With the start of the political circus, er presidential campaigns, We here at 7poundbag felt we would open a Political Roundtable. If you have questions for a future roundtable, let us know, and if you agree or disagree, comment ya pinko commie!
Earl: I guess this is because of all of the Trump hype, but I thought Donald Trump would have won Iowa. Maybe, I should not have been so surprised since Ted Cruz’ numbers had been trending upward these past few weeks, and skipping the Iowa debate would have stunted some of Trump’s momentum, but I was still surprised. Over on the Democratic side I wasn’t too surprised that Sanders came up against Clinton in a virtual draw. I figured Bernie would do well enough in Iowa to give him a little bit of momentum heading into New Hampshire.
Jim: Ted Cruz claiming to be a Christian while at the same time blatantly lying to people showing up to vote. He was the one candidate I thought was above it. His campaign not only lied to people showing up at the meetings, they mailed “violation notices” to people telling them they had to vote to avoid legal action.
Steve: I think the biggest surprise was how close Bernie Sanders came to defeating Hillary Clinton. I was not too surprised that Ted Cruz walked away the winner as he has gained a lot of momentum over the past couple months in the state. Kind of surprised that he won by 4 points over Trump, but not that he won it. Sanders holding serve with Clinton is a big deal because now I think there is a race in the Democratic primary.
Joe: That Bernie Sanders actually did as well as he did. Virtual tie to me is a win for him.
David: Well, I heard someone say that Trump’s support was a mile-wide and an inch deep. I think this might actually prove that Iowan’s aren’t as stupid as I thought, but then again, a certain party does have a coin flip as a tie-breaker. Let me make that my answer. That after hundreds of hours, and millions of dollars have been spent, certain delegates came down to someone calling heads or tails? Well, I guess the same is true for the NFL, so I guess thats OK.
Earl: Truth be told, I do not get the caucus process. I mean, I get how it works, but I do not understand why Iowa, and others, do not just transition to a straight up vote. The fact that some delegates had to be assigned by virtue of a coin flip, is mind boggling to me in this day and age. Hopefully going forward we can eliminate the caucuses and just have straight up primaries in every state.
Jim: The caucus is useless, and pointless. It means nothing. That’s why the real voting has yet to begin. Just look at who won Iowa last time for the Republicans, and you’ll know what Iowa means. NOTHING.
Steve: Hell no, Sanders is a player now, and is supposed to likely take New Hampshire, another key primary state. If he wins there, he could gain some momentum. Clinton’s flaws may come out during the primary if Sanders goes that route, and he could potentially pull of the upset.
Joe: Although it’s a complicated process I guess it really is a demonstration of what democracy is supposed to be all about. People getting together; having some serious discussion on the issues and the candidates and then pledging their support one way or the other. So, I guess my answer is those that have it, should keep it.
David: I do appreciate the process, and its pretty impressive that certain segments of the population take this so serious, as they should, but considering how small the numbers are getting, might be time to cut the cord and just got with a vote and go home.
Earl: Yes. Our election cycles are longer and longer now. Long enough that most voters have already formed an opinion heading into the early primaries. So, I would definitely be in favor of shortening the week break between Iowa and New Hampshire. It’s not like these campaigns need time to get people on the ground. They already have people on the ground in these states, so why does there need to be a week or more between Iowa and New Hampshire? It feels unnecessary to me.
Jim: There should be one day and one day only where all 50 states vote. There should be no lag anywhere.
Steve: I think a week is fine, kind of gives voters an opportunity to look into what may have happened in Iowa. How did Clinton lose so much ground? How did Cruz pull off the upset. I think having them a week a part is just fine. I wouldn’t change it.
Joe: There should be less of a lag between all the primaries or whatever the hell they are called in each state. The entire primary process is way too long and drawn out.
David: You can’t have someone before Iowa, and you can’t have anyone before New Hampshire. I would pick 8 primaries, for example do Iowa then 2 days later NH, then 2 days later South Carolina and Florida, then say Oregon and New Mexico, then Michigan and Wisconsin, then have a week break as we have 8 down, and more candidates know where they stand. Now you have people dropping out that might actually be viable.
Earl: It’s going as expected. Iowa went for Clinton, and New Hampshire ought to go to Sanders. With that said, my eyes are focused on South Carolina. I expect Hillary to win the State, but I’m curious to see how Sanders does there. If it’s a blowout, and I think it very well can be considering there is a strong African-American voter presence there that is firmly in Hillary’s camp, then that result is going to set the focus in the primaries that will follow.
Jim: Hillary is in trouble, from a candidate that should be being laughed about.
Steve: Pretty cut and dry as I stated earlier. Surprised they basically tied in the state. I hate the fact that some counties were decided by a coin toss, and Clinton somehow won all those coin flips. That is democracy at its finest. Maybe she got some dead people to vote as well.
Joe: Bernie, if, he can carry his momentum into New Hampshire and beyond, is going to be a serious force in the period leading up to the Presidential elections and quite possibly going beyond. Hillary is already flip-flopping on the issues and leaning more towards some of Bernie’s outlooks on what needs to be done to right the ship in America.
But the bottom line is this… if, Bernie has a sustainable campaign that garners a lot of primary support and makes it at least tight race, then, it is an indication that there is a large part of the Democrat faithful who are pissed off on the state of country and want a serious change in how politics is done, as well as on how wealth is distributed/determined, in America.
David: Stunned that O’Malley did as well as he did. Seriously though, other than the dumbass coin-flip, I think this proves Hillary is in trouble, she’s been running for damn near 3 years there, and again lets someone with any national name recognition come in and go toe to toe with her? She’s already flip-flopping, and this is over IOWA? What is she going to do if she blows Florida?
Earl: As stated earlier, I was a little taken aback by Cruz winning Iowa. I think Trump takes New Hampshire since the early polls seem to favor him winning there, but I’m curious as to how Marco Rubio will do. I have to be honest. I’m a registered Democrat, who admittedly has Republican leanings. I have no problems with most Republican candidates but a Cruz or Trump Presidency worries me. A Rubio Presidency would not. I’m alright with Marco. He seems rational. With that said, I’m hoping he has a strong showing in New Hampshire and becomes the candidate the establishment can support. The more Republican candidates that drop out of the race, and hopefully endorse Rubio can only help him going forward.
Jim: Trump is still the one to beat. Again, Iowa means nothing.
Steve: I thought the top 3 were exactly how they played out to no surprise. I thought Trump would win the state, but I thought the top 3 would be really close to each other. I don’t think this means anything by Cruz winning, and as long as he stays in the race, I don’t see Trump losing the nomination this summer. However, I could very easily see him dropping out, as I am not convinced yet that he really wants to be President, he just wants to voice his opinion on a public forum.
Joe: Trump doesn’t have such a hold on the people’s outlook on the issues as many pollsters had seemed to indicate that he had. That’s a good thing in my book. Cruz winning, while not a shock, was a mild surprise. The result is still not all that much different than if Trump had won. In some ways Cruz is even more conservative and embedded in his neo-con ways than Trump is. In fact, I still think Trump’s running as an elephant is more to disrupt things than anything. But, if Cruz is how the Republican’s are going to go, it will certainly be a very interesting presidential campaign with two distinctly polar opposites running against each other… and that’s no matter who the Dems have running.
I foresee a lot of serious mudslinging ahead.
David: I can’t see Trump being viable nationally, so it’s going to come down to Rubio, Cruz and Bush, since Christie has shot himself in the foot more than anyone since Gephart. Every delegate is going to matter, as I can see this coming down to the convention, and 2 of the 3 merging to form a united ticket. Cruz took round one, but there is a LONG road to go.
Tiny URL for this post: