Can somebody please explain to me EXACTLY WHY Iowa & NH are so important?

There are 50 states... why are these two the most important to win?

Sorry.

or pearls before swine.




(to borrow from Dorothy Parker)

They get to go first this and every other primary. You'll still get to vote after all the candidates except one have dropped out. Some people say it's a good thing because it's not as much trouble as actually having an election.

Lots of losers have 'won' them, though. Pat Buchanan, Gary Hart, John McCain in NH, Dick Gephardt, Tom Harkin (native son), Ed Muskie, in Iowa e.g. ... but 'winners' have won them as well.

NH results: http://rhodescook.com/analysis/presidential_primaries/nh/winners.html

IA results (scroll down): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucus


I am glad I don't live in Iowa, because I take issue with the way Iowa does things--it really disenfranchises anyone who's out of state on business or who leaves for warmer climates for the winter months. At least in primary contests, you can get an absentee ballot. But if you aren't there to 'caucus'--well, you're screwed. Your 'vote' doesn't count. I realize there's a 'personal' aspect to it, but it wouldn't be my first choice for a system if I were establishing a methodology for choosing a candidate.

It's the herd instinct: it's much bigger than most sentient beings would like to accept.

Timing is everything, and with the primaries crammed into a one-month period, there's really not much chance for building momentum or such quaint bits of nostalgia.

It's a good test of which candidates have strength based on voters who really get to know them and follow the race closely.

Why are they important? Because they're first. And they have to be first, because they're important.

Because they're first.

Because they're important.

It provides momentum to win these states, everything begins to fall in line after them. Nominations tend to be wrapped up pretty fast. Now why are they so special that they get to be the first primaries? Not sure. But as for winning them being so important, it's all about their positioning. It's also why no candidates are going nuts or have been going nuts about campaigning in say the large states with huge delegations like California, New York or Texas for the last 4 years. Once those big state primaries come around Iowa and NH and then South Carolina have already decided the nomination.

Divide the nation into six geographic regions. Hold primaries on a rotating basis among the regions. This way, every region in the nation will vote first every 24 years, but vote in the first three primaries at least half the time. And no more would be dependent on the leanings and beliefs of a select group who have an inordinate influence on the process.

Hold a primary every two weeks, beginning in mid-March and going through mid-June. Because the primaries would be regional, travel, advertising, and organizational money would be concentrated in a specific area, keeping costs down. As an entire region would vote as a block, the candidates would need to address local issues, instead of national "platitudes" and useless generalizations. As an example, each candidate would have to address issues of water within the watershed of the primary, would have to focus on the type of jobs and industries prevalent in that land, would have to recognize the problems and concerns of the people in a select area and not hide behind meaningless mumblings.

Yeah, that's the way I'd do it, if I ran the circus.

that is what I have always thought would be fair. I doubt it will ever happen, though. It's just too logical.

Poor Calguy, he wants to side with the winner, but he switched over to the wrong side with 7 weeks until caucasing.

the primary has to be at different times. Doesn't make any sense & doesn't seem very fair. My ex-in-laws are all in Iowa & I cringe at the power they have ;)

They vaulted him from like third to the winner of the nomination. The winner will of Iowa and NH will carry his/her momentum and positive media coverage to a win.

You must admit, the primary system is highly confusing.

If everyone would calm down and vote for the candidate of their choice Iowa and New Hampshire would just be first on the list.

Unfortunately the MSM and some of the voting public are like sheep or (lemmings) and see the prevailing candidate coming out of Iowa or New Hampshire and throw all reason to the wind.

It makes no sense to me.

+++++

Now, if you want to talk about vetting candidates or getting a smaller campaign into the spot-light that's a different story. Smaller states are less expensive to run in (and obviously have less people in them). It is easier to have one-on-one time with the candidates and let them hone their messages. Everything is less expensive and takes less time to get from place to place. Small states prepare candidates for the larger national venue.

:evilgrin:

:party:

No valid reason to their "importance".

that's really why. If they were covered differently, I imagine any momentum they generated would change too.

but the audience gives the MSM credence. I don't buy into the premise of voting for the "leading" candidate. I vote for the person I feel will do the best job and, of course, the one who's message resonates with me. But a lot of people want to "pick a winner" and will allow others to determine who that "winner" may be.

so early in the race. It annoys the hell out of me.

It encourages supporters of the leading candidate to go out and vote, and at the same time it makes the supporters of opponents feel hopeless, and not even bother.

If she barley wins Iowa, she has a great chance of being the Democratic Presidential nominee. If she loses Iowa by a large margin, then the Democratic Presidential nominee is up for grabs by any of the candidates.

NH may not be important, depending on what happens in Iowa.