Why are states like Massachusetts and Iowa important in the presidential elections?

Answer 1

It could have to do with their diverse populations.

I live in MA. We have very rich (conservatives and republicans) and very poor. The middle class are becoming poorer. We are a well-educated bunch. We have lots of universities and colleges. Our school systems are very good.
We typically vote Democrat but it could easily go either way as democrats and republicans have been elected. There is strong participation in elections. Politics is a hot topic.
This is just what I think. I think a candidate that wins this state could give a view as to how the rest of the country will vote overall because of our very diverse population and how strong politics is here. People in small communities are very involved in government. I think you have very strong liberal democrats and very strong conservate Republicans. I do believe that people are very thoughtful here. I don't think the majority favors one party over the other. I think it depends more on the candidate and what that person stands for.

I bet the same could be said for IA. I have visited there and was quite impressed with the people I met. I read in the newspaper there or online about the population being well educated. Like in a state like Alabama, I think it seems fair that it's most likely going to be a Republican candidate to come out. It's not as diverse of a population. They don't have a huge population. It's a beautiful state. I went to college there and loved it. They don't have as many resources. It's a poorer state.

I could be way off base here. I don't know. It's just what my opinion based on what I know.

Answer 2

Massachusetts is not all that important in the general election. It is reliably Democratic and has been for decades. Even if Kerry hadn't been the nominee in 2004, there would have been very little campaigning in Boston.

Iowa, on the other hand, is a swing state. It was decided by under 2 percent in 2000 and 2004. It should be competitive in 2008 as well.

Iowa is important during the primaries because it has the first contest in the country -- Jan 3, 2008.

Answer 3

frequently the states that are on the element of fifty/50 on the votes are the states that are pronounced as being significant. particularly a number of the states have greater electoral votes than Iowa, however the analysts already have a tremendously sturdy theory of which candidate will obtain those votes. so as that they say Iowa (or any state wherein they are in a position to't confirm the vote casting result for) is important on account that's an not sure state. In an extensive presidential race, the candidate who wins the main electoral votes from the not sure states may be the eventual winner and our next President of america.

Answer 4

I don't have any reason for believing that either Masachusetts or Iowa important to a general election. And Massachusetts is not important even to the primary season.

Iowa is important in the process of nominating because it has been going first -- with its caucuses -- for many decades. And it has been traditional that candidates who do very poorly in the Iowa caucuses will drop out shortly after, sometimes even before the New Hampshire primary.

Answer 5

The reason these two starts are important is because of the electoral college system. Massachusetts holds 12 votes and Iowa holds 7. Some president candidates will try to gain as many as possible the smaller states since they "add up". They will try to also gain some larger states also such as California, Texas, and New York.

Answer 6

because we are cattle... and because politics is about money and money goes to those the people with money thinks will win.

If you are the winner in NH and Iowa then people with money who want to buy influence will give you 'more' money than if you lose in the first few primaries, without money your campaign stops. You can't fly around the country without money.Yes, we have sold our country to the highest bidder.

As for cattle, Americans like to vote for a winner. "Why throw away your vote on someone who can't win?" I have heard that all my life. If people voted there heart, for what they believe in, we would have a very different system but because it is better to vote for the "Lesser of two evils", Dems will vote for Clinton and Republicans will vote for Rudy. Even though neither group thinks they are the best person for the job.

Personally, I vote my heart... And if it means that the greater of the two evils win, then maybe we will learn from that mistake.

Ron Paul 2008 (or bust)... and by bust I mean a socialist like Clinton.

FYI, I think you mean New Hampshire not Mass.

Answer 7

I live in Oklahoma so I can't remark about either of the first 2 posters! There is not much I can say.

It seems to me that back when candidates actually went around a listened to the voters, Iowa and New Hampshire (I think that may be the state you mean) were very important for weeding out the weak candidates. One is a mid-west state in the late winter with a bunch of open land and one is a rural eastern state with a motto of "live free or die." The weaker candidates probably froze to death and were feed to the hogs, used to fertilize corn, or left to wander aimlessly in the woods if the folks didn't like them and refused to let them in their home!

Answer 8

The reason Iowa is important is because it is generally the first state to hold a primary. Becuase of marketing, the winner of Iowa will normally (but not always) win the party nomination. Hey, everybody likes to vote for a winner!

Answer 9

I know that Massachusetts can't be important to Mitt Romney cause the people in that state said they are not voting for him or at least not as their favorite.

Answer 10

For Iowa it's obvious. We are the smartest citizens in the country and darnit, we should be important. I live in Rhode Island now, and I can tell you the Massachusetts people are wierdos and they can't drive.