Hillary 2020?

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)
  • Author
  • #43924

    I am beginning to hear some chatter about Hillary for 2020. She says she wants to beat him, and a brokered convention could be the opening. I don’t necessarilly agree with this, but it is out there…




    Not a chance in hell.


    I don’t see that happening. Nothing would energize the MAGA crowd more than a chance to affirm their 2016 win.


    I might vote for Trump over Hillary. Please just go away.


    I tend to agree that Hillary would rev up the GOP base to no end. But the only way this would ever happen is if there was a brokered convention, which is possible at this point. Another warning to the Dems to get their act together quickly. This is why I brought it up. I think she would be another disaster in the making. Let’s hope Iowa shows some major strength for one candidate, and the momentum starts to build for that candidate. I am not very optimistic about that happening, however.


    Fuck Iowa, NH, and South Carolina. The decision will be made in Super Tuesday. Why we allow shit states like this to start off the primary is beyond me.


    Hilary Swank might be the 2020 candidate, but not Hillary Clinton.


    Iowa may start because they don’t actually talk about “shit states” and do talk politics, people and policy with interest and mutual respect. “West Coast” liberals tend to do that to a degree many Iowans find negative.

    I was in Iowa for about a week. Very recently. This month.

    Saw some nice snow east of Des Moines. That part of Iowa is one with a little texture too. Not just pancake flat. It’s nice, and cold. Crisp. Love it.

    During coffee and evening meal time, I asked that question. Why Iowa first? (Among others I have been asking these last few years to get a better sense of the different regions in the US)

    They know they are a very white State. Most common response I got was, “we care” and “our judgement is solid, citing Obama. They are white, and mostly that is due to who settled, how much the land can suck, and how that limits move ins.

    Mostly, Iowa is not all that exciting.

    It is a hard place to live. No fucking water. That set the stage for a sense of shared labor and consideration from way back. Get the fuck along because you never know when you might need real help, or be sleeping in the neighbor’s living room. Farming culture emphasizes these kinds of things. Carry overs from way back when it mattered more than it may now.

    To them, watching the rest of the nation is interesting. And their part is mostly exporting food, tech, etc… they see a lot of ugly, and a lot of beauty. Let me just say there is ample time for conversation more often than not. It is not a fast, nor particularly happening place. Perfect for breeding politics discussion.

    One guy told me it is sort of like the Amish. Amish people like cellphones. Those improve how a community communicates and the performance of said comms is a net good, few downsides.

    Iowans want net good, few downsides, want to get along, and value policy that helps people get through life. Iowans do not earn much overall. They are lean, economically prudent people generally. Cost and risk exposure matters a great deal to them.

    They take this time of year pretty seriously.

    So there you go. A little sample from that part of the nation.

    I am not endorsing that as much as I am just sharing my experiences related to the “how come they start?” Question.

    I do not think IA is a “Shit State”

    I have had some of the very best politics conversations in Iowa. This was unexpected.



    That was the most informative, and unexpected political post I’ve ever read from you here. Thank you for that.



    Calling IA, NH, and SC “shit states” is pretty much the same as Trump calling Haiti, El Salvador, etc. “shithole countries”.


    Well to start, there is no racial bias involved. Trump called those places shitholes because of race.

    My point is that IA, NH, and SC are not really that representative of the whole country. It’s great the people in Iowa take it seriously, but you know what? So would folks in OR if given the chance. Why them? It’s a stupid tradition that needs to end.

    I’d much prefer to see a national primary day of voting where all states have an equal chance to choose the nominee rather than the current system where small insignificant states are choosing.

    Andy Brown

    Yes, a national primary schedule all within a day or even over a week would be preferable, but due to the variance in state laws as to the process of presidential primary elections, that is a monster project best suited for when the country is more unified. The Feds would never get a national law since that would usurp state powers, rather, the federal government needs to set a window. Even a period of one month would be better than what is going on now.

    missing’s post did not answer the question of why Iowa is first. The possible answer courtesy of NPR:

    2. Why is Iowa first?
    “The really important thing to remember about Iowa is not that it’s first because it’s important. Iowa is important because it’s first,” said Kathy O’Bradovich, political columnist for the Des Moines Register. She acknowledges that Iowa didn’t really happen on purpose.

    “It happened after the 1968 Democratic National Convention,” she said, which was marred by violence over the Vietnam War and racial tension. “The Democratic Party nationally and in Iowa decided they wanted to change their process to make it more inclusive.”

    Part of that meant spreading the presidential nominating schedule out in each state. Because Iowa has one of the more complex processes ā€” precinct caucuses, county conventions, district conventions, followed by a state convention ā€” it had to start really early. (The Democratic Party held Iowa caucuses first in the nation in 1972; the GOP followed suit in 1976.)


    Before any of you condemn any one state’s process, take into account that many of the more long winded processes like in Iowa were conceived before modern 21st century instant worldwide communications were available. Some states probably conceived their presidential election procedures before the days of modern transportation when just getting to the polls was a day long excursion.

    Also, Des Moines is not really the best place to go to evaluate Iowa. It is a large urban center, The city ranks 104th in population of ~217,000 and the five country metropolitan area estimated at 655,000 ranks 88th. The state of Iowa has a population of 3.16 million. That means Des Moines is only roughly 7% of Iowa and the metro is about 20%. So 8 out of 10 people live outside the Des Moine metro where it is mostly corn fields and tractors and neither an urban or suburban area. Sure, there are other urban centers around the state, but they are all small. There is a large rural population, mostly white and conservative but not hard right. They voted for Obama . . . and then drumpf. I’m sure if you looked into it, the rural votes are probably more conservative than in the urban centers, but overall The Des Moines Register claims that being conservative in Iowa is more progressive than the poltiicians they often elect.

    From after the 2018 results:

    “But a poll of 646 Iowans who voted last week finds a majority of both Republicans and Democrats don’t want to see Republican officeholders doing many of the things they’ve promoted.

    Those include cutting more taxes on corporations and rich people, ending the Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System to replace it with private 401(k) accounts and amending the Iowa Constitution to include a right to bear arms.”


    So while missing’s post was well meant, it says very little about why Iowa votes first in the primaries and even less about how the state fits in the larger scheme of things. Almost every state has water issues from time to time, some more than others, but there aren’t any inexpensive solutions for that issue in the corn belt and Iowans can see through the rhetoric of candidates promising solutions they ultimately can’t provide.. Had drumpf even a microscopic iota of international trade intelligence he could own the state in ’20, but because he is oriented towards petty tariff wars that are mostly about technology and tourism he will lose big there next time.

    Truth be told, most of politics is bullshit to begin with. And there is no metric to measure the bullshit other than looking at the voting results. Iowa voted for Obama by 9.5% in ’08, and again in ’12 by 5.8%. drumpf won by 9.5%. This may indicate they are a change state. This bodes well for the Democratic candidate.

    I’ve been to Des Moines. It was a pleasant albeit unscheduled stay (I was moving to Oregon and my car broke down outside Des Moines) and the people were friendly. Jimmy Carter, a farmer, would win the Iowa caucuses about a month after I visited on his way to his election in November, 1976.


    Vitalogy: “Iā€™d much prefer to see a national primary day of voting where all states have an equal chance to choose the nominee rather than the current system where small insignificant states are choosing.”

    I have a slightly different idea: have four regional primaries, say two weeks apart. Maybe NE, SE, NW, SW. Rotate the order every four years as to which region goes first. Or, you could do it as we do now – have four single state primaries about one week apart to start, then do the rest of them within a short time…but instead of Iowa, New Hampshire every time, rotate which four states get to go first every four years. Maybe you pick four states randomly, one in each region, to go first every time but don’t let them go first next time.

    The reason I would oppose one big national primary at the same time is that that would not give upstart candidates much of a chance to make their name – it would favor well-known candidates with name recognition and money. A staggered primary schedule would give smaller campaigns a way to make their names and build support over time. E.g. in 2008, Obama was basically able to win by winning in Iowa and raising his profile. If it had been one big primary, Clinton probably would have won the nomination.


    My dad was born and raised in Clinton, Iowa. His dad had duel citizenship and used it to leave Denmark, particularly because he didn’t want to serve in the Danish army, which had a serious syphilis problem. He came to America through Ellis Island, changed his last name and eventually settled in Iowa and became a grocer.

    Been to Des Moines during a summer heatwave back in the mid 90s to intern my grandmother. Lots of family buried back small cemeteries in small towns like Granger and Grimms. Lots of farms and farmers in my mid-west heritage.

    Enjoyed Missing’s take about the people.

    As far as the primary’s…I’m for the best way that is also the quickest way. Sometimes I wish we did our elections like the UK…something like 6 weeks and then you vote…not this taxing 18-24 months marathon.


    Andy, yes. Thanks for the detail. Peeps can look that up.

    I thought I might share what they think about being first how they take that what it means to them and all those things.

    In case it wasn’t clear, given someone’s going to be first, they don’t see themselves as a bad pick. I tend to agree with them on that more than I would disagree.

    And I thought I would highlight how unproductive and negative shit State actually is.

    I’ve been to every corner of this country now. Big Urban centers, all the way to little out-of-the-way places nothing around for miles. Looking at you North Dakota

    Talked to probably a thousand people. It’s been super interesting. And I held a lot of preconceptions that I am shaking free of right now. Let’s just put it that way.

    I can tell you an awful lot of their politics, I can tell you an awful lot of how they see other states and people. I can tell you what matters to them.

    I did not group a thousand people or so, young old really old women men professionals the poor guy in the side of the street, talk to them all.

    When I say the politics are changing, what we were used to for the last for so decades is going to change fade away, that is my basis for it. That’s going to happen.

    The people are basically over it. Not all of them of course, but a whole lot of them.

    I think probably the most basic thing I could say, is the talking head shit you see on the major networks on TV? That is not indicative at all. It really isn’t. People under 40 45 don’t even watch hardly anymore or they hate watch.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.