|
Nintendo Kid posted:Wanting everyone to be better served by the government does not require that I care what the people of say Topeka have to say about things. You personally no, but those in power yes. They don't have to, but some of us do. It is why I've been trying to find local links for the campaign stops and tried asking for local politics shows. I find it interesting to here other peoples opinions from other states and what the candidates say to these people and how it is different from what I've heard here. Also this is my last post on it since I need sleep. I'm happy to have been talked at by you Fishmech. Also being one of the biggest producers in the breadbasket, wind energy, and our three major universities are what make us important. Well until Bransted destroys it all. Mr Hootington fucked around with this message at 05:39 on Jun 13, 2015 |
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 20:14 |
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Wanting everyone to be better served by the government does not require that I care what the people of say Topeka have to say about things. "I don't have to listen to your desires and ideas to know what's best for you" -most politicians
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
I was trying to avoid a derail and get you on a technicality, but I think in general, championing a symbol of a group that wanted to secede form America is Unamerican, and specifically, the Confederate flag is an inherently racist symbol that should be left in the waste bin of history.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Great, so how does voting in the suburbs of Boston change fracking rules in rust belt New York? Cuz you know, that's where I live. The first point is a gimme. If you vote for politicians who support policies that increase the market for natural gas, legislation that attacks environmental regulations at the federal level, or even that imposes federal rules permitting fracking that supersede state/local law, you would increase the pressure for fracking in rural areas, including the area where I live. Also, it certainly did have to do with voting. The Governor of NY is basically the governor of NYC, plus a giant largely rural state that happens to be attached to NYC. NYC elects the Governor, who enacts policies that can gently caress over other parts of the state. Meanwhile, residents of the city don't have to know or care. But it also doesn't have to have anything to do with voting, because voting isn't the only way in which areas can exert influence on each other. In fact it's almost certainly not the most important. In this case, the economics of the situation were pretty clear: All the money is in NYC, and the Southern Tier counties have no money and hence no power. Note this wasn't taking place in the Hudson Valley or the outskirts of an upstate city.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:Regardless of the population difference. This is a nation that was supposed to be built on the ideal that everyone has a voice. This is more of that corn state victimhood addiction these fuckers bank on. Everyone does have a voice. The straw poll was a circus which took a minuscule isolate of the population and let them run monopoly over the primary process as they yapped to the nation for months about how their hangups should get first dibs. What you are defending as "having a voice" is giving some fat gently caress in the back of the crowd a gargantuan bullhorn while stuffing gags in everyone else's mouths. No wonder this country's gone all hosed, the flyover states are given privileged status in the electoral process and everyone has to deal with choosing from the top bids for corn subsidies and farm bills every four years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
Tempest_56 posted:Counterpoint: Cuomo is a fuckhead. He'd screw NYC into the ground if he could figure a way to make it benefit him. It's not a terribly good example because Christ, what an rear end in a top hat. I mean you're not wrong about Cuomo, but I don't think it weakens the example to note that a power-hungry shithead strongman politician with no compunctions went after the easier (because smaller and poorer) target. FAUXTON posted:This is more of that corn state victimhood addiction these fuckers bank on. Everyone does have a voice. The straw poll was a circus which took a minuscule isolate of the population and let them run monopoly over the primary process as they yapped to the nation for months about how their hangups should get first dibs. What you are defending as "having a voice" is giving some fat gently caress in the back of the crowd a gargantuan bullhorn while stuffing gags in everyone else's mouths. No wonder this country's gone all hosed, the flyover states are given privileged status in the electoral process and everyone has to deal with choosing from the top bids for corn subsidies and farm bills every four years. I think you're missing the point. At the risk of putting words in his mouth, Hootington is reacting to the generalized hostility and dismissive attitude on display towards his part of the country, not the specific criticism that the primaries are ridiculous. Also, I didn't want to sidestep this: FAUXTON posted:How many of those impoverished farmers and small town yokels expressed opposition to fracking? Not a lot of them. Many people in the area - I would guess a majority - wanted fracking to come to town. That certainly played into Cuomo's calculations when he floated the idea. It doesn't make it any less cynical and exploitative of a move. Supraluminal fucked around with this message at 05:55 on Jun 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
.
BristolSOF fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Jun 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
BristolSOF posted:I have a question. Why is Iowa first? Couldn't both parties come to together and creating a rotating system that's more fair? lol if you think they're giving up their years of hard earned gerrymandered districts
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
gently caress the mid-west.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:You personally no, but those in power yes. Cite your sources that the current American government ignores rural areas, then. mlmp08 posted:"I don't have to listen to your desires and ideas to know what's best for you" The good people of Topeka were among the Kansans who voted in their current clownshow of a governor and legislature. It should be obvious why for the moment you should probably ignore much of them when figuring out policies that will actually help them. Supraluminal posted:The first point is a gimme. If you vote for politicians who support policies that increase the market for natural gas, legislation that attacks environmental regulations at the federal level, or even that imposes federal rules permitting fracking that supersede state/local law, you would increase the pressure for fracking in rural areas, including the area where I live. Cuomo has absolutely nothing to do with why the watershed area that New York City's bought and managed for over a century won't have any major development, let alone fracking done any time soon. In order to get fracking in some place that would affect NYC's water sources, a company would need to first get the current trusts that manage all nearby land to agree to considering it before there could be anything out of Albany that authorizes it. And no company has the kind of money to make that happen. Like do you not get that NYC literally owns all that land and water? It's not some state agency that works on their behalf for it, it's property of an arm of the city. Just as you as a small landowner could prevent fracking on/under your particular property, so can the city do the same for its thousands of square miles of owned land.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
Supraluminal posted:I mean you're not wrong about Cuomo, but I don't think it weakens the example to note that a power-hungry shithead strongman politician with no compunctions went after the easier (because smaller and poorer) target. The primaries are ridiculous for the same reason he's griping. It places a unrepresentative minority in a position disproportionately privileged to basically litmus test candidates. A lot of the rancor comes from attitudes like his, where anyone who says "hey, there's millions more people over here dealing with broadly apparent housing issues and rotting bridges, it's wrong that these few hundred thousand rurals out in the field get exclusive airtime to handicap the ballot" becomes Literally Hitler who can't stop kicking the little guy when he's down. For gently caress's sake, let a place like California or Massachusetts shortlist the primary field. It isn't like Modesto, CA is all that different from Midwestern soybean country. As for Cuomo giving his state's rurals their fracking dreamland, that isn't exploitative. Exploitative would be him rolling his motorcade around the place using every opportunity available to speak out against the gas lobby while ignoring dozens of people waddling up to him saying fracking is totally safe and begging for him to let gas companies fizz their aquifer. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 06:14 on Jun 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
So, :bernget: is a thing now. Surely this means that Bernie is a serious candidate now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:I was trying to avoid a derail and get you on a technicality, but I think in general, championing a symbol of a group that wanted to secede form America is Unamerican. And who is more likely to champion that symbol, people from flyover states or people from urban areas?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 07:25
|
|
|
computer parts posted:And who is more likely to champion that symbol, people from flyover states or people from urban areas? I'm not sure what we're arguing about at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 07:26
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:I'm not sure what we're arguing about at this point. Skwirl posted:No one ever accuses resident's of the flyover states of not being "real Americans" as an applause line.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
computer parts posted:And who is more likely to champion that symbol, people from flyover states or people from urban areas? I'm not really sure the south fits into either category.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
The article you quoted wasn't an applause line from a nationally televised speech. And gently caress the Confederate flag, there's a lot to celebrate about the south, none of it is represented by the symbol of people willing to kill fellow Americans for the right to own slaves.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
Unless every single primary vote were held on the same day, there will always be one place that "unfairly" gets first stab at vetting who runs. Boohoo. Also isn't the Iowa primary pretty predictably not in line with who actually runs and wins? I tend to imagine it would be similarly stupid for NYC to be the first primary for republicans, given that NY isn't in play. A more open area that might actually matter might be the flyover state of Ohio.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 08:13
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:I'm not really sure the south fits into either category. For a variety of reasons you're as likely to see a rebel flag in the midwest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 08:17
|
|
|
Each party's primary calendar is determined by the order in which they performed poorest in the previous election. For 2016, the Democrats would start with Utah, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Idaho, West Virginia and the GOP would begin with DC, Hawaii, Vermont, New York and Rhode Island. Boom, problem solved. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
as an iowan i think the current system works fine
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 08:37
|
|
|
As a not-Iowan I enjoy the theater of candidates pretending to super care about Iowans until the day after the Iowan primaries. Also I can think of far stupider places to kick off the campaign, such as LA, NYC, Chicago, DC, and more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 08:42
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Unless every single primary vote were held on the same day, there will always be one place that "unfairly" gets first stab at vetting who runs. Boohoo. Also isn't the Iowa primary pretty predictably not in line with who actually runs and wins? It's not that Iowa picks the final winner, but it often acts as the first test that often winnows the field down to fewer candidates. The winner of the caucuses doesn't necessarily become the eventual nominee/president, but many of the losers drop out there because the media declares them unserious candidates and that affects how likely they'll get further support from their donors. The reason people in Iowa are pissed at Fox News doing their weird polls-determine-debate-roster thing is because they feel that it's Fox News picking the candidates they feel are serious/unserious rather than the voters on the ground doing so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 08:54
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Unless every single primary vote were held on the same day, there will always be one place that "unfairly" gets first stab at vetting who runs. Boohoo. It's the unrepresentative minority, not the fact that there has to be someone going first. mlmp08 posted:Also isn't the Iowa primary pretty predictably not in line with who actually runs and wins?  mlmp08 posted:I tend to imagine it would be similarly stupid for NYC to be the first primary for republicans, given that NY isn't in play. A more open area that might actually matter might be the flyover state of Ohio. NYC would be terrible for the GOP because It isn't really a good yardstick for the average Republican. You wouldn't hold the Democratic Party's first campaign contest in loving Scottsdale, would you? Iowa is almost 90% non-hispanic white, 5% hispanic, and about 3% black. The country at large is 61.8% non-hispanic white, 13.2% black, and 17.8% hispanic. The gently caress kind of thought process looks at how skewed toward whites those demographics are and says "Yep, seems like a good test audience?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 09:09
|
|
|
I think part of it is that these early primaries are small states small media markets, where campaigning is relatively cheap, and where door-to-door campaigning and small-venue events can have a readily-observable effect. There may be some notion that these properties make them good places to sort the wheat from the chaff, and good places to field-test campaign rhetoric in ultimately low-stakes environs. Much easier to brush embarassing candidates and incidents under the rug when they happen in Cornshuck, Iowa than if they happened in a huge, important locale at the center of a huge, important media market. PupsOfWar fucked around with this message at 09:20 on Jun 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 09:18
|
|
|
It's also easier to brush immigrants and minorities under the rug when your low-stakes environs are 90% white.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 09:22
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:The country at large is 61.8% non-hispanic white, 13.2% black, and 17.8% hispanic. The gently caress kind of thought process looks at how skewed toward whites those demographics are and says "Yep, seems like a good test audience?" Because the GOP gets a much larger portion of its votes from white people than it does the rest of America. Long term they desperately need to address that but why would they have cared about seeing how well they do with black voters when they were up against Obama? Edit: agreed that lower stakes markets are likely early on so candidates can get their footing. You don't want your initial fuckups to be in bigger important markets like Ohio or Florida. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 09:25 on Jun 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 09:23
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:It's also easier to brush immigrants and minorities under the rug when your low-stakes environs are 90% white. When you consider the mindset of the white political caste, it seems likely that this is more selling point than drawback. Though much-more-diverse-but-still-small Nevada and South Carolina round out the early quadrangle, perhaps with this in mind.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 09:25
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Because the GOP gets a much larger portion of its votes from white people than it does the rest of America. Long term they desperately need to address that but why would they have cared about seeing how well they do with black voters when they were up against Obama? And the Democrats, which also place Iowa at the front of the line?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 09:25
|
|
|
I don't actually have an issue with Iowa being first in the nation, you can't just have a nation wide primary on the same day because that would tip the scales towards the money so much farther than it already is, and aside from the corn thing, Iowa is probably as decent a cross section of the country as you're going to get on a state by state basis (Ohio might be better).
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 09:28
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:I think part of it is that these early primaries are small states small media markets, where campaigning is relatively cheap, and where door-to-door campaigning and small-venue events can have a readily-observable effect. There may be some notion that these properties make them good places to sort the wheat from the chaff, and good places to field-test campaign rhetoric in ultimately low-stakes environs. Except Super Tuesday basically decides the winner.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 09:28
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:And the Democrats, which also place Iowa at the front of the line? Honestly I don't really care. And by the looks of it, Iowans are pretty bad at picking who will make it as GOP but pretty accurate for democrats so meh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 09:30
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:I don't actually have an issue with Iowa being first in the nation, you can't just have a nation wide primary on the same day because that would tip the scales towards the money so much farther than it already is, and aside from the corn thing, Iowa is probably as decent a cross section of the country as you're going to get on a state by state basis (Ohio might be better).  code:
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 09:36
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:Except Super Tuesday basically decides the winner. The momentum from early primary/caucus wins helps drive the donations and volunteers needed to get a Super Tuesday victory.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 09:39
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:Regardless of the population difference. This is a nation that was supposed to be built on the ideal that everyone has a voice. They do have a voice. The problem is they keep voting for regressive candidates and policies because they have this hosed up idea that their religion requires it. No one is taking anything from them, in fact the blue states having been giving them extra resources for decades. At the end of the day, they are holding the entire country back from moving forward, and have been loving determined to destroy their local economies and poison their land and water and air. But see, that girl over there had an abortion, and taxes are killing us even though they are at a historic low, and we need to extract these resources even if it means that we poison people. If it wasn't so sad I would think it was a drat universal joke.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 10:13
|
|
|
Pohl posted:They do have a voice. The problem is they keep voting for regressive candidates and policies because they have this hosed up idea that their religion requires it. It isn't just this, it's that they have a larger voice than people in the populous states. A small minority of the population controls politics in the US due to the way we we apportion senators through land area and not through population. Without that aspect, things would be a hell of a lot less regressive. It's really unfair that a dude in Iowa's voice carries like 10 times the weight of someone in California, as represented in the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 12:22
|
|
|
BristolSOF posted:I have a question. Why is Iowa first? Because Clif Larson only had a rusty mimeograph machine and needed enough time between the precinct and state caucus to print off the ballots and platform. quote:Mr. Larson, his late wife, Marlene, and a young aide named Rich Bender, now a legislative assistant to Senator Tom Harkin, set up the new system. According to a new book on the caucuses by Prof. Hugh Winebrenner of Drake University, the 1972 state convention was set for May 20 largely because a hall was available for that date.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 13:18
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:I'm not sure what we're arguing about at this point. Some people are concerned that they are not heard because of where they live. The true answer is that they are not heard because they are not rich, and all this geography is hokum.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 13:40
|
|
|
computer parts posted:And who is more likely to champion that symbol, people from flyover states or people from urban areas? ...people from urban areas? Very few flyover states champion the confederate flag, though I don't have any numbers on the confederate supporting among the urban/rural population in this states. Plenty of coastal states with big cities do, though? Yeah, I too have to wonder where the gently caress you're going with this. (And this is from someone who thinks NK is wrong about everything) GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 14:25 on Jun 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 14:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 20:14 |
|
|
Aliquid posted:Each party's primary calendar is determined by the order in which they performed poorest in the previous election. For 2016, the Democrats would start with Utah, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Idaho, West Virginia and the GOP would begin with DC, Hawaii, Vermont, New York and Rhode Island. Boom, problem solved. This method sounds like it would lead to hilarious things, so I say we give it a shot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 14:20
|
|
