Thoughts on the Primaries: 1/8/08

I have noticed the national presidential primaries have been acting rather strange. Obama won, and Huckabee, a.ka.a "Huckster," won Iowa, for the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively. According to what I heard, Mitt Romney won Wyoming. Yea! America wants Obama and Huckabee!

But wait; there is a catch! Only about 200,000 Democrats voted (which is a record high for Iowa; and it was very nearly a perfect 3-way split), roughly 20%ish of the Iowa Democratic Party. But it's really a given that the main three (Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, and John Edwards) were the leading 3, although almost (or about) 80% of Iowa's Democratic voters didn't vote! That leaves a lot of room, for those 3 leaders. What happened is just that Obama's turnot was higher. It's possible (though far from confirmed) that if all Iowa Democrats had voted, Obama may have lost. But whatever the case, he just got the most turnout, and that is all that matters (even though a relatively small percentage of a million voted for him, out a few million).

Wait, again! Republican turnout was even smaller. Republicans had almost as little as half of the turnout, as the Democrats did! (This doesn't look good for the GOP, come General Election time.) Mr. Huckabee won Iowa, for the Republicans. Feel free to correct me, if I am wrong, but I believe Huckabee got only less than 40,000 votes! A population smaller than some college campuses! And this is for the whole state of Iowa! I attribute his victory in Iowa, to two things:
1. massive "MSM" media exposure. Ever since the debate in St. Petersburg, FL (in early November), the corporate media has been fixated (and "sucking up" to) the "Huckster." It has said "Huckabee's poll numbers are so high!", "Iowa wants Huckabee!", "America wants Huckabee!" So my question is, is the corporate media really so accurate in predicting the elections, or is it influencing it (how do we know Huckabee didn't have increased turnout from die-hard supporters and those on fence (voting for him, only because the media told them to))? Name recognition is actually more important than positive/negative statements. I can't explain how much it helps, how important it is, even for me, and I consider myself politically alert. Now imagine about those who "just don't give a darn," or are too preoccupied. There is a reason why Ron Paul didn't fare better than he did. What the media did was make the public vote emotionally (i.e. Iowa, which is supposedly over 97% White, gave the highest number of its Democratic votes to a Black man, who has a White mother. I honestly don't know all of the voters' intentions, and I am not pretending to. However, it's very likely that some Whites felt guilty. They felt morally superior, by voting for a Black man (regardless of the issues, as long as his policies are anti-White); they just had to elect a black man. Many (if not almost all) of this type would promote massive race-mixing (involving Whites, of course), even if it meant European (includes "Whites" in the U.S. and Canada) extinction; but I digress.) Most American registered voters (and obviously those elgible to register to vote) don't vote. And many don't pay much attention. The only ones voting in very high numbers are people who feel very passionate about their candidate, their issues, and/or democracy (in principle). But for the ones who payed vague attention, probably understood things as "Ron Paul says Abraham Lincoln was an awful President!" (which is false. I actually support Lincoln's decison to go to war but the media is misrepresenting what he actually said. What he really said was that Lincoln should have tried diplomacy first. But That is not what matters in politics. What matters is that much of the American population is mad at Ron Paul, because of what the media claimed "he said."Negative emotions ran high, because of a corporate media- induced misconception. It also painted Ron Paul as a "nut." It also made him look "anti-American" and "pro-terrorist," because he opposes oppressing countries, just because a few terrorists might reside in them. Emotions win the day, again! Huckabee also stole Paul's message (as well as Dwight D. Eishenhower's campaign slogan, to a degree. Remember of or heard of "I like Ike." for Dwight. Well, Huckabee has "I like Mike." (for Huckabee; How original?). Paul and Huckabee are the only two (0f two or three) candidates acceptable to the Religious Right. And the corporate media wanted Huckabee to take Paul's votes, before the latter could pick up steam (and have a chance at winning). It has apparently worked!

2. His supporters were just more enthusiatic. I remeber observing somebody's local campaign, not because he wasn't the best candidate, but because the winner belonged to a major church group! The media gave latter the most attention (by far); and as turnout was low (less than 10,000 voters out of over 135,000 registered voters actually voted), he had a large group of direct supporters (as a result of one church). Less than 10% voted. And the winner had less than 10,000 votes. But a biased media, and a well connected group of wacky people (who connected to very large groups of other "Theocrats") won him the election!

To be honest, I have mixed feeling about universal voting (in Democracy) for every single citizen. Turnout is always absymal, and a very large percentage (often enough to swing individual elections) of the voters happen to be excessively radical (and crazy). I think there should be an IQ test and/or a civics knowledge test given, where maybe only those who are half-intelligent (0r more, obviously) and/or those who have a clue to the election's candidates, can vote.

On those who do vote, voting on emotions is dangerous. Our Republic can survive, only if we, the voter, vote on the basis of reason, and not pure emotion. The corporate media can easily influence the emotional. It's much harder to manipulate people well grounded (anchored) with reason. If our Democratic Republic survives, it will be because of us upholding reason's supremacy!