If you've watched the news shows this weekend, basically what they all say is that Hillary Clinton, despite her 20 plus point national lead over Obama (and even more over Edwards) is still in trouble. Why? Because in the early states: Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, they're running about even. But what I don't understand is why no one seems to talk about the 3 other early states: Nevada, Michigan and Florida. It just so happens that Clinton is way ahead in these 3 states. Do you think that the news shows fail to mention this because they want to make a contest out of it in order to have more of an exciting story? Or is Clinton truly vulnerable, even though she's leading by wide margins in almost every state other than the 3 aforementioned ones plus Illinois?
2007-12-23 12:31:00 · 5 answers · asked by Stephen L 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Yes, she is leading from a national perspective, but her negatives (those that will not vote for her if she was the only candidate) ensure that she cannot win the general election. Because of this any faltering on her campaign can quickly snowball into losing in all primaries.
2007-12-23 12:44:30 · answer #1 · answered by Randy 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For years the primary structure has been Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, that's how people think of it, that's how the media covers it. Early wins in those states can give a candidate momentum, often an underdog the momentum to knock off a national frontrunner. Iowa and New Hampshire are first this year, where Clinton is in a three way tie in Iowa and a two way tie in New Hampshire, but as you said, Nevada and Michigan both fall before South Carolina, so they could play a larger role possibly. But if Clinton loses either one of these states to Obama or to Edwards then it will hurt her momentum going into Nevada and Michigan. The Florida Primary isn't until Jan. 29th, by then IA, NH, NV, MI, and SC will be over, so if Clinton hasn't been doing well it will reflect in Florida. And as far as I know Illinois is on Super Tuesday, and Obama would theoretically be leading there since its his home state.
2007-12-23 20:38:38 · answer #2 · answered by Political Analyst 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Many analysts would say that if Obabma or Edwards wins in Iowa, that might influence the outcome in New Hampshire and South Carolina causing Hilary Clinton to seem vulnerable. This, in turn, could focus attention on Obama (if he is the winner) and possible influence voters in the next three states reconsider whether Clinton is electable. It should be added that many people who vote in primaries--a small % of actual voters--take an active interest in politics and may want to vote for someone who has a good chance of winning.
2007-12-23 20:41:49 · answer #3 · answered by Ace Librarian 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You don't seem to understand how are primary system works. If and when Hillary Cinton loses Iowa, New Hampshire and/or South Carolina her leads in the other states that you city will vanish like farts in the wind.
2007-12-24 10:58:25 · answer #4 · answered by David S 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, I live in Iowa and I can tell you that Hillary isn't going to win here. Obama seems to be at the top, but Iowans make up their minds when they get to the polls. So theoretically Edwards could come out as the front runner.
2007-12-23 21:07:32 · answer #5 · answered by Big Bear 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋