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?

[faloi]

When your site is devoted to "Where Politics and Video Games Collide" it behooves you to draw as many conclusions as you can. When politicians with stronger anti-gaming views win other caucuses, that will doubtless be an indication that we must all join whatever coalition is being pimped out for the protection of our rights.

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.

Re:Slow news day?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

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.

Re:Slow news day?

[domatic]

You might remember Tipper Gore's campaign on hollywood and game violence.

Not especially but my memory on the subject of "porn rock" is very very long indeed.

Correlation !=Causation

[DrData99]

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

wow...

[night_flyer]

are you serious? one caucus and its a warning to anti-game candidates?

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?

[SirLurksAlot]

I doubt that videogames themselves were even close to the biggest issue, but apparently there is a large segment of the population who play them. I'm a gamer, and I know I certainly care about whether or not a candidate wants to censor the games I play. Of course, this wouldn't be my only reason for supporting one candidate over another, but it is an issue worth considering nonetheless.

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.

[eln]

Actually, the winners of a presidential election are statistically very likely to have a penis, the only notable exception being, of course, Chester A. Arthur, who as we all know had his penis surgically removed in order to conserve precious blood flow needed to hold up his impressive side whiskers.

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.

Re:Not Really

[AuMatar]

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.

Different take

[locallyunscene]

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.

Repeat after me

[jmauro]

Correlation does not equal causation.

The results were the cause of many reasons, but video games laws were most definitely not one of them.

Huckabee HAS a video game policy?

[_xeno_]

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.)

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.

clinton may rot in hell for all i care

[unity100]

no candidate, even democrats should dare alienate gamer voter base.

Re:Kinda sucks...

[LithiumX]

Huckabee is a former Baptist minister. Another delusional kook trying to turn the US into a theocracy. He really believes in that shit.

He may be a former Baptist minister, but his record strongly suggests that he can hold his beliefs without forcing them on everyone else. His time as a minister, as well as his up-front style of religion, made me dismiss him initially, but I've started to like him a good bit more. The only real problem I can take issue with now is that he's not as up-to-date on current events as I'd like, and as an avid target shooter I think his stunt with the shotgun was reckless.

Considering that he's having trouble getting Baptist support due to not being arch-conservative enough is a positive sign. He repeatedly spoke out against the politicization of that group while it was happening (as opposed to complaining after the fact), and he took an active role in flushing out as much racism and bigotry in that group as you could hope for (making him far more attractive to minority groups than someone who just panders to them).

I believe biblical inerrancy is incompatible with evidence, but I've known many intelligent people (including one of the best programmers I know) who stick to the idea - so I don't equate it with intelligence. As for it being "delusional", maybe it is... but so are most human models of morality, as the only truly logical behavior is utterly self-serving (including the need to produce a working civilization to protect you and your genetic heritage). The fact that I accept moral ideals myself only proves that I'm just as deluded as most of us.

Overall I'd describe him as a conservative progressive, meaning he's a progressive, but not as fast and loose about it as someone more liberal would be.

Not video games, but the bigger picture

[compumike]

Take a look at the different candidates on how much influence they want the government to have in your personal life. There is a huge spectrum, both within the Democrats and the Republicans. Video games is only the tip of the iceberg, but is representative of whether people think the federal government needs to act like a protective parent or not. Most of the "establishment" candidates are overwhelmingly tending toward YES on the need for the nanny state, but Clinton is probably the worst. There are alternatives out there. Think about personal liberties, but don't restrict yourself narrowly to the issue of video games.

Just because you might not let your 10-year-old play "Gears of War", does that imply that the government should regulate those games for everyone's "protection"? Or can we separate what we personally think is "right" from what the role of the government (coercive by nature) should be?

--
Educational microcontroller kits for the digital generation.

Re:Kinda sucks...

[nonsequitor]

Huckabee is not a Progressive, he's a Traditionalist. Look at any political compass with the candidates placed on it. Even Ron Paul is considered more Progressive than Huckabee and even he isn't on the Progressive side of the Social Issue axis. Clinton is just barely considered Progressive as her dive towards the middle brought her closer to the center of the compass.

Huckabee also isn't very conservative, which refers to the small government end of the Fiscal spectrum. He's right near the middle as far as spending goes, but he would be spending the money to advance a Traditional agenda rather than a Progressive one. Progressives want to improve Health Care and Social Services, whereas the Republicans have been spending money on Abstinence only Sex Ed. in schools, etc. I believe the term they coined for it is "compassionate conservativism", which means they spend as much money as the Dems, just on different programs.

don't worry about Rudy

[Scudsucker]

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.