Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is Iowa or NH more important to win?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Clintonista2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 01:56 AM
Original message
Poll question: Is Iowa or NH more important to win?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 02:11 AM
Response to Original message
1. These days, Iowa.
Edited on Sun Dec-02-07 02:12 AM by Bleachers7
For the same reason it was important 4 years ago. The schedule is so compressed, that it's important to win in Iowa. Also, it's important in setting up the narratives and clearing the field. I don't think it was as important in the past when the race was stretched out over more time.

BTW, I hate the compressed schedule. I think it favors those with big names and big money.

AND... Guiliani is a fool to ignore Iowa. That alone doesn't make him a serious candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TeamJordan23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 02:13 AM
Response to Original message
2. I love how the Hillbots are downplaying Iowa now. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 03:16 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. I'm not a Clinton supporter
but I have nothing but contempt for people like you who namecall her supporters. You richly deserve it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 04:01 AM
Response to Reply #2
13. WTF is with the name calling?
I'm not a Clinton fan but I don't see the need for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #2
21. Romney is doing the same thing now that Huckabee is ascendant.
Edited on Sun Dec-02-07 11:38 PM by ClarkUSA
Hmmm... could there be a coincidence? ;-)

And ignore the ritual shaming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe the Revelator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 02:13 AM
Response to Original message
3. Iowa sets up NH
Book it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 02:15 AM
Response to Original message
4. Iowa is important
The schedule is very compact. A win in Iowa gives huge momentum to NH.

But, I think there's still a small chance where someone looses Iowa and manages to swing NH and towards the nomination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BenDavid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 02:16 AM
Response to Original message
5. Caucuses can be hijacked by two or three candidates
mingling their support together to get a victory for the other. Kinda like Edwards telling his folks that they should support Obama. Not a true sampling.....but when you get in a voting booth and vote however it matters more.

Ben David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 02:43 AM
Response to Original message
6. New Hampshire
First, more people vote in a primary than in a caucus which takes a long convoluted evening.

Second, there are examples, like 1988, where the Iowa winners - of both parties - were not the final candidates.

No doubt, many will drop from the race after NH, but not a single one will after Iowa.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 02:59 AM
Response to Original message
7. They are both equally important. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 03:11 AM
Response to Original message
8. Other.
Michigan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 03:19 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. LOL!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 03:20 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. I was wondering if anyone was going to catch that.
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #8
19. Hey that was harsh!
Edited on Sun Dec-02-07 11:33 PM by fujiyama
:spank:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yukari Yakumo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 03:53 AM
Response to Original message
12. Depend on who and depends on how much.
If HRC wins IA or NH, it's over.

Obama needs to win IA by at least 3%, more ideally by at least 5%. Otherwise he might not get the momentum to win NH.

Edwards needs a big win in IA. He is way behind in most states so he needs a big momentum boost. A small margin of victory will not cut it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. If Hillary loses IA and NH, it is over for her
headline: house of cards falls
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Bill lost both
sure, there were reasons of favorite sons, still, remember the "comeback kid?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #16
22. The only thing comparable about those situations is the name of the candidates
Bill Clinton wasn't the frontrunner, especially after the Gennifer Flowers scandal. He walked into Iowa and New Hampshire assumed to be dead in the water because of the scandal. It's not his second place victory in New Hampshire that was spectacular, it's that nobody expected him to pull it off and it drew very serious attention to him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 05:10 AM
Response to Original message
14. If Chris Dodd wins in Iowa, then Iowa is.
If there's a close differential in the 2 top -- or 3 or 4 top -- winners in Iowa, then New Hampshire is.

If there's a narrowly defined, inconclusive, way-too-close finish in both, then Feb. 5 states are the most critical.

If no candidate still in the hunt can win a first or second ballot nomination in Denver, then consensus ticket Joe Lieberman/Zell Miller will have to be our standard bearers for the 08 election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
17. New Hampshire by a mile. Whoever wins NH will have the momentum
Though Iowa is the most important stepping stone to NH. I wouldn't want to risk not winning Iowa.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodgd_yall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 11:32 PM
Response to Original message
18. Neither state reflects the average voter at this point
I don't think what happens in either state is going to change what happens in places like California, Florida and Texas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stop Cornyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 11:34 PM
Response to Original message
20. The results in New Hampshire never affect the results in Iowa, but the result in Iowa always affects
the result in New Hampshire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 11:59 PM
Response to Original message
23. I voted Iowa
because of New Hampshire's tendency to "me too" what Iowa does. Iowa has the potential to give a candidate momentum that never stops, as we saw in 2004.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 03:59 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC