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."

Comments

Slow news day?

[elrous0]

Women, Latinos, and Inuit Indians also faired poorly. And that observation is just as irrevelent as this guy's observation that they two winning candidates just happen to not have a particularly strong record of opposing videogames. Or does this guy seriously think that this issue was raised even ONCE during the caucusing?

Re:Slow news day?

[spleen_blender]

I don't think it is reasonable to think that video games in themselves are a significant issue, however they act as a good canary for determining the desirability of a certain candidate.

If a candidate wants to have government influence in the entertainment industry, they have a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of government and are probably more likely to carry this mentality into other duties.

Correlation !=Causation

[DrData99]

I doubt that video gamers are going to turn this election.

And?

[bn0p]

Does anyone seriously think that any candidate's stand on videogames was a factor in the Iowa caucuses?


Never let reality temper imagination

Re:And?

[mr_mischief]

Iowa's the earliest caucus, and a caucus potentially measures the pull a candidate's organization has on a party's core membership than a primary ever does. It lets the parties see where people in a particular largely rural state will rally. This gives them a chance to see which candidates need more money and which cannot gain the support of this section of their own party no matter the bankroll.

More importantly, it doesn't take nearly as much money to reach the relatively small number of people in Iowa as it does to reach the same percentage of the populations in all the Super Tuesday states. That means the party gets a microcosm reaction on the cheap, with each candidate's camp paying most or all of their own way before the costs get too high for that. The party only wants to back someone who can at least carry the party's own voters, after all.

Since Iowa can determine who gets party funds, big newspaper endorsements, which small-share candidates throw support behind the more popular candidates, and it gets the ball rolling early, I'd say it's easier to underestimate the importance of it than overestimate it. It certainly doesn't decide the race on its own, though.

Re:And?

[Rei]

Actually, it is. The Iowa caucuses give a strong statistical boost to the winner. It's no guarantee, but it's a very real and pretty major effect, as far as poll percentages go. One of the biggest reasons is the "rallying point" aspect. In this case, picture a person who likes both Obama and Edwards and hates Clinton. If Edwards had won the Iowa caucuses, he could have counted on a large share of those people supporting him because they see him as the candidate most likely to take the nomination away from Clinton. Since Obama won, he instead can be the one to count on that. While Iowa alone is only worth a handful of percentage points from this effect, once you get past New Hampshire and South Carolina, you're talking literally dozens of points up for play. Right now, it's still anybody's game, but Obama has been moved into a stronger position, Clinton weaker, and Edwards still looks to be in trouble. If the couple percent boost from Iowa were to give Obama the NH primary, and he were to win SC, he can count on the vast majority of votes from those who like him as well as one or more other candates (in this case, probably mostly Edwards supporters). If Edwards doesn't win one of the three, look to him to drop out and leave it a race between Obama and Clinton.

As for the other candidates, you have two types -- the "making a point/pushing issues candidates" (Kucinich, Gravel), and the "Running for VP candidates" (Dodd, Biden, Richardson). They knew fully well going into Iowa that they stood better chance of being hit by a deorbiting Russian satellite than winning the nomination. What they all wanted was a strong showing to make clear their ability to win votes. A number of them outright curried favor with particular candidates -- for example, Richardson had his supporters support Obama in Iowa as a second choice wherever Richardson wasn't viable for delegates. And it may well pay off, too -- Richardson landed fourth, and his long list of experience compliments well Obama's perceived inexperience, plus the concept of having an African-American/Latino ticket further pushes Obama's campaign themes of unity and change.

Re:And?

[Trifthen]

Of course not, that would be preposterous!

The point of course, is that the likelihood of an anti video-game candidate being elected has demonstrably dropped. Sure, that's ignored by everyone except folks like us, and likely irrelevant to the caucus votes themselves, but it's still good news nevertheless.

That's some specious logic being suggested.

[grub]

Also note that people with penises fared better than those without. Ergo, having a penis makes you a winner!

Re:That's some specious logic being suggested.

[Trifthen]

This is not a cause/effect relationship, just good news.

I don't know about you, but I'm personally ecstatic that—whether or not video games are a serious political topic—politicians who happen to subscribe to such scapegoatism are unlikely to win for whatever other reason.

Not Really

[kannibal_klown]

I'm not a Clinton fan be she wasn't that far behind Obama. Obama was at 38%, Edwards was at 30%, and Clinton was 29%.

I'd say the top 3 Democrats were pretty close. Sure, Obama won but it wasn't a landslide.

Personally I haven't formed a strong enough opinion on any of them, but Clinton isn't looking like my first choice.

I don't think that's where the vote came from

[CaptainPatent]

Yes, Clinton and Romney did not fare well and the fact they are (or were) somewhat against violent video games may have robbed them of a couple of votes. In contrast though I think not only I, but many Slashdotters know that the main issues at hand have nothing to do with video games. In fact, most of the republican vote came from an older-than-expected crowd (much of the younger crowd expected didn't show to the republican caucuses) which would in all likelihood be more pro-anti-gaming legislation.

The fact is, this vote can be spun in every which way possible, but Iowans voted for change and they underlined that statement with almost double of previous record turnout.