Anti-Game Candidates Do Poorly in Iowa Caucuses 111
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
Correlation !=Causation (Score:2, Insightful)
And? (Score:4, Insightful)
Never let reality temper imagination
That's some specious logic being suggested. (Score:5, Insightful)
Also note that people with penises fared better than those without. Ergo, having a penis makes you a winner!
Not Really (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Slow news day? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I don't think that's where the vote came from (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:And? (Score:3, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:3, Insightful)
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:That's some specious logic being suggested. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.