Why Iowa and New Hampshire won't matter this time

The American Thinker ^ | 1-5-16 | Ned Barnett

[jstaff]

And southern NH is, or used to be anyway, just a place to sleep for Beantown liberals who didn’t want to live in the filth they created in MA.

[C. Edmund Wright]

nope, back to defining terms and such....like the fact I live rent free in your head.

[Ann Archy]

Good grief!! Un-informed voters and CHEATERS water down my vote now!!

The un-informed voters are easily swayed by who wins the first couple of primaries.

[jjotto]

Inaccurate description of Iowa caucuses. The straw vote is indeed “checking off a ballot and dropping it in a box”.

Iowa caucuses are the same kind of local organizational meetings that every state has, with what has been a non-binding presidential preference vote added.

[jjotto]

Who did rock-solid GOP state Oklahoma pick in 2008 and 2012 with their closed GOP primary?

[refermech]

Yup, here in New Mexico I’m in the same boat. It’s all over by the time we vote and we don’t count for squat.

[wita]

Same for SD

[lakecumberlandvet]

If the respective political parties really wanted to let the people choose the candidates then all states would conduct primary elections on the same day. Just like the general elections.

[BlackAdderess]

I calls them as I sees them!

[i_robot73]

IMO, it should be 10 States over 5 days, rotated and picked randomly.

I’m quite tired of the pandering to TWO States that seem to ALWAYS strip the rest of the country of their voice/choice.

[Mike Darancette]

Setting the bar low for a Trump loss. The place where Trump becomes a loser

[Mike Darancette]

EVERY state should have a Primary on the SAME DAY!! ONE DAY!!

Winner must have 50%+1 or there will be a run off one week later of the top 2.

[Mears]

I voted for Scott Brown too——and Leverett Saltonstall.

I loved the old WASP politicians.

.

[DouglasKC]

Seems like most people commenting didn't read the article. The main point was that Iowa and New Hampshire are important because if a candidate doesn't do well their donors dry up. Nobody wants to invest in a loser. But that doesn't affect Donald Trump at all as the article points out. He could come in last place in both and it would hardly dent his real chances...at least as far as money and delegates go.

Good article thanks for posting.

[Ann Archy]

I LOVE it!!

[Mike Darancette]

But that doesn't affect Donald Trump at all as the article points out.

Trump is seen as a winner solely because of his commanding lead in the polls. If he can't turn that into primary victories then his support may go somewhere else.

[DouglasKC]

Trump is seen as a winner solely because of his commanding lead in the polls. If he can't turn that into primary victories then his support may go somewhere else.

That's true to a certain extent. But I don't think he's put all his eggs in the basket of "I'll be the nominee as long as I can be number 1 in the polls". I think he has a strategy for every step of the way here.