Why do the primaries start in Iowa? [and other primary questions....]

[andyandy]

Seeing as there is a brand spanking new sub forum section, a question or two.....

(1) why do the primaries start in Iowa/New Hampshire ? Surely these are not especially representative states, and allow a disproportionate amount of influence to the citizens of them....whereas if you live in a state somewhere down the primary line, then you're likely to be an irrelevance by the time you have your say....who chooses the dates of the primaries? The states themselves, or the parties?

Also,

(2) do you think the primary system is a good one for choosing the presidential candidate?

(3) who is looking likely for the republican nomination?

(4) what influence would an independent Blomberg candidacy have on the actual presidential election?

 

[Puppycow]

1) Bill Richardson explained it thusly:

"Iowa, for good reason, for constitutional reasons, for reasons related to the Lord, should be the first caucus and primary."

Why do Iowa and New Hampshire go first? I guess they like the extra attention and influence. I think in the past nobody cared as much. For one thing, I believe that it used to be that the party bosses decided the nominee in a "smoke-filled room." So the primaries didn't matter as much. I believe there used to be occasions when a candidate won every or most primaries but didn't get the nomination because the party bosses favored someone else. Today, that would be unthinkable, but that's how it used to happen (or so I've heard tell).

So probably by being the first states to perceive an advantage in going first, these states staked out a position by scheduling their primaries before anyone else. New Hampshire even has a state law that requires its Secretary of State to schedule its primary before any other state that has a primary (Iowa has a "caucus"). In turn politicians like Richardson pander to the states' voters by telling them that this is how God and The Constitution ordained it.

2) Well, I think it could be improved maybe, but it's acceptable.

3) Giuliani looks most likely to me. A year or so ago I was sure it would be McCain, but it looks like his star has faded. I still have more respect for him than any other Republican however.

4) It's a little hard to predict, but I don't expect a Bloomberg candidacy. Some polls I've seen on a 3-way race between Hillary, Giuliani and Bloomberg showed Hillary winning, but that could change. One thing I've noticed about the polls is that they are fickle. You never know when someone will fall out of favor. In 2004 Howard Dean was looking strong leading up to Iowa, but rapidly faded, and then his yelling gaffe finished him.

Site for polls:
http://pollingreport.com/
Site for betting odds:
http://specials.slate.com/futures/2008/

ETA: Rechecked the polls. It looks like Bloomberg would probably help the Democratic candidate, but it's probably too early to take those polls too seriously. Polls are fickle.

 

[andyandy]

So probably by being the first states to perceive an advantage in going first, these states staked out a position by scheduling their primaries before anyone else. New Hampshire even has a state law that requires its Secretary of State to schedule its primary before any other state that has a primary (Iowa has a "caucus"). In turn politicians like Richardson pander to the states' voters by telling them that this is how God and The Constitution ordained it.

is the reason that the primaries are so early this year because all the other states are trying to increase the their own influence by holding early primaries? Could they be shifted back any further in future, or is there a "same-year" cut off....?

4) It's a little hard to predict, but I don't expect a Bloomberg candidacy. Some polls I've seen on a 3-way race between Hillary, Giuliani and Bloomberg showed Hillary winning, but that could change. One thing I've noticed about the polls is that they are fickle. You never know when someone will fall out of favor. In 2004 Howard Dean was looking strong leading up to Iowa, but rapidly faded, and then his yelling gaffe finished him.

Running as an independent, how much money would you need to have a decent campaign? Without a party aparatus behind you, i'm guessing you'd be wanting a personal fortune in the hundreds of millions to make significant waves......[/QUOTE]

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

New Hampshire set their primary by law to be a week before everyone else's . Iowa's caucus was placed first by in '72, and has traditionally gone first since, because the organizers liked the big impact it had.

The primary system is the best one we've come up with. Before that it was decided by the party bosses at party conventions (Though the progressives got a few States to use primaries), which led to Humphrey. He was pro-war and avoided primaries because he would lose in them. This led to the riots in Chicago at the Democratic convention. Humphrey then lost. Now nearly everyone uses primaries.

With the Republicans, and often with the Democrats, whoever has the most money the earliest wins the primaries. There have been few exceptions. Right now it looks like Romney can get the most, because he can send his own millions into his campaign.

If Bloomberg got in as a Presidential or VP candidate, it could be big. He has billions of dollars. He could easily outspend everyone else put together.

 

[Puppycow]

No, there isn't a same-year cutoff, but so far nobody has gone to the preceding year.

Ross Perot was also a billionaire, and he won 19% of the vote. It that case it seems to have helped the democratic candidate, Clinton, more.

I still am sure that but for Nader's candidacy in 2000, Gore would be president. By now he probably would have ended global warming, achieved world peace and invented a cure for Aids (he's a Nobel prizewinner and inventer of the internets after all).

 

[Brainster]

New Hampshire has traditionally been first in the nation with the primaries. Iowa's caucus gig (not remotely the same thing as a primary) was considered just an oddity until 1976 when Jimmy Carter used it as a springboard to the Democratic nomination.

Neither of them have been particularly good at picking eventual nominees when there was no incumbent president running. Iowans picked Ed Muskie in 1972, Poppy Bush in 1980, Dick Gephardt and Bob Dole in 1988, and Tom Harkin in 1992, none of whom became the eventual nominee that year. New Hampshire over the same period has picked non-nominees Muskie in 1972, Gary Hart in 1984, Paul Tsongas in 1992, Pat Buchanan in 1996 and John McCain in 2000.

 

[dudalb]

New Hampshire has been the traditional first primary state since the 1920's.
The rise of the Iowa Caucuses is fairly new,you never heard of them until the 1980's.
Now we will stop for a Chorus of "You Ought To Give Iowa A Try" from "the Music Man".

 

[IMST]

I still am sure that but for Nader's candidacy in 2000, Gore would be president. By now he probably would have ended global warming, achieved world peace and invented a cure for Aids (he's a Nobel prizewinner and inventer of the internets after all).

Meh. Nader was too big an effect to point out in the "official" Florida numbers. The Trotskist Workers World Party had enough votes to swing that state.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Um, guys, are you not missing the obvious?

Iowa.

Corn.

Corndogs.

See what's going on here? The Corn Gods have a stake in this.

DR

(Ref to the ET Corn Gods series of posts, for those who don't forum jump much. A few of the Turing avatar team will get the ref. )