How significant are the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries?

by jellyspur (student)

A primary is the process in which presidential candidates are nominated to run as the candidate for a certain party by the public (you can only vote in one primary so you can only vote in one party’s primary). Each state is allowed to choose the date for their primary or caucus (which is very similar but the delegates are chosen by party leaders and the candidate is announced/voted on at the national convention) and both Iowa and New Hampshire have regularly been the first caucus and primary of the election campaigns respectively. This makes them significant in the following ways it determines the momentum of certain candidate’s via media and it can be seen to set the tone for the rest of the campaign. However there have been times where the results have not mattered so much.

This is a preview of the whole essay

One reason why the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries are seen to be so significant is that it can determine the momentum of the candidates. This is true in terms of media and also party backing, if a candidate is seen to do well in the initial primary/caucus there is more of a focus on them, this can mean stronger media focus i.e. editorials written about them or more money made available by the party for the certain candidates election if he is seen to have momentum. However, the opposite can be true for losers of the earlier primaries/caucuses, in fact one of the most famous instances of this was in the 1950s in which the incumbent president Truman lost the first primary in new Hampshire and as a result of the ridicule withdrew from the presidential race, this also happened with LBJ (in the 1969 election) who with a less than convincing win in the Iowa caucus famously announced that ‘I shall not nor shall I seek the nomination from my party to be your president’ this shows the obvious significance the primaries/caucuses have.

One reason it could be seen as less significant is that they don’t guarantee who the presidential candidate will be. Whilst it can be seen a convincing win early on is a very good confidence boost there are cases where people have suffered as a result of the early win i.e in 1980 Bush senior defeated Ronald Regan in both the caucuses and primaries but, as a result was over confident and proceeded not to participate in some other primaries and as a result lost popularity and ultimately the nomination. Also it is no guarantee that the winner will win or that loser will lose the nomination for example in 1996 Bob Dole lost the new Hampshire primaries but, still continued to win further down the line and win the nomination for the republican party although losing out on the presidency.

However, there are cases where Iowa and New Hampshire have been very significant. It can be seen that usually a win does have a good effect on the candidates and can set the tone of the rest of the campaign with a candidate statistically being 27% more likely to win the nomination if he wins in either one than if she/he did not. This shows the significance of both the Iowa and new Hampshire caucus as it shows that there is a statistic advantage to winning the primary/caucus. Another example is that former mayor of new York Rudy Giuliani was the favourite to win the nomination but, due to overconfidence did not contest the New Hampshire primary and therefore lost a lot of popularity and failed to win the republican nomination. Which once again shows the significance as that primary could have been a turning point in the election for Giuliani.

Overall it seems that it is extremely significant, however it doesn’t have a decisive say on the nomination just a great deal of influence.