what is the big deal with Iowa, NH being first in primaries anyway?

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by D_Kaye Throttlebottom, Jun 3, 2008.

  1. D_Kaye Throttlebottom

    Feb 9, 2008
    Likes Received:
    Now that the dust has settled with Florida and Michigan delegates being seated at the DNC.

    What is the big deal with Michigan and Florida going ahead of the earliest primaries anyway? Why do Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina have to go first anyway? Why can't states go earlier to effect their choice for the race?

    Found an answer. (thanks electoral-vote.com)

    Florida and Michigan handed to it because both states violated DNC (and RNC) rules and moved their primaries up before February 5, 2008, the earliest date states other than Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada are allowed to vote. The reason for this rule is simple: unknown candidates, like Gene McCarthy (1968), Gary Hart (1984), Paul Tsongas (1992), Howard Dean (2004), and others can mount a serious campaign in these small states by just trudging through the snows of Iowa and New Hampshire to meet the voters one at a time and then use wins here to springboard into Nevada and South Carolina. If big states like Michigan and Florida went first, step 1 for running for President would be first raise $50 million, then start running TV commercials in those states. As a matter of principle, the DNC does not want to eliminate the possibility of anyone with less than $50 million running for President. That is why the dates of the primaries are so important. Interestingly enough, this is an issue the DNC and RNC agree on.
  2. Pendlum

    Verified Gold Member

    Feb 24, 2008
    Likes Received:
    I've never really thought about this, but I can see how it makes sense. I like the last bit about the DNC and RNC agreeing. :tongue:
Draft saved Draft deleted