I'm perfectly fine with Iowa and New Hampshire starting the race. In fact I'm fine with any eastern state to start off the primaries. Most of the political advertisements I’ve seen have come from my searches on youtube. I have lived most of my life in Texas and I haven’t seen many negative advertisements. The states that the presidential candidates are fighting for see plenty of negative advertisements. Negative ads flood the airwaves. After losing South Carolina, Mitt Romney launched attack ads against Newt Gingrich in Florida. His aggressive strategy panned out as he defeated Gingrich in Florida. Can you imagine watching tv or listening to the radio in Florida that week. You wouldn’t hear any Denny’s commercials about getting leftover food, cardboard pancakes, and a bacon milkshake for just $4 (what a deal, get real), but you would certainly see ads attacking Gingrich about his resignation from speaker and his dealings with Fannie Mae. I’d prefer to keep these primaries and negative ads in Iowa and New Hampshire. The race is crucial in the first states and candidates/PAC will consume that state with commercials bashing each candidate. I don’t mind Texas being late in the order of the primaries. By the time the Texas primary rolls around there will most likely be a clear front-runner. Leave the bashing and negative airwave campaigns in the east, don’t bring them to Texas!
Well, honestly I’m not too sure which side I would like to take or not. I believe that each state needs to be accounted for. However, who is really to decide which state or for that fact, which people, is the best to start off the process. I could go for a randomized system if possible as to which states go in which order. I would figure that since every American has the right to have a vote that counts. This means that the elections shouldn’t be decided before the vote of every American gets counted. I can say for myself that if someone could very well be determining my future, even if my vote won’t count, for my own sake I want it counted. Maybe it wouldn’t be such a bad idea to start it in California so that way maybe it would be a fare shot at elections. Besides that, what is the point of a candidate spending money in a state that he needs the votes in anyways? To myself, I personally feel that the government owes it to the people of the United States to count every vote even if that means randomizing the election state order to include the not so well recognized states. I believe that soon the election process will soon begin in early December since the states that go first want to keep it that way.
In this modern time, when all the world's information is a few minutes of searching away and strong opinions spread quicker than the latest virus, primary races have become a competition of dollars. Whoever runs the most effective campaign will win that primary, regardless of what state the race is in. The ideas and opinions about the candidates no longer stay in the state of the campaign. We, in Texas, can look at and analyze the campaign strategies though the candidates haven't even shifted their gaze towards Texas. We can form our opinions and discuss them with people from other states, and by the time te race reaches our state, we are already set in our decision. Some states have to be first, if it's Iowa and New Hampshire, more power to them! It makes little difference whichever states begin the process, the end result will be little changed. Personally, I like the idea of large amounts of money used for negative ads being focused in other states. I don't watch TV often, but when I do, I don't want to see negative ads every three minutes.
I personally, would like the race to start in Texas. I am born in Texas and think that Texas is the best state in the United States and because of that, it should start in Texas. I'm tired of having to watch all the primaries and have candidates I would like to see talk in Lubbock, end up dropping out. Although I wouldn't mind seeing the front runner in Lubbock talking about the other party's front runner or the current president. Or I would mind getting the chance to meet the party's front runner in Texas. I like looking at youtube videos on the candidates and watching them on TV but I would like to see them live more than on screen. I also think that the primaries should start at the lowest # of voters in a party's state and work their way up to the state with the most votes in that party. For example, if the lowest voting turn out is usually Iowa and the highest is Texas, then it should start in Iowa and move to every state, until it reaches Texas. Whatever state does go first, second or last, I don't like candidates to have all or most of the ads be negative. Mitt Romney only had one positive ad in Florida. I think that's horrible to have just one. I don't want any candidates to look rude. I just want them to be completely truthful.
I do not agree with their stance on where the elections should start simply because they do not state why other states should not have the chance, only the good things about the states it is currently in. He is also crowd pleasing with this speech. He would not be accepted if he opened his speech saying he thought Texas would be a better state to start with. I believe that if state X was chosen to take New Hampshire’s place in the primaries that the party advocates would be more active in talking to people in their state or town AND there would be much more attention from candidates towards state X. As stated by Joe, “I am in your living rooms and on your front porches.” The candidates take a much more aggressive approach to the first two states than others because they are more crucial and therefore end up drawing more attention and participation from the people of that state. It might not be as big at first or have the same turnout, but after a few years, which New Hampshire has had many, state X would have the same turnout as any other state. I believe that each primary should start with different states every election year or have a rotation throughout the US that is consistent and would eliminate any kind of bias. This would more accurately show who the citizens of the US want to run for the presidency, not just the citizens of Iowa and New Hampshire. Since we base our elections on each individual’s right to vote in a fair majority rule election, should the rest of the US not have a chance to voice their opinions first in the primaries? There is an old tradition here, comparable to laws banning the housing of mules on the second floor of any building, that is senseless and unfair to the rest of the US and should be reviewed and, in my opinion, changed.
I’m sure many Iowans and New Hampshire residents would make the argument for their states early primary and caucuses solely on the grounds of tradition. While this argument may hold little water, there is a significantly more important reason why these states, in addition to South Carolina, get to be the first states to cast votes in the presidential contest. We can look at a real world example in this very campaign season. Newt Gingrich came out of his South Carolina victory with a double-digit lead in Florida. Mitt Romney’s campaign and Super Pac’s spent two weeks drubbing Newt on every commercial break on every television set across Florida. Money was a deciding factor in that primary. If the presidential contest began in a large state like Florida with so many different media markets, candidates with money would be the only ones who could effectively compete. Iowa and New Hampshire are both states with a relatively small population. Before the Iowa caucuses, no one knew about the former Pennsylvania Senator, with little campaign cash, who visited every single county in the state. Rick Santorum didn’t have money and national name recognition, but the people in Iowa knew him. He shook enough hands and met with enough people in their homes and local businesses to make him the ultimate victor of this first contest. Could another small state begin the campaign season? Sure it’s possible that the candidates could spend the winter holidays tramping across Wyoming, but I think that Iowa and New Hampshire folks have a legitimate claim to making the first mark in the presidential primary season.
To be honest I never completely understood why we let the smaller states start the whole election process. But after watching that clip, I think they made a valid point. Starting small gives the public a chance to see more of the candidate in action and how well he might react with people. I know its not simply for that reason but I'm sure there are other reasons that might be related to money and politics. But i do get a better understanding of why we let the smaller states start the process because he's right, we would never see a candidate do those kinds of things in bigger states like Texas or New York or Florida. If it comes down to public perception this early then I agree with it. So many different things happen in between these primaries that i think the smaller states would do a better job of getting it right in the beginning. But lets be honest they save the best for last, so i don't mind Texas being towards the end of the election process.
First off, it is the twenty-first century, and modern campaign advertising does it's job: spark interest and thought. Now a days most people do look to the television commercials, billboards, and even the news to gather ideas to discuss with people they know which candidates they like or dislike. And of course with this media, there are going to be negative and positive types of messages, that is just how it is. I do think its's still great to have face to face time with actual people of America, because it does show that you do care for the people. Media, however, is much faster and promotes all of the objectives and goals of a candidate. So in all honesty, I really don't mind where the primaries start off. I agree with other comments that I think there should be a randomized system to determine where to start and the order that follows. It doesn't matter what type of people are in which state, the point is every person's idea, thought, voice, and vote count! Their reasoning to have the primaries start in New Hampshire and Iowa wasn't the best argument in my opinion, and not factual at all. I was immediately turned off by their forms of logic of why the primaries should start there over somewhere else. Every state is just as good as the next, and I disagree with what they are saying. So my solution: random system would allow fairness to everyone in the United States.
I honestly could care less where the race starts. Since Iowa and New Hampshire have always started the race, why not just stick with tradition? We all learn about the campaign through various ways anyway. We are all connected to society during this time period through television, Facebook, twitter, and even our smart phones. Also, the campaigns do a very good job at making themselves well known. For example through billboards, yard signs, and numerous commercials. I feel I am just as knowledgeable about the race even though it does not start in Texas. Since Texas is a republican state most of us know who we are already voting for. If I was a candidate I would not start the race here either. The candidates already know if they have or don’t have Texas’ vote. Maybe if I was more involved with politics and the campaigns my viewpoint would change, and I would want to see the candidates first speak here. I am anxious to see what these candidates have to offer though this election, and how else they will campaign as the race continues.
I don’t really know whether I agree or disagree that the presidential elections should begin in Iowa and New Hampshire. I like their point in the video that these two states still have the old fashioned way of campaigning by knocking on doors and shaking hands. In these two states, attack ads aren’t what win the people’s votes. I believe that there are other states that would be similar, though, if given the chance. I do not like the fact that often times when the races reach the Western states, the candidates have already been chosen. I do not think that is necessarily representative of the American public. I think the whole system has its strong points and also then also its weak points. It is a manmade system and because of that, there is no way to make it fair to everyone in our country. Let’s face it – either one coast of our country will be pleased or the other coast will be pleased. I suppose I think that starting in Iowa and New Hampshire is just fine. I see how it is a good system and a bad system, and I don’t have any substantial complaints with it. Obviously the system works well enough. The race has got to start somewhere and it might as well be Iowa and New Hampshire.
I've come to agree that I really don't mind, at all, about Iowa and New Hampshire being the starting states for the primaries. I haven't been exposed to negative Ad's for campaigns, so I really have no clue how much of an impact they have. Also, according to Joe's story, he had worked hard running for a position with the adversities of not having money, media attention, a "name", and so on like Romney and Gingrich, but in the end he was able to win the election without any of those things. However, regardless of his story, campaigns with remain the same with the constant bashing of someones reputation until someone comes out on top. In the end, all it comes down to is reputation bashing, Subliminal "I'm better than you" message speeches, and most importantly who ever has the best "Media Attention, Money, Momentum".
Sometimes I think the system is more broken than many realize. These two playing back in forth trying to portray a hard working "man of the people" persona is quite annoying. I could care less where any of these traditions or races start. In with state, what city?, who cares. I think it should be more of a unity among states THATS EQUAL throughout. Starting here or their should not matter it going to every state and treating every race or primary or whatever the same as importance as the last. I did not like this very much because I did not hear a lot about the state, but way to much background of themselves. Negative primaries or not the people need the same in every state, despite what state its in. The pressure put on one or two states will make more controversy and perhaps corruption.
Personally, I think the system is great the way it is. The reasons that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire is that they are swing states, and that will come into play hugely in the general election. It is important that any party gauge the beliefs of the voting base in swing states because they often determine the election. It is more important that the party learn the beliefs of those less likely to vote straight-party than to start in a state where the votes are already guaranteed. That being said, campaigning is becoming all about money and it is a detriment to our society. How can we adequately judge the best candidate when some candidates are in your face all the time and others you rarely even see on television?
I agree because Iowa and New Hampshire are small states and his argument about politicians needing to be more personal is compelling. The people in New Hampshire vote for the guy they know better and have seen/met before. This makes New Hampshire a great starting place for the Presidential race because the campaigning takes place on a smaller stage (face-to-face) and then the stage gets bigger in other states (big tv ads). So, if a candidate can stay afloat in the small pond, then they will be able to handle the bigger states.
Before I watched Scarborough’s video, I did some research on Iowa’s caucus system so I would be more informed about the background and came to the conclusion, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” In 1967, President Jimmy Carter’s top political advisor and banker, Bert Lance is quoted for that statement. What I think is a coincidence is that in 1976 (the same year) President Jimmy Carter won with about thirty percent of Iowa’s caucus vote, and that is why Iowa is still such an important state to campaign in. So what I am getting at is…why is it all of the sudden such a big deal NOW in 2012, when it has been fine all along; if it is not broken then why try and fix it?As much as I like Romney, after watching Scarborough’s video, I DO agree with his tactics on his campaigning and I think he is legitimately a nice guy. Clearly, Romney and Gingrich have SOME kind of money, which means they have a key to the media and the media has the key to the audience. When candidates are exposed in the media, it gives the audience a chance to put a face and political view with a name and in return it benefits their campaign. BECAUSE of the lack of money Scarborough has, he also lacks having a part in the media and being able to participate in the primaries. Having interest in Iowa was a good move Scarborough made, because it is a caucus state, meaning there is not a large amount of individuals who actually vote because they do not have enough time to make their minds up and they end up not voting. Having a smaller audience in Iowa benefits Scarborough, in a sense that he gets to go the old traditional way, knocking door-to-door, being able to make a connection with potential voters. So if your audience is small, then it is easier to work with. I think the government should leave Iowa and all the caucus states alone; nothing is wrong so far, so why change now?
I agree with Iowa and New Hampshire starting off the presidential race. I think they are a good spot because they create all of the negative ads in those states. Comparing those to texas where you do not see as many negative ads. States where the running is close and no candidate has the state forsure, is where you will see the negative ads. You could see this happen when Ramney lost South Carolina to Gingrich. Ramney has so much money that he had ads that attacked Gingrich in Florida to win the primary there.
I agree with what they are saying because I am not a fan of all the negative ads taht they create. It is completely fine by me for them to start off there and attack each other out of Texas. Texas usually doesnt have negative ads because we are so late in the runnings.
I believe that starting the nomination process in Iowa and New Hampshire is important. As Joe Scarborough said, the people are so engaged and you can't run 30 second ads that are negative. I believe these are two important states that care about politics more than any other states. Although, I disagree with the fact that the Presidential race might already be decided when it gets to other states, I still feel that people in states surrounding Iowa and New Hampshire can connect and relate to the same ideaology that citizens in Iowa and New Hampshire have. So by starting the race in these two states, you can potentially reach a bigger audience. Also it serves two purposes. One being that in Iowa, you get the working class, so by starting in Iowa, you can earn the working class votes, and that will translate to other cities as well. In New Hampshire, you can earn the upper-class vote and also earn the votes of other upper-class citizens in America. I think that, while it is important to start the race in Iowa and New Hampshire, it should be important to remember there are 48 states that are watching Iowa and New Hampshire, and they are gaining their own insight as well.
I think it is a good idea to start the primaries in small states like Iowa and New Hampshire. It allows for candidates to personally meet a large amount of people. It allows the people of these two states to get to know the candidates in a more personal way than if they only saw TV ads. TV ads are more aggressive than canvassing the state personally. Door to door is a very powerful and more personal way to get to know a candidate. It allows the people to see the candidates in a more personal way. A voter isn’t just seeing an ad but he or she is meeting face to face with people. However, on the other hand, I’m not sure it should be just these two states every time. There are other states that would be able to fit the same role that Iowa and New Hampshire fits. For example Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware would all be good states to start off the primaries. I don’t think these two states, Iowa and New Hampshire, should be the only states the get the privilege of being the first and most important states in deciding a presidential candidate. I think having the primaries start In Iowa and New Hampshire also discourages people from becoming politically active. I know if I lived in a state that mattered, I would definitely be interested in getting involved in a candidacy. I disagree that it should be only in these two states; however, I agree that it should still be selective in which states that the primaries start in.
Even though I do not agree with letting NH and IA be the first 2 states to start the primaries every year, I can understand why they are the first states. There are several logical & logistical reasons IA and NH are the first states to poll: they are smaller states enabling the canidates to travel frequently and easily over short distances, the smaller populations allow a canidate with a small "war-chest" of $ to compete with some of the larger canidates, as well as getting a litmus for the mainly agriculture-centered pop. in IA and the more moderate pop. in NH. Remember, by the time these 2 primaries are finished, a majority of the canidates are pressed to drop-out leaving IA and NH to give the rest of the nation their Presidential canidates year after year. I disagree with letting these states go first every political campain year because to me it is too predictable. In order to see how the canidates would fare in a national election I would perfer to see the first primaries in states with a more diverse population both demographicly, educationally, and work-wise. There are several smaller states that could replace or atleast trade duties with IA and NH including Colorado, Florida, Michigan, and even Arizona. These states are smaller in geographic size but have larger and more diverse populations. I say we give it a try.
20 comments:
I'm perfectly fine with Iowa and New Hampshire starting the race. In fact I'm fine with any eastern state to start off the primaries. Most of the political advertisements I’ve seen have come from my searches on youtube. I have lived most of my life in Texas and I haven’t seen many negative advertisements. The states that the presidential candidates are fighting for see plenty of negative advertisements. Negative ads flood the airwaves. After losing South Carolina, Mitt Romney launched attack ads against Newt Gingrich in Florida. His aggressive strategy panned out as he defeated Gingrich in Florida. Can you imagine watching tv or listening to the radio in Florida that week. You wouldn’t hear any Denny’s commercials about getting leftover food, cardboard pancakes, and a bacon milkshake for just $4 (what a deal, get real), but you would certainly see ads attacking Gingrich about his resignation from speaker and his dealings with Fannie Mae.
I’d prefer to keep these primaries and negative ads in Iowa and New Hampshire. The race is crucial in the first states and candidates/PAC will consume that state with commercials bashing each candidate. I don’t mind Texas being late in the order of the primaries. By the time the Texas primary rolls around there will most likely be a clear front-runner.
Leave the bashing and negative airwave campaigns in the east, don’t bring them to Texas!
Well, honestly I’m not too sure which side I would like to take or not. I believe that each state needs to be accounted for. However, who is really to decide which state or for that fact, which people, is the best to start off the process. I could go for a randomized system if possible as to which states go in which order. I would figure that since every American has the right to have a vote that counts. This means that the elections shouldn’t be decided before the vote of every American gets counted. I can say for myself that if someone could very well be determining my future, even if my vote won’t count, for my own sake I want it counted. Maybe it wouldn’t be such a bad idea to start it in California so that way maybe it would be a fare shot at elections. Besides that, what is the point of a candidate spending money in a state that he needs the votes in anyways? To myself, I personally feel that the government owes it to the people of the United States to count every vote even if that means randomizing the election state order to include the not so well recognized states. I believe that soon the election process will soon begin in early December since the states that go first want to keep it that way.
In this modern time, when all the world's information is a few minutes of searching away and strong opinions spread quicker than the latest virus, primary races have become a competition of dollars. Whoever runs the most effective campaign will win that primary, regardless of what state the race is in. The ideas and opinions about the candidates no longer stay in the state of the campaign. We, in Texas, can look at and analyze the campaign strategies though the candidates haven't even shifted their gaze towards Texas. We can form our opinions and discuss them with people from other states, and by the time te race reaches our state, we are already set in our decision. Some states have to be first, if it's Iowa and New Hampshire, more power to them! It makes little difference whichever states begin the process, the end result will be little changed. Personally, I like the idea of large amounts of money used for negative ads being focused in other states. I don't watch TV often, but when I do, I don't want to see negative ads every three minutes.
I personally, would like the race to start in Texas. I am born in Texas and think that Texas is the best state in the United States and because of that, it should start in Texas. I'm tired of having to watch all the primaries and have candidates I would like to see talk in Lubbock, end up dropping out. Although I wouldn't mind seeing the front runner in Lubbock talking about the other party's front runner or the current president. Or I would mind getting the chance to meet the party's front runner in Texas. I like looking at youtube videos on the candidates and watching them on TV but I would like to see them live more than on screen. I also think that the primaries should start at the lowest # of voters in a party's state and work their way up to the state with the most votes in that party. For example, if the lowest voting turn out is usually Iowa and the highest is Texas, then it should start in Iowa and move to every state, until it reaches Texas. Whatever state does go first, second or last, I don't like candidates to have all or most of the ads be negative. Mitt Romney only had one positive ad in Florida. I think that's horrible to have just one. I don't want any candidates to look rude. I just want them to be completely truthful.
I do not agree with their stance on where the elections should start simply because they do not state why other states should not have the chance, only the good things about the states it is currently in. He is also crowd pleasing with this speech. He would not be accepted if he opened his speech saying he thought Texas would be a better state to start with. I believe that if state X was chosen to take New Hampshire’s place in the primaries that the party advocates would be more active in talking to people in their state or town AND there would be much more attention from candidates towards state X. As stated by Joe, “I am in your living rooms and on your front porches.” The candidates take a much more aggressive approach to the first two states than others because they are more crucial and therefore end up drawing more attention and participation from the people of that state. It might not be as big at first or have the same turnout, but after a few years, which New Hampshire has had many, state X would have the same turnout as any other state. I believe that each primary should start with different states every election year or have a rotation throughout the US that is consistent and would eliminate any kind of bias. This would more accurately show who the citizens of the US want to run for the presidency, not just the citizens of Iowa and New Hampshire. Since we base our elections on each individual’s right to vote in a fair majority rule election, should the rest of the US not have a chance to voice their opinions first in the primaries? There is an old tradition here, comparable to laws banning the housing of mules on the second floor of any building, that is senseless and unfair to the rest of the US and should be reviewed and, in my opinion, changed.
I’m sure many Iowans and New Hampshire residents would make the argument for their states early primary and caucuses solely on the grounds of tradition. While this argument may hold little water, there is a significantly more important reason why these states, in addition to South Carolina, get to be the first states to cast votes in the presidential contest. We can look at a real world example in this very campaign season. Newt Gingrich came out of his South Carolina victory with a double-digit lead in Florida. Mitt Romney’s campaign and Super Pac’s spent two weeks drubbing Newt on every commercial break on every television set across Florida. Money was a deciding factor in that primary. If the presidential contest began in a large state like Florida with so many different media markets, candidates with money would be the only ones who could effectively compete.
Iowa and New Hampshire are both states with a relatively small population. Before the Iowa caucuses, no one knew about the former Pennsylvania Senator, with little campaign cash, who visited every single county in the state. Rick Santorum didn’t have money and national name recognition, but the people in Iowa knew him. He shook enough hands and met with enough people in their homes and local businesses to make him the ultimate victor of this first contest.
Could another small state begin the campaign season? Sure it’s possible that the candidates could spend the winter holidays tramping across Wyoming, but I think that Iowa and New Hampshire folks have a legitimate claim to making the first mark in the presidential primary season.
To be honest I never completely understood why we let the smaller states start the whole election process. But after watching that clip, I think they made a valid point. Starting small gives the public a chance to see more of the candidate in action and how well he might react with people. I know its not simply for that reason but I'm sure there are other reasons that might be related to money and politics. But i do get a better understanding of why we let the smaller states start the process because he's right, we would never see a candidate do those kinds of things in bigger states like Texas or New York or Florida. If it comes down to public perception this early then I agree with it. So many different things happen in between these primaries that i think the smaller states would do a better job of getting it right in the beginning. But lets be honest they save the best for last, so i don't mind Texas being towards the end of the election process.
First off, it is the twenty-first century, and modern campaign advertising does it's job: spark interest and thought. Now a days most people do look to the television commercials, billboards, and even the news to gather ideas to discuss with people they know which candidates they like or dislike. And of course with this media, there are going to be negative and positive types of messages, that is just how it is. I do think its's still great to have face to face time with actual people of America, because it does show that you do care for the people. Media, however, is much faster and promotes all of the objectives and goals of a candidate.
So in all honesty, I really don't mind where the primaries start off. I agree with other comments that I think there should be a randomized system to determine where to start and the order that follows. It doesn't matter what type of people are in which state, the point is every person's idea, thought, voice, and vote count! Their reasoning to have the primaries start in New Hampshire and Iowa wasn't the best argument in my opinion, and not factual at all. I was immediately turned off by their forms of logic of why the primaries should start there over somewhere else. Every state is just as good as the next, and I disagree with what they are saying. So my solution: random system would allow fairness to everyone in the United States.
I honestly could care less where the race starts. Since Iowa and New Hampshire have always started the race, why not just stick with tradition? We all learn about the campaign through various ways anyway. We are all connected to society during this time period through television, Facebook, twitter, and even our smart phones. Also, the campaigns do a very good job at making themselves well known. For example through billboards, yard signs, and numerous commercials. I feel I am just as knowledgeable about the race even though it does not start in Texas. Since Texas is a republican state most of us know who we are already voting for. If I was a candidate I would not start the race here either. The candidates already know if they have or don’t have Texas’ vote. Maybe if I was more involved with politics and the campaigns my viewpoint would change, and I would want to see the candidates first speak here. I am anxious to see what these candidates have to offer though this election, and how else they will campaign as the race continues.
I don’t really know whether I agree or disagree that the presidential elections should begin in Iowa and New Hampshire. I like their point in the video that these two states still have the old fashioned way of campaigning by knocking on doors and shaking hands. In these two states, attack ads aren’t what win the people’s votes. I believe that there are other states that would be similar, though, if given the chance. I do not like the fact that often times when the races reach the Western states, the candidates have already been chosen. I do not think that is necessarily representative of the American public. I think the whole system has its strong points and also then also its weak points. It is a manmade system and because of that, there is no way to make it fair to everyone in our country. Let’s face it – either one coast of our country will be pleased or the other coast will be pleased. I suppose I think that starting in Iowa and New Hampshire is just fine. I see how it is a good system and a bad system, and I don’t have any substantial complaints with it. Obviously the system works well enough. The race has got to start somewhere and it might as well be Iowa and New Hampshire.
I've come to agree that I really don't mind, at all, about Iowa and New Hampshire being the starting states for the primaries. I haven't been exposed to negative Ad's for campaigns, so I really have no clue how much of an impact they have. Also, according to Joe's story, he had worked hard running for a position with the adversities of not having money, media attention, a "name", and so on like Romney and Gingrich, but in the end he was able to win the election without any of those things. However, regardless of his story, campaigns with remain the same with the constant bashing of someones reputation until someone comes out on top. In the end, all it comes down to is reputation bashing, Subliminal "I'm better than you" message speeches, and most importantly who ever has the best "Media Attention, Money, Momentum".
Sometimes I think the system is more broken than many realize. These two playing back in forth trying to portray a hard working "man of the people" persona is quite annoying. I could care less where any of these traditions or races start. In with state, what city?, who cares. I think it should be more of a unity among states THATS EQUAL throughout. Starting here or their should not matter it going to every state and treating every race or primary or whatever the same as importance as the last. I did not like this very much because I did not hear a lot about the state, but way to much background of themselves. Negative primaries or not the people need the same in every state, despite what state its in. The pressure put on one or two states will make more controversy and perhaps corruption.
Personally, I think the system is great the way it is. The reasons that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire is that they are swing states, and that will come into play hugely in the general election. It is important that any party gauge the beliefs of the voting base in swing states because they often determine the election. It is more important that the party learn the beliefs of those less likely to vote straight-party than to start in a state where the votes are already guaranteed. That being said, campaigning is becoming all about money and it is a detriment to our society. How can we adequately judge the best candidate when some candidates are in your face all the time and others you rarely even see on television?
I agree because Iowa and New Hampshire are small states and his argument about politicians needing to be more personal is compelling. The people in New Hampshire vote for the guy they know better and have seen/met before. This makes New Hampshire a great starting place for the Presidential race because the campaigning takes place on a smaller stage (face-to-face) and then the stage gets bigger in other states (big tv ads). So, if a candidate can stay afloat in the small pond, then they will be able to handle the bigger states.
Before I watched Scarborough’s video, I did some research on Iowa’s caucus system so I would be more informed about the background and came to the conclusion, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” In 1967, President Jimmy Carter’s top political advisor and banker, Bert Lance is quoted for that statement. What I think is a coincidence is that in 1976 (the same year) President Jimmy Carter won with about thirty percent of Iowa’s caucus vote, and that is why Iowa is still such an important state to campaign in.
So what I am getting at is…why is it all of the sudden such a big deal NOW in 2012, when it has been fine all along; if it is not broken then why try and fix it?As much as I like Romney, after watching Scarborough’s video, I DO agree with his tactics on his campaigning and I think he is legitimately a nice guy. Clearly, Romney and Gingrich have SOME kind of money, which means they have a key to the media and the media has the key to the audience. When candidates are exposed in the media, it gives the audience a chance to put a face and political view with a name and in return it benefits their campaign. BECAUSE of the lack of money Scarborough has, he also lacks having a part in the media and being able to participate in the primaries. Having interest in Iowa was a good move Scarborough made, because it is a caucus state, meaning there is not a large amount of individuals who actually vote because they do not have enough time to make their minds up and they end up not voting. Having a smaller audience in Iowa benefits Scarborough, in a sense that he gets to go the old traditional way, knocking door-to-door, being able to make a connection with potential voters. So if your audience is small, then it is easier to work with. I think the government should leave Iowa and all the caucus states alone; nothing is wrong so far, so why change now?
I agree with Iowa and New Hampshire starting off the presidential race. I think they are a good spot because they create all of the negative ads in those states. Comparing those to texas where you do not see as many negative ads. States where the running is close and no candidate has the state forsure, is where you will see the negative ads. You could see this happen when Ramney lost South Carolina to Gingrich. Ramney has so much money that he had ads that attacked Gingrich in Florida to win the primary there.
I agree with what they are saying because I am not a fan of all the negative ads taht they create. It is completely fine by me for them to start off there and attack each other out of Texas. Texas usually doesnt have negative ads because we are so late in the runnings.
I believe that starting the nomination process in Iowa and New Hampshire is important. As Joe Scarborough said, the people are so engaged and you can't run 30 second ads that are negative. I believe these are two important states that care about politics more than any other states. Although, I disagree with the fact that the Presidential race might already be decided when it gets to other states, I still feel that people in states surrounding Iowa and New Hampshire can connect and relate to the same ideaology that citizens in Iowa and New Hampshire have. So by starting the race in these two states, you can potentially reach a bigger audience. Also it serves two purposes. One being that in Iowa, you get the working class, so by starting in Iowa, you can earn the working class votes, and that will translate to other cities as well. In New Hampshire, you can earn the upper-class vote and also earn the votes of other upper-class citizens in America. I think that, while it is important to start the race in Iowa and New Hampshire, it should be important to remember there are 48 states that are watching Iowa and New Hampshire, and they are gaining their own insight as well.
I think it is a good idea to start the primaries in small states like Iowa and New Hampshire. It allows for candidates to personally meet a large amount of people. It allows the people of these two states to get to know the candidates in a more personal way than if they only saw TV ads. TV ads are more aggressive than canvassing the state personally. Door to door is a very powerful and more personal way to get to know a candidate. It allows the people to see the candidates in a more personal way. A voter isn’t just seeing an ad but he or she is meeting face to face with people. However, on the other hand, I’m not sure it should be just these two states every time. There are other states that would be able to fit the same role that Iowa and New Hampshire fits. For example Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware would all be good states to start off the primaries. I don’t think these two states, Iowa and New Hampshire, should be the only states the get the privilege of being the first and most important states in deciding a presidential candidate. I think having the primaries start In Iowa and New Hampshire also discourages people from becoming politically active. I know if I lived in a state that mattered, I would definitely be interested in getting involved in a candidacy. I disagree that it should be only in these two states; however, I agree that it should still be selective in which states that the primaries start in.
Even though I do not agree with letting NH and IA be the first 2 states to start the primaries every year, I can understand why they are the first states. There are several logical & logistical reasons IA and NH are the first states to poll: they are smaller states enabling the canidates to travel frequently and easily over short distances, the smaller populations allow a canidate with a small "war-chest" of $ to compete with some of the larger canidates, as well as getting a litmus for the mainly agriculture-centered pop. in IA and the more moderate pop. in NH. Remember, by the time these 2 primaries are finished, a majority of the canidates are pressed to drop-out leaving IA and NH to give the rest of the nation their Presidential canidates year after year. I disagree with letting these states go first every political campain year because to me it is too predictable. In order to see how the canidates would fare in a national election I would perfer to see the first primaries in states with a more diverse population both demographicly, educationally, and work-wise. There are several smaller states that could replace or atleast trade duties with IA and NH including Colorado, Florida, Michigan, and even Arizona. These states are smaller in geographic size but have larger and more diverse populations. I say we give it a try.
Post a Comment