Agnostic.com

3 1

I'm curious, why should the Iowa Caucuses garner or lead national news coverage? I can understand why it would/should be covered in Iowa as local news, but why should someone in California, Texas, Florida or New York care? It's results are hardly reflective of any state outside of the mid-west. Do populations in those states give a damn about the politics of Iowa outside of political nerds?

redbai 8 Feb 2
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

3 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

Because Iowa (90% white) is the first one. It should be a state like Texas or California, some place with a more diverse and larger population. I have never understood the logic in this. The second primary in New Hampshire (94% white) makes no sense either.

I don't see why we don't just have all the states do their primary/caucus on the same day.

@RoboGraham It helps whittle down the herd and gives the3m time to visit all or most of the states.

@Sticks48 That makes sense. I think a better way would be to have it all done on the same day but vote by ranked choice. Do it later in the year to give all the candidates time to visit all the states.

@RoboGraham The problem in a year like this is the winner might be lucky to get 20%. That wouldn't work. You would have to have one or more runoffs which would ad more time to the process anyway.

0

The nightmare of Mayor Daley rigging the 68 DNC LED to Iowa law governing state wide races every 2 years.....the 15% rule reformed back room deals for Governor President and Senator CANDIDATES to advance to 99 county conventions....McGovern won 1972 from nearby S Dakota....UnCommitted won with 41% 1976....fake news elevated Jimmah Carter to victory at 29% after he campaigned in 6 dozen baptist churches state wide where people vote in November Brown Kennedy and Carter slogged it out in hundreds of 1979 1980 events....Rethuglicans are worse bribing voters face to face these past 48 years....other states rely upon expensive TV radio paper and billboard ads to win ballot access to November voting....if you like democracy love Iowa...quit assuming false notions about how people get onto the November ballots

Your rambling discourse actually didn't answer my question. It's as if you got lost halfway through my question, decided a word salad to toss at it without finishing the question and served it up.

0

Because it's an indication of who's running the best campaign and who has the most widespread base of supporters. Both of are major indicators of a candidate's viability.

... based on a subset that doesn't represent the country as a whole. Thus biasing the coverage and the metrics used to define those aspects of the election.

@redbai The candidates campaign organizations are national, and biased data is still data.

@redbai Exactly. It’s a not so subtle attempt at skewing voter intentions.

@Geoffrey51 Is there any aspect about the campaign that isn't about skewing voter intentions? That's the whole purpose of running a campaign.

@Druvius Actually, it's the campaign's job to "skew" voter intentions, but this is a dialog about the intentions of the media and it's presentation.

@redbai The media is part of the campaign, we haven't had independent mainstream media since the 80s.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:455606
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.