Debating Iowa's Place In The Primary Calendar
Iowa's prominence among the states that hold early voting in the Democratic presidential primaries seems to now be in some jeopardy. Party officials are openly discussing whether to revamp the process of selecting which states get to hold the earliest votes, which continues a reform effort that has been ongoing for quite a while now. Once the primary system replaced the "smoke-filled back rooms" in the party's selection of a nominee in the 1970s, there have been efforts to tinker with who goes first. Iowa and New Hampshire fended off most of these reform efforts and held their position as, respectively, the first caucus state and the first primary state to vote in the nation. More recently, the party acknowledged the dearth of minorities in these two states by adding South Carolina (with a high percentage of Black voters) and Nevada (with many Latino voters) to balance things out a bit.
But now the party appears to be rethinking whether Iowa should even have a place at the early-voting table at all. Here's how the Washington Post reported this development:
Democratic Party officials circulated plans Monday for a 2024 presidential nominating calendar that would select up to five states to hold contests before March based upon a new set of criteria that appears designed to exclude a return of the Iowa caucuses to their first-in-the-nation status.
The document, labeled "draft for discussion," defines three criteria for the party's Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) to select early nominating states: the diversity of the electorate "including ethnic, geographic, union representation, economic, etc.;" the competitiveness of the state in a general election; and the ability of the state to administer a "fair, transparent and inclusive" process.
Iowa lacks significant racial or ethnic diversity, is no longer viewed as a swing state and is bound by law to hold a nominating caucus, not a statewide primary.
Part of this is backlash against how spectacularly Iowa blew it in the 2020 contest. New technology was deployed which led to utter chaos, and the voting results were delayed for days. Even when the winner was announced, there wasn't a high degree of certitude about the accuracy of the results. Pete Buttigieg wound up winning the most "state delegate equivalents" while Bernie Sanders won the popular vote, leading both candidates to declare they had "won" Iowa. Such confusion is not exactly what the rest of the country was looking for from the first state to hold a presidential nominating contest, to put it mildly.
Part of the problem is the caucus system itself. Caucuses are time-consuming and inconvenient, and they deny a voice to those who cannot (for whatever reason, and there are many) devote a couple of hours on a winter weekday night to politics. You can't just show up, cast a ballot, and go home -- you have to actively participate. Caucuses are also the opposite of the concept of a secret ballot, since all your neighbors get to see which candidate you support. More and more states have realized this and have moved to the much simpler primary election system over time. But Iowa cannot -- it is locked in to holding caucuses as long as it wants to retain its "first in the nation" status.
This is due to New Hampshire's laws. New Hampshire's law states that their presidential primary will be scheduled one week before any other state holds a primary. It is a guarantee that theirs will always be the first primary on the calendar, even if it means moving that date back to December of the year before the election. They allow Iowa to get away with voting first solely because they hold a caucus and not a primary. So if Iowa were to switch to a true primary system, New Hampshire would immediately attempt to leapfrog to the head of the line.
Of course, Iowa loves the quadrennial attention and economic boomlet that comes with it. With so many candidates and campaigns and media paying such close attention to the state, it means lots of hotel rooms get booked, restaurants get patronized, cars and buses get rented, television time gets bought, office space gets rented, and a myriad of other benefits flow to businesses all over the state. So they can be expected to fight any proposed change to the system.
Iowa really has two things going for it, when people argue which states should go first. It is a heavily rural state, and it is not a huge state with prohibitive costly television ads. This allows for two things to take place that might not be possible in some other states: candidates can campaign "retail, not wholesale" by personally meeting with voters instead of just flooding the airwaves with ads, and the candidates are forced to address farmers' concerns that might get lost in the shuffle in other states.
The argument for small states is a good one, because if (for instance) California or New York were the first state to hold a primary, many small-dollar candidates would be frozen out from the start. Without the financial resources to adequately compete, candidacies like Jimmy Carter's or Bill Clinton's might have never have gotten off the ground, this argument goes. By posting a strong finish in the early states, such candidates launch much larger fundraising efforts by being seen as more competitive than the others -- as early success builds a bigger campaign effort.
The early states are the point in the campaign when a lot of candidates drop out. The ones that don't do well in Iowa and New Hampshire often see the writing on the wall and hang up their spurs before the big wave of contests even begins, which winnows the field. But this system isn't perfect, of course. Joe Biden didn't really catch fire in any way until the last of the four early contests, in South Carolina. And Iowa is not notable for choosing the eventual winner in the Democratic nomination race.
Let's go back to the criteria the Democrats are now considering adopting for early-voting states, though. They want states with a "diversity of the electorate 'including ethnic, geographic, union representation, economic, etc.;' the competitiveness of the state in a general election; and the ability of the state to administer a 'fair, transparent and inclusive' process." The last one seems to directly target caucuses, since they may be considered "fair" by some but they are far from inclusive, since they are the most inconvenient way for voters to make their preferences known. But as mentioned, most states have already ditched caucuses in favor of primaries anyway, and some of the "caucuses" that remain are nothing more than a convenient label, since they function almost exactly as a primary does anyway.
The "competitiveness of the state in a general election" also seems directed at Iowa, since the state hasn't been truly competitive for Democrats for the last two presidential cycles. Iowa has been getting redder and redder. But should this really matter? Democrats in red states already don't have a whole lot of motivation to turn out for the general election, since they already know that their state is going to send all their Electoral College votes to the Republican candidate. But does that somehow make their opinions less important to the national Democratic Party? Why should they be doubly penalized by never having an effective voice in the primaries as well? This new criteria seems to be designed to save resources for the Democratic Party as a whole, since if all the candidates spend a whole lot of time and money in an early-voting state, it would be nice if that state were competitive in November so all that expenditure doesn't essentially go to waste -- instead, it will spill over into the general election race. But that's an awfully crass reason to bar all the red states from early participation.
The other criteria also seems to target Iowa, since Iowa is not a very diverse state at all. It is in fact overwhelmingly (over 90 percent) White. As is New Hampshire, by the way. Minorities are a critical part of the Democratic coalition, so having their voices heard at the very start of the contest is indeed important, but perhaps the party will allow one state in the early contests which isn't very racially or ethnically diverse (all of these seem to directly target Iowa without really challenging New Hampshire's inclusion in the process, at least to the outside observer).
There are certainly other ways to select states for early voting. Democrats have already introduced geographic diversity into the system, by featuring one New England state, one from the South, one from the Midwest, and one from the West. The possible replacements for Iowa currently being discussed are states like Minnesota and Michigan, which would also check the Midwestern box. But if it is going to be a free-for-all contest to see which states go first, many other states will begin lobbying for inclusion as well (New Jersey is reportedly also interested, for example).
I would even suggest one criterion that seems like a good idea to me -- give priority to the states with the highest voter turnout in previous elections. The list of the highest 10 turnout states in 2020 might be surprising to some: New Jersey (with almost an 85 percent turnout), Minnesota, Mississippi, Oregon, Maryland, New Hampshire, Montana, Maine, North Dakota, and Ohio (with just over 77 percent turnout). Iowa only made it to 15th place in this list, with just under 76 percent turnout. South Carolina was way down the list, and Nevada was the second-worst turnout state in the whole country, at just 66 percent turnout.
It seems to me that the voters of any state prove just how interested in politics they truly are by showing up. So even though it is ruby-red, Mississippi has a much stronger argument than Nevada or South Carolina for political participation. It seems like this should somehow count for something in this process. Of course, that list changes with every election, and in 2020 there were many COVID-related rules in place that made it a lot easier to vote in many states -- but a lot of these rules have been overturned or rolled back, so the 2024 list might be radically different.
Nothing is so far written in stone. The Democratic Party hasn't adopted any changes yet. It is merely thinking about them, and considering new ways to select early states, perhaps on a rotating basis (where the early state list would change with each presidential contest). The safest bet might be that nothing changes at all, mostly because of inertia. Iowa and New Hampshire have gone first for decades, so getting people to institute a new system is going to run into resistance just on the lines of tradition -- which can be a powerful motivator to just do nothing. It is only 2022, so the party has at least a year before it has to make any final decisions (with enough time for the states to readjust their schedules, which requires the legislatures to act). So far it is just a proposal.
It has sparked an interesting debate, however, one that has been simmering for a while and was brought into stark focus when Iowa had such problems reporting results in 2020. Perhaps this will go down in history as the last Iowa caucus ever held -- perhaps their state (especially if they get booted from their first-in-the-nation status) will decide to switch to the much-more-convenient primary system. Or perhaps they'll continue with the caucuses, but no one will care because they'll be so far back in the line they won't matter all that much anymore. Or, as I said, perhaps inertia will win the day and nothing will change. But at least the debate is now on the table and somewhat out in the open. As it probably should be.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Yes, I in the Death-to-Iowa-and-New-Hampshire-Always-First camp.
Only a rotating schedule is really representative of and fair for all.
Let's see if I understand you, Michale:
There have been a total of 120 SCOTUS Justices.
Half of Americans are women and there have been four female justices.
Non-whites are roughly a third of America and they've had three.
Black women make up 7% of all Americans and not one has made SCOTUS.
So Joe Biden keeps his promise to correct this and he's the racist?*smh*
And let us pray for the continued health of Justice Clarence Thomas.
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2022/03/23/fighting-the-russian-army-to-a-draw/#comment-187988">Lizsplaining, in all its glory. Heh.
Sheeeeeee-it.
Lizsplaining, in all its glory. Heh
@caddy[3],
What exactly are we praying will happen to justice Thomas's health?
Sarcasm alert!
Michale (from previous)
On the other hand, I see the logical argument from the military/economic side of the issue.
It's only the lower ranks that are not paid well. And those ranks are, in economic terms, "unskilled labor" and their pay is commiserate with that designation...
It’s ONLY the lower ranks that are not paid well??? Oh, well if it is ONLY them then I guess that is acceptable! They are only the front line soldiers in any conflict, those whose lives are most often given in their service to our country. And I always love it when conservatives want to bring up smart economic practices to excuse the low level of compensation they feel some deserve while ignoring the unadulterated greed by and privilege given to those in power. And the military has no problem spending outrageous amounts of money on questionable projects that could do wonders for the lives of our enlisted service members.
Which is why, in the olden days, it was always smarter for young bucks to WAIT until they were financially secure before starting families..
The vast majority of hardships in people's lives can, more often than not, be traced back to stoopid decisions made.. That goes for civilian, military, race, gender, lifestyle... Whatever kind of hardship you can name..
Right… how stoopid of me to have a child born with a medical condition that requires medicine that costs thousands of dollars per prescription and causes me to need to miss work often in order to care for my sick child! This wasn’t a choice that I made to be burdened with this hardship — like you said, I’m just stoopid, I guess.
The same “stoopid decision” you describe will have far different outcomes depending on the individuals’ socio-economic environment. Republicans need to have someone to blame for life’s problems… because they feel guilty when they realize the privileges that they have enjoyed while not being burdened with the pitfalls those less fortunate as they experience.
VOT.
Russ,
Viability is NOT based SOLELY on medical technology and while it might be easy for you to postulate that a fetus could be “viable” at 6 weeks; it would be wrong for you to postulate such BS.
What other factors determine fetus viability?
The ability to survive outside the womb prematurely is SOLEY determined by the medical technology of any given era..
I am sincerely confused by your claim..
Fetal viability is the ability of a fetus to survive outside the uterus. Fetal viability is generally considered to begin at 24 weeks gestational age, since at this point in the pregnancy, most infants survive a preterm birth.
There have been cases where 22 week gestation babies have survived..
And that number is getting shorter..
Why? Because of medical technology..
Is it REALLY outside the realm of possibility that in the time of Kirk and Spock that babies at 6 weeks could be saved??
The viability argument is a fluid argument and is not suited for the black/white areas of the law..
Abortion is killing a sentient life form.. This is fact.
I am going to break my own rule for clarity's sake..
Should Dr Kovich have ordered the "death" of Zora simply because she didn't fit the definition of "life" as it is understood??
If Democrats REALLY care about the sanctity of life, with all it's possible diversity....
Then supporting abortion is illogical...
JL,
I've never seen a single episode of discovery. Should I?
Up until Season 4, yes, I would recommend it.
Despite the gross and perverse canon violations, Season 1 was good.. Season 2 was AWESOME, made even more enjoyable by addressing (albeit lamely) many the canon violations of S1..
Once freed from canon, Season 3 was OK.. Definitely did not live up to the awesomeness of S2...
Season 4 was abysmal... Is was if TPTB gave creative control to Occasional Cortex and Illan Omar and the most mindless America-hating progressive they could find and those 3 put all their wildest progressive fantasies into it.. And the cherry on top of this gross perversion of cherished Trek was casting Stacey BIG LIE Abrams as the President Of United Earth..
But that probably means you would love it as much as Russ did.. :D hehehe
Russ,
It’s ONLY the lower ranks that are not paid well??? Oh, well if it is ONLY them then I guess that is acceptable!
You seem to equate "acceptable" with "understandable"..
"I did not say I agree. I said I understand.."
-Spock, STAR TREK A TASTE OF ARMAGEDDON
^^^^^^^ REAL Star Trek... :^/
And the military has no problem spending outrageous amounts of money on questionable projects that could do wonders for the lives of our enlisted service members.
For example...????
I am making a bet with myself to see how far back in time you have to go to justify your faux-rage.. :D
Right… how stoopid of me to have a child born with a medical condition that requires medicine that costs thousands of dollars per prescription and causes me to need to miss work often in order to care for my sick child! This wasn’t a choice that I made to be burdened with this hardship — like you said, I’m just stoopid, I guess.
You support abortion.. So the solution to THIS problem you enumerate should be simple in your mind..
Republicans need to have someone to blame for life’s problems…
Yer kidding, right??
You Democrats blame racism ALL THE TIME for problems of many black Americans..
Talk about projection, eh?? :D
because they feel guilty when they realize the privileges that they have enjoyed while not being burdened with the pitfalls those less fortunate as they experience.
How one responds to pitfalls is what makes up character..
Take a Democrat and a Republican..
The Republican accepts the facts of minimum wage for unskilled labor and he goes out and works 3 jobs at wage to earn his way thru schooling and apprenticeship so he CAN earn more than min wage..
The Democrat doesn't want to work hard at all so he demands a much higher min wage so he live the HIGH (if you catch my meaning) life without actually having to EARN it.. This Democrat will also fight for more FREE STUFF including FREE MONEY so maybe he can live the HIGH life without having to work at all!!
And you want to convince me that the Democrat way is better for society?? :D
"Well... Good luck with that..."
-Jim Carrey, BRUCE ALMIGHTY
Democrats remind me of that guy living in his mom's basement from the old X-Files TV Show...
"I wish I could be abducted.. I wish they would take me to their planet and I could live there and never have to work.."
-Democrat Luser, X-FILES
:D
So Joe Biden keeps his promise to correct this and he's the racist?*smh*
So, you concede that Jackson Brown is an Affirmative Action hire.. I accept that...
Because THAT is **EXACTLY** what Affirmative Action is..
It's racism to "correct" racism..
It's making a selection based on race...
The very DEFINITION of racism...
Affirmative Action is one of ONLY TWO examples of Institutionalized/Systemic Racism left in this country..
The other example being the Democrat Party..
MC,
And let us pray for the continued health of Justice Clarence Thomas.
A-Frakin-MEN to that..
I mean, beyond the fact that Justice Thomas is a good and decent man...
I don't think I could handle ya'all's gloating if the SCOTUS reverted back to a 5-4 Conservative... :D
The document, labeled "draft for discussion," defines three criteria for the party's Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) to select early nominating states: the diversity of the electorate "including ethnic, geographic, union representation, economic, etc.;"
So, in other words..
A race-based selection process...
Which simply confirms the Democrat Party as one of two institutions that are systemically racist.. :^/
The argument for small states is a good one, because if (for instance) California or New York were the first state to hold a primary, many small-dollar candidates would be frozen out from the start. Without the financial resources to adequately compete, candidacies like Jimmy Carter's or Bill Clinton's might have never have gotten off the ground, this argument goes. By posting a strong finish in the early states, such candidates launch much larger fundraising efforts by being seen as more competitive than the others -- as early success builds a bigger campaign effort.
The solution to this problem is simple..
Allow candidates FREE AIR TIME... Give each candidate the SAME amount of free air time and prohibit candidates from buying their own air time..
This kills two birds with one stone.. It gives each candidate equal footing and negates the effects to BIG MONEY in campaigns..
DH would be SOOO proud of me!! :D
. Joe Biden didn't really catch fire in any way until the last of the four early contests, in South Carolina.
And WHY did Joe Biden catch fire in South Carolina.. Because he made a crass racist promise in exchange for political votes and support..
Thereby once again providing FACTS that prove the Democrat Party is systemically/institutionally racist...
The "competitiveness of the state in a general election" also seems directed at Iowa, since the state hasn't been truly competitive for Democrats for the last two presidential cycles. Iowa has been getting redder and redder.
Just like Democrats..
The agreed upon rules aren't working for them so they change the rules to obtain a political advantage.. :^/
I am betting that inertia and tradition win the day.. :D
Liz,
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2022/03/23/fighting-the-russian-army-to-a-draw/#comment-187988
Excellent comment!! :D
You can Liz-splain to me ANY time!! :D
But here's the ONE thing that your comment doesn't address.
Russia has NO actual legitimate security claims about NATO..
Europe/NATO, on the other hand, has some real and documented security concerns about Russia...
So, while the Russia feels their security concerns are legitimate, facts and reality clearly show they are not..
And the other thing you don't address is that NATO membership is baked into the Ukraine Constitution by a SUPER majority of it's government..
To give you an analogy..
Canada claims they have legitimate security concerns about the US and the 2nd Amendment..
Canada amasses hundreds of thousands of troops at the northern border and demands that the US give up the 2nd Amendment..
The US gives the big finger to Canada and Canada invades...
Such is the situation with Russia and Ukraine...
Every sovereign country has it's right to self-determination...
We can no more ask Ukraine to give up it's right to determine NATO membership than Canada can ask the US to give up it's 2nd Amendment..
Despite the gross and perverse canon violations, Season 1 was good.. Season 2 was AWESOME, made even more enjoyable by addressing (albeit lamely) many the canon violations of S1..
The reason season 2 of Discovery was so awesome because it dealt almost EXCLUSIVELY with Trek lore...
We got to see a revisit to Talos V.. We got to see a portion of the Origin Story of Captain Pike.. And a portion of the Origin Story of Spock. We got to see a portion of the Origin Story of T'Pau.. And we learned WHY Klingon of Star Trek look different than the Klingons from Star Trek TNG..
It's what made ENTERPRISE Season 4 so frakin' awesome..
It had TREK baked into it...
About the ONLY thing that Season 4 of Discovery had in the way of nostalgia was the reference to Gilligan's Island.. Which I admit was pretty awesome.. :D
Basically, TPTB of Discovery are making the EXACT SAME MISTAKE that TPTB of ENTERPRISE tried to do in the early seasons..
Disavow and disown everything about Trek that MADE it Trek...
In the early seasons of Enterprise, Beavis and Butthead (Braga and Berman) tried to drop STAR TREK from STAR TREK ENTERPRISE... It didn't work out too well..
So it is with Discovery... Although to my knowledge they are not trying to rename it, they ARE ignoring everything about Star Trek canon that makes Star Trek the phenomenon it is today..
They are forgoing the action and excitement for a deep dive into people's feelings.. They have to stop right in the middle of a very serious and dangerous situation to make sure everyone is comfortable in their skin and make sure everyone knows that they are valued and appreciated...
It's why I was able to condense each episode to about 10-15 mins of actual watching time.. And yunno what?? I didn't miss a thing!! I was able to follow exactly what's going on by skipping all the deep dives into feelings.. I skipped over 3/4ths of the show and I STILL followed the story line perfectly..
That says something about how irrelevant the obsession with feelings and worth is..
And for the love of the all that is decent and holy!!!
Put Tal and Gray in red shirts and send them on a mission!!!
Michale,
Yes, I didn't cover it all.
My only point all along was that Biden and NATO and Z sticking to Ukraine's future NATO membership as a non-negotiable was not only a stupid move but one that has cost a lot of lives and destruction and, perhaps, Ukrainian independence, altogether.
Putting such a thing as NATO membership in your constitution when you are a country situated right next to Russia is also a stupid move resulting from very bad advice from the US.
Every security alliance as the right to determine its own membership based on its own security concerns. NATO has quite a lot to learn in this regard. Perhaps, it never will.
<can no more ask Ukraine to give up it's right to determine NATO membership than Canada can ask the US to give up it's 2nd Amendment..
Actually, that's apples and gorillas and, yes, we certainly can tell Ukraine to change its constitution Re NATO aspirations. But, unfortunately, it is far too late in the game for that kind of common sense.
Putting such a thing as NATO membership in your constitution when you are a country situated right next to Russia is also a stupid move resulting from very bad advice from the US.
I respect that opinion.. Hell, I might even AGREE with it..
But part and parcel to being one's own sovereign nation is the RIGHT to make stupid moves..
Actually, that's apples and gorillas and, yes,
Not at all.. Our founders put the 2nd Amendment in our Constitution because they saw it as the ONLY WAY to protect their... OUR.. fledgling nation..
Much the same way that the OVERWHELMING majority of Ukrainians viewed joining NATO as the ONLY WAY to protect their fledgling nation...
yes, we certainly can tell Ukraine to change its constitution Re NATO aspirations.
I don't see how we can while still claiming we lead by example...
And, given the proclivity for Russia to settle things militarily....
Is Ukraine putting NATO membership in their Constitution REALLY such a stupid move??
Actually, that's apples and gorillas
Kudos on the new analogy reference.. :D
I have always been partial to 'apples and eskimos' with 'apples and alligators' running a close second..
It's a burst of brilliance to come up with 'apples and gorillas'.. :D
What would happen if another state passed a law that said their state primary had to be one week before New Hampshire?
"Entropy!! Chaos!! Natural laws would cease to exist.."
-Jeannie Miller, STARGATE ATLANTIS
:D
Thank-you.
Liz,
Having said all of the afore, NATO does have.... well.. SHOULD have very valid reasons why NOT to admit Ukraine..
The afore mentioned corruption and systemic institutionalized racism are a couple of examples..
And why NATO would never admit Israel into NATO is a good case study on why admitting Ukraine is not a good idea..
But to take away a country's right to at least apply!??
"That's no bueno.."
-Agent J, MEN IN BLACK III
One has to wonder what kind of world we would be in today if Kiev hadn't given up it's nukes when the USSR broke up..
If several states passed we must be one week before laws we could end up having the 2028 primary in 2023 right after or even before the 2024 primary. :D
"I know, right!??"
-Felix, WRECK IT RALPH
I vote for GLADIATOR COMBAT elections..
Let them fight it out with swords and pikes in a gladiator arena...
We'de never see a Democrat in office again!!! :D hehehe
But to take away a country's right to at least apply!??
Of course, there is no need to ever talk about it in that way, whatsoever.
Words matter, especially in war and peace.
One has to wonder what kind of world we would be in today if Kiev hadn't given up it's nukes when the USSR broke up..
Indeed! Especially coupled with the sad state of affairs Re. the geopolitical leadership that has emanated from the US and NATO since the break up of the Soviet Union ...
Indeed! Especially coupled with the sad state of affairs Re. the geopolitical leadership that has emanated from the US and NATO since the break up of the Soviet Union ...
Which wouldn't have been such an issue in the here and now if President Trump had retained his rightful place in the Oval Office..
President Trump had NATO shaping up and flying right... He FORCED NATO countries to adhere to their commitments..
Further, NATO wouldn't have even had to enter the picture because Putin wouldn't have DARED try this crap in Ukraine under President Trump..
Ukraine only has to hold out for 3 more years..
Then President Trump is back in office and Putin will head for the hills.. :D
Hilariously (by intention, I presume) non-serious!
Nope.. Factually accurate :D
Heh.
I can't believe there are morons still wearing masks.. :^/
"The first colored judge to sit on the 7th Circuit"
-Senator Dick Durbin
Yea?? So???
That's what a NON racist would say...
Michale,
I still wear a mask at work where most of my time is spent on one-to-one customer interactions from the boutique floor to the fitting room to the cash desk.
It's not mandatory anymore and I would say that about 70% of staff and customers have chosen to keep wearing the mask for now. The positivity rate is close to 10% and we don't wish to contribute to transmission in any way if we can help it.
I also must still wear it on public transit - I take the bus to and from work.
Wearing a mask for now, while the pandemic rages on, is such a small sacrifice to make to keep the most vulnerable people around me safe. It's the very least I can do until we are sure that this thing is behind us. Besides, I look better with it on. :)
As for Iowa ...
From my perspective, Iowa should pay a price just on the basis of its dismal performance in the 2008 Democratic primary.
Yes, I am quite capable of holding a grudge for a very, very long time, given the right circumstances.
I'll never forget the fact that Biden got less than one percent of the vote in that primary despite being the only person on the planet - never mind the only one of all the candidates in that Democratic race - who had developed a sound plan for US policy in Iraq, supported by 95 members of the US Senate only to have it sabotaged by the Bush administration but, still ... less than one percent of the vote!?
I mean, I understand that it was Obama's time but, give me a freakin' break.
So, yeah ... I'd like to see Iowa get all that it deserves. :)
Besides, I look better with it on. :)
I highly doubt that.. :D
Some days, Michale, some days ...
Of course, I always ensure that my triple layer cloth mask coordinates well with my outfit. Ahem.
Seriously, you should see my collection!
The best idea is to make voter turnout in the previous election the basis for placement in the subsequent election..
I think I like that!
No, not rational at all ... a cursory study of history would argue against that sort of interpretation.
@liz,
perhaps if the study were merely cursory, one might argue that giving putin what he wants after he'd already launched an ongoing invasion (since february, 2014) would not constitute appeasement. however, i posit that any deep dive into history would yield a very different result.
to be perfectly honest, i find your stance on this issue offensive and creepy. it's like someone in 1938 deriding the allies for the mistakes they made in the (1919) treaty of versailles. apologies for the extreme analogy, but that's the level at which it strikes me. we are where we are because of putin's ambition, not because biden or zelenskiy (or anyone else for that matter) won't accede to his demands, regardless of how reasonable said demands might otherwise seem.
JL
}}}The best idea is to make voter turnout in the previous election the basis for placement in the subsequent election..{{{
I think I like that!
I can't take credit for that.. It was the Weigantian Administration who postulated it..
And in the NO SHIT SHERLOCK Department..
Biden admin operated with missing data as CDC issued pandemic guidance, emails show
Dr. Anthony Fauci sent CDC Director Rochelle Walensky an article scientifically tearing down the 6-feet rule, emails
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/iden-admin-operated-with-missing-data-as-cdc-issued-pandemic-guidance-emails-show
CDC guidelines were based on politics..
NOT actual current scientific data..
Who could POSSIBLY have seen this!!???
Oh... Wait.. :D
The progression of Democrat "thought"...
http://mfccfl.us/BelieveWomen.jpg
:^/
Russ,
Interesting factoid..
The actor who played OROS was none other than Osric Chau...
Kevin Tran from SUPERNATURAL..
I knew the voice sounded familiar but I couldn't place it...
The ability to survive outside the womb prematurely is SOLEY determined by the medical technology of any given era..
Babies have survived being born prematurely since the beginning of our species.
Viability refers to the baby’s ability to survive outside the womb on its own.
Medical technology may be able to keep a baby alive technically, but does that mean that we must keep it alive no matter the costs?
There have been cases where 22 week gestation babies have survived..
Which is why I said, “Fetal viability is generally considered to begin at 24 weeks gestational age.” Sure, those born prematurely have a greater chance of suffering from medical problems than those born full term, but then again all you care about is quantity of life — not quality of life.
Babies have survived being born prematurely since the beginning of our species.
Yes, but not at 22 weeks which is the current....
Viability refers to the baby’s ability to survive outside the womb on its own.
Yes.. And viability has become earlier and earlier in the gestation... Thanks to...
Say it with me..
Medical technology..
Medical technology may be able to keep a baby alive technically, but does that mean that we must keep it alive no matter the costs?
It's a sentient life...
You tell me..
And who gets to decide that cost??
Sure, those born prematurely have a greater chance of suffering from medical problems than those born full term, but then again all you care about is quantity of life — not quality of life.
Who decides "quality"??
You caught up with Picard???
I am making a bet with myself to see how far back in time you have to go to justify your faux-rage.. :D
This year, the Air Force, for example, has wanted to retire dozens of legacy attack planes known as the A-10, but Congress wouldn’t let that happen in this bill. “We’ve got to get rid of some of those aircraft so we can free up resources, and get on with modernization,” Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall said recently.
We got out of Afghanistan, yet our military spending increased by $25billion. Our military spending is over $750 billion each year… are you suggesting that it is all necessary? Over half goes to the industrial military complex for them to spend with little if any oversight.
You support abortion.. So the solution to THIS problem you enumerate should be simple in your mind..
Nice attempt at sidestepping an actual response! My child’s medical conditions were not known until after he was born… so abortion plays no role in this conversation. Why are you suggesting that I murder my child?!
We got out of Afghanistan, yet our military spending increased by $25billion. Our military spending is over $750 billion each year… are you suggesting that it is all necessary? Over half goes to the industrial military complex for them to spend with little if any oversight.
If we are to err, let's err on the side of spending MORE money..
Wouldn't you agree??
It's better to HAVE the military hardware and not need it than to NEED the military hardware and not have it..
Again.. Wouldn't you agree??
Nice attempt at sidestepping an actual response! My child’s medical conditions were not known until after he was born… so abortion plays no role in this conversation. Why are you suggesting that I murder my child?!
That's the Democrat solution BEFORE birth...
Morally or ethically is it such a stretch AFTER birth???
Morally or ethically speaking, what's a few weeks either side of birth??
If you are OK with killing the baby a few weeks BEFORE birth, why do you have a problem with killing the baby a few weeks AFTER birth??
Joshua,
to be perfectly honest, i find your stance on this issue offensive and creepy.
My stance on this issue is that this war should never have happened and there was no reason whatsoever for Ukrainians to be suffering and dying, number one. And, number two, Putin is guilty of war crimes and, with any luck, he will be punished appropriately ... and, in any event, it is my hope that Russia will remain a pariah state, indefinitely, and will never have a highly functioning economy.
Also, Biden and NATO and Z should be laser focused on ending this war by way of negotiation with Russia in order to stop the suffering and death. As I see it, they are just prolonging the sheer agony of the Ukrainian people.
I have made this very clear.
What is so offensive (offensive!? ... are you kidding me?) and creepy about that?
Joshua,
Have you been following the efforts of Israeli PM Naftali Bennett to mediate between the two sides?
He has appropriated the role of mediator in order to end on rational terms this nonsensical war and all of the suffering and death and destruction it is causing.
i find your stance on this issue offensive
And, I am duly offended by that remark.