What is the reasoning behind Iowa as the opening Presidential primary? If so much emphasis is going to be placed on the first round, why not at least have it in a large population State that has a broad population demographic and more issues than ethanol production? At the very least, rotate the opener to a different State each time rather than a guarantee that only the most Lily White area in the nation always gets the first say?
I was curious myself. Here you go... http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2004/01/why_does_iowa_get_to_go_first.html
Right, thanks. And as far as population demographic goes, NH isn't any better a "representation" of the US as a whole.
Good article. The thing that irritates me so much about this is how all the candidates have to grovel before the corn growers. While I had disagreements with John McCains political viewpoints and platform, his willingness to tell Iowa that ethanol was not worth supporting were the finest words I ever heard spoken to those people.
but but... then how would conservative white people get their government handouts while still being able to demonize inner city welfare recipients if they got rid of ethanol? think of the children... won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!!!
I agree this pandering and subsidization of ethanol to farmers has been long overdue to shut down with oil at $35 bbl. There may have been a business case when oil was at $140 but at this point keeping ethanol alive seems to be purely political.
The whole idea of using ethanol as an oxygenate was to reduce pollutants. It replaced MTBE which was voted away because it was getting into the ground water. Actually, since the early 2000s, we no longer really need either since modern engines run so much cleaner that oxygenates are not much, if any, help. Now it's politically expedient to keep it.
Why is that a necessity or even a good thing? The big advantage here is that the voters actually get to talk to the candidates. We don't have to rely on ads or seeing someone from afar. If you want to size up a candidate, you can go and talk to them. Try that in NYC, a place that includes a wide variation in peoples. There, you get to see an ad on the subway. Try asking that ad a specific question.
Didn't some states try to advance their primaries only to have Iowa advance theirs? What would be wrong with all primaries being on the same day, same as the elections?
You're thinking of NH. NH state law requires NH to be the first primary, and it has been adjusted forward in recent elections to achieve that. It's Feb 9 this year.
Given the length of the Presidential election cycle now, people of ALL States could have the chance to actually talk to the candidates. But I see your point, we can't just allow "Those People" the chance for a face to face. The poor, downtrodden White man has been taking it on the chin for far too long and just never gets a chance to have his voice heard.
I spent a little time in Des Moines in early '96. Thats a really weird state. You couldnt pay me enough to go back there for anything. Sorry off the political track.....carry on
We actually do have black people here, and they are politically active, if that's your concern. A large percentage are not even African-American, just African. But, as usual, you missed the whole point in your effort to play your racism card. Perhaps people in other states should provide the same opportunity to talk to people face to face. If that isn't the case where you live, whose fault is that?
You only get to talk to them if you pay them money.......... I mean extortion fees, then god forbid you disagree. Oops look at the time, no more of it for you.
