Primaries

(1/1)

Beet:
Why do Iowa and New Hampshire have so much influence? Granted they are the first, but can't the larger states, who send by far more delegates (and Iowa is just a caucus), vote for a candidate who DIDN'T win in Iowa or New Hampshire?

Gustaf:
Quote from: Beet on January 08, 2004, 12:07:15 AM

Why do Iowa and New Hampshire have so much influence? Granted they are the first, but can't the larger states, who send by far more delegates (and Iowa is just a caucus), vote for a candidate who DIDN'T win in Iowa or New Hampshire?



Thank you! That's what I've been trying to hint at for a long time...

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Everyone knows that Dean wins if he wins Iowa and NH, so when he does, he does, b/c people know that the others are toast. It's stupid in my view, but that's politics for you. (I was gonna say "American politics", but I decided to be nice...) ;)

jravnsbo:
It started out in tradition after the party bosses at the convention gave up picking.  IA was chosen for Midwest, heartland mindset and NH for NE.  Thent he South has jumped from GA and SC.  

Then Jimmy CArter came along and won IA and it propelled him out of no where to wards the nomination and then rest as they say is history :)



Quote from: Beet on January 08, 2004, 12:07:15 AM

Why do Iowa and New Hampshire have so much influence? Granted they are the first, but can't the larger states, who send by far more delegates (and Iowa is just a caucus), vote for a candidate who DIDN'T win in Iowa or New Hampshire?

Navigation

[0] Message Index