can get behind. With their system, if your candidate doesn't have a chance in hell, you have an opportunity to say whom you can support.
--Mike
Check out the Topic of the Week
http://www.progressiveu.org/weeklytopic
I agree.. I was having a chat with an apathetic friend who was watching TV with me at the time, and a newscast described the Iowa caucus for the Democrats, and she responded with "...that looks like fun!"
It might make voting feel a little more important, then just casting a piece of paper. Think about it... your neighbor didn't go, and you get to say "I didn't see you caucusing last night..." and they get to feel like an idiot and would surely go the next time! A little exaggeration, but you know what I'm alluding to.
Heh, 'caucusing'.
"Oh man, I caucussed so much last night."
--Mike
Check out the Topic of the Week
http://www.progressiveu.org/weeklytopic