Iowa Gubernatorial Poll
on September 22, a Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll was released for the Iowa Governor’s race. The results: Democratic 43%; Republican 41%; Libertarian 7%; undecided 9%. See this story.
There is a fourth candidate on the ballot, Gary Siegwarth, with the ballot label “Clear Water Party of Iowa”, but apparently he wasn’t included in the poll. Here is his web page.
The organizations that sponsor debates in Iowa have stubbornly refused to include Jake Porter, the Libertarian, in any polls so far.
No one other than the Democratic and Republican nominees has received even 5% of the vote for Governor of Iowa since 1912, when the Progressive Party nominee got 15.6%. The Libertarian Party will remain ballot-qualified if it gets at least 2% for Governor. Parties in Iowa must meet the vote test every two years, and only President/Governor counts. Assuming the Libertarians get at least 2% for Governor this year, that will be the first time since 1918 and 1920 that any party, other than the Democratic and Republican Parties, has met the Iowa definition of a “political party” for two elections in a row. The Socialist Party received over 2% for the appropriate offices in 1918 and 1920. The Iowa definition of a qualified party was created in 1892 and has never changed. Thanks to Political Wire for the link.
Men, the only female candidate for Iowa Governor is Reynolds [Republican] and so to unite with women we support her candidacy as a potential recipient of our votes in Iowa.
No more egomaniac, conceipted psychopaths, largely males.
It’s time to extend 50/50 partnership to women in all multi-winner election districts such as Governor and Lt. Governor of Iowa.
^^^^ This is just as bad as saying that we should vote for the only male candidate or the only white candidate. Get out of here with your bigotry.
Brandon Lyon is making it clear to everyone that he is not interested in teamwork with women.
He does not believe in moral-building ideas with women, such as “taking turns” and 50/50 partners.
He wants to encourage only more egomaniac, psychopathic conciepted, power-grabbing males at all costs.
Without considering the consequences, that Brandon insist that no one of his opposite gender need bother to ask for fairness, equal time, equal treatment, teamwork and fair play.
He is OK with the fact that men would rather mentally and physically attack women’s political voices, men being aggressive, bigger physically and with louder voices, and that is acceptable and appropriate to him, and that no female will ever need to speak before he speaks, before his gender, and that he and his gender must always be #1 and #2 in every election such as Governor and Lt Gov. in all states, that men must always hold more that 80% of the seats in Congress and that men must always be considered first by us males for President and Vice President of the USA and that no partnership with female politicians need be considered.
Brandon Lyon wants you to believe that teamwork, taking turns and fairness with our opposite gender is out of the question.
Brandon wants you to follow his policy of criticism towards prioritizing of women ahead of us men, his policy of never allowing them to speak ahead of our gender, is a good idea and the only policy is men need ever consider.
To him there are two genders possible in two-member districts, but that taking turns back and forth is a racist issue, and in reality the race issue is the same.
To him there are are two races and the fact that plurality elections insure that only one race, likely his own, is the only race that can ever serve in Congress, even when the balance might be 66.66% or more black, that only whites can serve in Congress just like large Congressional Districts in Texas where virtually no black Congressmen and women can get elected in single-winner districts.
This too is perfectly fine with him because he doesn’t want teamwork with blacks either.
According to the in-depth studies of Harvard Law School Dean Lani Guinier, who is a former TX Attorney General.
Her research shows disparity regarding absence of African American Congressional winners across Texas, despite black populations of 45% and more in those districts, no black person have ever been elected.
He is right in fact, because both race and gender inequality in Government does exist.
But to him we need not consider pure proportional representation because gender and racial issues will not ever be considered to be of any importance to him.
Now there is a new way of thinking, men of the United Coalition USA are asking other men to consider pure proportional representation as a solution to gender and racial inequities in plurality elections.
Ogle, I don’t have time to read your long winded spam. Voting for someone based on their gender is idiotic, but then again I expect that from a guy who tried to run for President in 2014 when the office was not up for election.
Yeah, I didn’t read all of Ogle’s second comment, but I just wanted to chime in and say that you should be voting for someone because you agree and believe in their policies, not purely because of what gender/color/background they have. If a candidate has similar policies to you AND they happen to be a woman, then vote for them. But voting for someone just because of their gender seems utterly foolish.
And this is coming from someone who has been a feminist for some time now.
I don’t particularly care for any of the four candidates, but I don’t live in Iowa, so that hardly matters.
There are plenty of male chauvinists who have no use for our opposite gender being supported by our humble plan for teamwork, to take turns back and forth, with our opposite gender ahead of our own.
No voter can know everything about every candidate so we ask that voters consider the female name if possible when making a choice between unknowns.
For anyone to think that every voter knows everything about all the names on the ballot when entering the voting booth is ridiculous.
Since women are candidates likely in fewer than 20%, probably far less than 10%.
The actual percentages of female Prez candidates nation-wide, but near 50% of registered voters are female, this is a way to win but of course we don’t expect chauvinistic males to consider the strategy.
With 17 LP candidates being male, one being female, the percent of female names is less than 5%. Those who are interested in the make gender have the split vote problem and the female has an advantage with our team strategy and not the chauvinists’ strategy of censoring, degrading, insulting and slandering our opposite gender.
The Libertarian Party only picked males in last 16 years. They shut out our team’s female candidates 100% for last three Presidential cycles, so we already know that they are biased against women in every aspect.
The United Coalition USA is not interested in their kind.
The United Coalition USA is only interested in teamwork.
Not so much the male chauvinists who always want conceited ego maniac psychopaths, primarily themselves, but we want more fairness and teanwork to both women candidates and voters and that way is males may earn more votes from women.
Our team is only interested in people who are interested in teamwork in ways that attract votes to our team.
http://www.international-parliament.org/ucc-p7-usa.html
See the DOOM of the Roman Republic with 2 or more top executive officers —
aka plotting among the top folks.