fahrender @ 131

i lived in Iowa for fourteen years. you will not find a better place in the country to sort out the bullshit of politicians. America is in trouble largely because so many of our traditions have been trashed. playing the shell game with primary dates is just one more way for the criminally powerful to cheat the rest of us. there is nothing wrong and quite a lot of good for Iowa and New Hampshire to continue to start things off.

The old “tradition” excuse. There is nothing noble about refusing to change an unfair situation. Your last sentence states that there is nothing wrong with Iowa and New Hampshire continuing to start things off. The Democratic Party is multi-racial, multi-cultural, and largely urban. The demographics of Iowa and New Hampshire do not represent these realities. There is a lot wrong with that.

It’s ironic that you are playing the fear card about proposed changes. That’s repug shtick.

ooooooo! be very afraid! there’s a whole lot of difference between being fearful and being prudently cautious. all you have to do is look at what has happened the past twelve months with different state organizations trying to elbow each other out of the way to have “their” place. who’s going to sort that out? who’s going to have the respect and authority to be listened to?
Demographics? you sound like one a them there new-fangled pollster people. as for what the Democratic party is, i’ve been a voting member for fifty years so i think i know a little bit about it too.
you won’t find any race-baiting going on in the Iowa caucus or New Hampshire. you can sneer at tradition if you want to. Addington, Cheney and Rumsfeld do …..

I have been fortunate enough to have seen Obama, Clinton, Edwards and Dodd (2x) up close and personal. I was out of town both times that Richardson was here. I missed seeing Obama for the second time last week because I was visiting with Dodd at the VFW. :)

I’m an Edwards supporter, with Dodd as my #2.

I have only attended the caucuses once, back in 1984. I can’t even remember who I supported back then. Probably Mondale.

I, like many people, have become more involved in politics since 2000. Still, I’m ashamed to say that I didn’t even caucus in 2004. I gave money to my first political campaign in 2006, and volunteered at the local Democratic headquarters, signing people up for absentee ballots prior to the election, and poll-watching on election day.

I live in a town of less than 30,000, and I can tell you that the ONLY yard signs I have seen are for Hillary Clinton. I contacted the local Edwards headquarters by email asking for yard signs. I was called and invited to a “sign-making” event that conflicted with my schedule.

This horse race is definitely not over. The LTE’s in my local newspaper have run the gamut from supporting Clinton, Obama and Edwards. I really think the “planted” questions will hurt Hillary in Iowa. We Iowans tend not to put up with bull**** like that.

I will be caucusing come snow or ice.

Edited to add: The TV commercials, both Democratic and Republican, are becoming highly tiresome. I answer all “unknown” calls on my caller ID just in case they are presidential candidate polls. I want people to know that I AM NOT caucusing for Hillary Clinton.

global yokel @ 127

It’s odd– those voters in NH and Iowa get all pissy and indignant when another state threatens to hold a primary sooner than theirs, but then they bitch and moan when the candidates flood their state and try to reach out to them. Screw those people. Let’s have a primary schedule that rotates, that gives all states in the Union a chance to be up front once in awhile.

i lived in Iowa for fourteen years. you will not find a better place in the country to sort out the bullshit of politicians. America is in trouble largely because so many of our traditions have been trashed. playing the shell game with primary dates is just one more way for the criminally powerful to cheat the rest of us. there is nothing wrong and quite a lot of good for Iowa and New Hampshire to continue to start things off.

The old “tradition” excuse. There is nothing noble about refusing to change an unfair situation. Your last sentence states that there is nothing wrong with Iowa and New Hampshire continuing to start things off. The Democratic Party is multi-racial, multi-cultural, and largely urban. The demographics of Iowa and New Hampshire do not represent these realities. There is a lot wrong with that.

It’s ironic that you are playing the fear card about proposed changes. That’s repug shtick.

I was standing at the edge of the crowd at a political rally before the elections last year when I made idle chat with the guy standing next to me (he was a political consultant). One thing led to another and he proceeded to say that he hated the way the Iowa caucases were first in the nation and had so much influence. Being from the great state of Iowa, I proceeded to tell him that I envy the people of Iowa and wished I lived back home. Why? Because its the only time an everyday working person like myself ever had the chance to sit at the kitchen table and tell a candidate exactly what I think. Everyone should get to experience that. It’s awsome.

Do you believe that it would be awesome for everyone to experience that attention, or is it awesome for Iowans only? The political consultant was absolutely right, and you are advancing a strawman argument. No one doubts the benefits of politicians meeting with everyday working people. The OBVIOUS problem is the lack of opportunity for the vast majority of Americans to do this. Listen to yourself. You wish you still lived in Iowa so you could be heard by the candidates. Why should the “great” state of Iowa alone have this opportunity? Iowa (with New Hampshire) has selfishly maintained a stranglehold on the process which has worked to the detriment of the party as a whole. Iowa went for Bush in 2004, for @(*& sakes. What the hell is a red state doing at the head of the line? It is beyond ridiculous. The system has to change. The early caucus/primary states should be blue, and chosen on a rotating basis. No state should ever have such a dominant role again. The other 48 states have everyday working people as well. Let the spotlight finally shine on them.

It’s odd– those voters in NH and Iowa get all pissy and indignant when another state threatens to hold a primary sooner than theirs, but then they bitch and moan when the candidates flood their state and try to reach out to them. Screw those people. Let’s have a primary schedule that rotates, that gives all states in the Union a chance to be up front once in awhile.

i lived in Iowa for fourteen years. you will not find a better place in the country to sort out the bullshit of politicians. America is in trouble largely because so many of our traditions have been trashed. playing the shell game with primary dates is just one more way for the criminally powerful to cheat the rest of us. there is nothing wrong and quite a lot of good for Iowa and New Hampshire to continue to start things off.

Often overlooked in the whole calculation in Iowa is that the caucuses are designed for insiders (aka “Party People”). This design is a nod to the hard work and continual effort put forth by the state party workers ; the clubs, the committees, the codifiers and platform writers, the party fabric and organization as a whole. This point was overlooked to our detriment in the Dean campaign (Joe Trippi knew this. But he was MIA). The very people the Dean campaign was campaigning “against”–we were after all “outsiders” and “insurgents” against a staid party structure–those people RAN the caucuses. We watched helplessly as our people, unfamiliar with the both the process and the operators of the caucus, were essentially ignored and unable to perform the caucus horsetrading endemic to the whole process. The result was of course the “stunning” Kerry win. Not stunning to the established DEMs who resented the insurgency. Only to the press.

I mention this by way of the “result” in Iowa being subject to the same sorts of establishment pressures as both the Dean and Edwards Campaigns experienced last time around. There will be significant pressure to select Hillary from the Party People. Count on it.

I agree!

rwcole @ 42

Peterr

Sure:

http://pollster.com/

I am just disheartened by this poll – unless the 1,100 people they contacted for it all lived inside the beltway…

Well the involvement with Hillary’s #1 Mark Penn– master pollster and major influence within the polling community, is not lost on me.

All polls are suspect in this election. Penn is the GO TO guy if you want to be a pollster in this country.

I mention this by way of the “result” in Iowa being subject to the same sorts of establishment pressures as both the Dean and Edwards Campaigns experienced last time around. There will be significant pressure to select Hillary from the Party People. Count on it.