I believe both of these events are important. They do not hold significantly high delegate values but they are symbolic in that they mark the beginning of the road to nomination in each respective party. A win at either one of these could kick-start momentum that propels a candidate through the next several months, and through numerous wins, tallying delegate upon delegate.
I think that the first primary and first caucus are important events because they can help indicate how the rest of the election will go for the candidates. The events help predict how a candidate will do and if they will be successful or not.
I disagree with Avery and Blake. Yes, primaries and caucuses do sometimes predict the outcome of the candidate winning the majority of delegates, but these primaries and caucuses are overrated. People's minds can change within the period between primaries and the presidential election. The primaries only give projections to find their weakest and strongest geographical areas. But people put a big deal in the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire primary--but why? Iowa and New Hampshire don't have a large number of delegates, they aren't the highly populated states, why are these states a big deal? Media manipulates Iowa and New Hampshire to make it look like a big deal to the outcome because it is only the first primary and first caucus.
I agree that these 2 primaries and caucuses are overrated, and would like to add that Iowa and New Hampshire are not representative of the United States as a whole. They are both predictable states that commonly vote along one line.
I agree with Blake, but I would also like to add that once the momentum has started, not only does it help with overall voting, but it also sets the momentum for the candidates. As soon as "predictions" are made for candidates after the first primaries. Then the winners of those tend to do very well in later primaries because people find an interest in them after their first win.
I disagree, I don't think these first primaries and caucuses are very important. Momentum is an important aspect of winning campaigns but it doesn't truly mean your campaign will be successful if you win. In the Republican party this year, candidates that eventually dropped out of the race such as Jeb Bush and Ben Carson, received delegates but then would go on to not win very many more delegates. So, I believe the events are overstated.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe state that holds the first caucus is Iowa.
ReplyDeleteThe state that holds the first primary is New Hampshire.
ReplyDeleteI believe both of these events are important. They do not hold significantly high delegate values but they are symbolic in that they mark the beginning of the road to nomination in each respective party. A win at either one of these could kick-start momentum that propels a candidate through the next several months, and through numerous wins, tallying delegate upon delegate.
DeleteI think that the first primary and first caucus are important events because they can help indicate how the rest of the election will go for the candidates. The events help predict how a candidate will do and if they will be successful or not.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Avery and Blake. Yes, primaries and caucuses do sometimes predict the outcome of the candidate winning the majority of delegates, but these primaries and caucuses are overrated. People's minds can change within the period between primaries and the presidential election. The primaries only give projections to find their weakest and strongest geographical areas. But people put a big deal in the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire primary--but why? Iowa and New Hampshire don't have a large number of delegates, they aren't the highly populated states, why are these states a big deal? Media manipulates Iowa and New Hampshire to make it look like a big deal to the outcome because it is only the first primary and first caucus.
ReplyDeleteI agree that these 2 primaries and caucuses are overrated, and would like to add that Iowa and New Hampshire are not representative of the United States as a whole. They are both predictable states that commonly vote along one line.
DeleteI agree with Blake, but I would also like to add that once the momentum has started, not only does it help with overall voting, but it also sets the momentum for the candidates. As soon as "predictions" are made for candidates after the first primaries. Then the winners of those tend to do very well in later primaries because people find an interest in them after their first win.
ReplyDeleteI disagree, I don't think these first primaries and caucuses are very important. Momentum is an important aspect of winning campaigns but it doesn't truly mean your campaign will be successful if you win. In the Republican party this year, candidates that eventually dropped out of the race such as Jeb Bush and Ben Carson, received delegates but then would go on to not win very many more delegates. So, I believe the events are overstated.
ReplyDelete