Rare!

[xyzzysqrl]

Okay. This marks a rare request for political info from me:

Why is Iowa important? Why is NEW HAMPSHIRE important? Are these, like... major focus points? Contested areas? Are they just the only states that bother to hold this particular kind of political event? Do other states not do this caucus thing?

EDIT!

Okay, kinda makes sense now. Tradition and the usual doofy political reasons. Thank you, folks.

Comments

[momentrabbit.livejournal.com]

It is my understanding that Iowa and NH are important because they are first. The candidates that get the blessing of these events are thus perceived to have 'momentum', to be the forerunners in the campaign to be nominated to run. The reason they are the first is because they have always been first; the reason this perceived momentum is important is because people like narrative.

That said, we don't do it quite that way up here, so I'm just going with what I'm gleaming from the news.

[glashund.livejournal.com]

That's about the size of it. Iowa and NH are a big deal due to their spots at the head of the primary schedule; candidates hope to win early in order to generate positive buzz, perception, etc. Sort of like establishing pole position.

[circuit-four.livejournal.com]

I echo the others: it's 'cause IA and NH are first.

So FOR NO LOGICAL REASON AT ALL. Like so VERY much of Terran politics, it's just part of a huge cruft of weird traditions that developed with no oversight at all. Except that the occasional person or group in power says, "Hmm, this makes no sense, but it's familiar and it works to my advantage, so I'd better support it."

And that's why I weep daily at the tomb of Modernism. :)

[hcuz.livejournal.com]

Because if not for these early caucuses and primaries, nobody would give a damn about either state, ever.

[xyzzysqrl]

NH has no sales tax, thus making it THE PLACE to go for mall stuff.

[foxish.livejournal.com]

Also, for the region, New Hampshire and its brother Vermont are surprisingly liberal. In many ways, Iowa is the conservative opener and NH is the liberal one.

In today's political methodology, the early caucuses determine how the public feels about a candidate after the first "soft" wave of campaigning. Take for example Guiliani, who did extremely poorly despite solid poll numbers late in 2007, or Edwards, who beat out Clinton despite all the indications of "inevitability" from Hillary.

Candidates often use these early caucuses to determine how they'll do in the long run, hence why Dodd and Gravel dropped out with Paul, Kucinich, Thompson, and Richardson all considering giving it up.

[shaterri.livejournal.com]

New Hampshire is more accurately described as Libertarian, honestly; Vermont is sort of the same, but it's distinctly left-leaning. New Hampshire (especially for its surroundings) tends slightly more towards the 'traditional' sort-of-right-of-center libertarianism. This isn't a bad thing per se, but it really does leave the country without any good early targets for traditional 'Government can actually do good' big-L liberals, and I think that's a serious failing of the current system.