PDA

View Full Version : tPF Who gives a shit about Iowa?



Green Arrow
01-28-2016, 09:19 PM
I realize I'm probably jeopardizing any future run for President I may have by posting this, but who gives a shit about Iowa? New Hampshire? Why do these two states get more campaigning in presidential elections than any other state?

Part of it is because of the corrupt primary system that benefits the winners of Iowa and New Hampshire. The candidate that wins Iowa gains momentum and advantage going into New Hampshire. The candidate that wins New Hampshire gains momentum and advantage going into South Carolina. Winner of SC gets momentum and advantage going into Florida. Usually, barring a surprise, Florida pretty much ends the process and the winner of those states ends up being the nominee. For the 2012 GOP primaries, that meant 2.6 million people chose the GOP nominee. Iowa has a total population of 3.1 million. New Hampshire has a total population of 1.3 million. South Carolina has a total population of 4.8 million. Florida has a total population of 19.9 million. Altogether, that's 29.1 million in a nation of over 315 million people.

Why do we accept this as an appropriate system? Who gives a shit about Iowa?

Matty
01-28-2016, 09:30 PM
Cruz is being an asshole and got booed.

Green Arrow
01-28-2016, 09:32 PM
Cruz is being an asshole and got booed.

This isn't about the debate. Bo-4 posted a thread about the debate.

Matty
01-28-2016, 09:34 PM
Oh. I love Iowa. Very much.

Safety
01-28-2016, 09:35 PM
It's like the Daytona 500 to NASCAR.

Green Arrow
01-28-2016, 09:39 PM
It's like the Daytona 500 to NASCAR.

I don't understand the reference.

TrueBlue
01-28-2016, 10:03 PM
The importance of our friends in the state of Iowa cannot be underestimated and it is essential that everyone understands why Iowa is so important in an election year. By the way, Hillary Clinton has received the endorsement of Iowa's top newspaper, The Des Moines Register that the rest of the country closely and strongly looks at.

Thanks to HowStuffWorks CULTURE for this report.

Why is the Iowa caucus so important?
by Josh Clark

http://people.howstuffworks.com/iowa-caucus.htm

"During the fall and early winter of every fourth year, the United States (http://maps.howstuffworks.com/maps-of-united-states.htm) turns its full attention to the state of Iowa (http://maps.howstuffworks.com/maps-of-iowa.htm). The Des Moines Register newspaper gets the kind of political clout that The Washington Post or The New York Times do when its editors reveal which candidates their paper officially endorses. Average Joes and Janes are interviewed by out-of-town national correspondents over coffee (http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/edible-innovations/coffee.htm) and pie in the local diner about what issues are most important to them. And almost every candidate in the presidential race virtually moves to the state to spend months campaigning throughout Iowa."

texan
01-28-2016, 10:07 PM
I earn commission from Iowa so I like it.

Safety
01-28-2016, 10:14 PM
I don't understand the reference.

It's the race that starts and sets the season. You want to start the season off strong.

Green Arrow
01-28-2016, 10:39 PM
It's the race that starts and sets the season. You want to start the season off strong.

Right, I get that, my question is why does it start off in a state that is like 94% white and populated by just 3.1 million people?

Mark III
01-28-2016, 10:39 PM
I realize I'm probably jeopardizing any future run for President I may have by posting this, but who gives a $#@! about Iowa? New Hampshire? Why do these two states get more campaigning in presidential elections than any other state?

Part of it is because of the corrupt primary system that benefits the winners of Iowa and New Hampshire. The candidate that wins Iowa gains momentum and advantage going into New Hampshire. The candidate that wins New Hampshire gains momentum and advantage going into South Carolina. Winner of SC gets momentum and advantage going into Florida. Usually, barring a surprise, Florida pretty much ends the process and the winner of those states ends up being the nominee. For the 2012 GOP primaries, that meant 2.6 million people chose the GOP nominee. Iowa has a total population of 3.1 million. New Hampshire has a total population of 1.3 million. South Carolina has a total population of 4.8 million. Florida has a total population of 19.9 million. Altogether, that's 29.1 million in a nation of over 315 million people.

Why do we accept this as an appropriate system? Who gives a $#@! about Iowa?

They do this so that candidates can concentrate on a couple small or relatively small states where media and advertising doesn't cost that much. It's a money saver pretty much.

Logically, a whole geographic region would vote on the same day, and then two or three weeks later the next geographic region and so forth , with maybe 6 or 7 geographic regions taking part. Makes too much sense I think.

Safety
01-28-2016, 10:51 PM
Right, I get that, my question is why does it start off in a state that is like 94% white and populated by just 3.1 million people?

Tradition.

Green Arrow
01-28-2016, 10:59 PM
They do this so that candidates can concentrate on a couple small or relatively small states where media and advertising doesn't cost that much. It's a money saver pretty much.

Logically, a whole geographic region would vote on the same day, and then two or three weeks later the next geographic region and so forth , with maybe 6 or 7 geographic regions taking part. Makes too much sense I think.

Why can't all states just vote on the same day like the general election?

Subdermal
01-28-2016, 11:30 PM
I realize I'm probably jeopardizing any future run for President I may have by posting this, but who gives a $#@! about Iowa? New Hampshire? Why do these two states get more campaigning in presidential elections than any other state?

Part of it is because of the corrupt primary system that benefits the winners of Iowa and New Hampshire. The candidate that wins Iowa gains momentum and advantage going into New Hampshire. The candidate that wins New Hampshire gains momentum and advantage going into South Carolina. Winner of SC gets momentum and advantage going into Florida. Usually, barring a surprise, Florida pretty much ends the process and the winner of those states ends up being the nominee. For the 2012 GOP primaries, that meant 2.6 million people chose the GOP nominee. Iowa has a total population of 3.1 million. New Hampshire has a total population of 1.3 million. South Carolina has a total population of 4.8 million. Florida has a total population of 19.9 million. Altogether, that's 29.1 million in a nation of over 315 million people.

Why do we accept this as an appropriate system? Who gives a $#@! about Iowa?

I heard a great point today.

If Iowa didn't lead the primaries, we would not have ethanol screwing up our gas.

Truth.

Green Arrow
01-28-2016, 11:34 PM
I heard a great point today.

If Iowa didn't lead the primaries, we would not have ethanol screwing up our gas.

Truth.

I'm 99.99999999% certain that's true.

Subdermal
01-28-2016, 11:36 PM
I'm 99.99999999% certain that's true.

That crap literally drops my mileage by nearly 2mpg - and that's an enormous difference in an SUV that gets only about 15mpg.

Green Arrow
01-28-2016, 11:48 PM
That crap literally drops my mileage by nearly 2mpg - and that's an enormous difference in an SUV that gets only about 15mpg.

We have a few stations here that still sell both the normal ethanol and 100% gasoline. When I put my car on the 100% gas, I got a few extra miles to the gallon too. It's like 40 cents more expensive than the ethanol though, got to be too much on my pocketbook.

Subdermal
01-28-2016, 11:54 PM
We have a few stations here that still sell both the normal ethanol and 100% gasoline. When I put my car on the 100% gas, I got a few extra miles to the gallon too. It's like 40 cents more expensive than the ethanol though, got to be too much on my pocketbook.

I'm in SE Wisconsin, and I can get 100% gas - but only in outlying counties (I'm in Waukesha, and have to hit the counties west and north of Waukesha to find it). It actually costs the same at those stations, but many if not most of these stations only offer 100% on premium gas (91 and above octane). Maybe that's why the price is the same as other stations: premium always seems to be 60 cents/gallon higher than mid anyway.

There's a website I use to find stations:

http://pure-gas.org

Green Arrow
01-29-2016, 12:00 AM
I'm in SE Wisconsin, and I can get 100% gas - but only in outlying counties (I'm in Waukesha, and have to hit the counties west and north of Waukesha to find it). It actually costs the same at those stations, but many if not most of these stations only offer 100% on premium gas (91 and above octane). Maybe that's why the price is the same as other stations: premium always seems to be 60 cents/gallon higher than mid anyway.

There's a website I use to find stations:

http://pure-gas.org

I have one that is practically right outside my neighborhood, but gas ends up being cheaper with the non-100% station I use because I have a savings card with them that gets me an extra three cents off a gallon, plus more if I buy specific items in the store, like candy bars or soda.

JVV
01-29-2016, 01:29 AM
I realize I'm probably jeopardizing any future run for President I may have by posting this, but who gives a $#@! about Iowa? New Hampshire? Why do these two states get more campaigning in presidential elections than any other state?

Part of it is because of the corrupt primary system that benefits the winners of Iowa and New Hampshire. The candidate that wins Iowa gains momentum and advantage going into New Hampshire. The candidate that wins New Hampshire gains momentum and advantage going into South Carolina. Winner of SC gets momentum and advantage going into Florida. Usually, barring a surprise, Florida pretty much ends the process and the winner of those states ends up being the nominee. For the 2012 GOP primaries, that meant 2.6 million people chose the GOP nominee. Iowa has a total population of 3.1 million. New Hampshire has a total population of 1.3 million. South Carolina has a total population of 4.8 million. Florida has a total population of 19.9 million. Altogether, that's 29.1 million in a nation of over 315 million people.

Why do we accept this as an appropriate system? Who gives a $#@! about Iowa?



Which state(s) would you like to start with?

We have to start with just a couple if we're going to have any chance for people with principles but little money to triumph over people like Clinton.

If it were a 50 state primary, Clinton would have this in the bag. She has the money to buy the airwaves in every state. Need to have smaller, more localized venues if anyone is going to have a chance to break the stranglehold the billionaire class has on our electoral process.

It's a longshot. But it's our only shot.

JVV
01-29-2016, 01:35 AM
Why can't all states just vote on the same day like the general election?


If we did that, the elections would be even more about who the billionaire puppetmasters want than they already are. Someone like Sanders wouldn't have a chance to break through.

His path to victory is to get a couple of early primary wins so that the media will be forced to cover him more, so that more people will have a chance to hear his message. So that he then can get enough support to compete against Clinton on a larger scale.

If he was forced to compete against Clinton money in 50 states at once instead of just a handful at the start, he wouldn't have a chance. Might as well not even have a primary. Just let the Adelsons, Soroses, Kochs, etc. tell the respective committees who to run.

Crepitus
01-29-2016, 01:53 AM
If we did that, the elections would be even more about who the billionaire puppetmasters want than they already are. Someone like Sanders wouldn't have a chance to break through.

His path to victory is to get a couple of early primary wins so that the media will be forced to cover him more, so that more people will have a chance to hear his message. So that he then can get enough support to compete against Clinton on a larger scale.

If he was forced to compete against Clinton money in 50 states at once instead of just a handful at the start, he wouldn't have a chance. Might as well not even have a primary. Just let the Adelsons, Soroses, Kochs, etc. tell the respective committees who to run.

that's an excellent point, and tbh not one I had considered until you brought it up.

Peter1469
01-29-2016, 05:35 AM
That crap literally drops my mileage by nearly 2mpg - and that's an enormous difference in an SUV that gets only about 15mpg.

Until recently ethanol was cheaper than gas after factoring the mileage difference.

Of course gas is cheap now.

The answer is flex fuel- which all new cars can do with software. That would let you run 100% gas, 100% ethanol, 100$ methanol, or any combination of the three. (The methanol would require more robust gaskets, so you can take that out if you want.) When there is the choice the market will sort out gas and alcohol fuels. If the price of oil goes back up, ethanol will be much cheaper than gas. It wouldn't have to go up much.

With that said, ethanol can be made without using food crops on land suited for food crops. It doesn't have to compete with food.

Peter1469
01-29-2016, 05:38 AM
I'm in SE Wisconsin, and I can get 100% gas - but only in outlying counties (I'm in Waukesha, and have to hit the counties west and north of Waukesha to find it). It actually costs the same at those stations, but many if not most of these stations only offer 100% on premium gas (91 and above octane). Maybe that's why the price is the same as other stations: premium always seems to be 60 cents/gallon higher than mid anyway.

There's a website I use to find stations:

http://pure-gas.org

Alcohol can be a gas (http://www.permaculture.com)

Find stations near you (http://www.permaculture.com/node/177)

Green Arrow
01-29-2016, 07:57 AM
Which state(s) would you like to start with?

We have to start with just a couple if we're going to have any chance for people with principles but little money to triumph over people like Clinton.

If it were a 50 state primary, Clinton would have this in the bag. She has the money to buy the airwaves in every state. Need to have smaller, more localized venues if anyone is going to have a chance to break the stranglehold the billionaire class has on our electoral process.

It's a longshot. But it's our only shot.

So then why not have the general election operate the same way?

I don't buy that argument. To date it has never actually worked the way you say and even gives the establishment candidates more of an advantage.

Cigar
01-29-2016, 08:05 AM
These Election Primaries have exactly ZERO Representation of the country at large for Voting habits and Demographics. Basically, it's something that has been going on since the early 1900's, and no one is willing to say this country changed Decades ago. It's relevance is exposed every 4 years, but is clearly ignored.

AeonPax
01-29-2016, 08:13 AM
`
`
Demographically, what Iowa thinks or votes, is insignificant. The media plays it up out of tradition.

Mark III
01-29-2016, 09:00 AM
Why can't all states just vote on the same day like the general election?


That would restrict the election, for practical purposes, to the couple candidates that had the most money, and thus able to conduct a national primary campaign. I think there actually is a need to do it piecemeal. By now, as others have said, there is a tradition of Iowa and N.H. starting it. It does seem demographically excluding though, as you say.

Green Arrow
01-29-2016, 02:33 PM
That would restrict the election, for practical purposes, to the couple candidates that had the most money, and thus able to conduct a national primary campaign. I think there actually is a need to do it piecemeal. By now, as others have said, there is a tradition of Iowa and N.H. starting it. It does seem demographically excluding though, as you say.

Why don't we do the same with the general election?

Nutz
01-29-2016, 02:43 PM
IA and NH thins the herd before the significant states with more than a handful of electoral votes begin the decision making process. Huckabee, Santorum, Kasich, Fiorina, and Gilmore will all be gone before SC when the real primaries begin. That way significant states don't have to weed through the nobodies.

Bo-4
01-29-2016, 03:08 PM
I realize I'm probably jeopardizing any future run for President I may have by posting this, but who gives a shit about Iowa? New Hampshire? Why do these two states get more campaigning in presidential elections than any other state?

Part of it is because of the corrupt primary system that benefits the winners of Iowa and New Hampshire. The candidate that wins Iowa gains momentum and advantage going into New Hampshire. The candidate that wins New Hampshire gains momentum and advantage going into South Carolina. Winner of SC gets momentum and advantage going into Florida. Usually, barring a surprise, Florida pretty much ends the process and the winner of those states ends up being the nominee. For the 2012 GOP primaries, that meant 2.6 million people chose the GOP nominee. Iowa has a total population of 3.1 million. New Hampshire has a total population of 1.3 million. South Carolina has a total population of 4.8 million. Florida has a total population of 19.9 million. Altogether, that's 29.1 million in a nation of over 315 million people.

Why do we accept this as an appropriate system? Who gives a shit about Iowa?

Hey i won't rule you out for a presidential run because of this post GD. Nobody will know you were GD on tPF anyway ;-)

You are of course correct. These relatively unpopulated states that are somehow grandfathered into a bogus and indisputably unfair primary system have undue sway over the eventual candidates.

The only fair way to do it is to divide up the country into say four relatively equal population totals and then rotate them from one election to the next.

Keep it NE, SE, SW, and NW (in no particular order) to make campaigning easier as well. Right now, candidates are flying from IA to NH and down to SC?

Makes zero sense.

Iowa explained

*this will make you even madder

The state is also not all that representative of the country at large, Iowa critics note. Only 17 percent of the country lives in rural areas; over 40 percent of Iowans do. The state is 91 percent white, compared to 72 percent of the rest of the country.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/why-and-how-iowa-votes-first/2011/12/05/gIQAgTRiKP_blog.html

JVV
01-29-2016, 04:09 PM
So then why not have the general election operate the same way?

I don't buy that argument. To date it has never actually worked the way you say and even gives the establishment candidates more of an advantage.

How do you know it hasn't worked that way?

If we had a nationwide primary, I think it's most likely that Clinton would have been elected president in 2008.

Obama benefited from being able to focus on Iowa. He had a HUGE question of electability. Winning in Iowa helped him put that to rest.

Clinton had the great majority of the endorsements going into Iowa. The smart/big money would all have been on her. They would not have given Obama a chance if they were forced to put all their eggs in one basket on one big primary day. Clinton had such an advantage in endorsements and superdelegates that deep into primary season she still toyed with taking it all the way to the convention. Without a smaller venue to flex his fledgling wings in, Obama would not have been able to overcome Clinton's advantages.

But he did get Iowa, and that changed the course of the race.

Nutz
01-29-2016, 04:10 PM
How do you know it hasn't worked that way?

If we had a nationwide primary, I think it's most likely that Clinton would have been elected president in 2008.

Obama benefited from being able to focus on Iowa. He had a HUGE question of electability. Winning in Iowa helped him put that to rest.

Clinton had the great majority of the endorsements going into Iowa. The smart/big money would all have been on her. They would not have given Obama a chance if they were forced to put all their eggs in one basket on one big primary day. Clinton had such an advantage in endorsements and superdelegates that deep into primary season she still toyed with taking it all the way to the convention. Without a smaller venue to flex his fledgling wings in, Obama would not have been able to overcome Clinton's advantages.

But he did get Iowa, and that changed the course of the race.
IA is not that significant.

And a nationwide primary...why would anyone take away from state sovereignty?

JVV
01-29-2016, 04:15 PM
IA is not that significant.

And a nationwide primary...why would anyone take away from state sovereignty?


A. I don't understand your question.

B. You appear to have completely ignored my post.

C. Iowa was significant for Obama. For one thing, it showed that he could get a 93% white state to vote for him, which was in doubt by the power brokers.

D. Without Iowa or some other small number of states going first, we would have had President Clinton because the donor class was sure Clinton could give Democrats the White House and they wouldn't have wanted to take a risk on untested Obama.

Nutz
01-29-2016, 04:24 PM
A. I don't understand your question.

B. You appear to have completely ignored my post.

C. Iowa was significant for Obama. For one thing, it showed that he could get a 93% white state to vote for him, which was in doubt by the power brokers.

D. Without Iowa or some other small number of states going first, we would have had President Clinton because the donor class was sure Clinton could give Democrats the White House and they wouldn't have wanted to take a risk on untested Obama.
A...of course not. J/K. I think the idea of a national primary takes away from states' rights.
B...I am drunk...I probably did
C...Good point; but in the end, IA has a very low amount of electoral votes, so their significance is overrated. Not many POTUS' have won IA...all IA does is thin out the herd.
D....Fuccc! You are right!

JVV
01-29-2016, 04:47 PM
Ah, thanks for clarifying point A. :)


And thanks in general.

Green Arrow
01-29-2016, 06:44 PM
Hey i won't rule you out for a presidential run because of this post GD. Nobody will know you were GD on tPF anyway ;-)

In this day and age? They'll find out.


You are of course correct. These relatively unpopulated states that are somehow grandfathered into a bogus and indisputably unfair primary system have undue sway over the eventual candidates.

The only fair way to do it is to divide up the country into say four relatively equal population totals and then rotate them from one election to the next.

Keep it NE, SE, SW, and NW (in no particular order) to make campaigning easier as well. Right now, candidates are flying from IA to NH and down to SC?

Makes zero sense.

Iowa explained

*this will make you even madder

The state is also not all that representative of the country at large, Iowa critics note. Only 17 percent of the country lives in rural areas; over 40 percent of Iowans do. The state is 91 percent white, compared to 72 percent of the rest of the country.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/why-and-how-iowa-votes-first/2011/12/05/gIQAgTRiKP_blog.html

I liked Subdermal's point, that it's yet another example of special interests twisting and corrupting the democratic process.

Green Arrow
01-29-2016, 06:45 PM
How do you know it hasn't worked that way?

If we had a nationwide primary, I think it's most likely that Clinton would have been elected president in 2008.

Obama benefited from being able to focus on Iowa. He had a HUGE question of electability. Winning in Iowa helped him put that to rest.

Clinton had the great majority of the endorsements going into Iowa. The smart/big money would all have been on her. They would not have given Obama a chance if they were forced to put all their eggs in one basket on one big primary day. Clinton had such an advantage in endorsements and superdelegates that deep into primary season she still toyed with taking it all the way to the convention. Without a smaller venue to flex his fledgling wings in, Obama would not have been able to overcome Clinton's advantages.

But he did get Iowa, and that changed the course of the race.

That's hardly a decent defense of the current system, Clinton would have been just as bad a president as Obama, so what's the point?

Bo-4
01-29-2016, 06:50 PM
I liked @Subdermal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1758)'s point, that it's yet another example of special interests twisting and corrupting the democratic process.

Iffin Subby has a point.. i will do my best to find it. :D

JVV
01-29-2016, 07:12 PM
That's hardly a decent defense of the current system, Clinton would have been just as bad a president as Obama, so what's the point?


The point is that Iowa has impacted the race. You said it only gives establishment candidates the advantage, and that's not so. It's the only chance for a non-establishment candidate to make any progress.

Whoever was worse between Obama and Clinton, Iowa allowed Obama to have a chance to win and he took it.

And if Clinton is going to have a chance of being stopped now, it is because Iowa is giving Sanders a chance to defeat her -- a chance he wouldn't have if he had to campaign in all 50 states at once.



Who knows, if there were no Iowa, maybe Romney could have beaten Obama in 2012. The big money was behind Romney. The primaries were a death by a thousand cuts for Romney. If all those flavor-of-the-month conservatives hadn't forced him to pretend to be "severely conservative" then he wouldn't have been so weakened going into general election. He wouldn't have had to pretzel himself the way he did. He got more votes than McCain did, and Obama got fewer votes in 2012 than he did in 2008, so a stronger Romney might have been able to defeat Obama. Without those early primaries in the small states, we might not have had two terms of Obama.



So, anyway, the point is that Iowa makes a difference. The earlier primary states make a difference. The best-funded GOP candidate is not going to win this time around. And the best-funded Democratic candidate might not win either.

JVV
01-29-2016, 07:16 PM
That's hardly a decent defense of the current system, Clinton would have been just as bad a president as Obama, so what's the point?


Bottom line: The only chance to stop the establishment is to have these early primaries so that people without as much money can have a chance to shine. It doesn't always work, but it's the only chance to make it happen.

Bo-4
01-29-2016, 07:33 PM
I heard a great point today.

If Iowa didn't lead the primaries, we would not have ethanol screwing up our gas.

Truth.

Meh, ethanol is not the Devil as you kids would love to believe.

In Idaho, we've been on 10% for 3 years.

I've checked my mileage and service records since the switch - ZERO difference.

They should go to 20% far as i'm concerned.

Green Arrow
01-29-2016, 10:24 PM
Bottom line: The only chance to stop the establishment is to have these early primaries so that people without as much money can have a chance to shine. It doesn't always work, but it's the only chance to make it happen.

It doesn't always work? It never works, we have establishment candidates every year.

Peter1469
01-29-2016, 11:31 PM
Meh, ethanol is not the Devil as you kids would love to believe.

In Idaho, we've been on 10% for 3 years.

I've checked my mileage and service records since the switch - ZERO difference.

They should go to 20% far as i'm concerned.

My SUV is rated by the manufacturer as E85. With a software fix it could be E100. Or 100% gas, 100% ethanol or any combination.

JVV
01-30-2016, 12:39 AM
Bottom line: The only chance to stop the establishment is to have these early primaries so that people without as much money can have a chance to shine. It doesn't always work, but it's the only chance to make it happen.

It doesn't always work? It never works, we have establishment candidates every year.


With Obama it had a chance to work. Iowa allowed Obama to unseat the establishment favorite.

Obama had a chance not to play the establishment game. He could have done what Sanders promises to do. He could have been a president who was responsive to the people who were thirsting for true hope and change.

It's his fault he turned establishment and neglected the people. Not Iowa's.




Now Sanders is within reach of making it happen this time.
Trump is also within reach of making it happen this time.


Without small primaries up front they wouldn't even have a tiny bit of a shot.

AeonPax
01-30-2016, 06:26 AM
IA and NH thins the herd before the significant states with more than a handful of electoral votes begin the decision making process. Huckabee, Santorum, Kasich, Fiorina, and Gilmore will all be gone before SC when the real primaries begin. That way significant states don't have to weed through the nobodies.
`
I agree but that would apply for any state that held the first elections. Iowa, demographically however, is not a cross section of America.

Bo-4
01-30-2016, 08:52 AM
My SUV is rated by the manufacturer as E85. With a software fix it could be E100. Or 100% gas, 100% ethanol or any combination.

I hear these horror stories on occasion but they seem to involve very old cars with large engines. I see zero difference in my '08 Nissan Frontier.

Ransom
01-30-2016, 09:57 AM
Who gives a sh!t about Iowa = my candidate isn't leading

TBed by OP.

Peter1469
01-30-2016, 11:54 AM
I hear these horror stories on occasion but they seem to involve very old cars with large engines. I see zero difference in my '08 Nissan Frontier.

Cool. Most cars have the ability- the ones made in the last decade or so. Flex fuel started in the 1990s by those crazy people in California.

Subdermal
01-31-2016, 04:00 PM
Meh, ethanol is not the Devil as you kids would love to believe.

I'm 49, and have forgotten more about automobiles than you will ever know.


In Idaho, we've been on 10% for 3 years.

I've checked my mileage and service records since the switch - ZERO difference.

That tells me you drive a car or truck with little horsepower, or Japanese, which uses fuel programming to adjust properly.


They should go to 20% far as i'm concerned.

That will ruin a whole lot of engines. Only cars and other motorized equipment with engines specifically built to handle ethanol can tolerate that percentage.

Why do you hate the poor, Bo-4? They are the ones your ideas hurt most.

Subdermal
01-31-2016, 04:02 PM
I hear these horror stories on occasion but they seem to involve very old cars with large engines. I see zero difference in my '08 Nissan Frontier.

I have a 500hp Range Rover Sport Supercharged. 2mpg difference.

Peter1469
01-31-2016, 04:23 PM
I have a 500hp Range Rover Sport Supercharged. 2mpg difference.

That seems about right.

If alcohol fuels were available to the extent that gas was, you'd save a lot of money with alcohol.