Why should Iowa and New Hampshire have such an impact?

[ruggerson]

Seriously.

Why do two small(er) states feel that they have some kind of inalienable right to be the first every four years in the political process?

Wouldn't it make far more sense to rotate the order and give other states a shot at it?

Maybe New York, California, Illinois, Florida, Virginia, Ohio, just to name a few?

What is the entitlement that New Hampshire and Iowa have to this first in the nation voting order, other than tradition?

[mark414]

1. two small, lily white states that don't really represent the overall demographic of this country....

i don't know either :shrug:


rotation sounds good to me

[depakid]

2. And Iowa with an archiac 19th Century procedure

in the middle of a bitter cold Midwest winter.

Rationality is not this country's strong suit.

[progressoid]

17. Not bitter and cold anymore.

Thanks Global Warming! :thumbsup:

[Bluzmann57]

19. So have you ever been to Iowa?

If not, pehaps you should visit us sometime. The eastern part of the state, along the Mississippi River can be truly breathtaking in it's beauty. But since we are all backwards in this state, we cannot see it. If you wish to bash my state, at least do some fucking research. See, we have cable and satellite tv, cell phones, internet and all types of 21st century goodies. Hard to believe, I know but it's true.

[youthere]

23. Indoor plumbing even.

[frazzled]

3. They don't, necessarily ...

Remember that in 1992 Bill Clinton skipped Iowa and didn't win in NH (though did far better than expected; Tsongas won) ... and went on to win the nomination.

Bush lost NH in 2000 but won his nomination. Muskie defeated McGovern there in 1972, though McGovern got the eventual nod; Gary Hart beat Walter Mondale, the eventual candidate, there in 1984. etc.

They are states the candidates use as "staging grounds," to perfect campaign organization, deal with media, and raise funds. Since we've had this system since 1952, they've got a lot of the mechanics in place. It's probably time for a change, however.

[sniffa]

4. HRC is poLLing weLL in those states today

so save this for when she dips again.

[ruggerson]

10. ReaLLy?

How wiCked cooL.

[NewHampster]

5. I'm not sure about Iowa

But I know why candidates want to spend time in New Hampshire in the fall

[NewHampster]

6. I'll give you our logic if people won't flame me

I have to go outside and visit the necessary first. Back in 5.

[cali]

7. Put a state like CA or FL first and you will

get nothing but BIG money candidates. Ever. And the money they'll have to raise will make this year look like peanuts. No retail politics either, just TV ad blitzes. And it's not longer just IA and NH, Nevada and SC have been added.

[ruggerson]

9. Well one can make the argument that a candidate

who has broad appeal will always be able to raise enough to compete.

And hopefully, at some point, we will have public financing which will make that concern moot.

[goodgd_yall]

8. Big states already have a lot of influence

I see nothing wrong with giving Iowa and NH first dibs. And as another post stated, whether one wins or not in either of these two states often has no effect on how people vote in later primaries anyway.

[NewHampster]

11. The reasoning I've heard here in NH

Yes I'm very biased.

1 - It is not economics. NH makes more off one NASCAR race than we do off the 18 months of primary. We have 2 NASCAR races a year at NHIS.

2 - We are SMALL. NH population is around 1.3 million. That's a small county in some states.

3 - As much as it may piss you off, I can if I want meet every candidate and future President. This year I've met Hillary, Richardson, Dennis, Biden and Edwards. Tuesday Barack will be in town at our local Apple Orchard and I plan to sneak out of work to hear him too. I'll get to meet him if I want just because I'm the Vice Chair of the Town Dems. Every candidate has visited my town or a close neighbor at least twice already.

4 - Because of the size factor that thing called retail politics comes very much into play. Not only do the candidates want to, they have to meet us and take our questions. Television advertising is here but very very limited since we and the Iowans would destroy someone who tried to speak to us rather than with us.

One candidate described NH and Iowa as the Consumer Reports of Politics. We kick the tires, put them through the paces and in our way, report back to the rest of you.

And we do take the responsibility very seriously.

5 - The reverse of the above, imagine Florida and say Michigan on Jan 3 and 8. Can the candidates reach the voters on a personal level? No. They would of course have their few "town meetings" that would be broadcast to the rest of the millions. The Only way they could reach the voters is TV, Direct mail and other costly endeavors. It would be by necessity a war of the airwaves.

#4 does really allow for people like Jimmy Carter to come here without any money and knock on doors to introduce himself.
#5 would, just because of size, limit the exposure of the lower tiered candidates.

If it was not for us, you'd have a race with just the three big dollar campaigns. No Joe, no Dennis, no Chris, no Bill

6 - As to the issue of our two states being Lillie white. Yes we are. Does anyone know a state that is a "microcosm" of the U.S.? Florida is all retired folks and Latinos, isn't it? Does Florida care about what I pay for heating oil? Michigan is all car industry and unions, not anything like here. Etc. There is no microcosm. Every state has it's thing that we others don't give a rats ass about. Our thing in NH is the primary.

In short. We are a system that works because it is manageable by the campaigns. That is what this is about. We and Iowa are the focus groups because the rest is so large.

[Hippo_Tron]

12. Also if we didn't front load, states like Michigan and Florida could play a bigger role

Super Tuesday, IMO, is what is really preventing other states from having a say, not Iowa and New Hampshire. We should go back to a system where Iowa and New Hampshire weed out the candidates and then we gradually increase the size of the states and the number of primaries.

Eventually we will get to a point where the 2 or 3 remaining candidates have to genuinely duke it out in places California, New York, Florida, and Michigan. Bill Clinton didn't even solidify the nomination in Illinois let alone with his second place victory in New Hampshire. He had to beat Jerry Brown in New York and California. As far as I'm concerned that year New York and California had just as important of a role as Iowa and New Hampshire.

Only when we moved the calendar up so much did we get to the point in 2004 where John Kerry had no real competition after winning Iowa and New Hampshire.

[NewHampster]

13. Article in today's Boston Globe might help

This article speaks to the time candidates spend with voters in NH. It isn't the point of the article but it sure does lend value to New Hampshire.

Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/09/many_warming_unexpectedly_to_clinton/

....At the beginning of the year, Clinton and Senator Barack Obama both concentrated their New Hampshire politicking on large rallies. But in late spring, partly in response to criticism that they were not connecting with individual voters, the campaigns began focusing on visits to diners and house parties, a shift observers say has particularly benefited Clinton.

"Barack is a remarkable speaker, Hillary is a good speaker," said Paul Begala, a former advisor to Bill Clinton who has contributed to Hillary Clinton's campaign fund. "But Hillary is really good in a living room."

[jmp]

14. The process sure makes sense ...

For YOU. You didn't address how the rest of us benefit from this set up. YOU get to meet the candidates. They have to answer YOUR questions. YOU get to winnow the field.

Good for YOU.

How does that help US? Some of US don't care what YOU think of a candidate, and would like a chance to cast our votes before YOU decide who is worthy. :eyes:

[youthere]

15. What questions do you think are not being asked?

What values do you hold that you feel are not represented? Do you think Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire have some sinister desire to undermine the rest of the Democrats in the nation?

[Broke Dad]

16. Let's start with highly educated and well read citizens

Iowa scores near if not at the top of the nation on college entrance and other standardized tests. Our citizens are well read and are at least high school graduates. Heck, even some of our farmers have graduate degrees. we probably have more C-SPAN and CNN junkies than any other state.

Second, we take the process seriously and ask tough questions of the candidates standing nose to nose. We watch them blink and stammer and answer. You can only do that in a smaller state. We had a town hall meeting with John Edwards where almost 10% of the town turned out on Labor Day weekend to ask him tough questions about HIV/AIDS, the West Bank, global warming, Social Security, Medicare, health care, retirement, Gitmo, and on and on. Image 10% of San Diego or Houston turning out for a town hall meeting. . .

Third, we have been doing this in Iowa since George McGovern and Jimmy Carter. Our leaders know how to maximize our opportunities to ask questions. More and more of the presidential candi ates (except Hillary) are giving brief opening remarks and then throwing the floor open for questions. It lets us get a sense of how they would deal with the unexpected (Think about the 2000 race. Did anybody hear W talk about Bin Laden??? Imagine how Gore would have handled 9/11????)

Finally, it is about the money. The last four presidential races were won by the guy who raised and spent the most money. And see what that has gotten us. Starting with two small states lets a good candidate build name recognition and then raise the money to go national. If you start in California, only candidates with personal wealth (like Romney) get out of the gate.


Get over it!

[NewHampster]

18. Howdy Iowa

Luv you guys out there. I don't understand your caucus process at all but then I still have a hard time with my TV remote.

[jmp]

21. Should I post past NH Democratic primary results too?

What the hell ...

2004 Kerry ... lost
2000 Gore ... lost
1996 Clinton ... won re-election
1992 Tsongas ... lost
1988 Dukakis ... lost
1984 Hart ... lost
1980 Carter ... lost
1976 Carter ... won
1972 Muskie ... lost
1968 LBJ ... wtf were you thinking?


For the amount of time you guys put into casting your votes ... you sure do suck at it. We could select more Democratic winners by having a chimp throw darts at a list of candidates.

[jmp]

20. Since 1972 Iowans have selected ...

Since 1972 Iowans have selected exactly 1 winner in their state caucus.

2004 Kerry ... lost
2000 Gore ... lost
1996 Clinton ... won re-election
1992 Harkin ... lost ... lame homer vote
1988 Gephardt ... lost
1984 Mondale ... lost
1980 Carter ... lost
1976 Nobody ... no doubt Iowans finest hour
1972 Muskie ... lost

Even if having the process rigged to favor Iowa wasn't corrupt and undemocratic ... you guys should get fired for INCOMPETENCE.

You have however done a fine job of picking Republican winners. :eyes:

[9119495]

22. Well...

------- (the name I would have called you), Dems were only batting .333 in the elections you provided so I don't think your scrutiny makes much sense. Iowans picked the nominee five of nine times for a percentage of .555. Since caucuses and primaries select for nominees, I'd say Iowa is doing quite well. I'm too cool to use a roll-y-eye thing-y.

[CK_John]

24. Tradition very powerful force in any society, fear of change the most powerful human emotion. n/t