Why does Iowa and New Hamshire determine who the canadates will be next yr.?

Answer 1

These two states offer the first test of presidential candidates but it would be presumptive to state they "determine who the candidates will be". As to WHY they offer the first opportunity for candidates to test their strength with an electorate, read on:

It goes way back to a time when gasoline was .25/gal & the Vietnam war was raging. In fact, you can blame the NY Times for elevating the importance of the Iowa caucuses.

The Iowa caucuses have been happening for 100+ yrs. However they became nationally significant in the 1970s. The modern-day caucus grew out of political infighting in the Iowa Democratic party in 1968, when the party was sharply divided by Vietnam War issues. Intense activism rallied supporters of Eugene McCarthy & Robt Kennedy at the sparsely-attended spring caucuses that year. Party regulars didn't welcome these new voters and retained control of the state convention.
When angry activists demanded a fairer delegate selection process, the party opened up the process to more people. This resulted in a caucus system at the grassroots level, limiting the impact of party bosses. The caucus date was moved to January to allow time for discussion of platform issues. Delegate selection was (and still is) figured by an intricate formula.
And, in a deal struck with NH, Iowa took its role as the first-in-the-nation political contest.
In 1972, George McGovern's campaign manager (Gary Hart) noticed the changes and maneuvered to gain national exposure for his candidate. The NY Times published a story about the McGovern campaign strategy and other media took notice, putting the Iowa caucuses in the national spotlight.
In 1976, the Iowa caucuses solidified their role as the first "test" on the road to the White House when Jimmy Carter's strong showing launched him from virtual unknown to front-runner (and eventually to the White House).
That same year, Iowa Republicans held caucuses on the same night as the Democrats, mostly to capture media attention. Gerald Ford's narrow straw poll victory over Reagan was seen as an early sign of weakness. Carter defeated Ford in the 76 election.

Source(s):
"The Iowan" Sept/Oct, 2007, p.7

Answer 2

By the time Iowa and New Hampshire are done, those that can't afford to go to the end drop out,alot more untruths are discovered and the rest of the U.S.can still put their money where their mouth is!Nothing is stopping any citizens from campaigning for their choice even before they get to your state.

Answer 3

In and of themselves they do not.

However, they are the first contests of the primaries, and so set the tone.

Many candidates use these results, rightly or not, as a guage for how they expect to do later on. Many others, know they have no chance, but stay in through these in order to show some level of support for their ideas in hopes of influencing the agenda or platform, or even to show enough support that they might be able to influence the outcome with a judicious endorsement.

Answer 4

Think of it this way.

The candidates each have their resumes: voting records, executive decisions, etc. They've made public statements and answered questions in debates. But how much does that tell us about who they are as people?

Iowa and New Hampshire are small enough that presidential candidates can basically meet just about every registered member of their party face to face, assuming they start early enough. Those caucus goers and primary voters can give them the "job interview" part of running for president.

As for whether they deserve this power, that's a question for the ages. But they're up to the task, I feel. I'm not going to be completely influenced by what happens in those states, but I feel it's still important that they do it.

Answer 5

good for them (Iowa). it would make it less demanding for California to overturn prop 8. Lebron, prostitution is felony in a minimum of a few counties of Nevada and it is taken under consideration one of those low priority for enforcement in maximum different precincts it is largely felony - now possibly your concern is with the act of prostitution yet this is actual between you and the prostitute, isn't it? i think of it is an identical ingredient - victimless crimes all around and you there asserting it is all incorrect, no longer in simple terms for you yet for each man or woman else. Edit: Papa smurf, it is extra like Ford asserting "we've an indicator on a million/2 ton pickup besides". The physique of regulation has used the words "marriage" and "married" for see you later it is perplexing to declare that they might desire to hew to 3 classic non secular definition. the two all governments would desire to yield the term to the church homes (something the church homes are not even asking) or they might desire to declare that they have got thoroughly secular meanings right this moment and that includes gay marriage.

Answer 6

Well, because people and the media let them. The same goes for polls 10 months before any election takes place. The Main Stream Media tells the idiots who's winning, and the idiots go vote for a "winner", on either side. Ask the average person which party they belong to, then ask who they are voting for. Or be a pollster and ask people that you have asked before who they are going to vote for this time around and keep calling the same 400 people, like the MSM does for their "accurate" results.

Answer 7

This is a great question because I wonder the same thing. I think it's unfair that these states play such a huge role in the process while the rest of us are excluded.

Answer 8

They don't determine. However, because of the long tradition, the constituencies of those two states tend to be highly active, interested, and involved, not to mention literate, and can help sift out the field.

Answer 9

they don't really.. if you actually look, someone else usually wins the early primaries which gets everyone out to vote and then the favorite will usually pull out ahead..

Answer 10

as far as i'm concerned this fact (that you have stated) is just the tip of the iceberg of how preposterous our election process has become.

it seems that the ruling parties will do anything to avoid actually having to answer to the majority of the people's wishes...