Iowa's 2 million voting age population and now New Hampshire's 900,000

are now determining the future of our country ? Gimme a break.

California has around 25 million voting age (over 18) people and we've got to wait until Super Tuesday while, pardon me, PODUNK get's to decide the fate, progressive or non-progressive, of our country.

I'm as mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore ! This country already has a socialist state of ALASKA with benefits far exceeding those of the lower 48, royalties from big oil that the rest of us don't get a piece of etc. etc. Their corrupt politics seems to be the standard for us all now. Corporations rule and we have to sit and take it.

Not sure you'll win, but definitely a contender.

Because that argument against little 'podunk' Iowa and New Hampshire is the same argument against the superstates like... say... California; and the same argument of minority-party members of states like ... say... California, who feel that their views and desires are NEVER considered because 'winner take all' for the electoral college, even when a state is near divided in half when it comes to popular vote.

There are 50 states in this Union. I'd be happy if all of them and all of their people received more representation and more 'love'. That the little states have a say before the big ones is awesome.

I just wish more little states had that say.

With populations the size of some suburbs out here we've spent endless campaign time and money for what ? The chance to say some corn growers get their ethanol subsidies ? Bend over, here it comes again, as they said during the Vietnam war.

I'm tired of this crap. Take your little state and the M$M attention and think about 'what if we got it wrong' ? This is precisely how we ended up with Bush in the first place. Your beloved 'little states' thought he was 'electable'. Thanks. For nothing.

I've heard too many California Republicans say they feel like there's no point in California because no matter how many millions of Republicans vote .. the state is a 'given' for Democrats.

They don't feel like their vote matters. They don't feel electorally represented in a 'winner take all system'. Their electoral votes have already been determined, even though in popular vote numbers they outweigh many smaller states.

But they vote anyway, even though they feel gypped.

So, you feel gypped about Iowa and New Hampshire? join the pity party. Again, it's not like the mega-states are virtually ignored. Pity the true small states, like (oh) Wyoming.

Let the small states have their day in the sun. Again, I just wish it were rotated among small states.

The Founding Fathers at least sought a balance. This 'pity the true small state' argument ignores that parties aren't even mentioned in the Constitution. These overbearing kowtowing early primaries in someone's backwater ignore that most people live along the coasts, ignores urban interests and needs, and ignores the majority of your fellow American's wishes.

Iowa and New Hampshire are hardly representative of the entire US population and I don't see why these two states with miniscule populations are being used as 'acid tests' for selecting the party nominees.

Small states alread have over-representation due to TWO senators and the Republican party's kowtowing to Alaskan interests, if you already didn't know about this consider yourself informed now. You want to add Wyoming to your "pity" list ?

Your day in the sun has been going on for DECADES. Seek professional help. Also see post #9.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3962030&mesg_id=3962030

End the confusion. You'd have thought Obama has it all wrapped up, now, wouldn't you ? M$M is soooo confused.

I'm from New Hampshire, so I'm obviously biased, but I think California is too big a state. I want the first few states to be small enough so that candidates are accessible. I've met Obama, Edwards, and Richardson this campaign cycle - it does give you a chance to see what they're about without relying on the ads which run non-stop.

Do I particularly care if New Hampshire is always the first state to do this? Not really. But in California, I think it is impossible.

this site shows the relative overall tax budens of states

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/335.html

The 'donor' status of CA will play a BIG part in this election. We're being hammered by the current recession (gasp ! I said it) and while everyone wants to deny that "It's the economy, stupid"...well, IT IS.

Maybe CA should start separatist movements and split our state in half just to get some attention. Otherwise we'll ocntinue to be ignored except only for pit stops for more campaign cash between January and 'Super Tuesday'.

EVERYTHING ? Don't tread on me.

"The paper is best known for the conservative political opinions of its late publisher, William Loeb, and his wife, Elizabeth Scripps "Nackey" Loeb. Famously, the paper helped defeat Maine Senator Edmund Muskie in his 1972 bid for the presidency by attacking Muskie's wife, Jane, in editorials, leading him to defend her -- supposedly tearful -- in a press conference that some say ruined his image in the state. (See also: Canuck Letter.)

Over the decades, the Loebs gained considerable influence, and helped shape New Hampshire's conservative political landscape. The newspaper's strident tone has lessened considerably since the Loebs died. In 2000, after Nackey's death on January 8, Joseph McQuaid took over publishership."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_Union_Leader

When will this end ? Maybe when the media tells this truth,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3962030

The current delegate count !

Yeah, it's very conservative. Although Hell may have frozen over - they actually printed something nice about Barack Obama in their editorial pages!

The Nashua Telegraph and Concord Monitor are more liberal.

The other oil states at least get money sent to their treasuries. The rest of us get nothing but exploited for our resouces.

When we bail out corporations and hedge funds we never even get paid back much less ownership.

They arent determining it. EVERYONE gets their chance to vote, and if those in CA or wherever are voting based on whos already winning, then that is their fault.