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."

Slow news day?

[elrous0 (869638)]

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 (738831)]

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 (949762)]

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:

[sumdumass (711423)]

Wow, I'm not sure I understand your reasoning on a few things here but lets aks dome questions to see if you are as informed as you think.

What makes you think Lieberman is a total douche bag? And if you weren't 12 at the time he was railing on violent video games, you would understand the issues at hand. The popular position of the Democrat party at the time was that columbine shootings and all the other school shootings were the cause of Violent Video Games where the you just killed everything on the scree

Re:

[Rei (128717)]

Yes, correlation does not imply causation; we all know that. So? It's still good news that anti-game candidates did poorly, even though it's in all likelyhood unrelated.

Re:

[mOdQuArK! (87332)]

A single correlation doesn't imply causation.

When you collect enough different correlations (positive and/or negative), and identify non-correlations, then you can start making some empirical/statistical arguments about causality.

Re:

[Jeff DeMaagd (2015)]

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.

Correlation !=Causation

[DrData99 (916924)]

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

Re:

[night_flyer (453866)]

redundant /rdndnt/ Pronunciation[ri-duhn-duhnt]
-adjective
1. characterized by verbosity or unnecessary repetition in expressing ideas; prolix: a redundant style.

Re:

[Captain Splendid (673276)]

Yeah, the first post got modded redundant too. Some asshole got mod points today, obviously.

wow...

[night_flyer (453866)]

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

Re:

[Scrameustache (459504)]

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

A CRYPTIC warning.
Those are the best kind! :D

And?

[bn0p (656911)]

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


Never let reality temper imagination

Re:

[SirLurksAlot (1169039)]

I doubt that videogames themselves were even close to the biggest issue, but apparently there is a large segment [arstechnica.com] 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:

[Jeff DeMaagd (2015)]

But that story doesn't say what kind of games are being played. I think Ars did a story that said more women played games, but readers love to say that they aren't "serious" games and such. I would expect that three fourths of those game players aren't playing violent games. No one is going to be able to censor Solitaire or Sudoku.

Re:

[Joe the Lesser (533425)]

And does anyone seriously think the Iowa caucus is as relevant as the media tries to make it?

Talk to me after Feb 5th.

Re:

[mr_mischief (456295)]

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

Re:And?

[Rei (128717)]

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:

[LrdDimwit (1133419)]

This, in and of itself, is a good thing! It was not at all clear that Hot Coffee was going to blow over. Regulation has failed over and over, but this is no guarantee it will fail in the future. If politcos cared enough, they would find a way to make something stick; if they don't give up, one of the laws will stand eventually. Would you like to see games go the way comics did in the 50s?

Put another way -- wouldn't it be something to worry about if it WERE a factor in the Iowa caucuses? Then it's new

Re:

[Trifthen (40989)]

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.

Re:

[bigstrat2003 (1058574)]

Not for me. Games aren't an issue themselves, the issue here (for me) is one of censorship. If a candidate is willing to prohibit violent (or any other kind, for that matter) games from being made, that means they endorse government censorship. The only tolerable level of government censorship is 0, and as soon as any candidate expresses a willingness to censor (games or otherwise), they've instantly lost my vote.

That's some specious logic being suggested.

[grub (11606)]

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

Re:

[GMFTatsujin (239569)]

Actually, it's more likely to make you a loser. Only two candidates with a penis can be said to have 'won', while many others with a penis placed second or lower. The statistics speak for themselves.

Re:That's some specious logic being suggested.

[eln (21727)]

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.

Well, yeah

[Rix (54095)]

That's pretty obvious in politics (though it's actually the balls).

Re:

[Trifthen (40989)]

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 (531544)]

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:

[AuMatar (183847)]

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.

Re:

[Captain Splendid (673276)]

And it's all a waste of time because it's bloody Iowa anyway. US history is littered with with winners of early primaries who vanished into thin air shortly thereafter. So congrats to Huck/Obama supporters, but this ain't over until Hillary and Rudy say it is.

God, I hope I'm wrong.

don't worry about Rudy

[Scudsucker (17617)]

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 i

Re:

[Captain Splendid (673276)]

Interesting take on Hillary v. Huckabee, I hadn't considered that particular angle. Considering how many conservatives are literally aghast at Huck's success so far, I still think he's toast come Super Tuesday.

kucinich

[Scrameustache (459504)]

In a 3 way race, 8 percent is a landslide.

Stop pretending like he doesn't exist! He's just very, very short.

Re:

[AuMatar (183847)]

Kucinich has been killed by his treatment as a joke in the press. Most people don't know he exists. He has no chance at the nomination.

Obama's landslide

[underwhelm (53409)]

I posted a diary about his on Daily Kos. I argue that it's likely the delegate results understate Obama's support in Iowa [dailykos.com].

The Iowa Caucuses are not winner-take-all, but nor are they "instant runoff." Instead, people get to see the results of the first round of voting before making their second choice.

In my precinct, and in many others, Obama supporters saw the strength of his support, and supported a second candidate in the final tally. Had they stood firm after being joined by second choices from other can

Different take

[locallyunscene (1000523)]

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 (32523)]

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_ (155264)]

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 [kotaku.com].

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.)

Re:

[p0tat03 (985078)]

I admit I haven't been as on top of Obama and video games recently, but didn't he claim that he wanted to put legal teeth behind selling games to underaged kids? And that he is in favour of more parental education on game ratings? Neither of those things sound questionable to me, at all. If we uphold legal drinking, driving, and gambling ages, and we card our kids at the multiplex, why not at the game shop?

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

[CaptainPatent (1087643)]

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 (970058)]

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

And this proves what?

[pclminion (145572)]

Maybe the people with even numbers of eyelashes lost, and those with odd numbers of eyelashes won. That's about as likely as there being any association with game politics.

So does anybody know Obama's exact eyelash count? I think I might be on to something.

Not video games, but the bigger picture

[compumike (454538)]

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. [nerdkits.com]

Only on Slashdot ...

[rueger (210566)]

Would "... anti-game presidential candidates didn't fare so well in the Iowa caucuses..." actually inspire seemingly serious debate. Can't we at least judge our political leaders on something of true significance, like whether their laptop is PC or Mac?

Actually, now that I think of it, I don't know that I'd be comfortable knowing that the Leader of the Free world was a Mac person.

I'm serious.

Dr Ron Paul

[wikinerd (809585)]

Dr Ron Paul [ronpaul2008.com] will scrap the IRS, will let you have guns, will let you homeschool your kids, and will let you live in peace without crying over a killed relative in Iraq. Why you don't vote for him? Here in EU some are very jealous and we wish we had a politician like him. I can understand that you would be reluctant to vote for third party, but having such a man in a mainstream party and not voting for him makes me wonder. Why you don't vote for him?

In a close race, minor issues can be decisive

[tgibbs (83782)]

Video games are far from the most important issue being debated by the candidates, and the likelihood that a Presidential candidate's views on videogames will impact actual laws is small. Hillary Clinton has come out in support of draconian legal penalties for stores that slip up and sell games to underage players, but such laws have not fared well in the courts. I'd be surprised if Clinton's enthusiasm for this approach extends to trying to pack the judiciary with supporters of videogame censorship.

Neverth

Re:

[Hatta (162192)]

Try again. Everybody seems to be more of the same of what we already have had enough of for the past few decades.

Re:Kinda sucks...

[LithiumX (717017)]

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.

Re:

[nonsequitor (893813)]

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

Re:

[exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870)]

> the only truly logical behavior is utterly self-serving

No it's not. As Bertrand Russell once said, logic doesn't tell you what to achieve, but once you've decided what you want to achieve, logic is the best way to achieve it. Logic doesn't dictate your values, and having a set of values doesn't make you delusional.

Re:

[mdarksbane (587589)]

His point is that being religious in a conservative sense does not, as many people on slashdot seem to think, mean they are stupid.