Somebody Please Explain

[AUesquire 1]

As you know, you don't see me post much in this forum. Several reasons, but the main one being that overall, politics in general don't interest me. Why? Because it is and always has been completely polarized and each side has about as much chance of winning an argument with the other as you do in convincing a Bama fan they won't win the national championship every year.

Maybe that's why I've never understood the emphasis and hooplah over what happens in such a seemingly insignificant State as Iowa. I just saw a headline on Fox that said something to the effect Hillary campaign being in a state of panic after the Iowa primaries. Why? I understand that no candidate should be happy about not winning in any particular State but does Iowa have some significance that other States don't?

Is it just because it's the kickoff to the entire election process and that first one leaves a lasting impression on the rest of the country? I would imagine that every candidate has it pretty well mapped out what States they expect to do well and not so good in, and know whicj areas of the country they want to throw the most advertising dollars towards. So, why don't you see certain candidates just put in their time in Iowa and move on New Hampshire or whoever is next and focus on States they know they can carry? Why would you seemingly blow your wad in the first primary when there's sooooo many more to go?

Signed, Curious in Cleveland

[otterinbham 0]

Dear Curious In Cleveland.

Actually your question is not about Iowa. It's about the entire, bizarre process, an affront to anybody who wants to choose a leader in a sane manner.

Yes, a logical person should be confused, especially in an age of instantaneous communication, mass literacy, and the ability of even average citizens to quickly parse ever utterance on the stump. So if viewed through the prism of logic, the slate of party candidates could be offered up inside of two weeks, a nominee picked within a month (even with a couple of runoffs to winnow out the field), and a president chosen two weeks after that.

Instead, we have an exhausting slog that begins approximately fifteen minutes after the previous president recites the oath of office.

Why? Because the powers that be in both parties are uninterested in reform. Because, in a logical system, any candidate with a solid record for effectiveness in office and good ideas would rise to the top, presenting a more or less obvious choice to voters.

However, that's not what the powerful want. Instead, they embrace an anachronistic system that practically requires political candidates to swear fealty to the established corrupt order. For money and organization are the only ways to become a "viable" candidate, so candidates must suckle at the teats of the inner circles of both parties, compromising their most deeply held views to pick up 100,000 votes in Illinois. A logical system would take all this away, thereby depriving the corrupt oligarchies of the Republican and Democratic party of their influence.

So who prevails in these contests? People with endurance, people whose ambition is so powerful that they will do anything, say anything, and promise everything, and will endure the scrutiny and exhausting ordeal of a two-year campaign to prop their feet up in the Oval Office and pull the levers of government. So scratch a front runner, and you will probably find a warped and convoluted soul, one has sacrificed literally everything to win it all, and must reward the people who put him there. The people who supplied the money, the political consultants, the gravitas, and the press coverage to put him there in the first place.

That's why we start in Iowa. And won't be finished until the first Tuesday in November.