NationStates Jolt Archive

Last week, actually for the last month, we have heard a lot of hoopla about Iowa and NH. My question is why all the hoopla, what significance do either of them have except to give the media something to blab about? Sure Clinton came in second by a very small margin of a very small number of Iowans who do not represent the rest of the country.

Now it's on to New Hampshire where a relatively small number of voters who do not represent the rest of the country will cast their ballots. Clinton is expected to win by a very slim margin. Yet, looking at the national polls average http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_primaries.html
Clinton has a 20 point lead over Obama.

Things aren't much different on the other side of the house where Huckabee finished first and Giuliani finished behind Ron Paul. But looking at the national poll average Giuliani has a slim lead over McCain http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/republican_primaries.html who finished third in Iowa.

So, why did some of the candidates spend millions of $$$ in Iowa and NH when those votes are insignificant?

As I understand it, they're only significant in that they're first, and that winning them will make one appear like one could win the actual election, which I believe is actually something some voters care about.

they're the first rounds of voting, and the better you do the more time "news" channels will talk about you....



IMO

Doing well at the start makes you look like a viable candidate, I suppose.

They have significance?