Reply
Mon 31 Dec, 2007 08:29 am
U.S. candidates scour Iowa for potential votersU.S. candidates scour Iowa for potential voters
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/30/america/vote.php?WT.mc_id=newsalert
What makes winning in Iowa so important?
Re: What makes winning in Iowa so important?
Nothing because Iowa doesn't matter. In years when no incumbent is seeking reelection Iowa votes for the eventual party nominee only 43% of the time for Democrats and only 50% of the time for Republicans. Of the 15 men who have come in 1st in the Iowa Caucus (I don't think any non-incumbent has ever won a clear majority) only 4 of them made it to the White House. Both George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton took the White House after coming in 3rd in the Iowa Caucuses.
It's the first statement of actual voter intent instead of just the results of polls and fund raising. Imagine the posible scenario of Clinton coming in third to Obama and Edwards with Edwards winning. Suddenly Edwards starts getting a lot of press and Clinton goes into damage control mode all the way to South Carolina. If Edwards comes in third, this campaign is effectively over.
Iowa and New Hampshire are tests of a candidate's ability to be personable in a close, grass roots, person to person contest. The larger states tend to test a candidate's ability to raise money.
engineer wrote:It's the first statement of actual voter intent
The intent is from a group of voters that are not in anyway representative of the American electorate and which has a very bad track record when it comes to supporting the canidate that will win the November election.
roger wrote:Iowa and New Hampshire are tests of a candidate's ability to be personable in a close, grass roots, person to person contest. The larger states tend to test a candidate's ability to raise money.
I think Iowa and New Hampshire are the first tests of a candidate's ideas and policy goals. But what Iowa wants is counter to what the nation as a whole wants more than 75% of the time and lately New Hampshire isn't doing much better. These states let the eventual winning candidate know what not to say and what not to advocate in order to win in November.
flaja wrote:roger wrote:Iowa and New Hampshire are tests of a candidate's ability to be personable in a close, grass roots, person to person contest. The larger states tend to test a candidate's ability to raise money.
I think Iowa and New Hampshire are the first tests of a candidate's ideas and policy goals. But what Iowa wants is counter to what the nation as a whole wants more than 75% of the time and lately New Hampshire isn't doing much better. These states let the eventual winning candidate know what not to say and what not to advocate in order to win in November.
Iowa correctly selects the party nominee over half the time, but so what? They are still Americans casting a vote. They will be a small part of the ~100 million voting in November, but it's a real start compared to listening to polls, tabulations of campaign donations or celebrety endorsements.
With any luck, it'll mean the media will start covering Edwards in the way they've been covering the media favourites.
engineer wrote:flaja wrote:roger wrote:Iowa and New Hampshire are tests of a candidate's ability to be personable in a close, grass roots, person to person contest. The larger states tend to test a candidate's ability to raise money.
I think Iowa and New Hampshire are the first tests of a candidate's ideas and policy goals. But what Iowa wants is counter to what the nation as a whole wants more than 75% of the time and lately New Hampshire isn't doing much better. These states let the eventual winning candidate know what not to say and what not to advocate in order to win in November.
Iowa correctly selects the party nominee over half the time, but so what? They are still Americans casting a vote. They will be a small part of the ~100 million voting in November, but it's a real start compared to listening to polls, tabulations of campaign donations or celebrety endorsements.
I would much rather have the hype spent on Iowa spent on a state that is much more representative of the country as a whole and which has a better record than Iowa has. And I would prefer even more that we not single out any given state. No state should be the only state having a primary or caucus on any given day.
ehBeth wrote:With any luck, it'll mean the media will start covering Edwards in the way they've been covering the media favourites.
That's what kills me about the process. The news media are the ones who chose the nominees. By covering or not covering a candidate the media can propel or burry him. The news media are who decides what is important- not the voters.
A case in point: During the 1986 gubernatorial election in Florida every single Republican candidate was in town for a debate and the closest any of the local news media came to covering it was when the newspaper published a letter to editor complaining that none of the local news media covered it.
Suppose a candidate for a party's nomination is in town and he has great ideas and policy goals but no money to get a campaign established. By covering the candidate's visit the media can raise his public profile, thus letting people know he is campaigning thereby giving him a chance to gain campaign funds which can help him establish a full-fledged campaign. By not covering the candidate's visit the media helps keep the voters in the dark- leaving the voters with no choice but support one of the candidates that the news media want nominated.
flaja wrote:engineer wrote:flaja wrote:roger wrote:Iowa and New Hampshire are tests of a candidate's ability to be personable in a close, grass roots, person to person contest. The larger states tend to test a candidate's ability to raise money.
I think Iowa and New Hampshire are the first tests of a candidate's ideas and policy goals. But what Iowa wants is counter to what the nation as a whole wants more than 75% of the time and lately New Hampshire isn't doing much better. These states let the eventual winning candidate know what not to say and what not to advocate in order to win in November.
Iowa correctly selects the party nominee over half the time, but so what? They are still Americans casting a vote. They will be a small part of the ~100 million voting in November, but it's a real start compared to listening to polls, tabulations of campaign donations or celebrety endorsements.
I would much rather have the hype spent on Iowa spent on a state that is much more representative of the country as a whole and which has a better record than Iowa has. And I would prefer even more that we not single out any given state. No state should be the only state having a primary or caucus on any given day.
I would like to see the national primary. But it's ridiculously stupid for your to claim that other states have 'better records.' The vast majority of those other states are coalescing behind those who have won earlier primaries, not prognosticating the choices of the country, in the way the earlier primaries are seen as doing.
Cycloptichorn
[quote="flaja]I would much rather have the hype spent on Iowa spent on a state that is much more representative of the country as a whole and which has a better record than Iowa has. And I would prefer even more that we not single out any given state. No state should be the only state having a primary or caucus on any given day.[/quote]
That would be great, but that's not the system we have today. Today we have a system where fledging candidates can put all their efforts into one contest. If they show they are competitive in that little arena, they can attract money and attention for the big shows down the road. If their best efforts are for naught, they might as well hang it up. It's probably not the best system, but since it is the one we have, it is important to do well in Iowa. Despite your belief that Iowa is not important, it clearly is. That is why the candidates are spending big money there. An interesting example from this year: without Iowa, Huckabee is an also ran, never ran, never was in serious contention candidate IMO. Without a serious ground organization or money, he has been able to propel his candidacy upwards against much better organized competition. If he had to compete in ten states, I think those of us outside of Arkansas would never have heard of him.
Iowa has one advantage over a mythical representative state: It lends itself to personal campaigning. You can't just stop in the big metropolitan areas to get to 80% of the voters. You have to get out and press the flesh, kiss the babies, go to the fairs, etc. If the first state was Ohio (my pick for a representative state), the candidates would spend all their time hitting the big cities where they can reach large audiences quickly. Iowa rewards a hard worker.
Cycloptichorn wrote:But it's ridiculously stupid for your to claim that other states have 'better records.'
New Hampshire, whish has followed Iowa since 1972 does have a better record. The winner of Iowa doesn't always win New Hampshire and only Clinton and George W. Bush are the only candidates since the early 1950s to make it to the White House without first winning the New Hampshire Primary. One state does not mean coalescing is taking place.
engineer wrote:Iowa has one advantage over a mythical representative state: It lends itself to personal campaigning.
Personal campaigning doesn't win the election in November. Most Americans would never take the time or make the effort to go see a presidential candidate in person. They are too busy sitting at home in front of the TV.
flaja wrote:engineer wrote:Iowa has one advantage over a mythical representative state: It lends itself to personal campaigning.
Personal campaigning doesn't win the election in November. Most Americans would never take the time or make the effort to go see a presidential candidate in person. They are too busy sitting at home in front of the TV.
True, so we are lucky that all the Iowa folks make the candidates get out so we can sit in front of our TV's watching the results.
engineer wrote:flaja wrote:engineer wrote:Iowa has one advantage over a mythical representative state: It lends itself to personal campaigning.
Personal campaigning doesn't win the election in November. Most Americans would never take the time or make the effort to go see a presidential candidate in person. They are too busy sitting at home in front of the TV.
True, so we are lucky that all the Iowa folks make the candidates get out so we can sit in front of our TV's watching the results.
I doubt that most would-be voters will be paying any attention until their state is about to go to the polls.
flaja wrote:engineer wrote:It's the first statement of actual voter intent
The intent is from a group of voters that are not in anyway representative of the American electorate and which has a very bad track record when it comes to supporting the canidate that will win the November election.
But that support is bordering on vital, just the same. The media tends to latch on to these first results and make big headlines out of it all. This massive exposure can make or break a campaign, as it has the distinct possibility of influencing people in other areas who have yet to vote.
I'm not saying that a lot of voters are sheep, but..
vid wrote:The media tends to latch on to these first results and make big headlines out of it all.
Which mean nothing by the time the polls open for the New Hampshire primary.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace