The disaster still unfolding in Iowa’s Democratic caucuses has sown doubt among Democrats and politicalcommentators as to whether Iowa and its antiquated caucus nomination process ought to cast the first vote in the presidential primary race.
Real Clear Politics has Iowa +3 Trump against his closest Dem challenger. Of Course Republicans defend this 1st in Nation status and the caucus system. It gives them strategic advantage. Dems are fools to play this game.
Funny thing is that the caucuses didn’t cause this problem, unless you consider having to report 3 sets of results per precinct instead of one to be a huge burden. This was an unforced error of shoving in a use-once-every-four-years technoogy solution where it was not wanted or needed.
“Iowa’s large population of independent votersWhite people and its practice of careful deliberationelecting idiots like Joni Ernst, Chuck Grassley, and Steve King contributes greatly to the national presidential primarydumbing down of America and makes it the ideal state to kick off the nominating processhold democracy hostage to a rural, sparsely-populated cornfield,” they continued.
“Iowa’s unique role encourages a grassroots nominating process that empowers everyday Americans, not Washington insiders or powerful billionaires,” the three Republicans said. “The face-to-face retail politics nature of Iowa’s caucus system also encourages dialogue between candidates and voters that makes our presidential candidates accountable for the positions they take and the records they hold.”
Yea IA is, but at the end of the primary season we generally have a clear cut candidate. At least we are winnowing the candidates with successive votes.
I’m puzzled by the “Iowa will stay where it is” comment. Was there some question that we were going to trade it for Greenland or it would be subsumed into Kansas via Sharpie?