saw this online describing the Iowa vote: "Just finished 62% of this novel and I'm so excited for Gatsby and Daisy."
Trump tweeted that out as misinformation rather than saying he’s the 1st Rep Incumbent who didn’t run unopposed.
Yeah, there’s a ton of them. Godfather 1 and Fredo looking happy Titanic — Leonardo and Kate have a bright future 49ers in Super Bowl
I guess we just disagree on this one .... I don't think its that big a deal that we don't have the results at a moments notice. Iowa's "Job" isnt to be the barometer .... Here's a good read on the history of it all and Iowa's insistence on being first - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/02/04/why-iowa-votes-first/4653841002/
No, you don't. Many of the children in cages did not illegally enter the country. None of them have had trials and been found guilty. If they were found guilty, it would be of a misdemeanor. Race isn't the issue with this case but it is a reason for the lack of solutions and outrage against the injustice.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one .... I think the only color that matters to anyone that can fix this is green.
Because there are more moderates than wingnuts on either side .... And what is moderate today is different than 20 years ago.
I saw a FB friend say they shouldn't publish the votes until after all the states voted. I think that idea has merit, though obviously caucus results are nearly impossible to keep under wraps.
That's no different than just all voting at once. That just goes back to making money the primary influence. The initial party favorites will always be the nominees. There would be no Obamas.
I can appreciate the optimism, but 2016 Iowa caucus turnout levels in 2020 strikes me as bad news any way you slice it. The 2018 turnout boost was spearheaded by Democrats, not disaffected Republicans. Enthusiasm for the Democratic candidate(s) is essential, and so far it's missing in action. When turnout in open primary states ends up being equally crummy, are you going to start worrying then?
Just like a basketball team will adjust the playbook when the league moves the 3-point line, candidates will adopt new strategies if they change the primary system. You might end up being right, but it's not clear to me how it would all shake out if people all voted at the same time. My intuition is that there is always more than one way to win.
Not particularly. Primary states should be higher than Iowa simply because the voting process doesn't take many hours. But I still expect it to be lower than 2008, when people were voting because they loved all of the Democratic candidates. In 2016, it was a mix. This year, it's mostly just kind of a lukewarm feeling towards all of them. But everyone's going to come out to vote against Trump, just as they have for all the various elections the last 3 years. It's the only reason why Bernie would have a legitimate chance against Trump. If he were up against any other Republican, he'd lose in a landslide. I'd be worried if special elections or other random general elections showed lower turnout - not sure if there are any of those this year though.
Except whatever the strategy is, it would require money to reach 300 million people. And the unknown candidates don't have money. Even in the current system, they struggle to get recognized. If it was really possible to go win California and Texas without money, why wouldn't the Klobuchars or Bookers of the world be doing that now instead of trying to finish 3rd in Iowa? They could skip the elections everyone else is focusing on and go win those others as a viable campaign strategy. The only two people trying that are Steyer and Bloomberg - not coincidentally, the two billionaires spending endless amounts of money.
What does this have to do with anything, At this point a socialist is not leading the election and the gay man is a moderate.
The point I was trying to get across is that Iowa has morphed into something completely different for the rest of the country. The only reason so many people tune in for Iowa is to get an early idea of which candidates are viable and who deserve more attention and momentum going forward. Again, this may not have been Iowa's original intent when it decided to go first in the country, but that is the reality now. And I agree with you about patience, integrity, and accuracy in the process when it comes actual elections, but this is a primary and a state chose to put itself in front of the media lights and court of public opinion by going first. Hence all the criticism and scrutiny being placed on Iowa right now. People want information and they want it in a timely manner because otherwise Iowa is an insignificant flyover state with small number of national delegates. That information becomes useless if delayed long enough. Once people are onto New Hampshire, then Iowa and the national media spotlight it received seems undeserved.
Would have been more surprised if he had said then what I heard last night on CNN was factually reported. Huh? Can I ask you what you do with them? Release them back into Mexico? Let me also add they aren’t cages.
Here's what you do with them. You keep them with their parents. You don't block funds for judges and personnel used to process Asylum cases, you reform immigration laws for the long term. It's also possible to attach monitors to people cheaply. Those are some of the things that can be done.
