48 states are still waiting their chance- those saying that it's over after tomorrow

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

show a lack of historical knowledge if nothing else. Iowa and New Hampshire DO NOT make the decision for the entire country. Every vote of every person in every primary matters and I hate to see this discounted.

Allow the process to work. We all need to let our voices be heard. The primary process has historically been full of surprises and rising and ebbing candidates as the events of the day cause different narratives to evolve. And "inevitability" can be a curse to a candidate you might not wish to foist off on any one in particular too early.

[cali]

1. You're right. They don't make the decision, but don't

kid yourself, they're hugely (and perhaps unfairly) influential. No candidate from either party who has won both IA and NH has not been nominated.

Realistically, every vote in every primary doesn't count. Mine never has. I vote in March.

No candidate is inevitable, but if this front loaded primary schedule heavily favors a candidate who wins the early primaries and goes into what is essentially a national primary on Feb 5th. And that is not an unlikely scenarion.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

6. I did a little research

and found a site that had a pretty good summary of both Democratic and Republican primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire as they related to over all nomination and wins in the General election since 1976. (I did not post a link to the site, because it started trying to install some crappy add-on flash player or something) I think what you say appears right about no one not winning both and then getting the nomination.

The sadder part was that those wins for the most part did NOT translate to a win in the general election. (Although I believe personally that Al Gore and John Kerry both actually did win the general but were robbed , so that skewed those statistics negatively) I would have liked to have found statistics that went back farther, but really, why bother? The dynamics of modern politics with polling, focus groups, PACs, etc. is far different from the olden days. Since this is all still evolving ( and the media of course is always doing their best to create rather than report the news) we'll just have to see how it all plays out.

[cyclezealot]

2. the money race has already run its course

A news story out yesterday. O'Bama has already blown his wad in Iowa, New Hampshire. One million dollars and is broke going into Super Tuesday. Nevada and South Carolina being lesser money states will determine the race. Of course Oprah and all the big three candidates are good at shaking the speical interest money tree. But, California is expensive media. Maybe Californians will be spared from the misseries of all the attack ads New Hampshire citizens are now having to endure. / One good thing. Mittens. Having to cough out all that cash from his personal checking account, if he is not prez in 09, he might have to recoup all his investments to make up for his losses in the campaign . Wonder if he can claim them as a tax write off.

[cali]

4. If you don't think Obama is raising money at breakneck speed

now, you don't understand how things work. Furthermore, he has hundreds of thousands of donors who haven't reached the legal limit yet, so his potential to raise 25 million or more in the next month is huge.

[cyclezealot]

7. Mother Jones says Obama's small donor list is not necessarily small.

Cash Machines
Campaign Contributions by Industry

December 21, 2007

Clinton
Raised/Spent: $91m/$40m


63% of her donors have contributed the federal limit of $2,300.

Obama
Raised/Spent: $80m/$44m
26% of his donors have given $200 or less. 47% gave more than $2000.


http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/01/campaign-contributions-by-industry.html

Figures as of 9/30/07. May not add to 100% due to rounding. Calculated using figures from the Center for Responsive Politics.

[loveangelc]

3. California doesnt want to vote for losers. That's all.

[AndyA]

5. I would hope people would be smart enough to not let big money and the media

tell us who our next President is going to be.

But just from the posts here at DU, it's apparent a lot of people have fallen for it again. We have a lot of Kool-Aid drinkers here at DU, and they don't even realize it. :(

[cali]

8. Nonsense. Money is hardly the only reason people are voting for

Obama. If it were all about money, Romney would have thrashed Huckabee in Iowa. He didn't. And just because people don't agree with oh so exalted YOU, doesn't mean they imbibed any kool-aid.

You're engaging in one logical fallacy after another. Do try using some petites cellules grises.

[cyclezealot]

10. Huckabee got in Romney's way in Iowa

because of the pretty much monolothic Christain vote. As Romney will get into Huckabee's way in Utah. Money was irrelevant in cases such as Iowa. Money might not determine the number one slot in a race , but it most assuredly will determine the runners up.

[cyclezealot]

9. loveanglc,#3.

logic enforces the call to drink kool aid. Determing one's vote because they are winners/ losers is a real dead end. Voting for a winner could lead one to the likes of Ronald Reagan. I say , think for yourself. Don't follow the herd. They often lead you to a cliff.

[Sparkly]

11. I don't think anyone's won both Iowa and NH and not gotten the nom, have they?

That's why, as long as "independent" NH me-too's Iowa, and other states jump on the momentum bandwagon of those, it seems a small number of Iowans end up deciding the election.

It would be really nice to see a full process, and I think it's good for our candidates. Oh well.