I’m going to predict the pattern won’t hold for the Republicans this year. Trump is likely to win the NH primary tonight. I think Rubio is still set to win the nomination, with the 3/15 contests in Florida, Ohio, and Illinois likely making the difference. A Florida victory, since it’s winner take all, will be a large difference maker. I think Ohio is winner take all as well, and that state probably favors the establishment candidate as well.
The problem with Iowa and New Hampshire is a lack of minorities voters. Few Hispanics and few blacks. Hispanics probably didn’t play a big factor in the 1970s and 1980s like they do today. And then there’s Trump this time around for the GOP.
Are there any small states ideal for retail campaigning with high percentages of minorities? Delaware perhaps? Delaware actually overrepresents black voters, but Latinos are about the national percentage there and whites are about 65%.
Perhaps party officials should move to get Delaware into the mix?
I don’t know why it needs to be a small state. Small states already have grossly disproportionate representation in the Senate, why must they also get to have extraordinary influence in selecting the president?
The lack of minorities in the first two states is a big problem on the Dem side, IMHO. Can’t see that it makes much difference on the GOP side these days, though.
I’d love to see the Dems decide that a small but heavily urban state like Delaware or Rhode Island should lead things off.
Nevada might do it. High latino population but small enough overall population to still make retail politicking necessary.
Because in a people’s government, the candidates should have to interact directly, and at length, with real people. Iowa and NH tend to reward candidates that do that well, rather than the guys who just get the massive rallies or have the best campaign ads. I like to know that the people I am choosing from in the general sat down in donut shops and talked with average citizens and those average citizens liked what they saw.
How can you put forward the predictive power of the Iowa and NH primaries without acknowledging the self fulfilling prophecy side of it? The winners get loads of free publicity, are already perceived to be “winners” and no one wants to vote for a loser for fear of “wasting their vote”.
I contend that any two states would have exactly the same predictive power as Iowa and NH. All you’re saying is that if you hold an election for a national position at different times, the early results influence the later ones. Well yes.
With the only Hispanic candidates, I wouldn’t write off the GOP’s potential with Hispanic voters this time around. It only takes a few percentage point tip in one direction of another to make a difference. Now… having a Cuban-American on the ticket isn’t exactly the best way to appeal to groups like Mexican Americans (most of whom do not particularly relate to the Cuban-American experience), but I guess we’ll see.
Yeah, but you’d think a biracial man raised in a white family with a Kenyan parent wouldn’t capture black voters’ imagination either.
News flash- they have coffee shops and donut shops in every state. They have small towns in every state. There is nothing the Iowa and NH has that other states don’t, other than a sense of entitlement about being able to pick from the largest field.
In the small states, interested voters often report interacting with several candidates personally. Which means that chances are, most voters in IA and NH have had a chance to actually personally meet the candidates. Whereas in California the candidates would speak with real people, but those people would amount to .01% of the vote.
Personally I don’t care, you could actually say that the first state isn’t even a state, but that the first vote will be the Bronx only. Dixville Notch does it. Have the first primary in New York, but the Bronx gets to vote a day early.
Hispanics seem to be aware of the GOP’s low regard for them, and nominating a candidate named Cruz or Rubio isn’t going to do much to fool anyone.
Dubya got 40% of the Hispanic vote in the last Presidential election before the GOP went on the warpath against Hispanics. A GOP Presidential candidate won’t get anywhere near that share of the Hispanic vote again in my lifetime. (Say what you will about Dubya, but he clearly didn’t share the reigning GOP attitude towards Hispanics and Muslims. Yes, it’s scary that this crew is making Dubya look good by comparison, just as Dubya managed to make Nixon look good by comparison.)
Rubio isn’t really one of those candidates though. Cruz is, but Rubio is kinda trying to have it both ways, being moderate on immigration reform but still supporting tough enforcement. I think Rubio will find a more receptive Latino audience than Romney or McCain did, although expecting him to top Bush’s performance is unrealistic.
That being said, it doesn’t matter in this election. Latinos would have to go like 90-10 either way to swing the election. The black vote, by contrast, is absolutely critical.
Updating the table: (party year: Iowa winner, NH winner, nomination winner bolded):
R 1976: Ford won both
D 1976: Carter won both
D 1980: Carter won both
D 2000: Gore won both
D 2004: Kerry won both
R 1980: Bush, Reagan
D 1984: Mondale, Hart
R 1988: Dole, Bush
D 1988: Gephardt, Dukakis
D 1992: Harkin, Tsongas (Clinton finished second in NH)
R 1996: Dole, Buchanan
R 2000: Bush, McCain
R 2008: Huckabee, McCain
D 2008: Obama, Clinton
R 2012: Santorum*, Romney
D 2016: Clinton, Sanders
R 2016: Cruz, Trump
Not sure how you can call Iowa a win for Clinton.
Her lead was just 0.25 percent over Sanders after an audit. The state delegate equivalents count is 700 to 696. By anyones standards thats a draw.
And we still don’t know what the popular vote was and never will.
700 > 696. Since this isn’t horseshoes or hand grenades, it’s not a draw.
The relative popularity of Hillary and Sanders in Delaware is almost irrelevant: that state will definitely go Blue in November. The relative popularity of GOP contenders in South Carolina is irrelevant: that state will go Red no matter who the nominee is.
Given the U.S. electoral system, it makes sense that the sentiments of swing states be given priority.
Iowa and New Hampshire are two very key tipping states, and have different mentality. You couldn’t find two better small states to use for the selection process if you tried. (Though it may have been coincidence that the primary system evolved to give those states their special roles.)
I guess that depends on whether one regards the primaries as the place where a party’s voters pick a candidate for the general election, or whether it’s more a tryout for the general election.
If the latter, then by all means, swing states are the thing, and Iowa and New Hampshire should be followed by Colorado and Virginia. But if the former, Dem voters at least are being shafted by the very white states of Iowa and New Hampshire playing such a big role in determining their candidate.
So I can’t say you’re right or wrong. We’re starting from different views of what the primaries should be about, and quite naturally reaching different conclusions as a result.
At any rate, my purpose for this thread isn’t to relitigate that particular debate, but to say, OK, given that Iowa and New Hampshire ARE the first two states in the nominating process, what have they been doing?