Please explain something about your electoral process to me!

[glarius]

I'm very interested, as a Canadian in the outcome of your election....ANYBODY but Bush!...I understand that you have these caucuses and primaries where there are delegates to be won by the presidential candidates.....Here's my problem....I keep hearing pundits and others on TV saying things like..."he has to win or make a good showing in New Hampshire or he's dead in the water.".....WHY?....There are 48 more states....some, like New York and California with huge populations....Wouldn't they have MORE delegates than New Hampshire or Iowa?....Am I being dumb and missing something here?....I really don't understand this urgency about New Hampshire.....Explain please.....:loveya:

[displacedtexan]

1. Candidates run out of money

If you don't do well, the big donors won't fund the rest of your campaign in those other states.
You have to spend millions in the first few races, hoping that success will bring in bigger and better donations.

[glarius]

2. In that case why don't they save their money for the big states where

they will get more delegates?....

[PVnRT]

3. Because of the media

The media in this country has decided that they want to call the winner as soon as possible, so any bad showing in a state early on is going to guarentee a bunch of wags saying how that candidate is basically finished, blah blah blah...and, sooner or later, the prophecy fulfills itself.

[welshTerrier2]

7. it really is all about money

commercial time on tv and radio is far more expensive in the "big" states ... the early primaries are all about retail politics ... people in Iowa and NH are accustomed to really getting to know the candidates ... many voters meet them numerous times and hear them speak numerous times during the campaign ...

while it's not impossible to focus on some of the later primaries, it would be very difficult to do ... all the democratic candidates have greatly improved their messages by actively participating in Iowa and NH ... skipping these states would be like having a football team only practicing with itself ... you need to be in the ring with the big boys if you want to be competitive ...

front-runners tend to command most of the media attention ... it's time in front of the public that would cost way too much to buy ... and money has a habit of finding the front-runners ... a late entry would almost always be fatal ...

[liberalhistorian]

10. The problem is the way the primaries

are scheduled. If a candidate doesn't do too well in the first several primaries, he's pretty much written off and usually drops out. That way, by the time you get about halfway through the primaries, the choice has pretty much already been made.

[HereSince1628]

5. Sadly, America is truly capitalistic, we obtain votes with money

Not necessarily buying them directly (although that is popular), but by buying media.

IMHO a significant part of the media raking Dean was an attempt to create the need for him to BUY more advertising to overcome the negative image created by the media...if that seems circular I succeeded.

In ALL things American, follow the first law of good reporting...follow the money.

[slackmaster]

4. It's part of our cherished mythology

"As goes New Hampshire so goes the nation" reads an old saying that is not historically 100% accurate.

Every state has its own way of choosing its partys' nominees for President. The New Hampshire primary election is considered important because it's the first event that resembles a standard election. The Iowa caucuses are very different.

It's lots of fun here in California. Voters who are not affiliated with a party, a.k.a. independents or "declined to state" or DTS in official parlance, can vote in the primary of any party they choose. More than 15% of California voters are now DTS, and it's the fastest-growing segment of the electorate. DTS voters could really mess up the intentions of a party's regulars if they put their minds to it.

[glarius]

9. It sounds as if the much ballyhooed McCain Feingold bill is pretty

useless....I remember when that was constantly in the news.

[slackmaster]

11. Yes, the only guarantee with M/F was that people would find loopholes

The money always finds a way.

[THUNDER HANDS]

6. because getting a nominee as soon as possible is vital

To bringing the party together, healing wounds and getting behind a candidate to take down the Republicans.

That's why everything was moved up this year, to give us more time to fight Bush one-on-one.

[HazMat]

8. Early on it's not about delegates

The early primaries/caucuses are more about showing the party and the country that the candidate can win. When a candidate wins Iowa and/or New Hampshire, they receive very positive media coverage, they appear to be 'stronger' and 'a winner'. This makes the candidate's poll numbers go up. It makes it easier for him/her to raise money. All of this translates into easy wins in the later primaries. Basically, it's a domino effect.

[flaminbats]

12. it's all about gaining the BIG MO......

Without that you can't win in other primaries.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/8088/Dem1976.html
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/8088/Dem1984.html
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/8088/Dem1988.html

In 1976, winning in New Hampshire and in Iowa allowed Carter to go from an unknown longshot to the frontrunner. Florida allowed him to defeat Wallace in most of the southern primaries. In 1984, one contest in which Mondale barely got the majority of delegates needed to be nominated, Mondale won Iowa..but Hart came in second. The rocketed Hart to victory in New Hampshire, and nearly enabled him to take the nomination. Ironically it was the southern primaries that saved Mondale from losing. And in 1988, Dukakis won New Hampshire and later in most of the primaries outside the south. The south was the one place Dukakis never took the lead, Jesse won most of the minorities and Gore won most of these white primary voters. But outside of the south, Dukakis couldn't be stopped!

[Monument]

13. Primaries 101

The primaries allow the candidates to introduce themselves to the public. There is only one caucus, and each state has a primary.

The USA is a huge country, and asking a candidate to run a nationwide campaign is unrealistic and would ensure that the biggest wallet was elected - or it would basically be a popularity contest based on name recognition.

As a result, they do it state-by-state. The nice thing is that the people who live in the early states actually get to MEET the candidates in their homes, coffee shops, high schools, etc. Nearly every single person involved in the Iowa caucuses has PERSONALLY MET the candidates. Pretty cool.

As everyone is aware, both MONEY and VOTES follow politics. So, if somebody emerges as the clear winner from New Hampshire, Democrats across the country will give him/her a second look. This is a snowball effect which causes the money to flow towards the winners. Nobody wants to give their hard earned money to a sure loser.

I know that it's a national sport in Canada to be against everything American, but the primaries - while not perfect - is a pretty good way to select a candidate while giving EVERYONE a chance to elect the party representative.