Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Hear Iowa Roar! (Puh-lease . . . )
Is anyone else curious about why Iowa claims it must keep its stranglehold on the presidential nominating process? Yeah, well, this won't clear it up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19giddins.html?ex=1363665600&en=f7a9f492d9e9f47a&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
First thing on the Democratic Party agenda in August should be overhauling this process for next time, removing BOTH the superdelegate nonsense AND the Iowa/NewHampshire/SouthCarolina hegemony on the nominating process. It's ridiculous.
Advertisement
Comments (2)
I agree the superdelegates are in a tough place in this nomination. But I'm not sure they need to be abandoned. They represent the party ideology and unless we want to turn this into a free-for-all, I think they have a role to play. It's not general election, it's a nomination.
March 19, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can anyone explain to me how Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina have a "stranglehold" on the process? If anything, the decision by Michigan and Florida to move their votes away from dates that would've ended up having a more significant impact disproves this fallacy. One could make the argument that, if the delegate split was slightly different, Puerto Rico could have undue influence on the process.
If you want to make a case that other states should have an opportunity to have their voices heard earlier in the process, MAKE THAT ARGUMENT. But if Iowa had such a stranglehold, it would seem that this race should've boiled down to Obama/Edwards not Obama/Clinton. And since Obama won Iowa and South Carolina by larger margins than Clinton won N.H., the continuance of the process argues against the so-called "stranglehold." You want to change the calendar? Try to make your point without all the supercharged overheated rhetoric...
March 19, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment