I'm trying to be creative while explaining why individual states want to hold the earliest primaries and caucuses (caucii?).
But I think I sound drunk. Tell me if I do:
New Hampshire residents are more likely to vote for candidates that represent their needs. Theoretically, candidates that fail to do so are likely to drop out. This gives New Hampshire an advantage, because only the candidates that support New Hampshire’s needs are available for the rest of the states to nominate. This is a survival of the fittest. For the sake of comparison, in the snowy Himalayas, furry tigers may be more likely to survive than balder tigers. If the bald tigers no longer exist (because the environment “voted” for the furry tigers’, leaving the bald tigers to die or “drop out of the race”), only the furry tigers can roam to other parts of the world. Eventually, the sole survivor, or the “winner”, will have to be a furry tiger, which the Himalayas voted for in the first place.
2007-11-26 14:19:27 · 11 answers · asked by . 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It is a bit confusing. You might break it up into a couple of paragraphs.
You premise is 90 % sound, but there is something to be said about whether New Hampshire is really all that important being first. Try looking at it as the media is making all the hoopla about New Hampshire.
There have been cantidates that have lost there, and still made it to the White House. Trust me, there was one that I wish the voters had continued to turn down !
2007-11-26 14:26:49 · answer #1 · answered by commanderbuck383 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You are spot on in the first half but I think the evolution analogy is inconsistent with you real argument.
States want to be early in the primaries indeed because they create more influnce there. Not only will candidates drop out if unsuccessful in the early primaries, but also candidates that do well there will attract support and money for the later primaries.
Forget the analogy in nature - it is trite and the one you gave inaccurate. Just say what you mean and back it up with rational thought and ideally some historical examples (find a pre-primary front runner who lost in New Hampshire and then continued to slide - I think you'll find Howard Dean is a good example).
2007-11-26 22:38:58 · answer #2 · answered by Sageandscholar 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
New Hampshire prefers to be the first primary partially because it is a smaller state, and this gives it a large role in national elections. Their impact is greater than the amount of the electoral votes they will eventually get in general election. They also have the power to influence the residents of states with later primaries.
2007-11-26 22:33:54 · answer #3 · answered by cacub2005 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The wole tiger comparison sounds more like a bid on evolutionary theory than a political analogy.... I have no idea what the specs on the paper are, but I don't think the tiger thing works so well.
2007-11-26 22:25:07 · answer #4 · answered by Kevin M 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
the beginning was good but I'm too sure about the comparison with the tiger. it's a good comparison but you shifted to focus from your main topic to tigers.
2007-11-26 22:24:56 · answer #5 · answered by Maria 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
They try to pick the next president by giving their favorite a bost!
I don't see your point or annalogee
2007-11-26 22:23:24 · answer #6 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I think that's a good comparison. I like it !
2007-11-26 22:29:09 · answer #7 · answered by old-bald-one 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
i think it sounds fine just change the words a little bit so that its a little easier to understand. other than that, its good =]
2007-11-26 22:23:56 · answer #8 · answered by Elle.(LovesJb's) 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Wow, your essay is completely off topic. I wouldn't submit it.
2007-11-27 02:41:52 · answer #9 · answered by Theoden 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
It's not that complicated. It's nothing more than a "pissing contest" for bragging rights.
2007-11-26 22:33:53 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋