Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Iowa Caucus Was Less Than a Month Ago

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 03:36 PM
Original message
The Iowa Caucus Was Less Than a Month Ago
Yes. Believe it or not, it's been less than a month. And we already "have our nominee."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Padraig18 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
1. Excuse me while I go puke!
:puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Yeah.
I'm not pleased either. I think we have a case of pre-mature nomination. HA!

Alright, pre-mature coronation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boxster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Or maybe...
premature capitulation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. LOL
That's a good one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eileen_d Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
2. Who is it? (eom)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Langis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Who else?
Edwards =).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Oh come on.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
8. That's what I tried to point out in another thread.
Edited on Sat Feb-14-04 03:48 PM by janx
There is far too much pressure to get the primaries wrapped up early--so much so, in fact, that democracy itself is being thwarted by the Democratic party.

The huge media influence makes it so much worse.

Someone around here had a very good recommendation: Why not hold the primaries on a single day? Let the candidates campaign for a sufficient amount of time and then vote? It would lessen media influence and make the process fairer for everyone. People would be voting on things that mattered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Padraig18 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. After watching this year's clusterfuck, I'd agree to that!
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #8
17. Single day primary wouldn't work
A single day primary wouldn't work much better. In fact, it wouldn't work at all, IMO.

Grassroots/outsider/low-budget campaigns wouldn't have the $$ to campaign nationwide, allowing those campaigns with big $$ contributors to crush all opposition. Also, insufficient vetting of the candidates would take place with a single-day primary/caucus.

We really just need to restructure the process to minimize the effect of the media steamroller, and make it easier for candidates to meet with the people in ALL the states. This year's "7 states in 6 days" bullshit after New Hampshire was ridiculous, and we saw how less than thrilled some Michiganders were when candidates were unable to get up there to campaign.

Try this on for size: link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. No, the candidates could campaign for as long or short a time
as they chose to, before the primary voting started.

I just don't like the string-along voting because it allows the media to do all of the vetting. In addition, we need some more campaign laws.

There has been a lot of dirty campaigning with very little accountability.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polpilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
10. Thank you DLC. Thank you Mr. 'Where should I stand next' Clark.
Dean '04..Anti-Iraqi War...Anti-DLC..Anti-Establishment
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
retyred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #10
19. Finger pointing 101?

retyred in fla
Good-Night Paul, Wherever You Are

So I read this book
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 03:59 PM
Response to Original message
11. An excellent analysis of the Iowa results from WSWS
Kerry, Edwards lead in first contest of Democratic presidential campaign
By Patrick Martin
21 January 2004


In analyzing an event such as the Iowa caucuses, it is always necessary to keep in mind that the Democratic Party is one of the two main political institutions of American capitalism. It serves the interests of the financial oligarchy, and the ruling elite is deeply concerned with the selection of the candidate who may well, if circumstances warrant it, replace George Bush in the White House.

For all the attempts by the Republican Party and the media to present Bushs reelection as an inevitability, there are serious divisions within the American ruling class, and fears that the recklessness of the Bush administration, in both foreign and domestic policy, has set the stage for disaster. A debacle in Iraq or Afghanistan, or a major financial crisis at home, could lead to a rapid collapse in political support for a government that was installed, not through the popular vote, but through the undemocratic intervention of the Supreme Court.

All the more reason for care in selecting the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party. Before entrusting any individual with the executive power of the American government for the next four years, the ruling elite puts them through their paces. This involves a process of political competition among the candidates and manipulation of public opinion through the mass media, which is not an exact science and has many uncertainties. But notwithstanding such complexities, in the final analysis the ruling elite will choose the presidential candidate of the Democratic Party. Iowa was the first step in that decision.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/iowa-j21.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KFC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 04:09 PM
Response to Original message
12. Yes. And I think we can all agree that Kerry is a fine choice.
Bush is toast.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Padraig18 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. I think hardly 'all' of us would agree with that assesment.
In fact, you'd be hard pressed to get a bare majority to agree to that, IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Capn Sunshine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
13. No fat lady yet
Howard Dean could yet pull off a miracle, or Edwards could surge like Clinton is suggesting so strongly...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Clinton is suggesting this? Where? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Padraig18 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. 'Buyer's remorse'.
The longer the primaries go on, historically, the more likely the chance that a challenger could succeed. The best argument yet for not 'winding it up', IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
retyred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 08:04 PM
Response to Original message
18. Time flies when your having fun
Just 5 short weeks ago, kerry was DOA, now he's our guy, who'd a thunk it?


retyred in fla
Good-Night Paul, Wherever You Are

So I read this book
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 21st 2024, 08:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC