So if cities were pandered to instead of farm country, what would political pandering look like then?
benefiting a higher percentage of the population?
The number one example of disproportionate rural policy - sugar lobby. The amount of absolutely indefensible power that they hold is totally ridiculous. They fuck over the entire country, and benefit nobody but themselves. It is so fucked.
Are you actually blaming that on the electoral college?
It's not that far-fetched. I mean, I can blame the fact that there's better Coca-Cola in fucking Mexico than in the US directly on the Iowa Caucus.
Daedalus on
0
Options
HedgethornAssociate Professor of Historical Hobby HorsesIn the Lions' DenRegistered Userregular
edited April 2008
So, John McCain is giving a speech with new economic proposals today. Among his proposals:
Eliminate the federal gasoline and diesel taxes for the summer
Double the tax exemption for children to $7,000
Introduce a two-tier flat tax as an alternative option to the normal system
Freeze all non-military discretionary spending at current levels for his first year
Does anyone think this is a good idea? Just doubling the tax exemption for children would lower tax revenues by $2-3 billion dollars per year, if my back-of-the-envelope calculations are remotely accurate. Anyone who thought McCain might still be a fiscal conservative just got new evidence to the contrary.
"Both promise big 'change.' And a trillion dollars in new taxes over the next decade would certainly fit that description," McCain said in remarks prepared for delivery Tuesday. "All these tax increases are the fine print under the slogan of 'hope:' They're going to raise your taxes by thousands of dollars per year -- and they have the audacity to hope you don't mind."
I don't mind.
He also renewed his call for the United States to stop adding to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and thus lessen to some extent the worldwide demand for oil.
Isn't oil added to that for a really damn good reason?
Combined, he said, the two proposals would reduce gas prices, which would have a trickle-down effect and "help to spread relief across the American economy."
Gas prices, the cause and solution to all of America's economic problems.
Couscous on
0
Options
Zen VulgarityWhat a lovely day for teaSecret British ThreadRegistered Userregular
As far as gas prices go, when the gas goes up, everything else goes up too. High gas prices are not the cause of all our economic problems, but they can and do contribute to an increasing cost of living as well as possibly affecting inflation. Working at Costco, I can see how prices for everything jumped about 0.50 per item over the last few weeks. If that keeps climbing, and if gas prices continue to go up, the economy will certainly slow down because a loaf of bread being $5.00 certainly hurts people, especially when they're feeding a family.
DoctorArch on
Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited April 2008
I don't think a popular-vote system would necessarily mean exclusively urban campaigning. To be sure, there will be plenty, but the focus will be cities and media markets with plenty of people that a candidate can reasonably swing.
You see what we're going through with the primaries? Multiply it by 50 and that's what a general will look like. It's not so much Philly that would be a battleground so much as the Philly suburbs. Milwaukee would barely be worth it save for Democratic fundraising, but Green Bay will be visited often. Northern Virginia and Southern Virginia would be eschewed in favor of Central Virginia.
Remember that most of your massive cities are Democratic strongholds. Micropolitan areas- 10K to 50K (including my 23K city)- are Republican strongholds. It's the cities in between that are going to get the media bombardment. 75K-100K is what I'd figure to be the big target. Think of cities in that range, and that's where the money is going.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
0
Options
HedgethornAssociate Professor of Historical Hobby HorsesIn the Lions' DenRegistered Userregular
So, John McCain is giving a speech with new economic proposals today. Among his proposals:
Eliminate the federal gasoline and diesel taxes for the summer
Double the tax exemption for children to $7,000
Introduce a two-tier flat tax as an alternative option to the normal system
Freeze all non-military discretionary spending at current levels for his first year
Does anyone think this is a good idea? Just doubling the tax exemption for children would lower tax revenues by $2-3 billion per year, if my back-of-the-envelope calculations are remotely accurate. Anyone who thought McCain might still be a fiscal conservative just got new evidence to the contrary.
Yeah, so my back-of-the-envelope calculation? Way off. The Wall Street Journal reports the McCain campaign saying that doubling the child exemption amount would cost the federal government $65 billion per year.
Anyone who thought McCain might still be a fiscal conservative just got new evidence to the contrary.
I thought cutting taxes was a fiscal conservative thing too? It's when he doesn't reduce spending (or at least reduce the inevitable increase) you can nail him.
Ghandi 2 on
0
Options
HedgethornAssociate Professor of Historical Hobby HorsesIn the Lions' DenRegistered Userregular
Anyone who thought McCain might still be a fiscal conservative just got new evidence to the contrary.
I thought cutting taxes was a fiscal conservative thing too? It's when he doesn't reduce spending (or at least reduce the inevitable increase) you can nail him.
Point taken. It's really the conjunction of offering $100 billion in new tax cuts while continuing an expensive war and bailing out the student loan and mortgage industries that establishes McCain as fiscally unwise.
So, John McCain is giving a speech with new economic proposals today. Among his proposals:
Eliminate the federal gasoline and diesel taxes for the summer
Double the tax exemption for children to $7,000
Introduce a two-tier flat tax as an alternative option to the normal system
Freeze all non-military discretionary spending at current levels for his first year
Does anyone think this is a good idea? Just doubling the tax exemption for children would lower tax revenues by $2-3 billion per year, if my back-of-the-envelope calculations are remotely accurate. Anyone who thought McCain might still be a fiscal conservative just got new evidence to the contrary.
Yeah, so my back-of-the-envelope calculation? Way off. The Wall Street Journal reports the McCain campaign saying that doubling the child exemption amount would cost the federal government $65 billion per year.
Either that or they'll just fuck people who don't have kids even worse.
As far as gas prices go, when the gas goes up, everything else goes up too. High gas prices are not the cause of all our economic problems, but they can and do contribute to an increasing cost of living as well as possibly affecting inflation. Working at Costco, I can see how prices for everything jumped about 0.50 per item over the last few weeks. If that keeps climbing, and if gas prices continue to go up, the economy will certainly slow down because a loaf of bread being $5.00 certainly hurts people, especially when they're feeding a family.
There was a blurb on the BBC last night about a new study showing that food prices have doubled globally over the last three years. Some of it comes from the semi-collapse of several world economies, but the biggest factors have been rising oil prices and the great shift in priority amongst grain farmers due to the rising value of corn for ethanol.
Auto fuel is literally threatening human survival.
So if cities were pandered to instead of farm country, what would political pandering look like then?
benefiting a higher percentage of the population?
The number one example of disproportionate rural policy - sugar lobby. The amount of absolutely indefensible power that they hold is totally ridiculous. They fuck over the entire country, and benefit nobody but themselves. It is so fucked.
Are you actually blaming that on the electoral college?
It's not that far-fetched. I mean, I can blame the fact that there's better Coca-Cola in fucking Mexico than in the US directly on the Iowa Caucus.
You could, but I think you'd be mistaken.
That proposition depends entirely on the assumptions that:
1. The President is deeply involved in the setting of agricultural policy as opposed to Congress.
2. Newly elected Presidents are terrified of being challenged from within their own party and losing the Iowa Caucus when they run for re-election.
I don't think either of those really holds up in a bulletproof way.
As far as gas prices go, when the gas goes up, everything else goes up too. High gas prices are not the cause of all our economic problems, but they can and do contribute to an increasing cost of living as well as possibly affecting inflation. Working at Costco, I can see how prices for everything jumped about 0.50 per item over the last few weeks. If that keeps climbing, and if gas prices continue to go up, the economy will certainly slow down because a loaf of bread being $5.00 certainly hurts people, especially when they're feeding a family.
There was a blurb on the BBC last night about a new study showing that food prices have doubled globally over the last three years. Some of it comes from the semi-collapse of several world economies, but the biggest factors have been rising oil prices and the great shift in priority amongst grain farmers due to the rising value of corn for ethanol.
Auto fuel is literally threatening human survival.
Corn ethanol is seriously the worst thing ever.
Cutting the gas tax like that is retarded. We need people to stop using that shit, and pricing them out of it is the best way to do it.
As far as gas prices go, when the gas goes up, everything else goes up too. High gas prices are not the cause of all our economic problems, but they can and do contribute to an increasing cost of living as well as possibly affecting inflation. Working at Costco, I can see how prices for everything jumped about 0.50 per item over the last few weeks. If that keeps climbing, and if gas prices continue to go up, the economy will certainly slow down because a loaf of bread being $5.00 certainly hurts people, especially when they're feeding a family.
There was a blurb on the BBC last night about a new study showing that food prices have doubled globally over the last three years. Some of it comes from the semi-collapse of several world economies, but the biggest factors have been rising oil prices and the great shift in priority amongst grain farmers due to the rising value of corn for ethanol.
Auto fuel is literally threatening human survival.
Corn ethanol is seriously the worst thing ever.
Cutting the gas tax like that is retarded. We need people to stop using that shit, and pricing them out of it is the best way to do it.
It's all bio-fuel really. I was studying it to see if I wanted to recommend that our town vehicles move to B-20 and it really is not the way to go - unless they start making it from algae or something.
I mean, the latest articles have the farmland used to cultivate the fuel crops emitting levels of nitrous oxide that totally cancel out any reduction in carbon dioxide in terms of global warming.
So if cities were pandered to instead of farm country, what would political pandering look like then?
benefiting a higher percentage of the population?
The number one example of disproportionate rural policy - sugar lobby. The amount of absolutely indefensible power that they hold is totally ridiculous. They fuck over the entire country, and benefit nobody but themselves. It is so fucked.
Are you actually blaming that on the electoral college?
It's not that far-fetched. I mean, I can blame the fact that there's better Coca-Cola in fucking Mexico than in the US directly on the Iowa Caucus.
You could, but I think you'd be mistaken.
That proposition depends entirely on the assumptions that:
1. The President is deeply involved in the setting of agricultural policy as opposed to Congress.
2. Newly elected Presidents are terrified of being challenged from within their own party and losing the Iowa Caucus when they run for re-election.
I don't think either of those really holds up in a bulletproof way.
Do you really think Congress has no vested interest in Iowa? They may not be presidential candidates themselves, but they're still beholden to their respective parties and, more importantly, heavily lobbied by the corn industry.
So if cities were pandered to instead of farm country, what would political pandering look like then?
benefiting a higher percentage of the population?
The number one example of disproportionate rural policy - sugar lobby. The amount of absolutely indefensible power that they hold is totally ridiculous. They fuck over the entire country, and benefit nobody but themselves. It is so fucked.
Are you actually blaming that on the electoral college?
Not really. but it certainly plays into pandering to rural farmers.
Sugar and corn. fuck them.
like do you understand how fucked up this shit is? christ.
The dead-weight-loss that our sugar lobby causes is like 400 million a year. its beyond stupid. and thats not even taking into account the health effects and the corresponding increase in corn usage that fucks so much shit up.
Do you really think Congress has no vested interest in Iowa? They may not be presidential candidates themselves, but they're still beholden to their respective parties and, more importantly, heavily lobbied by the corn industry.
No, that I agree with.
Of course, it has nothing to do with the Iowa Caucus - which was your original point I think.
So if cities were pandered to instead of farm country, what would political pandering look like then?
benefiting a higher percentage of the population?
The number one example of disproportionate rural policy - sugar lobby. The amount of absolutely indefensible power that they hold is totally ridiculous. They fuck over the entire country, and benefit nobody but themselves. It is so fucked.
Are you actually blaming that on the electoral college?
Not really. but it certainly plays into pandering to rural farmers.
Sugar and corn. fuck them.
like do you understand how fucked up this shit is? christ.
The dead-weight-loss that our sugar lobby causes is like 400 million a year. its beyond stupid. and thats not even taking into account the health effects and the corresponding increase in corn usage that fucks so much shit up.
Seriously. Corn syrup (and its makers/sellers) is a huge problem in the US. In fact, between the massive retarded favoritism and subsidy for the farmers, the equally retarded resulting sugar tariffs, and the money we spend fighting obesity and disease largely caused by HFCS, I'd wager it's one of the largest economic drains on our nation.
I kind of disagree with the idea that if the EC were scrapped rural people would be neglected.
Last time I checked over the last seven election cycles Republicans and their rural vote have won the popular vote four times and only missed it in 2000 by a tiny margin. The idea that running a campaign that prioritizes rural voters does not seem to be some kind of losing strategy to me, even if we were to scrap the EC.
The dead-weight-loss that our sugar lobby causes is like 400 million a year. its beyond stupid. and thats not even taking into account the health effects and the corresponding increase in corn usage that fucks so much shit up.
Yeah, I know.
My micro professor used to bitch about it non-stop.
Do you really think Congress has no vested interest in Iowa? They may not be presidential candidates themselves, but they're still beholden to their respective parties and, more importantly, heavily lobbied by the corn industry.
No, that I agree with.
Of course, it has nothing to do with the Iowa Caucus - which was your original point I think.
You don't think the political strength of the corn lobby is in any way what so ever associated with Iowa having a first in the nation caucus that the media has coronated as the alpha, with New Hampshire being the omega? Particularly given that 100 members of Congress are at varying stages of running for President at any one time.
Do you really think Congress has no vested interest in Iowa? They may not be presidential candidates themselves, but they're still beholden to their respective parties and, more importantly, heavily lobbied by the corn industry.
No, that I agree with.
Of course, it has nothing to do with the Iowa Caucus - which was your original point I think.
You don't think the political strength of the corn lobby is in any way what so ever associated with Iowa having a first in the nation caucus that the media has coronated as the alpha, with New Hampshire being the omega? Particularly given that 100 members of Congress are at varying stages of running for President at any one time.
Not really.
I mean, if a powerful lobby is what gets a state an early date on the primary calendar then how does NH hang on? We've got no lobby whatsoever. Christ, our state only gets back something like $.68 on every dollar we pay in taxes to Washington.
So I'd reject the idea that the primary calendar and the power of in-state lobbies are linked.
Do you really think Congress has no vested interest in Iowa? They may not be presidential candidates themselves, but they're still beholden to their respective parties and, more importantly, heavily lobbied by the corn industry.
No, that I agree with.
Of course, it has nothing to do with the Iowa Caucus - which was your original point I think.
Not my point originally, but certainly something I agree with, and yeah I sort of lost my train of thought in the middle of that post. I'm not saying it's the Caucus per se that's the root cause, but it's certainly one of the symptoms and one of the big excuses for continuing to pander to corn and, by extension, Iowa.
Any single politician would be insane to speak out against the power of the farm lobby currently, because the rural areas controlled by the lobby happen to include a politically important stronghold (again, the punishment would be doled out to the outcrier's entire party). If the system were to take that power away from Iowa, we could see some semblance of sanity return to our farm policy and that much more stability in our markets and those of our trade partners. Just imagine - we'd be actually be importing sugar from countries that grow it, rather than economically forcing our citizens to eat dangerously unhealthy crap that we happen to grow ourselves.
Do you really think Congress has no vested interest in Iowa? They may not be presidential candidates themselves, but they're still beholden to their respective parties and, more importantly, heavily lobbied by the corn industry.
No, that I agree with.
Of course, it has nothing to do with the Iowa Caucus - which was your original point I think.
Not my point originally, but certainly something I agree with, and yeah I sort of lost my train of thought in the middle of that post. I'm not saying it's the Caucus per se that's the root cause, but it's certainly one of the symptoms and one of the big excuses for continuing to pander to corn and, by extension, Iowa.
Any single politician would be insane to speak out against the power of the farm lobby currently, because the rural areas controlled by the lobby happen to include a politically important stronghold (again, the punishment would be doled out to the outcrier's entire party). If the system were to take that power away from Iowa, we could see some semblance of sanity return to our farm policy and that much more stability in our markets and those of our trade partners. Just imagine - we'd be actually be importing sugar from countries that grow it, rather than economically forcing our citizens to eat dangerously unhealthy crap that we happen to grow ourselves.
So you are arguing that the President makes decisions based on worrying about being re-nominated by his party? And then presumably after his re-election . . . ?
Look, I really think you need to drop the idea that the Iowa Caucus has a lot to do with anything. The farm lobby is powerful, and that generally explains pretty much everything. The Iowa Caucus doesn't have a lot to do with it, and changing it won't really have any effect. It's just a kind of phony argument that people who want to change the primary system can aggregate the support of people who care about the environment.
Do you really think Congress has no vested interest in Iowa? They may not be presidential candidates themselves, but they're still beholden to their respective parties and, more importantly, heavily lobbied by the corn industry.
No, that I agree with.
Of course, it has nothing to do with the Iowa Caucus - which was your original point I think.
You don't think the political strength of the corn lobby is in any way what so ever associated with Iowa having a first in the nation caucus that the media has coronated as the alpha, with New Hampshire being the omega? Particularly given that 100 members of Congress are at varying stages of running for President at any one time.
Not really.
I mean, if a powerful lobby is what gets a state an early date on the primary calendar then how does NH hang on? We've got no lobby whatsoever. Christ, our state only gets back something like $.68 on every dollar we pay in taxes to Washington.
So I'd reject the idea that the primary calendar and the power of in-state lobbies are linked.
New Hampshire gets it because of the state legislature wanting to support election cottage industries. Plus, isn't it part of your Constitution?
And the President may not be concerned with running a primary for his second term, but I'd wager that he is a bit worried about his Veep's prospects 8 years down the line and the continuation of his legacy. Winning Iowa has some import there, and that involves fellating farmers with subsidies. As well as his party's chances in the legislature, which the national party would be concerned about. How many Presidents tend to tell the DNC/RNC to go fuck themselves?
New Hampshire gets it because of the state legislature wanting to support election cottage industries. Plus, isn't it part of your Constitution?
Why is this a sufficient explanation of NH but not IA? After all, more campaign money is spent in IA than NH.
And the President may not be concerned with running a primary for his second term, but I'd wager that he is a bit worried about his Veep's prospects 8 years down the line and the continuation of his legacy.
Yes, I can see that Richard Nixon was terribly concerned for Gerald Ford, that Reagan pulled out his hair with anxiety for the future of H.W. Bush, that Clinton set many policies with a thought for Al Gore and that W. Bush is planning a surprise announcement concerning Cheney.
In short, that is weaksauce sir. Occam's Razor favors the simple explanation of a powerful farm lobby.
Let's be realistic. Energy and it's cost has been a major concern for two Presidents - Carter, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. During Clinton's presidency gas prices bottomed out at 89 cents per gallon. It wasn't a big deal for him. It wasn't all that important for Reagan either once the OPEC embargo ended. Bush Sr. ended his problems with a war, then got voted out because of the economy.
Bush Jr. is the only President in recent memory for whom ethanol has been an issue - and of course he's on the side of the industry lobby. That's what his administration is all about. It isn't from any concerns over Iowa either.
"What I believe Geraldine Ferraro meant is that if you take a freshman senator from Illinois called `Jerry Smith' and he says I'm going to run for president, would he start off with 90 percent of the black vote?" Johnson said. "And the answer is, probably not... ."
Because you know what we all remember? From the starting line, Obama had all that black vote. Yep.
Remember kids, if you try hard enough, you can move goal posts that have already happened, and change statistics that were already taken. Honestly, at what point did Obama start this race ahead in any demographic? Clinton was by all measures going to win until people started, you know, Voting.
So here's a question my brother asked me. What does Obama stand for? I mean, so far his campaign seems to have great momentum thanks only to the strength of his speeches and charisma. What are his policies? Where does he stand on the war, the economy, healthcare and social security? What does he plan to do about them?
The dead-weight-loss that our sugar lobby causes is like 400 million a year. its beyond stupid. and thats not even taking into account the health effects and the corresponding increase in corn usage that fucks so much shit up.
$400 million is just the tip of the iceberg. Start throwing in all of the negative externalities that go with a corn-based economy, and you're easilyt into billions, and almost certainly into tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions.
“If he fails to win [in Pennsylvania], despite outspending us massively, it will be another sign he is unable to win the large states a candidate needs to win,” Wolfson said, making sure the bar stays high for the Keystone state. He also said an Obama loss there would be evidence he is “unable to close the deal” and that it would be a “clear indication” that he has not passed the Commander-In-Chief and “steward of the economy” tests.
“If he fails to win in Pennsylvania, it would be a significant defeat for him,” Wolfson emphasized.
I mean, the latest articles have the farmland used to cultivate the fuel crops emitting levels of nitrous oxide that totally cancel out any reduction in carbon dioxide in terms of global warming.
Is that just for corn, or is it for higher-density fuel crops, like sugar and wheatgrass, too?
So here's a question my brother asked me. What does Obama stand for? I mean, so far his campaign seems to have great momentum thanks only to the strength of his speeches and charisma. What are his policies? Where does he stand on the war, the economy, healthcare and social security? What does he plan to do about them?
Are you asking as in you want information or is that rhetorical?
So here's a question my brother asked me. What does Obama stand for? I mean, so far his campaign seems to have great momentum thanks only to the strength of his speeches and charisma. What are his policies? Where does he stand on the war, the economy, healthcare and social security? What does he plan to do about them?
What sold me is he's been talking real, active steps to make our government more open and accountable. This combined with his policy of employing and hiring advisers who disagree with him and he has my vote.
So here's a question my brother asked me. What does Obama stand for? I mean, so far his campaign seems to have great momentum thanks only to the strength of his speeches and charisma. What are his policies? Where does he stand on the war, the economy, healthcare and social security? What does he plan to do about them?
Are you asking as in you want information or is that rhetorical?
I'm asking because I'd like information. Since my brother asked, I've been curious about it myself.
My bro was asking rhetorically to make a point, that there's little substance to Obama once you look beyond the charismatic speeches.
Posts
I've got some unfortunate news for you about some liberals . . .
It's not that far-fetched. I mean, I can blame the fact that there's better Coca-Cola in fucking Mexico than in the US directly on the Iowa Caucus.
Does anyone think this is a good idea? Just doubling the tax exemption for children would lower tax revenues by $2-3 billion dollars per year, if my back-of-the-envelope calculations are remotely accurate. Anyone who thought McCain might still be a fiscal conservative just got new evidence to the contrary.
Isn't oil added to that for a really damn good reason?
Gas prices, the cause and solution to all of America's economic problems.
Are you saying Jesus couldn't hit a curveball?
That's a pretty catchy line.
You see what we're going through with the primaries? Multiply it by 50 and that's what a general will look like. It's not so much Philly that would be a battleground so much as the Philly suburbs. Milwaukee would barely be worth it save for Democratic fundraising, but Green Bay will be visited often. Northern Virginia and Southern Virginia would be eschewed in favor of Central Virginia.
Remember that most of your massive cities are Democratic strongholds. Micropolitan areas- 10K to 50K (including my 23K city)- are Republican strongholds. It's the cities in between that are going to get the media bombardment. 75K-100K is what I'd figure to be the big target. Think of cities in that range, and that's where the money is going.
Yeah, so my back-of-the-envelope calculation? Way off. The Wall Street Journal reports the McCain campaign saying that doubling the child exemption amount would cost the federal government $65 billion per year.
Point taken. It's really the conjunction of offering $100 billion in new tax cuts while continuing an expensive war and bailing out the student loan and mortgage industries that establishes McCain as fiscally unwise.
Either that or they'll just fuck people who don't have kids even worse.
Auto fuel is literally threatening human survival.
You could, but I think you'd be mistaken.
That proposition depends entirely on the assumptions that:
1. The President is deeply involved in the setting of agricultural policy as opposed to Congress.
2. Newly elected Presidents are terrified of being challenged from within their own party and losing the Iowa Caucus when they run for re-election.
I don't think either of those really holds up in a bulletproof way.
Cutting the gas tax like that is retarded. We need people to stop using that shit, and pricing them out of it is the best way to do it.
It's all bio-fuel really. I was studying it to see if I wanted to recommend that our town vehicles move to B-20 and it really is not the way to go - unless they start making it from algae or something.
I mean, the latest articles have the farmland used to cultivate the fuel crops emitting levels of nitrous oxide that totally cancel out any reduction in carbon dioxide in terms of global warming.
Not really. but it certainly plays into pandering to rural farmers.
Sugar and corn. fuck them.
like do you understand how fucked up this shit is? christ.
The dead-weight-loss that our sugar lobby causes is like 400 million a year. its beyond stupid. and thats not even taking into account the health effects and the corresponding increase in corn usage that fucks so much shit up.
No, that I agree with.
Of course, it has nothing to do with the Iowa Caucus - which was your original point I think.
Seriously. Corn syrup (and its makers/sellers) is a huge problem in the US. In fact, between the massive retarded favoritism and subsidy for the farmers, the equally retarded resulting sugar tariffs, and the money we spend fighting obesity and disease largely caused by HFCS, I'd wager it's one of the largest economic drains on our nation.
Last time I checked over the last seven election cycles Republicans and their rural vote have won the popular vote four times and only missed it in 2000 by a tiny margin. The idea that running a campaign that prioritizes rural voters does not seem to be some kind of losing strategy to me, even if we were to scrap the EC.
Yeah, I know.
My micro professor used to bitch about it non-stop.
You don't think the political strength of the corn lobby is in any way what so ever associated with Iowa having a first in the nation caucus that the media has coronated as the alpha, with New Hampshire being the omega? Particularly given that 100 members of Congress are at varying stages of running for President at any one time.
Not really.
I mean, if a powerful lobby is what gets a state an early date on the primary calendar then how does NH hang on? We've got no lobby whatsoever. Christ, our state only gets back something like $.68 on every dollar we pay in taxes to Washington.
So I'd reject the idea that the primary calendar and the power of in-state lobbies are linked.
Any single politician would be insane to speak out against the power of the farm lobby currently, because the rural areas controlled by the lobby happen to include a politically important stronghold (again, the punishment would be doled out to the outcrier's entire party). If the system were to take that power away from Iowa, we could see some semblance of sanity return to our farm policy and that much more stability in our markets and those of our trade partners. Just imagine - we'd be actually be importing sugar from countries that grow it, rather than economically forcing our citizens to eat dangerously unhealthy crap that we happen to grow ourselves.
So you are arguing that the President makes decisions based on worrying about being re-nominated by his party? And then presumably after his re-election . . . ?
Look, I really think you need to drop the idea that the Iowa Caucus has a lot to do with anything. The farm lobby is powerful, and that generally explains pretty much everything. The Iowa Caucus doesn't have a lot to do with it, and changing it won't really have any effect. It's just a kind of phony argument that people who want to change the primary system can aggregate the support of people who care about the environment.
New Hampshire gets it because of the state legislature wanting to support election cottage industries. Plus, isn't it part of your Constitution?
And the President may not be concerned with running a primary for his second term, but I'd wager that he is a bit worried about his Veep's prospects 8 years down the line and the continuation of his legacy. Winning Iowa has some import there, and that involves fellating farmers with subsidies. As well as his party's chances in the legislature, which the national party would be concerned about. How many Presidents tend to tell the DNC/RNC to go fuck themselves?
I meet that income level?
I HAD NO IDEA!
It's like he lined up middle America and made like a circus seal.
Why is this a sufficient explanation of NH but not IA? After all, more campaign money is spent in IA than NH.
Yes, I can see that Richard Nixon was terribly concerned for Gerald Ford, that Reagan pulled out his hair with anxiety for the future of H.W. Bush, that Clinton set many policies with a thought for Al Gore and that W. Bush is planning a surprise announcement concerning Cheney.
In short, that is weaksauce sir. Occam's Razor favors the simple explanation of a powerful farm lobby.
Let's be realistic. Energy and it's cost has been a major concern for two Presidents - Carter, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. During Clinton's presidency gas prices bottomed out at 89 cents per gallon. It wasn't a big deal for him. It wasn't all that important for Reagan either once the OPEC embargo ended. Bush Sr. ended his problems with a war, then got voted out because of the economy.
Bush Jr. is the only President in recent memory for whom ethanol has been an issue - and of course he's on the side of the industry lobby. That's what his administration is all about. It isn't from any concerns over Iowa either.
Because you know what we all remember? From the starting line, Obama had all that black vote. Yep.
Remember kids, if you try hard enough, you can move goal posts that have already happened, and change statistics that were already taken. Honestly, at what point did Obama start this race ahead in any demographic? Clinton was by all measures going to win until people started, you know, Voting.
Are you asking as in you want information or is that rhetorical?
My bro was asking rhetorically to make a point, that there's little substance to Obama once you look beyond the charismatic speeches.