Iowa, NH etc - why these states?

[bigred]

Why are these states used? Anyone know?

[ravdin]

Maybe we should switch, and at last give Texas, New York and California a voice in the national process.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

NH made it a law that their primary is always a week before anyone else's.

I think Iowa is just tradition.

[Beerina]

They do. Don't worry, though. Iowa and NH will be ignored by the candidates soon enough.

By the way, California gets ignored in the regular election the past few, too, because it goes to the Democrats, and hence neither party spends a lot of cash advertising there.

[UserGoogol]

I think it was entirely an accident of history. Each state schedules its own primaries, and they grabbed the first in the nation spot back when party conventions had a lot more smokey deal-breaking and there was less national coverage of primaries so the exact order of voting didn't matter as much.

[bigred]

Guess I just don't get why people make such a big deal out of 1 state, esp small ones.

[Ladewig]

Guess I just don't get why people make such a big deal out of 1 state, esp small ones.

I agree and it is a big deal. Campaign contributions are very dependent on these results and candidates who do not score well in these two states are practically forced out of the race.

I was trying to imagine the same process in any other nation (two obscure and unrepresentative provinces decide who is not eligible to lead their nation) and it seemed too absurd to consider.

[Praktik]

I agree and it is a big deal. Campaign contributions are very dependent on these results and candidates who do not score well in these two states are practically forced out of the race.

I was trying to imagine the same process in any other nation (two obscure and unrepresentative provinces decide who is not eligible to lead their nation) and it seemed too absurd to consider.

"Jean Chretien loses Prince Edward Island primary, bows out of race. Up and comer Paul Martin takes province in landslide - Quebec and Ontario cry foul"

[Ladewig]

NH made it a law that their primary is always a week before anyone else's.
.


So what would happen if some other small state with little political clout and a desire for attention decided to pass a law saying that their primary had to be a week before anyone else's (yeah, I'm looking at you North Dakota)?

[bigred]

I agree and it is a big deal. Campaign contributions are very dependent on these results and candidates who do not score well in these two states are practically forced out of the race.

I was trying to imagine the same process in any other nation (two obscure and unrepresentative provinces decide who is not eligible to lead their nation) and it seemed too absurd to consider.

exactly.

[russian accent] America, what a country -

[rtalman]

So what would happen if some other small state with little political clout and a desire for attention decided to pass a law saying that their primary had to be a week before anyone else's (yeah, I'm looking at you North Dakota)?First primary for 2012 is in January 2009 immediately after the innauguration?

Actually, the parties can choose to ignore the primary results of any state if they want. Last year another state (FL, IIRC) was trying to legislate having a primary that by law would be before NH, and the DNC informed them that if they didn't knock it off, the DNC would refuse their state's delegates admission to the Democratic convention.

[New Ager]

Maybe we should switch, and at last give Texas, New York and California a voice in the national process.

This year, with the outcomes of both parties up in the air, I think they will have a big voice.

[tsg]

I agree and it is a big deal. Campaign contributions are very dependent on these results and candidates who do not score well in these two states are practically forced out of the race.

It sounds like a self-fulfilling prophesy, to me. Kind of like how gold is valuable because everybody else thinks it is.

Come in last in Iowa and NH and you lose campaign funding because previous candidates didn't win, because they lost funding for coming in last because the candidates before them didn't win, because they lost funding for coming in last because the candidates before them didn't win, because they lost funding for coming in last because the candidates before them didn't win, ....

Ouch. I hurt my brain.

[New Ager]

First primary for 2012 is in January 2009 immediately after the innauguration?

Actually, the parties can choose to ignore the primary results of any state if they want. Last year another state (FL, IIRC) was trying to legislate having a primary that by law would be before NH, and the DNC informed them that if they didn't knock it off, the DNC would refuse their state's delegates admission to the Democratic convention.

It happened this year. Wyoming scheduled their primary this past Saturday and because they went before New Hampshire, the Republican Party docked them half of their delegates. It was largely by most of the candidates. Romney did win though.

[New Ager]

Guess I just don't get why people make such a big deal out of 1 state, esp small ones.

Well, actually the people don't. The media does.

This year is one of those where it may not matter.

Guiliani, Thompson are hedging their bets on the later primaries.

And certainly Romney and Hillary are both set up much better in the later ones while doing reasonably okay for now.

And funding doesn't hurt Romney. He has unlimited wealth to spend.

[bigred]

Well, actually the people don't. The media does.
...which in turn impacts the people. Same net effect.

Also the parties clearly do too.

[Tailgater]

It can be a double edge sword. Early winners get attacked by the rest of the field. Candidates can spend too much on early states and not get the money expected to finish strong. I think Bill Clinton lost NH the first time (sorry if I don't look it up). Some candidates save money for later primaries, knowing they will come in lower in the opening primaries. They can let the leaders tear each other up, dump money heavy into the campaign mid-month and go for the comeback kid scenario. I expect Huckabee to be the perfect example of flaming too early.

[Brainster]

The ironic part is that by moving their primaries up, the other states have succeeded in making Iowa and New Hampshire more important, by eliminating the time that a candidate used to have to rebound from a loss there,

[pgwenthold]

Folks here in Indiana complain a lot because they really don't get much of a say in the primaries (holding the primary in May will do that), but there are two things I say to that:

1) There are drawbacks to being in the early state(s). I was in Iowa over New Year's weekend, and it was awful. Every other TV commericial is a political ad (with simetimes 4 running simultaneously on the local channels), piles of junk mail, and the phone calls. Politicians are of course exempt from the no-call list, so the folks were getting 3 -4 calls per day. Extremely annoying.

2) Then again, I am waiting for the day when the race comes down to the end. Imagine what it would be like if it was neck and neck, and it all came down to the last day. The impact of Iowa and New Hampshire would be nothing compared to the effect Indiana would have. So while Iowa and New Hampshire can be happy that they influence the races, I'm waiting for the day when Indiana decides them.

Maybe I will even go and vote that day.

[Tailgater]

I've always wondered what it would be like to have one national primary voting day and be done with it.

[Gnu World Order]

Iowa and New Hampshire have become sort of "screening committees" for the rest of us. They have months of intense, personal contact with the candidates, and they can make decisions who they like on a very intimate and informed basis. Like it or not (and I think I'm coming to like it more and more), that's the way it works now.

If we had a national primary, we would lose that personal contact aspect and the campaigns would depend mostly on money and advertising -- "little guys" wouldn't stand a chance.

As for why Iowa and N.H., just tradition, I guess. From my perspective, they seem to do a pretty good job.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

NH made it a law that their primary is always a week before anyone else's.

If I was one of the states who are currently last (by which time, the race has already been decided), I would pass a law that my primary would be held 3.5 years before the election. Just for fun. They would have to hold theirs a week before mine, thus rendering it irrelevant.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, New Hampshire!

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I've always wondered what it would be like to have one national primary voting day and be done with it.

We could skip all that and just go straight to voting.

[Zarathustra]

So based upon what people are saying here, Iowa and NH are first in the primaries because of "tradition?"
Considering the weight that they're being given, that answer just doesn't sit right with me.

Now I remember why I despise politics.
Highly illogical.

[bigred]

exactly -