I mean, I just picture Iowa being so sparsly populated, with farms and little hick towns. It seems like Calif or NY would be where the most voters would reside.
Don't make fun...I'm just learning, and trying to learn about politics..
2007-09-27 11:31:09 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Because as Iowa goes, so goes Iowa.
Last time around they had up to 10 times as many people voting as were registered in some precincts. And it decided the election.
2007-09-27 11:35:06 · answer #1 · answered by ? 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
The answer is really kind of sad. Iowa and New Hampshire hold the first primaries. So whoever does well in these small, unrepresentative states is considered to be the front runner. Since most people cannot really think for themselves and/or don't really care much about the candidates but want to pick the winner, subsequent votes in other states are heavily influenced by the outcomes of the early primaries. I think in 2004, I wasn't even aware that John Kerry was running for President until after he won the Iowa caucus. He was way back in the pack of candidates, barely on the national radar. But that one win put him in the spotlight and the media started saying that this was the guy who could beat Bush and etc etc etc so on and so forth, he gets the nomination. After the first 10 primaries or so, the race is essentially over. It would probably be better if all the states agreed to have a national primary day or at least to keep the information secret until all primaries had been conducted....
2007-09-27 19:10:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Iowa is extremely important in the election process because it holds the first state to hold their political caucus which allows Democratic candidates to know how competitive and if they, realistically, have a chance for the presidential election.
Also, Iowa is much more of a "swing" state and could possibly go Democratic or Republican than California and New York, which have been traditionally Democratic for many decades. So even though those two states hold a significant percentage of the electoral votes, few Republican Presidential candidates actually do any significant campaigning in those states. Although Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Republican Governor, he is more moderate than most Republicans and California has historically voted for a Democratic presidential candidate even with a Republican Governor (such as Ronald Reagan).
Furthermore, California's primaries and caucuses are some of the last in the nation (even though they have been moved ahead several months to keep pace with the ever-speedier presidential race). And, even while California is the most populous state, it has some of the lowest voting percentages in the nation due to lack of interest in politics (which applies to most of the nation as well) and simply a lack of desire to uphold their desire as most Californians assume (and correctly) that California's electoral vote will go for the Democrat.
So there are several reasons why a small(er) state such as Iowa has more significance (at least for Presidential campaigns), than large states such as California/NY. (by the way, I'm from CA, which will explain why most of my answer focuses on CA)
2007-09-28 01:26:11 · answer #3 · answered by William C 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Think you need to take a drive thru Iowa. While parts of it are primarily farm country, it's not as hick as you might think. Also Iowa (& New Hampshire) are crucially important because they are the earliest elections/caucauses. A candidate who can't make a decent showing in 1 or both of these states should just quickly quit the race because he will only fall further behind.
To the answerer who made the comment about the state senator: Ernie Chambers is a state senator from Omaha Neb not Iowa. His recent suit against God is just one of many hijinx that has most Nebraskans planning a party for when he leaves office due to term limits.
2007-09-27 18:49:11 · answer #4 · answered by anna s 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because their primary is early. The candidates that do the best in the early primaries have a momentum that translates into more money being raised.
After that Iowa is not as important Iowa only has 7 electoral votes compared to 55 for California
2007-09-27 18:38:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
If you're going to talk about Iowa, why not bring up New Hampshire?
Iowa has a high percentage of Democrats who actually vote, and New Hampshire has a high percentage of Republicans who actually vote. That's why the Iowa Caucus is a good way to judge who the nominee for the Democrats will be and the New Hampshire Primary is a good way to judge who the Republican nominee will be.
2007-09-27 18:48:42 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Iowa is important because they vote first. California and New York are stupid because they don't. It doesn't matter how many voters you have, if you don't vote until after the candidate is decided.
2007-09-27 18:35:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Iowa traditionally holds their caucuses first, before any primaries. Candidates want to get off to a good start, so they make a big effort.
2007-09-27 18:36:38 · answer #8 · answered by regerugged 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
One of Iowa's State Senators, Ernie Chambers is a black guy. He also recently sued god, seriously
2007-09-27 18:38:24 · answer #9 · answered by ST 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
one of the most diverse states and the heart beat of the country right ?
2007-09-27 18:35:51 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋