to go first in the primaries so other states can too be bombarded
by the news media and politicians knocking on regular folks homes
is shared by many, according to this AP/ Yahoo! News
poll. This is what the findings show:
"According to national survey conducted for The AssociatedThe study also found,
Press and Yahoo News, just over half of all voters said New
Hampshire and Iowa have an extraordinary amount of influence
over who wins the two parties nominations."
"Fewer than one in five voters said they favor the currentI'm in agreement with the results. It would be nice to see a big state like
system that allows Iowa and New Hampshire to hold the
first contests, while nearly 80 percent would rather see other
states get their chance at the front of the line."
California votes go first and see how they would vote. It would also be
interesting to see what happens if purple states like Florida or Ohio were
to first to cast votes in the primaries.
And there's also the question why in the world Iowa and New Hampshire?
It just seems like such a random choice. I mean the snow has kept some
political reporters in Iowa and New Hampshire reporting from their hotel
room. Here's James Kotecki video blogging from his hotel room:
Fox News reporter Carl Cameron also video blogging from his hotel room:
Link to video
So again I ask why Iowa and New Hampshire?
It can't help to think perhaps Rudy Giuliani plan that nearly abandoned
Iowa and New Hampshire may not be as flawed as it first appears. It
gets a lot media coverage but unlikely influence what happens in the big
states.
Afterthought: I think Iowa and New Hampshire are going to be absolutely
meaningless for the Republican primaries. Mitt or Rudy will probably
win the big states on Super Tuesday, however, they aren't leading by a
decisive margin in Iowa or New Hampshire. Mitt could win New Hampshire
but that doesn't mean Rudy is out of the race yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment