The very anticipated official beginning of the presidential campaign is upon us. January 3rd Iowans will caucus for their presidential hopefulls and January 8th New Hampshirites will vote for their choices in their primary.
What will be the impact of the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary? How will they help or hurt the candidates running for president? Will other states (like Florida, North Carolina, and Super Tuesday) play a greater role?
It will be hard but also fun to predict the impact of these two important - yet early - events. Places that might be particularly helpful to you are the Des Moines Register and the Boston Globe. They have very indepth reporting and analysis on these early events which you might find helpful in your research.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage
ttp://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/
Thank you for your insightful posts this semester. You are the first group of students I have ever done this type of project with and I really enjoyed it. Thanks for being such great guinea pigs!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
50 comments:
(I’ve chosen to address solely democratic side because I feel they are more exciting, sorry republican nominees!)
Although I believe America puts too much attention and pressure on the Iowa and New Hampshire caucus and primary, they have helped to reveal some voter ideas. After watching the events unfold in the Iowa caucuses, I don’t believe this is a one-man (or woman) race. Hilary Clinton did not come out on top, and did even worse than she was predicting. Coming in third place (a close second) the Iowa caucuses sent a message to America: they are ready for change. (2)
With Sen. Barack Obama winning the caucuses with 38% of votes, and John Edwards coming in second, it’s obvious that Iowans appeal to these candidates’ promotion for change. (1) After viewing this pull for change, Sen. Hilary Clinton jumped on the bandwagon during the Saturday night ABC and Facebook debate, saying, “"We are all advocating for change." (2) The argument that Obama “lacks experience” has doesn’t seem to matter in the eyes of those voters. If Sen. Clinton hopes to do better, she needs to review her campaign and attack tactics against Obama.
With undeclared voters making up 44% of the electorate, any of the democratic nominee hopefuls have a chance. (3) If Obama were to win the New Hampshire primary, the road would be paved with gold for the democratic nomination for president. Should New Hampshire revive another Clinton and Sen. Hilary Clinton win the primary, Super Tuesday will be even more dramatic to watch. (2) The race would still be neck-and-neck between Obama and Clinton. If Edwards were to surprisingly jump to the front and win in New Hampshire, then anything could go and the race would be wide open.
With the never-ending entertainment of the first primary and caucus, this election promises to be one of the most divert and exciting elections in America.
(1)http://www.desmoinesregister.com
/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=caucus
(2)http://www.usatoday.com/news
/politics/election2008/2008-01-04-new-hampshire_N.htm?csp=34
(3)http://www.boston.com/news
/nation/articles/2008/01/06/field_wide_open_for_the_undeclared/
Iowa and New Hampshire are not seen as states that is diversified enough to seen as a representative of the U.S but much attention and importance are placed on these two states when it comes to politics. Why?....... It is unclear. Maybe, because they are the two states to start the caucuses and primaries. What is clear is the fact that it can make or break a candidate’s campaign. We can already see the impact the Iowa Caucus have had on some of the candidates. Democrats Chris Dodd and Joe Biden have already dropped out of the race.
Even though, a win in any of these states does not predict party nomination, let alone the presidency, it can certainly give a candidate some momentum for their campaign. We can already see this trend in most of the democratic campaigns. Obama has definitely gain some momentum for his campaign after winning by a convincing 38% in the Iowa Caucus. According to recent polls conducted for the New Hampshire primary, Obama has the lead with 39%, while Clinton is in second place with 30%. Edwards is trialing behind Clinton with a mere 16%. The Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary will have a huge impact on Obama’s campaign if he is able to win in these predominantly white states. These wins can help him secure the black votes he didn’t have before. Everybody in America wants a winner and if Obama is able to secure both wins, it can definitely create a bandwagon effect for his campaign. On a different note, Hillary is counting on the black votes to help his campaign. This is probably why she has recruited her husband to campaign with her. As we all know, former president Bill Clinton did very well among the black voters during his campaign and election. It is definitely a different story for the republican campaigns. While Mike Huckabee was able to snob the win in Iowa with a 30% lead, this has not been the case for him in the polls for New Hampshire, which shows he is trailing in 3rd place with a 13% lead . However I believe his Iowa win gave his campaign momentum he otherwise wouldn’t have. If he had done poorly in Iowa, his chances of dropping out of the race after the New Hampshire would be greater. It will be interesting to see how John McCain does in the New Hampshire primary, after his disappointing finish in 4th place in the Iowa caucus. Ron Paul has been doing remarkably well considering he is an independent turned republican.
Other states are going to play a major role in this election than they have in the past. Many would be paying attention to the California primary which was moved up from June to February, the Carolinas, and the Florida primary. With a strategic campaign, a candidate with poor performance in both Iowa and New Hampshire, could still perform very well in these other states. Every state counts in this election because, I believe America is seeking for a change, and there are so many diverse candidates with a promise to do just that.
In the end, this is everybody’s race right now. Hillary Clinton could end up losing New Hampshire too, but can campaign strategically to win other important states. There can also be a surprise win just like Huckabee was able to pull in Iowa. This election is something everybody is going to watch intensively.
http://www.boston.com/
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/07/nh.poll/index.html
I believe that the two leaders of the race will end up being Obama and Clinton. I feel that there are not that many candidates that have a good shot for the republican side. Although Clinton did not come out in the top of the Iowa caucus as expected I think that she still has a very good chance. Huckabee came out at the top for the republicans, but before that there was hardly any mention of him. I think that the win at the Iowa caucus will be a big step for him. Giuliani had a plan of not taking action in the Iowa caucus and I believe that will hurt his outcome. Ron Paul, did better then Giuliani and is less recognized. Obama and Clinton will have to battle it out, I believe they will be the top runners, the question will be will people vote for a black president or a female president.
AP Government & Politics has taught us that the early primaries and caucuses have a huge impact on the outcomes of Presidential elections. The biggest significance of these early contests would have to be the massive amounts of media attention the winners receive. Other than public opinion polls, etc., the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary are the first glimpse into what U.S. citizens are leaning towards in terms of Presidential hopefuls. Once one of these desired candidates are chosen, they are thrust into the spotlight to be surveyed not just by die hard political activists and others participating in the primary elections, but families who watch the six o’clock news and listen to talk radio on the way to work. The media buzzes about the candidates winning these early races, making the rest of the country start to familiarize themselves with them. When the time comes for they, themselves to vote in their own primaries and caucuses, if they so choose to, they are more likely to vote for a candidate that’s been relentlessly discussed all around them for several weeks prior. Because there are so many contenders in primaries and caucuses, most U.S. citizens adopt an even more apathetic role in politics for these elections than the final Presidential one. Many of the candidates only have very subtle differences in which you would need to research and watch in order to distinguish between them. Early primaries and caucuses weed out the less desirable candidates, leaving fewer choices for busy citizens to make an easier decision with. One may also argue that voters in the primaries and caucuses don’t want to waste their vote on a losing candidate, so they vote for the apparent winner at the time.
The Iowa caucus last Thursday had an unusual amount of independents turn out to vote, which is much more typical of primaries than caucuses. Because of this, the significance of the Iowa caucus in the 2008 election is amplified even more (1). New Hampshire’s electorate is made up of 40% independent voters, and those voters tended to vote Democrat in the 2006 election (60% of them voted Democrat) (1). Iowa’s turnout is likely to have a huge impact on New Hampshire’s primary; it gave Obama huge momentum, and the setup couldn’t be more perfect. His high praise came at the most opportune time, as he is about to be thrust into a race where he has a very large target audience, and he’s turned quite a few heads in the past week by winning Iowa’s caucus. If he’s able to keep the attention of the few first states, he’s well on his way to the Presidential election of 2008.
(1)http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008801060336
Lately many people have began to speculate on the hype given to the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries, and feel they have been focused on too much. Although these first two events do not decide the presidential nominations, they certainly do not hurt the winning candidates. Iowa and New Hampshire kick of the long drive deciding the nominations for each party as well as gain much media attention, but is it fair to name them the most important races? Critics of these races believe they should hold the power they do due to the misrepresentation they hold in the country (1). Although these races are first and do hold some power, they are certainly not the be all end all of the Nomination process. Since 1952, only 10 out of 19 cases who won in New Hampshire go on to win their party nomination in the spring. Also, of those 10, in only 7 of these did New Hampshire play a key turning point (2). Another example of the lack of power these states hold are the cases of George H.W. Bush in 1980 and Bob Dole in 1988. Both of these Senators captured victories in Iowa, but did not win the party nominations (1).
The impact of these two states can not be determined until the final nomination is made and therefore varies from year to year. The large media attention just adds to the hype and is due to the fact that it is the kick off to the Presidential Races (2). Another example of the lack of power these states have in the nominating elections is the Bill Clinton nomination in 1992. Clinton was not the Democratic winner in New Hampshire but was elected later that spring (2).
I believe that the states immediately following the Iowa and New Hampshire races have a greater impact on the nominations due to the abundance of states that take place in such a short time. Although the Iowa and New Hampshire races are the first wave in the nominations, this second wave consisting of Florida, North Carolina and the Super Tuesday states has a much bigger wave making it easier for a candidate to ride into victory on.
(1) www.reuters.com
(2) www.minpost.com
- www.desmoinesregister.com
Michelle Howard
So far, the race to gain the support of one of the two major parties in the United States has been very interesting. It seems that so far, the first few caucuses and primaries will not determine the eventual winners.
One of the primary examples of this is Mike Huckabee's first place finish in the Iowa caucus. In a poll taken in September, Huckabee had a lowly 4% and was in 5th place (1). Now he has jumped up to 1st so far, but analysts believe that Huckabee's strong finish was because of Iowa's large Evangelical population (2). Currently in the New Hampshire poll, John McCain had the lead in Republican support.
Rudy Giuliani, who had the lead in the republican polls pre-September, has appeared to not campaign much in the first primaries, and is expected to turn up the campaign for much larger states with more delegates (2). Giuliani obviously believes that the race will not be decided in the first few caucuses.
I believe that the race for the both party tickets will come down to at least Super Tuesday before the winner is known. It seems as if it's a toss up at this point, where the candidates will keep campaigning until the bitter end.
(1)The Des Moines Register
(2)CNN News Analysis
I believe that the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary will have a great impact and will provide an accurate outlook of who we will expect to see running for office. For me, it was a surprise that Obama received first in the Iowa caucus. I think this may have hurt Clinton slightly because she has had such a strong campaign. If Clinton doesn't win in the NH primary, I think the public will start to focus more of their attention to Obama. Although Bill Clinton ge tthe majority vote in both the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary when he was elected, I think it may be more diffcult for Hilary to recover if she doesn't receive the majority vote in Iowa and New Hampshire. This is because I believe people are more skeptical if she can really handle a presidency or not. However, I think the results and Iowa show that Democrats want change (i.e. an African American and Woman). As for the Republicans, there is a trend toward the emergence of the religious conservatives seeing that Huckabee and Romney came in first and second place. I think Giuliani sadly made a mistake not participating in the Iowa caucus causing him to get only 3% of the vote. As for the conservatives, I think we will eventually see a trend of less religious conservatives emerging to the top in primaries to come. I believe this because I think America, as a whole, is straying away from their religious values.
www.cnn.com
www.desmoinesregister.com
I think the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary will give candidates momentum or cause them to be dropped from the running. Depending on the results, Iowa and New Hampshire could set a favorite for Republican or Democratic nomination. However, I do not think Iowa or New Hampshire will be able to set an overwhelming favorite. I believe there will still be a competitive race no matter what happens in Iowa or New Hampshire.
For the Democrats, I feel that Iowa and New Hampshire will help Senator Obama the most. His victory in Iowa has given him clear momentum, and he is already causing Senator Clinton to feel some pressure (1). If Iowa gives Obama enough momentum to win New Hampshire, Obama may have enough support to win a close South Carolina (2). If Obama wins those three states, he may be very difficult to stop. I also feel that Iowa and New Hampshire will help Huckabee and McCain. Huckabee’s victory in Iowa has legitimatized his meteoric rise in popularity over the last few weeks. It has also established Huckabee as a legitimate candidate for the Republican nomination (3). I believe that New Hampshire will help McCain because I feel McCain will end up winning New Hampshire. I feel he will win New Hampshire because McCain’s campaign is basically over if he loses New Hampshire. If McCain does win New Hampshire, like I predict, he will gain a momentum boost. I’m not sure if it will be enough to move McCain up in other states, though.
I think that Iowa and New Hampshire will hurt Clinton’s campaign. Clinton’s campaign group is already bracing for a New Hampshire loss (2). If this does occur, her momentum will be drastically fading. This could especially harm her campaign since these first two losses could give Obama enough of a boost to gain victory in tight states. On the Republican side, I feel that Iowa and New Hampshire will hurt Giuliani the most. This is mainly self inflicted since he has been preparing for the Florida primary. Because of this, I don’t think Giuliani’s poor showings in Iowa and New Hampshire will hurt him as much as it would another candidate since he has been prepared for these results. Still, Giuliani is taking a risky strategy.
For the Republicans, I think Florida and Super Tuesday will play the biggest role. I feel this way because Giuliani’s chances for nomination really depend on Florida. If Giuliani wins Florida, he could give himself enough momentum to win a large amount of states on Super Tuesday (2). Such states include New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Delaware. If Giuliani can pull this off after a poor start, I think he’ll be the favorite to win the Republican nomination. I think South Carolina and Super Tuesday will play the biggest role for the Democrats. I feel South Carolina will have a large impact for the Democrats because of South Carolina’s black population and the closeness of the race there (2). If Obama loses South Carolina, this will reflect very poorly on his campaign and could be a huge setback for him. I also think Super Tuesday will play a large role for the Democrats because New York and New Jersey are involved then. These are states where Clinton is very popular (2). If Obama could pull of the upset in one or both of the states, Clinton’s campaign would be in a lot of trouble.
1. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080108/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp
2. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080107/ap_on_el_pr/candidates_analysis;_ylt=Al5AoSVCMcSndosJcI6SSeBh24cA
3. http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080107/us_time/canhuckabeestayontop
The Iowa, New Hampshire, and other early caucuses and primaries play a disproportionate roll in deciding who will be each political party’s nominee for the upcoming election. While they do not decide who will be nominated they give the public solid, early, evidence of which candidates other citizens are favoring. I am going to focus on the Democratic party’s candidates because I feel that there is more to be said about the relationship between these primaries and the eventual nominee than for the Republican party, where so much is still uncertain.
In the Iowa caucuses it became clear that Barack Obama really could be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008. Before this, Barack Obama was continuously behind in polls. However, we learned in Iowa that he has inspired people who previously did not participate in politics to go out and vote (3). Barack Obama’s following of young people, and other groups really made a difference in Iowa. While the winner of Iowa caucuses do not always win the elections, in the last two elections, the Democratic winners of the Iowa caucus went on to receive the nomination(2).
While the New Hampshire primary will by no means guarantee a candidate the nomination it will give us more information on what to expect in the coming primaries. I believe that if Barack Obama wins, he will go on to receive the Democratic nomination. Both in 2000 and 2004 one candidate received the majority of votes in both Iowa and New Hampshire, and went on to be nominated by the Democratic party (2). I see no clear reason the same would not happen this election. Indeed, only twice since 1976 has a Democrat won both Iowa and New Hampshire (2). Also, New Hampshire will show if Obama’s strong following is present across the country, not just in Iowa. However, if Clinton wins, there is no telling which candidate will win the nomination. However, I do think that Barack Obama will most likely win once again.
Overall, these are very interesting caucuses and primaries to witness. Rarely have the results been so close. In the past few elections one Democrat has beaten the other by a much larger margin than early results from New Hampshire would suggest (1). To recover from losing both the first primary and the first caucus would be a quite a feat. The NH primary will, I believe, either show us who will be the Democratic nomination, or make things very uncertain, depending on the results.
1: http://news.aol.com/elections/primary/state/nh
2: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22475459/
3: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22548769/
By taking this class, I have learned that the first caucus in Iowa and the first primary in New Hampshire have a profound impact on presidential elections. These first two events give a sort of start to which candidates the country is leaning towards. Though Iowa and New Hampshire are definately not representative of the whole country, they provide great insight into what may lay ahead. The Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary both have positive and negative consequences for the candidates. On the positive side, the candidates who win the events are identified as having a head start to attaining their party's nomination at the national conventions later on this year. Obama and Huckabee were Iowa's winners, and since then, Obama has seen a surge in his favor at polls in New Hampshire (1). He, as of this morning, had a 13% lead over Clinton, who finished behind him (1). On the negative side, the first primary and caucus can make or break a candidate's campaign. Clinton's loss provoked her to have an emotional meltdown, which makes it seem as though her campaign is losing its steam (2). Romney lost the Iowa caucus to Huckabee, and this lost has shown a decrease in his support numbers (2).
However, though the first two events are important, I think that the primaries and caucuses that will happen in the very recent future will have more impact on the candidates. As these events pass, some candidates will gain momentum while others will lose theirs, causing those candidates to drop out of the race. At the very last primaries and caucuses, it is almost clear who the two will be that will recieve the nominations. Florida will be a big event because of their high and diverse population, while Super Tuesday will be influential in that many events will happen at the same time. A candidate could be doing well right off the bat but then suddenly slip and keep falling. It's kind of hard to tell at this point.
Since I'm posting before the results of the New Hampshire primary are released, I'm going to formulate some predictions. In my opinion, I think Obama's win and his increasing support at the polls in New Hampshire will very well help him get the win tonight and the nomination. His campaign is going strong and will keep gaining momentum. Clinton's campaign will be increasingly struggling if she doesn't do well tonight, and, with her emotional breakdown, it is as though she is advertising that she is on the verge of giving up. For the Republicans, I think Huckabee won't do as well in New Hampshire tonight because he doesn't have the support in the state and isn't as well known (2). Despite a third place finish in Iowa, McCain's recent positive revival will most likely get him a win or a second place finish.
At this point in time, all we can really do is wait and see how the events turn out. For the Democrats, I think Obama will be going far and taking the nomination. In regard to the Republicans, I'm really not so sure. I think McCain will gain some momentum...but what about Ron Paul? I hope he hasn't been forgotten. In all, the first primaries and caucuses have a profound impact on the futures of the candidates, but only time and further events will tell which two will recieve the nomination.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/
Iowa and New Hampshire have been a surprise. With the Democrats still too close to call on Iowa, it is uncertain if Obama will keep his momentum going in New Hampshire after by winning the first caucus. Clinton will stay in the race until the end, but Edwards may soon be forced out of the running if he can’t get any better than third in Iowa and New Hampshire (1).
Huckabee upset many with his victory in Iowa. The conservative Christians are drawn to him, but I am uncertain if the moderate Republicans like him. The New Hampshire primary is giving a different result with McCain and Romney both winning more votes than Huckabee (2). The Republican nominee will have to somehow appeal to the moderates and the conservative Christians to stay in the race with the Democratic nominee.
With the Republicans, the impact of the New Hampshire primary will likely be to force Giuliani and Paul out of the race. It appears that unless Giuliani can overly win in Florida, he is out of the race. Ron Paul, though he made a surprising comeback, will still be unlikely to win the nominee. I predict that he will soon withdraw. There is also a serious problem for Romney who was trying to appeal to the conservative Christians. By coming in second in both races, it shows that the conservative Christians do not like him. He overspent McCain on a 2:1 ratio and McCain still won in New Hampshire (1). Romney will have to revamp his message if he still wants to remain in the race. McCain will still have problems to resolve in his fight to get the nomination. Most people who voted for McCain voted for him because of his stance on the war in Iraq. However, he still has to deal with the issue of immigration, which many conservative voters in his party dislike (3).
I think that the other states will still play a role in the nomination process because there is no one clear winner yet. It will take Obama and Clinton several more primaries and caucus’ to determine which has more popular support. Similarly, the Republican has not clear winner. McCain, who won the New Hampshire primary, did not do well in Iowa. Similarly, Huckabee, who won Iowa, got third in New Hampshire (2).
Sources:
1. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/08/nh.main/index.html
2. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22551718/
3. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/01/looking_beyond_tonight_already.html?hpid=topnews
I agree with many others that the first caucus and first primary have a big impact on the race. They are given huge amounts of attention by the media, and the candidates get a better chance to see how much the public supports them. Other states play an important role in this process as well, though more weight is placed on the earlier states.
Though McCain came in fourth in Iowa (1), I think that his win in New Hampshire (2) will help him to gain more popularity. The Des Moines Register called it “a remarkable comeback and climbing back into contention for the Republican presidential nomination” (2). It seems to have really boosted his confidence. He said “We showed the people of this country what a real comeback looks like.” He also seemed hopeful that he could win Michigan and South Carolina (2). Though Mike Huckabee won in Iowa, I don’t think he was really expecting to win New Hampshire, so it probably didn’t come as a big shock to him. It was a “bitter blow” for Romney, however, according to the Des Moines Register. He spent millions of dollars of his own money hoping to win Iowa and/or New Hampshire, and he came in second in both states (2). I think some of the Republican candidates, such as Rudy Giuliani, who are not winning a lot of the vote are going to start dropping out of the race.
Currently, Senator Clinton is leading in New Hampshire (2), and I think a win would really help her as well, after winning an unexpectedly low percentage in Iowa and coming in third (She got 29.5% to Barack Obama’s 37.6%) (1). In the end, I believe it will be between her and Obama for the Democratic nomination.
In conclusion, the first caucus and first primary greatly impact the race, though other states can be influential as well. They are especially important when the race is close between two or more of the same party.
1.http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/IA.html
2.http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PRIMARY_RDP?SITE=IADES&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-01-08-21-08- 47
I really enjoyed keeping up with the Iowa caucus results. It's impressive how many people came out to share their opinions, especially from younger demographics. As I write this, the New Hampshire results are just coming in, so I will not critique them for now.
One thing that disappointed me but did not surprise me were the reasons candidates won and lost. Senator Obama's win is credited to his hopeful message and his youthful enthusiasm, but not his healthcare policy or ideas on foreign trade. Clinton's loss is blamed on her failure to show a more likeable personality, and less blamed on her stance on Iraq. Mitt supposedly lost because he is a Mormon, and Huckabee won because he is an Evangelical. Because of this, I believe the impact of these early primaries will be minimal because the issues haven't taken center stage. Hopefully, as the campaigns continue candidates will need to define themselves more clearly than "hopeful," "experienced," or “faith-based.”
These early events have shown that there is no clear consensus in America. Although Huckabee won with a good margin in Iowa, John McCain is dominating in New Hampshire. I believe that more regions will need to be represented before the parties can make an educated choice about who can win this election. I think this is a great opportunity for more voters to have a voice and become more involved in the process. Hopefully, this election will show a change in America’s participation in politics.
Sources:
www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/08/politics/uwire/main3689450.shtml
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iiLnTLjvaUlzhh9-eqgz6LOqAP3QD8U0H5S00
http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=19822&cid=15&cname=Politics
Although a lot of emphasis is placed on the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary, I think these events get too much attention. Even though the results of the caucus and primary are important in regards to how they affect the campaigns of the candidates, they are not a good indicator of which candidates America actually supports. The main reason for this is that the Iowa and New Hampshire populations are not representative of the American population.
An example of how the Iowa caucus is not representative of America’s views can be seen in Huckabee’s win this year. Huckabee appeals to socially conservative people (1). However, he does not appeal as much to fiscally conservative people. Since so many Evangelical people voted in the Iowa caucus, Huckabee did great. However, when looking at the rest of the American population, Huckabee would have less popularity because he would not appeal to the other half of conservatives who are fiscally conservative.
I think the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary can boost a campaign, but not do any completely irreparable damage. A great example of this is former president Bill Clinton, who did participate in the Iowa caucus and finished second in the New Hampshire primary, but went on to become one of the most popular presidents and serve two terms (1).
In regards to this election, I think the Iowa caucus has definitely helped Senator Obama. He has made history as the first African American to win the Iowa caucus. There was also a huge increase in the number of young voters (under 30), and 57 percent of these voters came to support Senator Obama, according to a CNN article (2). Since most people did not anticipate the success Senator Obama has had, I think he has had a major boost and a lot more great press attention.
I think other states like Florida, South Carolina and Super Tuesday will actually have a greater impact than the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary. I think this because these states have larger populations, and Super Tuesday involves many of the states and their choices. I think that the multiple results from many states will always be and should be much more important than just the first two events (the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary).
(1)http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=213390http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=213390
(2) http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/03/iowa.caucuses/index.html
The elections in Iowa and New Hampshire are important, but do not play a huge role in the great scheme of things. The main role of the first elections is to test the initial strength of each candidate campaigning so far. The increased media attention and campaign contributions can help boost a candidates campaign extensively(Yepsen). A win in Iowa can help a candidate gain the public eye( Carter in 76', Bush in 80', and Hart in 84') or cause him/her to falter on the campaign trail. However, it is not the ULTIMATE test, it is just the first, and the strongest candidates must make it through a series of such elections before they can clearly claim the party nomination. My personal prediction is that this year's presidential election will mirror the “Tortoise and the Hare” plot line, with candidates slowly gaining enough of the vote to surpass the early front runners. Though it is interesting to see who captures the vote in New Hampshire and Iowa , I don't believe it takes away a huge following from the other big time candidates.
The Iowa caucus has already occurred and has made some changes in the campaign trail. Hilary Clinton has changed her tactics, Huckabee has gained some new recognition, and Obama made a surprise victory( in a Caucasian Midwestern state). Hilary Clinton was polled to be the leading Democrat choice, yet Obama captured the Democratic vote in Iowa. With a 3rd place trophy under her belt ( Edwards took 2nd ) Clinton now has to change tactics for the campaign trail ahead. One advisor stated that, “ You're going to see some very sharp media now.” Clinton's campaign will turn the focus even more to Obama's lack of experience. They will be highlighting his past voting record and giving voters the choice of “experienced leadership for change or inexperienced leadership that talks about change" (Tumulty). The Iowa caucus has impacted the Republican party candidates as well.
According to Gallup polls, 71% saw Giuliani's loss in Iowa as a sign that his campaign was in serious trouble. If the majority of the public loses faith in a candidate early on, it negatively effects them from the beginning. Such a large percent losing faith in Guiliani will definitely effect Giulianis's campaign.
I believe that the New Hampshire primary will begin the “Tortoise and Hare” plot line I spoke of before. Though Huckabee had a steal in Iowa he is no longer estimated to take first. Instead McCain and Romney our expected to take the Republican top spot (MSNBC). As seen in previous elections, “public polling showed that the American public wanted basically the last two people to disappear rather than one of them be elected. They had just gotten so sick of seeing it..” I think this will again happen in the 2008 election. The intense campaign will eventually burn out voters, so that each primary to come has less and less impact. As stated by Karen Tumulty, “We're talking about a nine-month general election...” Voters will begin to decrease interest with the election as it goes by due to its sheer length.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22551718/?GT1=10755#storyContinued
pollster.com
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec07/primary_08-09.html
The Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary play a large role in this presidential campaign. However, this is somewhat an overblown role considering these two states do not truly represent the population of the United States. Unfortunately, the impact will be much larger than it theoretically should be. Huckabee and Obama won in Iowa, and as I am writing the New Hampshire precincts are coming in. With 52% of the precincts in, John McCain had been called the winner of the Republican side, while Obama was close with Clinton in the lead for the Democrats. However, newscasters are commenting on the fact that college town precincts are not in and these could lean toward Obama. Obama was receiving the majority votes from men, independents, youth, and upper-income. Clinton was getting her support from women, seniors and lower incomes (1).
I believe that these first couple primaries are not very indicative of the Republican side of the entire race. Huckabee and John McCain are very different from each other and now each have a victory. There is no way to tell if Giuliani will make any gains in upcoming states because he chose not to campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire. Mitt Romney keeps coming in second, but coming up Michigan is considered one of his “home states” (2). To me the Republican race is no clearer than is was before New Hampshire and Iowa.
However, I think in terms of the Democratic race Iowa and New Hampshire have been very important. There was talk that if Clinton lost badly, she may drop out. Since Clinton numbers are in the lead, though, many are predicting that John Edwards will drop out. This has huge implications considering that only 2 states have weighed in. Future primaries will continue to have a huge impact. Obama is considered to have an advantage with the black population especially in South Carolina, but will Clinton overtake him? It’s crunch time for the Democrats (1).
Sources:
1Fox News Live
2CBS Good Morning America
As the hosts of the earliest caucuses and primaries, American society has a love-hate relationship with the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary. Many argue that it places too much importance on winning the states Iowa and New Hampshire, in reality, Iowa and New Hampshire are not crucial to winning the presidential race and are fairly unrepresentative of the national population (1). Blogger David Redlawk humorously discusses the Iowa’s representation of the nation: “In Iowa, a candidate can actually shake the hand of nearly everyone who will caucus.” Figures point that only 6%-7% of it’s voting age population actually votes, and these voters tend to be better informed about the candidates, their views, and the race for the Oval Office (1). The entire population of Iowa is only 2.9 million people, and the majority of that population is rural. This automatically distances “urban candidates” like Chris Dodd and Rudy Giuliani from the populace, damaging their ability to effectively compete for the presidency.
New Hampshire is similarly unrepresentative, as it has historically stressed Libertarian views; the state has a flat income tax, zero sales tax, and weighs liberty with great importance. David Moats, editorialist for the Rutland Herald, contrasts New Hampshire and Iowa: “New Hampshire is… where politics is personal, religion is private, and people try to keep track of their pennies (2).” Iowan voters, especially those who voted Republican, tend to let religion carry more weight in their vote, as evidenced by the large number of Evangelical Christians who carried Mike Huckabee to victory on January 4th (3).
The impact of these states, however, is an entirely different debate. As I mentioned earlier, the Iowa caucuses dramatically inhibit the ability of “urban candidates” to campaign effectively and equally. Although the earliest caucus has been said to have the ability to “make or break” a candidate, this hasn’t necessarily rung true, as demonstrated by the results of the New Hampshire primary (2). Although it might have been expected that Mike Huckabee’s victory in Iowa would have influenced New Hampshire voters, he only came in second in the New Hampshire primary. At this point, it becomes difficult to predict who will receive the nomination for president, as results varied between the nation’s first caucus and primary.
Sources:
1.http://blogs.britannica.com/blog/main/2007/12/why-iowa-a-defense-of-the-iowa-caucuses/
2.http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-opmoa065527612jan06,0,5555542.story
3.http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=17169
The first caucuses and primaries are very important in a presidential race. They give a rough measure of how the citizens of the country are feeling about different presidential candidates. Thus, a poor showing early on can severely limit a candidates financial income, because no one wants to finance a losing candidate. The caucuses and primaries act as a multiplier of voter behavior: a slight loss at the polls can lead to a greater loss in donations, which leads to an even greater loss at the next polls. Many politicians often drop out of the race for the Presidential Nomination, because they can not run a campaign when they lose their donations.
I think the Iowa caucus was important. It finally started putting numbers to vague notions of presidency over the last year. People are starting to see how the rest of the country is aligning and this is naturally going to affect them. Certainly, Iowa is not as important as California or New York, but its early date makes it more important than some bigger states. The candidates poured millions of dollars into campaigning here, so they apparently considered it important, as well. After Clinton’s loss, however, she and her aides said: “no one should over-count Iowa and its importance,” “Iowa is so small, it’s like a mayor’s race in a medium-sized city,” and “Iowa doesn’t have the best track record in determining who the party nominates. Everybody knows that.” (1) Clinton has also made many jabs at Iowa’s caucus system, saying that it is undemocratic and gave an unfair picture of the real turnout (1). It is easy to sense a note of bitterness in these comments. Clearly, Iowa was important to all the candidates, whether they choose to admit it or not.
As for New Hampshire, I believe it to be slightly less important than Iowa, but still important, because it is the second (not counting WY) affirmation of the country’s political preferences. It is the first time the country will go to a vote. As I am typing this, McCain is projected to win for the Republicans, and Clinton is leading Obama in a tight race (2). If Obama wins this one too, it may be very difficult for Clinton to fire up any momentum. John Edwards, my personal favorite, is in 3rd place, but he plans to carry on his campaign into the other 48 states (2).
I think Super Tuesday will be one of the most important events thus far, maybe even one of the most important events of the whole primary season, because it will be the biggest Super Tuesday in American history, with more than 20states participating, putting over ½ the electors on the line (3). It will be interesting to see how comes out of Super Tuesday victorious, because there is a very high chance that they will the national nomination. Super Tuesday provides a sampling of many different regions and voter groups, thus making the outcome of the day even more telling as a sign of the country’s political preferences (3).
(1) http://search.desmoines register.com/sp?eId=100&gcId=28839943&rNum=1&url=http% 3A%2F%2Fwww.desmoinesregister.com%2Fapps%2Fpbcs.dll%2Farticle%3FAID%3D2008801080363&siteIdType=2
(2) http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/08/primaries.main/?iref=hpmostpop
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Super_Tuesday
Because of the front-loading of the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, these two events will carry the most weight this election, just as they do every election. Whether the effects will result in nomination for the winning candidates is less certain. In Iowa, one benefit for Obama has been that Clinton's argument that Obama is not a very electable candidate has not held up well, and may positively affect his performance in other states' primaries. Many people, African-Americans especially, have said that they do not believe the white population will vote for a black man. However, he won by 7% in Iowa, despite the fact that Iowa has fairly low racial diversity. In the coming North Carolina primary, this may very well increase the number of voters willing to vote for him.
On the other hand, Huckabee's Iowa victory may very well mean nothing. Though Christian conservatives, especially Evangelicals and born-agains, strongly support Huckabee, support for him is nowhere near as strong with the rest of the Republican party. Though the former category makes up a strong percentage of Iowa Republicans, their majority is not as strong in the United States as a whole, and thus his chances in the general election are not equal his chances in the Iowa caucus.
The events in Iowa and New Hampshire are helping to reveal issues with both individual campaigns and parties as a whole. Giuliani, while successful as mayor of New York, seems to be finding a national campaign difficult. His weak campaign strategy in both Iowa, which he ignored, and New Hampshire, whose populace merely felt ignored, may give voters second thoughts about supporting him. After all, if they’re going to be throwing a vote away, they may as well use it on Ron Paul (who is just below Giuliani in the caucus and primary results).
Another effect of these events has been to highlight the divisions within the Republican party. 10 and 8% are high numbers for someone who was a virtual unknown when the campaigning began, and who gathered most of his funding in small increments and virtually all of it online. Yet, this is what Ron Paul has managed to do. It’s possible this is an indicator of a frustration with the religious right and the pro-war conservatives within the Republican party. If so, it could be even harder than it already seems to pick a universally acceptable candidate out of the GOP pool.
With so much uncertainty in the 2008 election for both parties, the primaries in other states will be watched more closely than ever. The lack of a clear front runner means that one will need to emerge sometime before primary season ends. Otherwise, the national conventions may prove extremely interesting.
Sources:
C-SPAN: live coverage of Iowa and NH
www.boston.com/bostonglobe/
While the impact of the early caucus in Iowa and the early primary in New Hampshire is questionable, I think many citizens would argue that the impact is far too great. Candidates who do not receive a good share of the votes in the early caucuses or primaries will almost certainly drop out of the race. The returns in the early states have an affect on who I (as a Minnesotan) get to argue for at the caucus on February 5th. Kucinich, currently holding 2% of the primary votes in New Hampshire, will likely not stay in the race until the Minnesota caucuses. Theoretically, if he was still in the race, I could hold out at the Democratic caucus for him, forcing the other voter blocs to become more liberal in their support of the issues in order to regain my support (“Silas, if you throw your hat in the ring for Obama, we’ll make sure to fight for the Equal Marriage Rights Plank in the party platform.”). If Kucinich is “weeded out” by the early primaries, it gives me no choice but to give my support to one the top three candidates that will likely remain by the later caucuses and primaries (Clinton, Edwards, and Obama).
Obviously, winning or placing in the top 3 of the early primaries or caucuses will offer an advantage to the candidates. The media coverage offered to Huckabee in the past several days has been staggering after he won the Iowa Republican caucus. Months ago, he was arguably a marginal candidate meant to pander only to the Evangelical vote (2). Increased media coverage due to winning a caucus or primary is essentially free advertisement. Huckabee is now viewed as a viable candidate, even though he has only won a plurality of the vote of one party in a state that is more conservative than the rest of the nation. Like a shrill second-grader, I want to scream “This isn’t fair!” These early states are not indicative of the rest of the nation. Iowa is 93% Caucasian (3), far more than the rest of the nation. Yet Iowa’s results gave a fringe candidate (Huckabee) the national spotlight. Hopefully, the impact from these early returns will not cause many candidates to drop out before I get to attend the Minnesota Democratic caucus.
Congratulations to Clinton and McCain for securing the win for their parties in New Hampshire, but let’s hope they keep in mind that they have to fight for MY support next.
1.CNN News Coverage- New Hampshire Primary
2. http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2007/12/03/071203taco_talk_hertzberg
3.http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Iowa_-_Demographics/id/593751
As the votes continue to trickle in, people across the nation eagerly anticipate the outcome of this evening’s primary. Already having demonstrated a significantly differing outcome than Iowa, the New Hampshire primary is proving this election to be quite unpredictable. With Iowa frontrunner Mike Huckabee scoring only 11 percent of the vote today, fourth-place Iowa caucus runner John McCain won New Hampshire with 37 percent. Similarly, third place winner in Iowa, Senator Hillary Clinton, is neck in neck and currently leading for the Democrats in New Hampshire (1). But what does this mean for November 2008? Technically speaking, nothing. No Democrat Iowa caucus winner has ever gone on to become president. Ever (2). Though I am not condemning the odds of Barack Obama by any means, I am perhaps discrediting the intuition vested into the Iowa and New Hampshire caucus and primary. As this election has already gone to show, no clear front runner presents itself between the two events, let alone for the election on the horizon. This holds true for both parties, mind you, with the only ‘Top 3’ consistency being Mitt Romney in second place. Six candidates have already dropped out of the race, with thirteen remaining, but none have left the competition since January 3’s first caucus (1). Though the early rounds of the presidential election can be somewhat telling, this fact is encouraging in that candidates are not gauging their overall potential on a two day performance. Iowa and New Hampshire are in fact, two very poor states to base a national assumption on. Maintaining white populations of 93 and 95.1 percent, Iowa and New Hampshire both rank within the top 5 states in this category (3). It is not to say that I believe a certain state to hold a greater influence on the selection of candidates for 2008, but rather that as the process takes its toll, the leaders will be the ones left standing. In the words of Napoleon Bonaparte, “Victory belongs to the most persevering.”
1. http://www.cnn.com
2. http://sharoncobb.blogspot.com/2007/12/if-pattern-holds-only-thing-democrat.html
3. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GRTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-_box_head_nbr=R0201&-ds_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_&-format=US-30
It is clear to me after these two votes that there are many viable candidates at this point. After all is said and done primaries and caucuses the real victories and losses come down to the expectations met or fallen short of. Certainly few predicted that Obama would take Iowa. And even fewer predicted that Clinton would overcome the odds presented by the polls before New Hampshire. Both candidates take upsets and earn their stripes Obama shows the nation that he means business and Hillary earns her name as the comeback kid. The competition is obviously going to be fierce between these two and after exchanging a few blows I expect to see the gloves come off very soon. On the Republic an side Huckabee proved he was a viable candidate by beating Romney (who spent more money) in Iowa. And tonight Romney’s campaign took another substantial blow. I believe it will take a toll on him seeing as he spent a substantial amount of his funds campaigning in two states and didn’t win either. It looks to me as if two major contenders emerged on the Democratic side in Clinton and Obama. It would be wrong to count Edwards out obviously however its not looking great for him at this point in time. He can recover with a strong win in the next few votes and we will see how it pans out. On the Repubican side it seems to be just a big cloud of dust. You’ve got Huckabee with a win and McCain with a win Romney with 2 second place finishes and Giuliani who is not campaigning until Florida. Oh, and Ron Paul winning an astonishing 10% of the votes and announcing that he may run as a third party and potentially take the Republicans out of the race all together. After a few intense days it is really shaping up to be an exciting nomination with seemingly many different outcomes.
(1) C-span commentators
(2)http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage
I believe that the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary will have a lasting effect on the election. According to the Des Moines Register, states with large African American populations, such as South Carolina, may be more likely to vote for Obama now that it appears he really has a chance due to his victory in the Iowa caucus (1).
In the New Hampshire primary, Clinton gained 39% of the vote, while Obama won 37% (1). Clinton’s narrow victory will help her keep momentum in her campaign, but Obama still has a definite possibility. It has been seen that Clinton is fairly popular among African American voters, but might not have been paying enough attention to American females. I believe that Clinton’s emotional words may in part have been uttered to connect with women voters.
McCain campaigners worry that possible supporters may sway toward Obama, therefore giving more votes to Romney (2). This could be a battle, as both contenders have each won a primary/caucus so far.
(1) http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PRIMARY_RDP?SITE=IADES&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-01-08-22-49-01
(2) http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2008/01/08/listening_over_nh_set_to_speak/?page=2
I think that the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary will have a huge impact on who is nominated for president by their party in the presidential election this year. With Obama and Huckabee winning the Iowa caucus, it is apparent that the country wants a change in the next president of the Unites States (1). Doing well in at least one of the places, if not both, is essential to having any chance at the nomination.
The Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary will help and hurt the candidates running for president. If a candidate does not do well in either, it can hurt their chances in doing well in the next primaries and caucuses. If they don’t do well in the caucuses and primaries following the ones in Iowa and New Hampshire, they run out of money to campaign with and are forced to drop out of the race. For instance, Joe Biden dropped out of the race because he did so poorly in Iowa (2). He would not have enough money to continue on with his campaign for much longer after having such a poor outing at the Iowa caucus. On the other hand, if a candidate does well in either Iowa or New Hampshire, they have a good chance on gaining even more money and support to strengthen their run for the nomination. This happened when Obama won the Iowa caucus over Clinton. The polls in New Hampshire showed that he gained a lot of ground and was actually tied with Clinton within a few days of the results of the Iowa caucus (3). This also happened when McCain won the New Hampshire primary. His campaign was considered a lost cause during the summer, but this victory has basically resurrected his campaign (4).
The other states like Florida, North Carolina, and all of the states that have primaries and caucuses on Super Tuesday will not play as a great a role as Iowa or New Hampshire in the presidential election this year. Their main role will be to narrow the field of the current candidates for president and solidify the front-runners. For the candidates that did not do well in either Iowa or New Hampshire, and continue to do poorly in these other state caucuses and primaries, they will be forced to drop out because of a lack of support and money.
(1) http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=caucus
(2) http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/03/
biden_to_abandon_presidential_bid/
(3) http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/
2008/01/obama_looking_a.html
(4) http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hAdMzKbTdRczxa
WHiXYN6af15RcwD8U233O01
The Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary play a significant role in setting the stage for the presidential election. The results impact the race by giving some candidates momentum while forcing other candidates to drop out of the race. Early success for a candidate results in extensive publicity and enhances their likelihood of continuing a victorious trend. Furthermore, if a candidate loses consecutively, it may severely damage their campaign and cause them to lose financial support. After Hillary Clinton took third place in the Iowa caucus, there was significant pressure for her to be the leading candidate in New Hampshire. Prior to the Iowa caucus, Keith Appell noted, “If Obama wins Iowa, the Clinton soufflé could completely collapse. Her whole campaign has been centered around 'inevitability' but if she loses right out of the gate then the rationale for nominating her becomes dubious” (1). Clinton’s success in New Hampshire tonight will allow her to remain in the race and continue to battle for the votes of the upcoming caucuses and primaries. The upcoming primaries and caucuses in Florida and North Carolina in addition to Super Tuesday will be extremely important for Clinton and Obama as they race neck and neck. It is also still unclear as to who will take the lead in the Republican Party. Political strategist, David Johnson stated, “Traditionally ... you didn't get elected if you didn't win New Hampshire, On the Democratic side, what we're really going to see is who wins in Iowa” (1). Clearly the early caucuses and primaries have great influence over the rest of the nation. It forces the losing candidates to drop out of the race and leaves the winners left standing.
1. http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200801/POL20080103a.html
2. http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/nh/
3. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080108/NEWS09/801080364/-1/caucus
Michelle Ludwig
After seeing the results of the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary, I really feel like it’s completely anyone’s game to get the nomination. On the side of the democrats people are still swaying back and forth between Clinton and Obama and in both Iowa and New Hampshire, the winner won by an extremely close margin, showing that it’s still anyone’s game. Edwards isn’t completely out yet even because he is also no far behind in his percentage of votes either. As for the Republicans, I think things are still pretty much up in the air with them as well because people have changed their minds both times. Mitt Romney is doing fairly well by placing second in both events, so who knows, maybe he’ll pop up in the next states and beat out Huckabee and McCain. Or it’s possible for McCain to keep his holding because he was once that front runner before his fundraising abilities failed him (1). I personally think that on either side, anything can happen.
I really don’t see why people are so interested in Iowa and New Hampshire when they are clearly not the biggest states in this competition. Personally, I don’t think that these elections with make a huge amount of difference for the bigger ones coming up later, and because of how close they are, I think that the bigger states that are coming up will really be the ones to decide who gets it rather than Iowa and New Hampshire.
1. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage
Being the first caucus and primary, I think that the Iowa and New Hampshire races are important states for candidates to win. These two states certainly carry much more weight than other states that receive less attention. Since none of the candidates have won in both states, although Iowa and New Hampshire are very different states, the race will certainly be interesting (2). I think that Iowa and New Hampshire, while they have not shown a clear favorite for the race, have set apart who some of the stronger candidates are.
Both Iowa and New Hampshire carry a significant amount of weight and can potentially have a strong influence on the following primaries and caucuses. They can be a great chance for candidates to gain momentum and keep it throughout the race like Senator John Kerry did in 2004 (1). Some people argue that spending a lot of energy and resources early on can give candidates the momentum that they need to carry them through the race, helping them raise more money and gain support. On the contrary, some people think that concentrating on Iowa and New Hampshire can cause candidates to die out towards the end (1).
While I do think that these two races are important, I do not think that they are as critical in determining this election. As some people have stated in previous posts, the states of Iowa and New Hampshire are not really states that represent the United States as a whole. Moreover, since none of the candidates won in both states, it shows that there is no certain winner at the time, especially for the Republicans. Huckabee, who won by a significant amount in Iowa, only got 11% of the vote in New Hampshire, compared to Mc Cain and Romney’s 37% and 32%, respectively. John Edwards also looked much worse in New Hampshire, only winning 17% of the vote (2). I think that any candidate that did well in either of these elections will be a strong contender for the presidency. While the Iowa and New Hampshire races may have shown who the stronger candidates are, they have not shown a clear winner of the presidential race. That is why I think that these two states will carry less weight than they may have in previous elections.
1.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/27/AR2005122700902_2.html
2.www.cnn.com
Before learning about caucuses and primaries, I believed they had no impact. However, I would say that today they are pretty important. Primaries and caucuses give the public the chance to have a say in what candidate they want to vote for in the general election. Also primaries and caucuses will reflect to a candidate how well he or she is doing.
Winning in New Hampshire or Iowa can be very helpful for a presidential hopeful. It can help build momentum by gaining more media coverage and general public approval. If a candidate does poorly, like below top 5, than I think it is pretty clear they will have a minimal chance. Top 5 candidates of each party should continue on until they hit another region. Doing poorly in a caucus or primary is a burden to the candidate in that they may begin to lose funds, lose support, and really just not be seen to the public eye. And if you’re like Rudy Giuliani and decide not to put a lot of effort into the first primary and caucus of the season, your hopes to be the nominee are very risky. Although he has managed to get some votes without any campaigning, he is going to struggle to keep his campaign going until February 5th. Super Tuesday, they call it; will be when large swing states will be voting. Giuliani is determined to put all his cards into the big states and pull out with the Republican nomination. If you ask me, his chances seem grim. I do have to say that I do not think the outcomes of the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary should be of much importance. After all they are rather small states that do not hold the majority of our diverse country. I think Giuliani has it right in trying to remember and focus on the importance of the swing states.
And to discuss the results of Iowa, I think some of it was shocking while others were not. Huckabee winning by a huge margin for the Republicans was totally out of the blue to me. I thought McCain and Romney would have done better. I thought Thompson was going to fail miserably. And Ron Paul getting 10% not only amazed me, but sent a big message to the GOP. I predicted the Democrats exactly right. For the Democrats, I do not think anybody has a chance if they are not Obama, Edwards, or Clinton. I think Obama has great potential, but he is voted for more because of the person he is rather than his policies. Edwards is a great nominee because of his experience and he is a comfort, he is someone you can comfortably visualize as president. And the New Hampshire primaries were not all that surprising. For the Democrats it was Clinton, Obama, Edwards and then for the GOP it was McCain, Romney, and Huckabee. I was only surprised that Hilary beat out Obama. It will be interesting to see who gets the party nominations in the end!
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=caucus
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/08/in_candidates_voters_say_they_want_personal_connection/
There are a few things that I am pretty good at. Painting, I’m pretty good at that. Writing essays has always come easily. I make really good tuna sandwiches. I remember useless information for ages. I’m usually pretty good about thinking before I talk, which is a useful skill. I make decent pancakes too, but only when I’m sick… for some reason.
Predicting the future, however, is something I’m not so great at.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve tried. Back when the third Harry Potter book came out, I was all about predicting the future. Divination, good times. Alas, it’s not an acquired skill. You’ve either got it, or you don’t.
I don’t.
But that won’t stop me from taking a shot in the dark now and then. Really though, when it comes to politics, a shot in the dark is about the best anyone can do.
So the Iowa Caucus finally happened. The campaigning started like forever ago, and this is what it all leads up to. Iowa. A little anticlimactic, but I’m not complaining.
Obama came out first for the Democrats in good old Iowa. On the Republican side, Huckabee was favored. And really, who wouldn’t vote for someone with Chuck Norris smiling rather passive-aggressively at his shoulder all the while? Edwards and Clinton were running second and third to Obama, while Romney and Thompson followed Huckabee.
The Democratic results didn’t surprise me much. Obama and Clinton have been the center of the campaign media circus, and Edwards has been gaining attention with the working class. One of those three is bound to get the nomination.
The Republican results, on the other hand, threw me off. My first thought was along the lines of an inappropriate Chuck Norris joke. My second thought was something akin to “Who the heck is Thompson?” followed closely by “Romney? Really, Iowa?” But after that, it occurred to me that McCain and Giuliani, two frontrunners for the nomination on the national scale, didn’t even make the top three. Giuliani is off in Florida, so I suppose that wasn’t too surprising. But I figured McCain would at least be in the top three.
See? No skill of the clairvoyant persuasion whatsoever.
So that was all very exciting, you know, yay Iowa. But then the New Hampshire Primary happened. Personally, I don’t find New Hampshire to be very enthralling as states go. It probably beats Iowa on the basis that I am mystified by the fact that I can’t tell New Hampshire and Vermont apart. All I know in relation to the two is that White Christmas took place in Vermont, not New Hampshire.
But I digress.
As of 12:34 AM Central Time on January 9th, 2008, the facts were these.
Leading the Democrats is Clinton, followed by Obama and Edwards. Leading the Republicans is McCain, followed by Romney and Huckabee.
Once again, the Democratic results didn’t really shatter the illusion of my political knowledge or anything. And after the whole Iowa thing happened, the Republican results didn’t exactly shock me either. Yeah, I’ve become numb to Huckabee and Romney. Unless one of them gets the nomination, in which case I’ll be worried.
Which brings me to my next point. What will these results do to the rest of the campaign?
I’ll be honest.
I don’t think these results will have much effect at all.
Before you all yell at me, here’s my reasoning. This election is unlike any this country has ever seen. We have all these minorities coming into the race all of a sudden. And whether we like it or not, the next president isn’t winning a political election. He or she is winning a popularity contest. It’s like high school only bigger and scarier and dictating the future of the entire world.
Hillary Clinton is in it, the first woman to get this far and hold onto it. She’s in this race for the long haul, regardless of the Republicans hating her with the burning intensity of a thousand suns for no apparent reason other than the fact that she’s Hillary Clinton.
Barack Obama is in it. Is he too black? Is he not black enough? Is this really relevant to the presidency at all?
Chuck Norris likes Mike Huckabee. He’ll totally roundhouse kick you in the face if you don’t vote right. And I mean right. Like the direction. Get it?
Rudy Giuliani will totally have our backs if a meteor crashes into New England or something.
So my question is not whether the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary will decide the election or effect the results otherwise. My question is this: When did the race for the presidency become all about pop culture?
I like pop culture as much as the next person. Probably more due to the fact that I was raised on Gilmore Girls. But when the future of our nation is at stake, when the current president has left us with more problems than we’ve had in the past couple decades, I don’t want people to be voting based on the preferences of Chuck Norris and Oprah.
So now, I shall make my all-important predictions. The Democratic ticket will either be Clinton-Edwards or Clinton-Richardson, and the Republican ticket will either be Huckabee-McCain or the other way around.
Now that I’ve predicted it, those tickets are probably doomed to fail. So I think I’ll just wait and see how things turn out.
http://www.iowacaucuses.info/
http://www.nhpr.org/node/14499
The early primaries and caucuses are thought by many to have an overwhelming prediction of the outcome of the presidential elections. Iowa and New Hampshire under-represent the country and they under-represent the voting public and its delegate’s votes. Of the 6,429 delegates (4,049 Democratic delegates, 2,380 Republican delegates) in the US, Iowa and New Hampshire only represent 49 Republican and 79 Democratic delegates(2). Although, according to politicalticker.com “The Iowa Democratic Party said that with 96 percent of the precincts reporting, they were seeing record turnout, with 227,000 caucus attendees. In 2004, their turnout was about 125,000 caucus goers. The Iowa Republican Party is also projecting record turnout, with 120,000 people taking part in the Republican caucuses. About 87,000 people took part in the 2000 Republican caucuses.(2)” This could foreshadow an overall rise in voter turnout this November. These small states do effect the race for nominations in other ways, not always as the predictions appear though.
Before the other 99 percent of the country votes, many people will see Iowa and New Hampshire’s caucus and primary, respectively, results both hurt and help each candidate’s race for their party’s nomination. The first primary and caucus results will help their winners and other promising candidates by giving them more free press and attention which will return funds to their campaigns.
Because there is no clear answer to who will take each party’s nomination, primaries and caucuses from now until even after Super Tuesday could swing a candidate’s momentum in either direction. I believe that the momentum of Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary also represent the psychology of supporting someone who the voter think is a winner. Candidates who loose momentum and receive poor results will evaporate some of the earlier competition. These candidates may not have the funds to gain back the support they need to continue their race. Joe Biden (D) who received 0% in New Hampshire and 1% in Iowa, and Chris Dodd (D) received 0% in both IA and NH, both dropped out of the race for their party’s nomination after the Iowa caucus, are already examples of how the lack of support in the earliest caucus and primary can effect the nomination process. I predict that the quickly upcoming primaries and caucuses will lead to more of the tentative candidates without enough support to drop out. I predict that this will include Thompson ( % in Iowa, % in New Hampshire), Kucinich( % in IA, % in NH), and Gravel ( % in IA, % in NH) who’s support cannot compete with other front runners at this point. (1)
These factors all help undecided voters get a better sense of who these candidates are, and in return the candidates get a better sense of the issues that the voters truly care about. It is an evolution for each of the candidates’ personalities and views that will continue until they are reduced to only one nominee for their party.
Super Tuesday and other caucus will help set in place more predictable nominees as opposed to these first few caucuses and primaries. They will represent the ideals of a larger percent of our population and as the elections get closer, represent a better understanding of which candidates actually stand a chance. By Feb. 6, 1,258 Republican and 2,238 Democratic delegates will have been selected .(3)
I have learned much more than I had ever thought I would in AP Government and Politics these last two quarters and am continuing to learn that even the experts do not know exactly what will happen. Their incorrect predictions of New Hampshire’s primary, more specifically the democratic party’s outcome, continues to show us that the world of politics is not completely constant. These discoveries will continue to unfold in the evolution of our country’s government.
(1)(http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/)
(2) http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/03/democratic-caucus-turnout-shatters-record/
(3)(you decide.foxnews.com)
The Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary will have a minimal impact on the 2008 presidential election. It will hurt presidential candidates, and other states will gain a greater role in selecting the presidential nominations.
Historically speaking, the Iowa caucus has generally been unsuccessful in predicting the general election winner. The LA Times reports that “We should all be glad that Iowa does not pick our presidents. It would have given us many duds over the years.” (1) Stanford University argues that “Iowa has a reputation for picking losers when it comes to the presidential race.” (2) In relation to the 2008 election, Iowa is predicted to have a low level of impact according to MSNBC (4). In fact, numerous Iowa citizens decline to participate in the election because “they don't believe their vote will make a difference.” (3)
The close elections of the 2008 Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary have inevitably hurt all remaining candidates. A variety of candidates will be continuing in the primary election to other states. The LA Times admits that “Iowa has all but ensured that a wide field will make it all the way to Super-Duper Tuesday.” (1) When the Iowa caucus presents a clear winner, many hopefuls resign their candidacy and allow the winner to easily triumph in later primaries. With so many more travelling to later primaries in 2008, it will make it more difficult for each candidate to succeed.
States will later primaries have gained an extremely important role in the upcoming election. David Brooks claimed on PBS that “this campaign is going to go on to a bunch of more states.” (5) Fox News confirmed that Super Tuesday will play a crucial role in determining the leading nominee hopeful. They claimed that “While all the talk has been on Iowa and New Hampshire, voters likely won’t get a sense of who will be the party nominees until after Feb. 5.” (6) The nation cannot rely on Iowa or New Hampshire to predict the 2008 nominees or president.
The role of the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary has rapidly declined. Candidates in the 2008 election have been hurt from the recent elections. The other states must now begin to play a larger role in bolstering or damaging a candidate’s chance at the presidential nomination and presidency.
Sources
(1)http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-iowa6jan06,0,5754848.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials
(2)http://stanfordpress.typepad.com/blog/2007/11/does-the-iowa-c.html
(3)http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-nonvoters2jan02,0,5861692.story?coll=la-home-center
(4)http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/08/561789.aspx
(5)http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june08/NHhistory_01-08.html
(6)http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/07/do-not-pub-iowa-new-hampshire-come-first-but-delegate-contribution-is-small/
I believe the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary will play a major role in affecting the outcome of the next primaries and caucuses for two main reasons. The first, is that there is no clear candidate that thus far there has been no overall candidate who is predicted to win the nomination for the Republican or Democratic Party. For this reason, I believe many voters will cast their vote based on the bandwagon fallacy and follow the trends of the previous elections. The second reason that I believe these two early elections will have a large impact is because the election season is so short and compact. This does not allow much time for many major candidates to publicly 'screw up' and thus turn public opinion in a new candidate's direction (1).
My prediction is that the candidates that did not win first place at neither the Iowa Caucus or New Hampshire Primary will not gain enough momentum to bring a new spark to their campaign in order to win the next big elections. Therefore, I think Obama, Clinton, Huckabee, and McCain will be the front runners from here on out.
(1)(http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/)
(2)(you decide.foxnews.com)
The Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire primary will have a great effect on what happens in the elections in the future, but the results will not necessarily be exactly how the elections will end up. The democratic race will be especially close until the end. Senator Obama winning in Iowa and Senator Clinton winning in New Hampshire helps prove this. The Republican race won't be as close, but I don't think we can quite predict who will win based on these recent events. This is also shown by McCain winning in New Hampshire and Huckabee winning in Iowa. The candidates that haven't won yet should not be ruled out since there are many more primaries and caucuses before the national party conventions, but the candidates that have been coming out on top should be excited about their current positions. Winning the earliest primaries and caucuses will provide them much more fuel for future campaigning.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/09/candidates_spread_thin_in_the_push_to_feb_5/
I think that we put too much focus on the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, but they have answered some questions that everyone had going into the election. Many suspected Obama would have trouble in Iowa because of his race- but that was obviously not a problem for him in the Iowa caucus. Clinton, who many thought would do better than she did, had a harder time than suspected in Iowa.
This, however, turned around in New Hampshire. Clinton beat out Obama, which some didn't think would happen. Obama has been getting a lot of the young vote- and was hoping to pull out ahead of Clinton, especially when votes from Dartmouth area came through.
I believe focusing on these too much will greatly hurt some of the candidates who didn't campaign as strongly in Iowa or New Hampshire. One of these candidates would be Giuliani, he campaigned the hardest in Florida- which could turn out to work for him. Though many believe he will lose so much before that he will end up losing momentum and Florida won't turn out as well as he would hope.
Since Iowa and New Hampshire aren't a necessarily good indicator of the rest of the country, they may not be the best predictors for how the rest of the country will end up voting. I think that the later caucus's and primaries will be a better indicator of who the country wants for the next president.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/
www.cnn.com
Ok first I would like to say that I love Liz's post! It was funny!
Ok now down to bussiness. I will not adress how the next of the election season will play out because, like Liz, after Iowa I was wrong with my predictions for both sides. What I will address however is the way campaigns have shaped post Iowa. Noone expected Obama or Huckabee to win and surprise, surprise...they won. Now this totally made Snator Clinton rethink her campaign startegy. When she gave her speech in Iowa after Obama had won, she was surrounded by older people. Madeline Albright, Bill Clinton and there were many older supporters. This time in NH she was surrounded by younger people, her daughter, and there were only a few older people in the audience (1). She explained that she listened to the voters and found her voice. Now I am a little cynical about the fact that she cried a few days ago. It might be stress, it might be the lack of support that she was getting after Iowa, but personally I think that she has a smart campaign manager that told her to turn on the waterworks. Many experts explain that her tears gave her the win in NH. Women voters saw that Senator Clinotn was human and that they identified with her. The tears made them feel bad for her being stressed out, and becoming so involved in her campaign that she cried(2). She didn't cry in public when her husband was not having sex with Monica Lewinski. She wasn't crying when her daughter was being attacked in the press. So, why now?
The next thing that is interesting is that Obama got many young voters with his message of change so the rest of the candidates decided to make themselves more appealing to the younger voters. Mccain tried that a year ago when he announced his candidacy on a late night TV show where the majority of the audience was young. Now they are starting to use Youtube and Facebook more. Many candidates are trying to appeal to younger voters by making themselves more popular by being on a popular website like Youtube (3). Romney even uploaded videos of him at the debate even before the debate was over. He really wanted to win over the New Hampshires.
The last thing is Obama's influence over the rest of the candidates. He has made the Republicans afraid of loosing to such a charismatic guy. Days prior to the primaries Huckabee was saying that the best person to put against Obama is Mccain and that he would be very pleased if Mccain did well just because he was going against Obama. Since he has such a broad following he is the hardest candiate for the Republicans to deal with (4)
In conclusion, I don;t know what will happen in the future but what I do know is that campaign maangers will work like crazy if the caucases and primaries go the same way they have been going lately.
1)http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/us/politics/09scene.html?ref=politics
2)http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23029441-20261,00.html
3)http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/us/politics/07web-seelye.html
4)http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.schallerrevise09jan09,0,4560298.story
“Two races down, 48 states to go," said John Edwards after last night’s New Hampshire primary. Edwards only received 17% of the vote despite coming in ahead of last night’s democratic winner Hillary Clinton in the Iowa caucus. In addition, Barrack Obama was heavily favored to win in New Hampshire due in large part to his projected preference among registered Independents (40% of registered voters in NH are Independents and according to polls, 60% opted to participate in the Democratic contest). These are examples of how unpredictable the 2008 Presidential race is becoming, especially for the Democratic nomination.
What the results of these two nights mean is that there is much still up in the air. Four different winners from Iowa and NH can be accredited to the yet to be determined nominees, perhaps even far from being decided. What is apparent from the results though is who is going to receive the most campaign contributions in the near future. Clinton’s victory over Obama yesterday will likely assist her greatly in gathering more funds for her seemingly new campaign strategy. She is likely to continue approaching her campaign from the angle she took during the last few days: emphasizing her gender, and above all, her experience.
*Wednesday Edition of the Star Tribune
*http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080109/NEWS09/801090396
Like many of my classmates, I believe that the early primaries and caucuses should not have such a large effect on the presidential election. What’s upsetting about the fact that these early results have so much impact is that they are not states that represent the country as a whole. Iowa has about one tenth the population of California and is rural towns for the most part (5). However, we must face the fact that they do have an effect on how the rest of the country thinks. Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida ultimately decide who will be known and who will be ignored (1). Mike Huckabee is a very good example of this power. He was virtually unknown as a candidate and very far behind in national polls but winning the Iowa Caucus has put his name on the map (5). People pay attention to the early election because they want to see who is doing well in the election and who they should vote for. People don’t generally want their vote wasted and won’t vote for a candidate if they don’t think that person has a chance to win. If Giuliani doesn’t do well in Florida, it will reflect poorly on him and may convince the rest of the nation that he isn’t worth voting for if the state on which he spent most of his time didn’t vote for him(1). The early primaries and caucuses give candidates who might otherwise be unnoticed some momentum and it boosts candidates who seemed to be shoe-ins (1).
New Hampshire and Iowa especially are very important because they are so very different. New Hampshire is the “live free or die” state and is almost libertarian while Iowa has both liberal democrats and conservative religious republicans (2). Candidates who win Iowa rarely ever win New Hampshire as well. So at least the beginning caucuses and primaries give a little variation. This year was no different. Iowa democratic race ended out to be Obama, Edwards and Clinton (3). In New Hampshire the line up was Clinton Obama Edwards (4). Republicans were even more diverse, in Iowa Huckabee won with Romney and Thompson behind (3). New Hampshire McCain came from nowhere with Romney in second again and Huckabee in third (4). There is no doubt that these candidates will show up in other state results as well.
I believe that the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary will have a smaller effect on the election than they have in past years. I believe this because there are many candidates who are likely to win. There are also many states that have moved up their primaries and caucuses in an attempt to increase the importance of their votes. Both of these factors will decrease the importance of the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primaries.
The results of the primaries gave mixed results and led to no sure winner. Barack Obama won the Iowa caucus for the Democratic party, but only by a few percentage points. Coming in very close second and third were John Edwards and Hilary Clinton. This does not give a decisive lead to any single candidate. New Hampshire gave reduced the certainty even more after Hilary won. The same uncertainty can be seen in the Republican party.
I believe that all of the other states will be equally as important as Iowa and New Hampshire. States such as Florida and North Carolina have moved up their primaries, increasing the media coverage that they will recieve, thus increasing their importance. Super Tuesday and other states wil also be very important due to the uncertain results of New Hampshire and Iowa. If these states had agreed in their primaries the later results would have been heavily influenced, but because the results were conflicting I believe that the rest of the voters will make up their own minds and will not be heavily influenced by the media coverage of the initial primaries and caucuses.
(1)http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage
(2) http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/
(1) http://www.goupstate.com/article/20080102/NEWS/801020332/1051/NEWS01
(2) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22475459
(3) http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/IA.html
(4) http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/NH.html
(5) http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=19822&cid=15&cname=Politics
sorry these are my sources
I think that Iowa and New Hampshire can either boost or drag a campaign-- not enough to throw a candidate out of the running, but enough to force some of the second tier candidates out of the race. I think that at least for the media, Obama's victory in Iowa made Clinton's victory in New Hampshire completely unexpected, which demonstrates the perceived importance of Iowa in being first in the nation.
I think that the main result of the Iowa caucus was to establish the viability of Obama and Huckabee as potential nominees for the presidential nomination of their respective parties. Huckabee in particular was not considered a top-tier candidate until after his success in Iowa (1). However, success in Iowa isn't enough to decide the race for the nomination-- Huckabee clearly lacked enough support in New Hampshire to land in the top two on the GOP side of the race, even if he did succeed in placing third in NH (2). Aspects of Huckabee's platform, such as his populist, anti-Wall Street message, have limited appeal to the fiscally conservative New Hampshire and to the rest of the nation (3). McCain's victory in New Hampshire mantained his viability as a contender for the Republican nominations
On the Democratic side of the race, Iowa brought Obama to a point where he is standing on equal ground with Clinton-- instead of having his success being constantly judged against Clinton's, he was the leading candidate in the days between Iowa and Clinton's victory in NH. Clinton is no longer the measuring stick by which success is judged, and I think that it would be unlikely that she would become that measuring stick again in the future. And I think New Hampshire insured that Clinton would continue to be a strong contender in the race for the nomination.
(1) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/12/ftn/main3159786.shtml
(2) http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#val=NH
(3) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17900390
“It’s not over until the fat lady sings”
We’ve learned over the years that the political system is constantly changing. The thing that makes the elections this year is that there is no real prediction that the American media can make in relation to our next presidential candidates. The two primary elections that are meant to define the political race and narrow down decisions and likely candidates for the parties. This year, however, the doors only seemed to have opened and more candidates are fighting for the nomination than ever.
The Iowa Caucus provided phenomenal support for Huckabee and a substantial stumble for the Clinton campaign. Many media sources speculated on this being a possible end to the campaign. However, Hillary still maintained that she was prepared for change and to take control (2). Interestingly, her much more aggressive policies in New Hampshire aided her to gain a substantial lead above Obama and Edwards (3).
But the real question is whether or not this will affect the public’s voting behavior in the election. I believe not.
One instance as an example is that there was a recent poll on facebook.com (That’s right, I’m referencing facebook), stating that 87% of those who took part in a political poll would not be changing their votes based on the outcome of the Iowa Caucuses (1). With Super-Tuesday on the way and several other state primaries in the future, it seems obvious that this race is clearly not over. Specifically, the Michigan Primary has been cited by CNN as a “make-or-break” situation for Mit Romney’s campaign. If Romney were to lost his native state, coupled with his loss in New Hampshire, it’s likely that he could be forced to leave the race completely (4). And (I hope this is legitimate), a second facebook political poll found that many individuals are still at the point of really learning what each candidate represents ideologically. While one can hope that the media will not be making people’s votes for them, everything remains a toss-up, and I’d still maintain that this political race is far from over.
1. http://www.facebook.com/politics/debate.php?id=8166228355&ref=nf
2. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iNxTApa2sQRu0Xx99P3jt2bEXw7gD8TURRUG7
3. http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20080104_clinton_regroups_in_new_hampshire/
4. http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080108/NEWS15/801080370/1008/NEWS06
5. http://www.facebook.com/politics/debate.php?id=6911217417&ref=nf
History repeated itself yesterday as another Clinton made her comeback at the New Hampshire primary and John McCain made his after 8 years (1). Now, with 48 states left to determine the presidential candidates for the two major parties, it is essential to ask what the impact of these two highly contested states will be. It is common knowledge that doing well in these two states can really increase the momentum of a campaign. Senators Biden and Dodd have already dropped out because they realize that they just don’t have to momentum to continue on at this expense. It does however, help that there are 5 after the first caucus so that both the winners and losers can take advantage of the situation (2). For Obama, he just really had to ride the momentum and keep nailing the same issues and was only 3% below the votes cast for Clinton (1). Clinton realized that she needed to do a better job being a people’s person and showing some emotion. Some analysts have gone as far as saying that her last minute speech at Portsmouth could have won her the votes (1). She also took a lot of time answering questions from the people in New Hampshire unlike Obama who relied on his stump speech. This could have been a factor in the notoriously independent state (2).
Some might argue that the results might hurt the leading candidates since people who do not like them might come to vote so that they can prevent that person getting the nomination. However, overall, the results of New Hampshire and Iowa really help the winners not only look successful and well put together in front of Americans, but also increase the amount of cash they have to spend on their campaign, which has positive correlation with the candidate’s popularity (1). Especially for such unconventional candidates, it seems that America is willing to support them seeing as such homogenous states did (2). It be especially interesting to see with Giuliani as he claims Florida will be where he makes his mark. It will be very interesting to see how this strategy works, if it does at all that late in the process.
1.http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/09/clinton_edges_obama_in_nh_mccain_topples_romney/
2.http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/09/for_obama_much_tighter_race_than_expected/
Presidential elections, perhaps one of the most captivating aspects of our political system, it is because of this many remain inquisitive to whom will be the winner… the next president of the United States of America. However, none can see the future, nor flawlessly determine who will be the winner. It is with this that we, from political analysts to normal individuals, must take the run for presidential office one step at a time, using the results from each state to try and predict the ultimate outcome. With this said, many consider the caucus in Iowa and the primary in New Hampshire to be two of the most decisive steps in the race, and these people may just be right. It is from the beginning that candidates first gain momentum, where America (including the candidates) first gets a chance to see actual results and not just sample polls or an expert’s analytical opinions. Therefore, many candidates throw their hat in the ring and believe they may win, but after these two states provide a reality check, some of these candidates might become discouraged and drop out. Even if a candidate doesn’t completely drop out of the race, they may revise their political strategy such as changing which voter demographic they want to captivate. An example of this is that of Senator and presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton. After Her loss in Iowa to Barack Obama, she decided to go keep her push for the “woman vote”, but switched from her initial demographic of the more aged to the ever elusive youth. Not only this, but before her win in New Hampshire she planned not to push for South Carolina but focus on more important states. However after the primary win, Clinton decided that campaigning efforts could be upped for the palmetto state. Regardless, one may see that Iowa and New Hampshire may hold some merit in the presidential race, but they don’t adequately represent the United States population, and therefore, should not be used to solely predict the winner of the presidential election. With this, all states matter, but perhaps the ones that are most important are the largest states… the states that will eventually provide the most support for their victor.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/
http://www.cnn.com/
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/
http://www.barackobama.com/
I think the buzz surrounding the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary has been quite exciting. After Iowa I got about 4 emails from every campaign saying how they were confident their "wave of change" or "change for America" is happening. Of course after they finish saying these things they hounded you with reasons to donate donate donate!
In New Hampshire I wasn't suprised that McCain was projected ahead of Edwards. I think that republicans in NH ideaologically line up the best with McCain. I was shocked initially that Clinton beat Obama in NH, but when I checked my email I had about 6 emails alone from the Clinton camp. I think that she must have really stepped it up to win NH.
Source:
http://www.slate.com/id/2175496/
I think the buzz surrounding the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary has been quite exciting. After Iowa I got about 4 emails from every campaign saying how they were confident their "wave of change" or "change for America" is happening. Of course after they finish saying these things they hounded you with reasons to donate donate donate!
In New Hampshire I wasn't suprised that McCain was projected ahead of Edwards. I think that republicans in NH ideaologically line up the best with McCain. I was shocked initially that Clinton beat Obama in NH, but when I checked my email I had about 6 emails alone from the Clinton camp. I think that she must have really stepped it up to win NH.
Source:
http://www.slate.com/id/2175496/
I think that the early primaries are overemphasized. We have a long way to go in this race, and anything could happen still.
I think Obama's win in Iowa surprised a lot of people, especially those who were skeptical about whether white voters would vote for a black candidate. This win likely gave him a boost by proving his ability to win a general election. Also, his ability to sway independents also proved to be valuable.
Iowa damaged Hillary a little bit, but her campaign is far from over. Winning in New Hampshire definitely helped her. Some people have speculated that seeing sexism (like Edwards' comments on her jacket) has actually increased her supporters.
For the Democrats, I think it will eventually come down to a contest between those two.
On the Republican side, I think the race is still wide-open. Huckabee won in Iowa by emphasizing his religious credentials, but that strategy will not work in a state with fewer evangelicals (as seen in New Hampshire) and it would push independents away from him in a general election. McCain made a comeback in New Hampshire, but that's a state he's historically been strong in (he won the primary there in 2000). To win, the Republicans need to unite their party as well as sway independents, and I have my doubts about whether any of the candidates can do that.
Giuliani's strategy is risky, and I don't see it working out very well for him. People in states with later primaries and caucuses might have the perception that he doesn't have a chance to win, so they won't bother voting for him.
And, as much as some people in our class would like it, I don't see Ron Paul getting the nomination. :-)
startribune.com
~This is Kendra
I think that the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary definitely have an impact. Because of the level of media attention devoted to these two events, people take notice. Once candidates such as McCain, Huckabee, Obama and Clinton get their gears going, people tend to hop on the bandwagon. While the results were different in New Hampshire and Iowa, they show what kind of numbers people are putting out. New Hampshire women gave 46% of their vote to Hillary, while only 34% was given to Obama (Boston Globe), while in Iowa Obama beat Hillary 35% to 30% (Rolling Stone). The pollsters completely blew it in New Hampshire, giving the vote to Obama when in fact Hillary beat him out substantially. I think that since these numbers are conflicting, it’s not easy to say that one or the other will take the race for sure, but I think that the candidates have really been narrowed down since the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary. I think that other states will play a role, but I don’t think they will play a greater one. I mean it’s true that the candidates are doing their campaigning and advertising in other states (like Rudy Giuliani in Florida), but since candidates like Obama and Clinton have such momentum going, I think that it will be difficult to overtake that kind of momentum. The race will be seemingly decided within a month, but who knows what will happen between now and then.
http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index.php/2008/01/04/iowa-by-the-numbers/
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/10/what_nh_taught_us/
I think the power of these states is relevant, but a little bit overrated. People in the past have not won either state but were still able to secure their party’s nomination in the end. Likewise, people have come out of nowhere to win the Iowa or New Hampshire primaries, only to ride their newfound momentum to a loss. In 1980 for example, George H.W. Bush surprised Ronald Reagan with a victory in the Iowa caucus. Reagan won the nomination and the presidency. In 1992 Tom Harkin won a whopping 76% of Iowa, and Bill Clinton was only able to secure 3% of the vote. One of those 2 ended up being president. It wasn’t Harkin. Since 1972, no non-incumbent candidate has won the Iowa caucus, and went on to win the general election besides George W. Bush in 2000.
New Hampshire, on the other hand, seems to have more power than Iowa. Especially on the Republican side of things, the candidate elected in New Hampshire seems to go on to win the nomination pretty often, and since Republicans recently have dominated the presidency, those Republican nominees often go on to become president. Since 1952 the list of non-incumbent Republicans who have won in New Hampshire and won the nomination includes Eisenhower in ’52 (also became president), Nixon in ’60 and ’68 (became president in ’68), Reagan in ’80 (became president), and Bush in ’88 (who became president). Non-incumbents who in the nomination and New Hampshire primary include Kennedy in ’60 (became president), Jimmy Carter in ’76 (became president), Michael Dukakis in ’88, Al Gore in 2000, and John Kerry in 2004. It has been said by some that Clinton’s strong showing in New Hampshire in 1992 gave him the momentum he needed to win the nomination. I say that’s ridiculous. Nobody gets momentum from losing. My theory (no sources necessary on this one, just my brain) is that Clinton’s 2nd place finish gave him more face time. Because Clinton is such a strong, persuasive public speaker he used that face time to his advantage and willed voters away from Senators Tom Harkin and Paul Tsongas (the Iowa and New Hampshire victors).
Although winning Iowa does not mean much, I still believe you need to have at least some support in these 2 states to win. For example, in 2008 I think Giuliani’s biggest mistake is his failure to campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire as strongly as he did for the big states and the Super Tuesday states. To be completely honest I have no idea how Clinton was nominated in ’92 after an abysmal performance in the Iowa caucus, but he proved it is possible to come back from getting nearly nothing in the early states and being able to win. However, I don’t believe this is the correct strategy, especially for a guy like Giuliani. For a time early on Giuliani seemed like one of the 2 or 3 main frontrunners. However, because of his Ron Paul-esque numbers in the Iowa and New Hampshire caucuses he will have to make a dramatic comeback. I don’t feel he has the same power that Clinton has when he speaks, and I don’t think he is as strong a candidate. I feel the best strategy to win is to campaign well in Iowa and New Hampshire, but don’t forget other relevant states as well. Based on the results of Iowa and New Hampshire my predictions for the presidential candidates are John McCain for the Republicans, and Hilary Clinton for the Democrats. And Ron Paul for the Libertarians.
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=news08
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/
Post a Comment