The exaggerated importance of Iowa and New Hampshire

[kentuck]

Reportedly, about 1% of Iowa voters came out for their caucus. Santorum and Romney tied for the most votes. Romney won by a mere 8 votes but even that was disputed.

Then they moved to NH amidst much media attention. About 250,000 people went to the polls and Romney got the most votes with about 100,000. The other five split the remaining 150,000 votes, with Ron Paul getting the most.

Now we are told that Mitt Romney is the front-runner to be the Republican nominee after his "victories" in Iowa and New Hampshire. It is unreal that such a small number of voters would determine the candidate for President of the United States. Of all the states in the Union, these two are probably the most insignificant of them all. It is insane that they would choose who is going to be President for all the people of this country.

So now, the Republicans move to SC and Florida. Will those voters follow the media hype and vote for the same candidates as the people of Iowa and NH? If we listen to the majority of the media, Romney is the inevitable candidate. The choices have already been made.

[kentuck]

2. Iowa = 1% in the caucus..

Not NH

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

3. In 2008, the two states were 50-50

In Iowa, the winners were Obama and Huckabee.
In New Hampshire, the winners were Clinton and McCain.

So, they didn't exactly "pick" the candidates, though there was some success.

At this time in 2008, I think the media were still favoring Clinton.