I am so tired of hearing about and reading about Iowa and New Hampshire. Iowa is a great state, I’ve had some of the best corn I’ve ever tasted there. I’ve had lots of fun at the Valaire Ballroom in Des Moines. And New Hampshire is a wonderful place as well. But why should America care who voters pick in the Iowa primary? It’s not like they have a decent track record of selecting winners. 
Think about it. Here is a list of the winners from each party over the past 30 years:
Iowa Primary Winners vs. Actual Presidential Candidates
- 1976 – Ford (R, incumbent), Uncommitted (D)
- Ford was unopposed, IA Democrats disliked Carter enough to select “Generic Dem” as the winner.
- 1980 – Bush (R), Carter (D):
- Carter was unopposed, IA picked Bush over Reagan by 2%.
- 1984 – Reagan (R, incumbent), Mondale (D)
- Reagan was unopposed, IA picked the eventual Democrat candidate.
- 1988 – Dole (R), Gephardt (D)
- IA picked Dole, GHWB won. Dukakis was the Democrat nominee.
- 1992 – Bush (R, incumbent), Harkin (D)
- Bush was unopposed. Harkin won 73% if IA, Tsongas 4%, Clinton 3%.
- 1996 – Dole (R), Clinton (D)
- Clinton was unopposed, IA picked Dole over Buchanan by 3%.
- 2000 – GW Bush (R), Gore (D):
- Iowa picked GW Bush, a non-incumbent winner.
- 2004 – GW Bush (R, incumbent), Kerry (D)
- Bush was unopposed.
- 2008 – McCain (R), Obama (D)
- IA chose Huckabee.
In the past nine elections, when Iowa voters actually had to make a choice (versus selecting the incumbent) got it right once. Now let’s see how the fine folks in New Hampsha’ fared:
New Hampshire Primary Winners vs. Actual Presidential Candidates
- 1976 – Ford (R), Carter (D)
- Ford was unopposed.
- 1980 – Reagan (R) Carter (D)
- NH correctly picked Reagan.
- 1984 – Reagan (R) Hart (D)
- Reagan was unopposed.
- 1988 – GHW Bush (R) Dukakis (D)
- NH correctly picked GHW Bush.
- 1992 – GHW Bush (R) Tsongas (D)
- Bush was unopposed.
- 1996 – Dole (R) Clinton (D)
- NH picked Buchanan.
- 2000 – McCain (R) Gore (D)
- GW Bush won.
- 2004 – GW Bush (R) Kerry (D)
- GW Bush was unopposed.
- 2008 – McCain (R), Obama (D)
- NH picked the eventual candidate.
New Hampshire did better, it managed to get three of eight correct when have to choose a candidate versus selecting the incumbent.
So I ask anyone willing to listen: Why do we still care about how Iowa and New Hampshire vote in the primaries? The world has changed folks… we’ve got instant news, opinions travel at the speed of light and every candidate’s words, facial expressions and body movements are overanalyzed, critiqued and force fed to the masses. Let’s give the vote back to the people and tell the mainstream media to rethink its coverage priorities.
Continue reading »I am so tired of hearing about and reading about Iowa and New Hampshire. Iowa is a great state, I’ve had some of the best corn I’ve ever tasted there. I’ve had lots of fun at the Valaire Ballroom in Des Moines. And New Hampshire is a wonderful place as well. But why should America care who voters pick in the Iowa primary? It’s not like they have a decent track record of selecting winners.
“There’s a reason the problems we face today are so much bigger than they were several years ago,” Obama said. “A big part of it is that George Bush and John McCain have been so focused on pursuing a flawed and costly war in Iraq that they’ve lost sight of our mounting problems here at home. Instead of working to fix our economy and lift up hardworking families, they’ve fought to extend a war that’s costing thousands of lives and billions of dollars without making us any safer — a war that has strengthened our enemies and distracted us from the real battle with Usama bin Ladin in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” (emphasis mine: source)
Barack Obama said this yesterday (June 1, 2008). Despite facts that prove him undeniably wrong he still marches forward to the same leftist mantras (“unjust war”, “not any safer” et al). Sadly many Americans fall victim to his charm and fail to recognize the snake oil he is selling. Let’s break this down:
“Pursuing a flawed and costly war”: True, this war has been expensive, and yes mistakes have been made. However, there is a much bigger picture that short-sighted liberals fail to see. More Democrats voted in favor of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 than against it. Obama was not in office during the 2002 vote, but I think we all know how he would have voted. Also, LIberals like to bring up the failure to find WMDs, despite the fact that Hussein used them on his own people in the past). However, they forget to mention that there were many other reasons America entered into this war.
- Iraq’s noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
- Iraq’s “brutal repression of its civilian population.”
- Iraq’s “capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people”.
- Iraq’s hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
- Members of al-Qaeda were “known to be in Iraq.”
- Iraq’s “continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations,” including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
- The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
- The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
- Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
lost sight of our mounting problems here at home / working to fix our economy: What exactly does Barack know about problems here at home? He has been campaigning for the last year and a half, has he actually done any work at all? He was voted into office to serve his constituency, yet he is basically giving them all the finger while pursuing his own self interests. And by the way, many of the problems Barack perceives are due to a lack of enough government control of your life. In Barack’s world people are not responsible for their actions, they need Big Government to help them out. Screw that.
without making us any safer: Um, check your facts Barack. This article provides proof that we ARE actually safer. Here’s a summary: Between 1988 and 2003 there were just under 20 attacks on American interests here and abroad. For the past five years (2004-2008 ) there have been no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad. Let me repeat that:
Starting in 2004
there have been no successful attacks
inside the United States
or against American interests abroad.
In my world that means that we are safer as a country than since the war started. There’s no way to deny that. There’s no spin that can change this indisputable fact. Yet the press refuses to cover it. News channels refuse to cover our actual success in Iraq. It takes editorials to point out the reality of our military success.
The war has strengthened our enemies: Not according to CIA Director Michael V. Hayden. Last week he told the Washington Post that the terrorist movement is essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. But you won’t here Mr. Obama talking about this. It is in direct contrast to his time-tested lie.
What’s my point? Barack Obama is willfully and repeatedly lying by repeating his mantra. How can an agent of “hope and change” be so dishonest? I guess its easy if you really are just another politician trying to win an election. Change? No chance in hell. Hope? I hope our country can survive if he wins the election.
We are all aware of the laws that prevent the media from releasing voting results before the polls close. The reason is the fear that voters will remain home if they learn that their candidate is losing by a large margin; or they might stay home if their candidate has a large lead. “Why should I take a long lunch / go out in this rain / leave the comfort of home to stand in line if my candidate is winning/losing by so much already?”
I think this is a great law. It keeps the press out of our hair for a short (albeit sweet) amount of time. It lets voters vote without worry. Exit polls may provide some influence, but in my experience most people don’t value exit poll results.
Why can’t we expand this concept across a much larger timeframe? I’m talking about during the primary process. But not just one day’s worth or one state’s worth. I’m talking about the entire primary process. Here’s my idea:
Let’s not release the results until the actual party conventions.
Why is this a good idea?
- Each party member in each state will be allowed to vote for the candidate they want as opposed to having to choose from only the remaining candidates as dictated by previous primaries. In other words you will be able to vote for the person that best represents your values, not just for the one that pisses you off the least. For example: I’m in Texas and I’m a Mitt Romney supporter. Thanks to the current system by the time I got the chance to vote my candidate wasn’t even on the ballot. I don’t think that’s fair.
- By not knowing who is leading the delegate count each candidate will be forced to campaign continuously and spend their money wisely if they want it to last. Hmm… that sounds like something most Americans have to do every month.
- The financial difficulty of entering a long and expensive race will certainly deter and potentially weed out candidates that currently join the races for ego and/or local popularity reasons. Politicians will think twice about entering the campaign if its going to cost them so much. A pleasant side effect of this would be the much celebrated death of the ten candidate primary ‘debate’ circus that we all had to endure.
- The national party conventions will actually mean something.
- The media will be forced to cover other issues because they won’t know who is actually winning and won’t have a singular candidate to prop up and promote.
Of course, the easier thing to do would be to move to a single national primary day and stop all of this ridiculous state posturing and jockeying for position. I think it is incredibly unfair that states far away from where I live have predetermined who I can vote for, especially given the differences between the issues I face in Texas on a day to day basis versus whatever is going on in Iowa, Ohio or New Hampshire.
A national primary day just makes sense.
It takes more than an honorable military record to lead a country. Yes, McCain is strong on the war on terror… but that’s all he’s got if you are a conservative. He is weak on the border (no matter what he is saying these days). He admits that he is weak on the economy and taxes. He has legislated against freedom of speech. The man considered switching to the Democratic party and was a serious VP candidate for John Kerry.
“But he has all of these endorsements…” you say. That’s because the media is pushing the most liberal “Republican” out there. If they push McCain they in effect get a Democratic nominee with an “R” next to his name. The New York Times slammed General Petraeus yet endorses John McCain. Figure it out.
Mitt Romney is a better choice if you are conservative. He understands finance and economics. He has been a leader in both the political arena and the real world. McCain has not. And what happens if McCain wins the nomination and then the election? What happens after he takes care of the war in Iraq? Does he have us invade Iran? What does he do for us here in the states? We have the economy to deal with, border security, tax reform, health care, etc. He is not the right man to handle our complex domestic issues.
Think seriously about why you support McCain, and/or why you won’t vote for Romney. Ask yourself if you are voting for legitimate reasons, or if you are making a superficial choice that may actually hurt our country.
Please vote for Mitt Romney.
