Live Free Or Die

Let me quote the headline from wsj

McCain, Clinton Win Primary; White House Race Is Wide Open

Clinton won the Democratic primary in New Hampshire, defeating rival Obama in a tight race. McCain took the Republican primary as he sought to climb back into the thick of the 2008 contest. With about 70% of the precincts reporting, Mrs. Clinton lead Mr. Obama 39% to 36%. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards came in third place with 17%.

Wow, that is eye catching. But why Iowa and New Hampshire is so important?

Let me quote one article from Mark Shields

As of this writing, at least 19 states — including many of the biggest, such as California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey and Texas — have already moved, or are actively considering moving, their presidential primaries forward to Feb. 5, 2008, for the express purpose of stealing some of the thunder from Iowa and New Hampshire’s privileged positions as the first two and most important states in the nomination of the U.S. president.

Remember where you heard it first: For historic, economic, human and emotional reasons, in 2008, Iowa and New Hampshire will be more, rather than less, influential in determining who the Democratic and Republican nominees will be.

This, of course, is dismissed by wise men who assume that simultaneous primary elections in all those big states will mean that only candidates with bulging campaign treasuries (such as Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney) will be able to compete by buying expensive TV time in pricey markets like New York and Los Angeles. All the underfinanced underdogs unable to compete in this table-stakes showdown will be forced to withdraw. Not for the first time is the conventional wisdom wrong.

First, the historical: The Iowa caucuses, the first presidential contest, dramatically winnow the candidate field. There are a maximum of “three tickets” out of Iowa, which means that since 1972 no candidate has won his party’s presidential nomination who did not finish in the top three in a contested Iowa caucus. And in only one election year, 1988 — when Republican George H.W. Bush and Democrat Michael Dukakis both finished third — did an eventual presidential nominee not finish either first or second in Iowa.

New Hampshire carries even more historical clout. From the Granite State primary, there are just “two tickets.” In fact, from 1952 through 1988, no U.S. president was elected who did not first win the New Hampshire primary. The only two exceptions in the last 56 years were Bill Clinton, who in 1992 finished second to Paul Tsongas, and George W. Bush, who in 2000 was beaten by John McCain.

Some of the impact and influence of the results of these two states is a personal and emotional reaction on the part of the nation’s voters.

After a year or more of speeches, fund raising, debates and commercials, finally real live voters have made a serious decision.

Another factor is that the citizens of Iowa and New Hampshire take their responsibilities solemnly. They personally see, meet and confront the candidates. Only here, voters elsewhere and the press understand, are candidates required to answer questions directly on the record from ordinary voters — such as firefighters, nurses or teachers — citizens whose health insurance fails to cover a sick child or whose job is being moved overseas to a low-wage country with no worker protection. After Iowa and New Hampshire, the surviving candidates basically raise money and land on airport tarmacs, where their campaigns schedule press availabilities for local TV stations and where voters, seen but not heard, are used as a visual prop for the evening news.

So it will make no difference next year if your candidate has already reserved more TV time than anybody else in San Diego or Philadelphia if he or she has finished “out of the money” in Iowa and New Hampshire. Having been through this marathon in 2004, John Edwards, more than any candidate in either party, appears to understand that the decisive and determining precincts are in Nashua, Concord, Dubuque and Ottumwa.

One overlooked reason why Iowa and New Hampshire will rule next year can be found in the economics of the news business. Almost all major news organizations will have fewer personnel, fewer resources and smaller budgets in 2008 than they had in 2004. Layoffs of newsroom personnel have become the norm. Prices of newspaper stocks fell 11 percent in 2006, following a 20 percent drop in 2005.

According to the reliable Project for Excellence in Journalism, Newsweek had half the editorial staff in 2006 it had in 1983, and throughout the industry newsroom staff was down 10 percent from 2000 to 2006.This means that news organizations will not have the capacity to cover multi-candidate primaries simultaneously in the nation’s biggest states. With finite resource, the betting here is that editors will deploy their people to cover even more intensely the early, manageable contests in Iowa and New Hampshire.

So get ready, because once again in 2008, Iowa and New Hampshire will be Big Casino!

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites / Bookmarks

Ask backflip blinklist BlogBookmark Bloglines BlogMarks Blogsvine BuddyMarks BUMPzee! CiteULike co.mments Connotea del.icio.us

Digg diigo DotNetKicks DropJack dzone Facebook Fark Faves Feed Me Links Friendsite folkd.com Furl Google

Hugg Jamespot Jeqq Kaboodle kirtsy linkaGoGo LinksMarker Ma.gnolia Mister Wong Mixx MySpace MyWeb Netvouz

Newsvine oneview OnlyWire PlugIM Propeller Reddit Rojo Segnalo Shoutwire Simpy Slashdot Sphere Sphinn

Spurl Squidoo StumbleUpon Technorati ThisNext Twitter Webride Windows Live Worlds Movies Yahoo!

Email This to a Friend

Copy HTML: 

 If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Powered by Bookmarkify™

More »

Related posts:

1. Let us see Hillary Clinton Hillary Clinton is still a woman and called Mrs.Clinton. There...
2. How much each President candidates and VP candidates make each year? Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama, and his wife, Michelle,...
3. It seems that John McCain does not know where Spain is I think it is OK for Palin does not know...
4. 美被亚洲流动性淹死 奥巴马:中国持1万亿国债 信源：猫扑 美国是被亚洲这根绳子吊死的吗？上周，我向一位中国官员提出了这个问题。他飞快地答道:“不，美国是被亚洲的流动性淹死的。” 亚洲在两方面促成了美国的金融崩溃。首先，运自中国和其它低成本生产国的廉价商品平抑了美国的物价。这使得密切关注消费者价格指数(CPI)的美联储误认为，它可以做到高增长与低通胀二者兼顾。 其次，亚洲银行共4.3万亿美元的外汇储备与石油美元一起，向美国提供了几乎无限的流动性。它们涌入美国国债以及房利美(Fannie Mae)和房地美(Freddie Mac)的债券，压低美国利率，推涨房地产泡沫，并为先购物后付款的消费习惯提供资金。 西方银行和对冲基金将亚洲（尤其是日本）当作一个具有魔力的资金池。通过所谓的利差交易(Carry Trade)，它们以超低利率借入资金并将其投向各种复杂、高收益的金融工具。有一段时间，一切运转得都很顺利。你知道后来发生了什么。 从 某种意义上说，这关系到亚洲人的谨慎与美国人的鲁莽。亚洲人的生活水准低于自己的收入水平，积累了巨额储蓄（仅中国和日本就占全球央行储备的40%），这...

Tags: 2008, Candidates, Political, President
Filed under 游目骋怀::Thinking | Trackback | Comments RSS | Add Comment

Previous: The last lecture of Randy Pausch
Next: Angry Wife Steals Olympic Spotlight