Once again, rural white America gets first presidential say
In an essay published last May, the Washington Post asked whether it made sense for 200,000 mostly white, older, and rural people in Iowa to hold the kind of kingmaker power that they currently wield.
When the rest of the country is focusing on the economy, will Republicans in other states take their lead from the outcome of an eccentric process that has been dominated by social conservatives?
And as the GOP looks to defeat an African American president who mobilized record numbers of young and minority voters four years ago, how relevant are the preferences of 200,000 or so caucusgoers in a rural state that is overwhelmingly white and significantly older than average?
But once again, Iowa got to make the first cull of presidential candidates. By rejecting former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty — passed over in favor of House member Michele Bachman — the state toppled one politician and elevated another.
It is a matter of fact that small town voters have different sensibilities, different even from other Republican voters around the country.
How different would these early political tests if they occurred in a part of the country that included a significant percentage of suburban or even urban voters?
Even if early caucuses occurred in places like Rep. Bachman’s own home state, politicians would be forced to balance their appeal, reaching out to small town activists but also to people in places like Minneapolis and St. Paul.
So what do you think? Should our early politics take a detour from places like Iowa and New Hampshire, maybe even showing up in places like the Bronx and LA?
Tags: politics
When did “should” have anything to do with American politics? Should we have a winner-take-all electoral vote system in nearly all the states, so that, as in 2000, the candidate getting fewer popular votes is elected President? Should corporations be allowed to contribute infinite amounts to campaigns without accountability, while public financing of campaigns is suppressed? Should anyone who thinks the Battle of Lexington was fought in New Hampshire be allowed to run for President, let alone be a frontrunner?
The only real “should” in question here is, “If they want to win in 2012, should Republicans allow their campaigns to be dominated by rural, white, social and religious conservatives?”. The answer, fortunately, is probably not.
The Republican Party is a private political group they can hold their primary to elect their candidate wherever they want. They have chosen Iowa for a variety of reasons, if it produces goofy results then the Republicans have to deal with that.
I mean Ron Paul according to Iowa should be one of the front runners. The Republican Party is not some sort of public service group doing whats fair for Democrats and Republicans and Independents, it is a private political Party with the goal of vetting Republicans who can energize turnout. As far as Palwentey goes the system worked, that guy could energize anybody to go out and vote. Why in the world would they hold a primary in the Bronx, how many Republican Primary voters live in the Bronx?
On the record, winning in Iowa doesnt do a particularly good job of picking eventual candidates for either party.
I did read that Las Vegas is now the 29th largest metropolitan area in the US but the largest in the 1st 4 primary states…no wonder we dont hear much about urbanconcerns andproblems from the candidates
It should be held in Chicago where the turnout will be racially mixed, urban and died five years ago.
Perhaps the question that should be asked is – Why do any voters vote the way the do? Or – What’s wrong with them?
Why can’t people get beyond push-button responses to hot-button issues? Why do they let other people think for them?
Think of the insanity of Germans during the time of Hitler. Think of the insanity in this country during the time of Joseph Raymond “Joe” McCarthy.
newt, they are not “allowing” their primaries to be dominated by a particular group. If it is dominated by a particular group it is planned that way.
Evidently someone confuses the geographic middle of the country with some kind of philosophical middle. No doubt that was part of the “plan”
Look at voter turnout in Iowa compare it to voter turnout in other states. Look at voter turnout among white elderly people, compare it to voter turnout among other demographics. Elections are not about the population at large, they are about who votes.