Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Game Candidates Do Poorly in Iowa Caucuses
Ron Bison writes to mention Game Politics is reporting that anti-game presidential candidates didn't fare so well in the Iowa caucuses. "On the Republican side, Mitt Romney, who lumps violent video games into what he terms an ocean of filth, was badly beaten by Mike Huckabee. Among Democrats, Hillary Clinton saw both Barack Obama and John Edwards win more of the popular vote. Clinton has previously proposed video game legislation in the U.S. Senate. She recently told Common Sense Media that she would support such legislation if elected president."
I didn't read anywhere in TFA that proposed the two were related. I understood it as more of a heads up that the candidates who were most anti-videogame on each side didn't happen to do well. Not that that they didn't do well because of their anti-videogame stances.
In a 3 way race, 8 percent is a landslide. Now I'd call Clinton and Edwards basicly tied, but Obama beat her handily.
Still, its only the first caucus among many races, she has plenty of time to catch up. I'd much rather see Edwards or Obama win though. That speech Obama gave last night was amazing, I try to keep my emotions out of politics and even I was getting worked up, he's a truly great orator.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
So what is Huckabee's policy on video games? I sure can't find one on his site. (Which, to be fair, covers a whole lot of issues that I'd consider to be far more important.)
On the Democrat side, it would appear that Edwards and Obama both want to regulate the industry.
So, some victory for video game's rights, since none of the candidates seem to really be addressing this issue and it would appear that all of them agree that video games need to be federally regulated. (With the presumable exception of Ron Paul.)
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
"US history is littered with with winners of early primaries who vanished into thin air shortly thereafter."
I wouldn't exactly say it's "littered"; since 1976, only three candidates have won the Iowa Caucus and not gone on to win their party's nomination for the general election (according to Wikipedia):
1980: George H.W. Bush (Reagan came in a close second)
1988: Bob Dole (G.H.W. Bush was a distant third)
1988: Dick Gephardt (Dukakis was a distant third)
1992: Tom Harkin (a senator from Iowa, he carried 76% of the vote; the relatively unknown Bill Clinton had just 3% of the vote)
Exactly. There are probably dozens of issues that are more important right now than games politiking. A president can't sign into law legislation that doesn't exist, and I don't think games are on the US legislatures's mind as a whole, usually it's just a small number of crackpot legislators that want to regulate violent games and that's it.
The guy is toast. He's an incompetent, authoritarian dick who only got as far as he did because the media fell in love with "America's Mayor." His recent pandering to the contrary (that he would nominate judges like Alito or Scalia), his record of support for gun control, abortion and gay rights puts him at odds with much of the wingnut base. And there are the slight issues of his spending tens of thousands of dollars having the NYPD act as chauffeurs for his his mistress, putting an executive fuck pad into the emergency management headquarters, putting said headquarters in the complex that terrorists had already attacked before because he wanted them within walking distance of the mayor's office, failing to upgrade the radios for the cities fire department which got a whole lot of firefighters killed, and so on.
Rudy was always a paper tiger. The real nightmare scenario for the Dems is Hillary vs Huckabee. Huckabee would have the theocon base who would be ecstatic to have one of their own in the Oval Office as opposed to a panderer, and his working class populism would resonate with a middle class that has seen CEO salaries double every year couple years while their own jobs stagnate or are shipped off overseas. Economically, Hillary would be left as the coporate Democratic candidate versus the populist Republican who's shown humility on foreign policy - about the only scenario where the Dem candidate can lose this year.