a) Should New Hampshire always be allowed to be the first primary?
b) Is there value for the Republican candidates who came in 4th or lower in Iowa to stay in the race?
c) What does a win for Sanders mean for his chances going into South Carolina? Consider Hillary was expected to dominate Iowa and Sanders virtually tied her there. Also consider that Sanders is campaigning in his backyard as a Senator from Vermont.
Reply here. Please remember to be polite and respectful to other people's political opinions. I'll be actively monitoring your responses.
ReplyDeleteI think of New Hampshire having the first primary as now necessary for them. It's an economic and tourist boost that would be unfair to take away from them.
DeleteUsually people who take 4th and under in Iowa never win but this year we are seeing many weird things. Some candidates like Donald Trump don't care if they get nominated or not. They may not win but many candidates are in it until the end either way.
A win for Sanders is more a defeat for Hillary. He tied Iowa and won New Hampshire. Sanders has created a lot of momentum and if he keeps winning Hilary's voting pool is going to be devastated.
One candidate that I find personally interesting is Chris Christie. I'm not very big on politics but from what I have seen in debates I have liked. I also feel good knowing that he had to deal with Hurricane Sandy just like I did. He's the only candidate I don't hate right now.
A) I don't really see any reason for New Hampshire to not go first. Even if they go first every time just out of tradition, someone has to go first. It might as well continue being New Hampshire. Perhaps the first state to go can be randomly selected, forcing candidates to spend more time in other states.But this can end up giving the candidate who randomly campaigned in the selected state an advantage over the other candidates.
DeleteB) We truly wont know until every vote is cast. however, there are some candidates who clearly should drop out due to extremely low votes. Generally speaking, if a candidate comes in 4th or lower, they are swept out of the limelight and as a result receive much less attention from the public, causing their poll numbers to go down even further. All in all, if a candidate comes in 4th or lower they should drop out.
C) I don't see Sanders performing well in South Carolina. Sanders was near his home territory in New Hampshire and only tied to Hillary in Iowa from extreme bad luck. I don't see the Democrats of the south as people who would favor someone who is so far left leaning. Hillary is definitely closer to the middle and as a result will be picked as the winner over Sanders. Once Sanders starts to hit the southern states his chances of winning the nomination get slimmer.
D) The candidate I like the most was Rand Paul. That is until he dropped out of the race. I liked him for his mostly Libertarian views. The way I see the Presidential race, is that Republicans and Democrats are different faces of the same authoritarian coin. As a result, I agree with Rand for wanting to limit governments power. I enjoy less taxes and more personal freedoms for every single American. I do believe that Rand would have been the first president to actually limit the bureaucracy. Considering that Rand has dropped out, I am currently not planning on voting for anyone, unless one of the candidates starts pandering to Rand's supporters.
A. It should not really matter if New Hampshire is first or not. I believe it is perfectly fine that they are first, and would be perfectly fine if they were not. It is first due to money purposes and if it benefits the country and the state then why not, New Hampshire needs the attraction anyway.
DeleteB. Well we wont necessarily know for sure, anything can happen, for example Rubio was doing well until his soundbite, therefore it is fair game any one could do or say anything that can up their chances or ruin their chances. So I dont think it plays a huge role, especially this early in the election.
C.I believe that Sanders now has more publicity that will turn into votes, I think people did not take him seriously until these two events, so people especially young people will look into him.
D. I really like Bernie Sanders, I think he has nice ideologies, I think he is very attractive to the younger generations, and if he could make student loans vanish that be really nice!
A). I think that because New Hampshire has always been the first to vote in the primary, it should stay that way. It has always been a tradition for them to vote first, and I see no reason to change that. I also think that the influx of tourists to New Hampshire during the primary is good for the economy. However, if the state were to be changed, it could give other states the opportunity for an economic boost, as well as a chance to gain media attention.
DeleteB). I don't think that anyone who gets lower than fourth place should drop out because anything can happen in the race, and if you drop out and something weird happens, there could be a big regret there.
C. A vast majority of the population of young, politically inexperienced voters who, right now, are very liberal. I think that many of them are going for Sanders because they can easily connect to him, which is why I think he is doing so well, and why he will continue to do well. I think that Hillary comes off in a negative way to a lot of people, which is why Sanders is rapidly rising. The added fact of him winning the primary in NH will definitely help him going into SC, but Hillary is also a very powerful woman and honestly, anything could happen.
D. My favorite candidate is Chris Christie. I feel like I relate to him a lot and I think that he is someone who genuinely is concerned about his people. He is blunt, but not as blunt (and crazy) as Donald Trump. He is a very smart, experienced man, who I think would take this nation very far. To be quite honest, I really like him because he doesn't say what people want to hear, but he says what he thinks and he doesn't beat around the bush. He doesn't bullshit, for lack of a better term. And a lot of people will argue that they like Donald Trump because he is blunt too. But the difference between Christie and Trump is that Christie is a genuine and caring,and politically experienced man, while Trump is more of a psychotic type. The duty of the President of the United States is to look out for the citizens of the United States, which is exactly what Christie would do. Although it doesn't even matter now...
a. I think that New Hampshire should continue to hold the first primary because it is a national tradition. The primary gives NH a lot of economic help and public attention, and makes the state feel important in the political landscape of this country. Candidates also get an idea if they will continue to do well in the election based on their results in the NH primary and can react accordingly.
Deleteb. Even if candidates come in fourth or lower, there is still value in staying in the race. The candidate may realize that they are not winning the presidency, but stay in the race because they can use all of the media and public attention to raise or lower other candidates chances. For example, a candidate who came in fourth or lower may attack another candidate without having to worry, because it is already predicted that he is not going to win.
c. Sanders' win in New Hampshire gave him a huge advantage moving into South Carolina. He tied in Iowa, which was not the predicted outcome, and easily won in New Hampshire, which means that he has lots of supporters and attention going onto the next stage of the election.
d. I find Bernie Sanders to be the most interesting candidate because of his claims to help lower the burden of having to pay for a college education. This issue is relevant in my life right now, and I am curious to see how he plans to do this, since no one else has been able to have a huge impact on college education costs yet.
the one above Julianne's is Caroline Gibbons ^^
DeleteOlivia Colletti
DeleteA. I don’t think that there is any reason why New Hampshire can’t be the first primary. It has become a tradition and a law that the first primary happens here and while some people believe it is unfair that the candidates spend so much time there opposed to other states, if the situation was reversed then there would be other states that would be unhappy as well. Additionally, people believe that the time spent in New Hampshire would be better spent in a more populated state, however, the people of New Hampshire take immense pride in being the first primary and to change something that in the end, essentially no one will be happy and there is no real problem with would not be the best idea. In this situation, I think it is best for New Hampshire to stay the first primary because it has become an integral part of their political culture.
B. If a candidate comes in fourth, they have virtually no chance of winning anymore so there is no value in that sense. However, a candidate could use the media and attention they are receiving and use it to promote an idea or belief that they strongly support that otherwise would not have been brought to light. By promoting a certain new idea or belief, they could influence someone’s opinion for the current election or even the next election.
C. A win in South Carolina would be very important for Bernie Sanders because Hillary is projected to do very well with that specific demographic. He had the advantage in New Hampshire because it is practically his own backyard, but especially since he did pretty well in Iowa unexpectedly, a win in South Carolina would put him in a really good place with a variety of demographics.
D. I find Donald Trump to be very interesting because I don’t think anyone took him very seriously when he started, but now he is experiencing some success and there is a possibility of him succeeding. I think his approach is very different but it appeals to many people because they are tired of static politics and the same messages with no change. He is new and while his ideas are not quite refined yet, he entertains people but doesn’t stray very far from Republican core values, which would make him a viable candidate. I think people should start taking him more seriously, because with a little refinement he could be a very serious politician. I think also that his lack of a filter is interesting and I like how he doesn’t try to please everyone by being politically correct every single time he speaks. I think he is a nice change of pace and I am excited to see what happens with him.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. New Hampshire shouldn't necessarily be the first state to go first but state primaries going off on different days allows candidates to campaign in many states. New Hampshire goes first because of law and tradition and I personally do not see a point in changing that. It would be more fair to have a rotation method of which state goes first but just becomes too complex.
ReplyDelete2. Some candidates who placed low in Iowa continue to campaign in New Hampshire and states after that. Some candidates do not want the results of one primary to dictate their campaign. However others dropped out after low results in Iowa like Rick Sanatorium. Personally I see running after Iowa with little momentum as a waste of capital and resources. It would be more wise to drop out and back a candidate who has real potential to win. By backing a popular candidate that person has the chance to become the vice president on the Republican ticket.
3. Bernie Sanders was expected to fade out during Primaries to Hilary Clinton. However with a virtual tie in Iowa and New Hampshire near his home turf, Sanders is doing exceptionally well. A win in New Hampshire, which may happen would further increase his campaign momentum. Bernie Sanders will be going strong into South Carolina however his lack of super pac money might lead to financial problems. Regardless Sanders is giving Hilary Clinton a run for her money for the Democratic Ticket.
I agree with you about the fact Bernie Sanders will give Hillary Clinton a run for her money. After closing a win in New Hampshire, it is quite possible we could see Bernie Sanders as the Democratic nominee. However, as you mentioned, Hillary’s main advantage is the fact that she has a lot of super pac money, and Bernie Sanders’ large young voter following may not be enough to make him the Democratic candidate in the national election.
DeleteI agree that although Bernie Sanders has huge momentum going into South Carolina, his lack of super pac money may cause some financial problems for his campaign. Hilary definitely has a chance at pulling ahead as the race continues because of her enormous funding. However, as more and more young people get accepted to colleges, their concern and their parents concern is how they are going to pay for their education. Sanders will have a strong backing from the younger generation, so it is hard to say whether Hilary will pull ahead or not.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. Although held to tradition, I don’t think that New Hampshire should hold the first primaries. I feel as though by doing this, candidates will always focus their attention first to New Hampshire, disregarding other states for the time being, since New Hampshire’s primaries hold so much power and insight to the future candidates of each party.
ReplyDelete2. There is value for candidates who came 4th and lower in the Iowa caucus. The reporter made a mention of John Kasich, who didn’t come in the top 3 in the Iowa caucus. She said he was very important to watch because of his engagement to the crowd. After finding out the results, it showed she was right and that John Kasich came in second, behind Donald Trump. This shows that voters state by state have different views and opinions of who should be president, so candidates not placing the top third in one state might have a chance in another.
3. Bernie Sanders winning the New Hampshire primary will definitely increase his momentum on the campaign trail. He will go into South Carolina strong, but so will Hillary Clinton. Being a Populist, Bernie Sanders has gotten money from donations, but Hillary is a powerhouse when it comes to getting money from super pacs. Also, she is backed by her husband, the former president of the US, so there is a lot of power with that. And with power, comes money. It could be that Bernie Sanders’ campaign run may soon start to lose momentum as the money begins to run out.
4. Bernie Sanders has attracted the attention of a lot of young voters with his mention of lowering tuition rates as well climate change. Although I fall in that category, I am suspicious to how he would be able to do that. He has made a lot of promises to change the nation, but so has many presidents in the past. Barack Obama said change was near, and he has not done what many Americans had hoped he would do as far as fixing the nation. This is why Donald Trump has become such a frontrunner.
I agree with Jackie about Bernie Sanders possibly losing momentum in the election due to finances. Hillary has a LOT more money than Bernie Sanders due to Super Pacs and her husband. I also agree in that I'm concerned with how Sanders would be able to lower college tuition rates. Of course, any student bound for college is going to support this, but that is a pretty big promise that he would have to keep.
Deletea) I don’t know if New Hampshire should be the first state to have their primary, but honestly I don’t think it is that important to me. They aren’t the largest and most influential state, but it might be better if a state like Ohio had their vote first, since the state is more important to a presidential election.
ReplyDeleteb) Personally, I believe there is some value if you stay in the race after coming in 4th or lower in Iowa, only if you weren’t that far behind the top 3. If it was a landslide difference, and you spent a lot of money in the state, then yeah you should call it quits. But I think there is still some value in staying at least until after the New Hampshire primaries just to be sure of whether you have enough support or not in the election. It is just one state so there’s still a shot.
c) A win for Sanders would be absolutely crucial going into South Carolina. Hilary Clinton has A LOT more campaign funding than Sanders, and honestly should be winning the races, but a win for Sanders would help him gain momentum and support that would keep him running in the race. He can’t afford to lose now if he wants to beat the Democratic Party mainstay Hilary. The tie in Iowa was a great way to put himself on the map to the rest of the states as a legit candidate to knock off Hilary, but he needs a win. He also needs to win in New Hampshire because this is basically where he is from as a Senator. It’s the same region and he needs to get it done with people that might be a little more familiar with him.
d) In regards to a candidate that interests me, I think that Ted Cruz is pretty intriguing. Lately, he seems to have really been taking the next step into the possible nomination for the Republican presidential candidate. He speaks very well, and says some good things that will undoubtedly gain him party support, and voter support in the Republican party. If you watched the debate the other day, he just seemed to be acting more presidential in the way he spoke and responded to questions etc.
I agree with Greg that Ted Cruz would be a great Republican Candidate. He does win the support of many people as shown by the Iowa Primaries. My other choice is Marco Rubio because his political views are very in line with me. I think he would be a strong young inspiration for this country to move in the right direction.
DeleteGregory I do agree with what u said for Section A, I believe that maybe a bigger state with more political power should have the first primary. Greg your statement for letter b was also very well said it showed both sides of the argument which I also agree with, That it is only one state and you can still make a comeback and also how if you lost by a landslide and are losing money you should call it quits. For letter c I agree how you said Hillary should be leading the race and Bernie's win and next primary would be crucial for deciding the race, and knocking off Hillary. Gregory I also enjoyed reading your take on Ted Cruz how he is speaking more "presidential" and in the lead throughout the beginning. I enjoyed reading your thoughts on these issues, well done
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA) I don’t see a point in changing it, in that it’s a law, as well as it’d be too difficult to form a rotation schedule to switch which state gets to start each year. Another reason as to why there no point in changing it is some candidates skip states they know wont get votes in, so if the first primary would be a “skip state” for that candidate, they wont really have a chance.
ReplyDeleteB) There is definitely value in running after placing lower than 3rd place in the Iowa caucus. I don’t think a candidate should allow one ranking defeat their entire campaign. Although they may not have done exceedingly well in the one caucus it doesn’t deem them unfit, nor unworthy to continue their campaign.
C) A win for Sanders means not only is he surprising everyone by still being around, but he’d be heading into South Caroline very strong as well. The result of him coming so close to Clinton in Iowa when the predictions were for him to be completely over-powered leaves him heading forward with a lot of strength, nonetheless, so is Clinton. But I do believe Sanders will run into financial issues soon, while I don’t think Clinton will have that issue.
D) Although I have not really found any of the candidates too convincing or interesting, many of my friends are very interested in Sanders. Many of his followers seem to be young adults, and he is definitely feeding into this group as much as possible. It’ll be interesting to watch the campaigns unfold and wither out to see the finals on the ballet.
I agree how Sanders will encounter financial difficulties in the future, which could hinder his progress in the race. Hillary will not experience the same obstacles in funding, and this could be the deciding factor further down the road in this race. While the New Hampshire primary was a great success for Sanders, it will not significantly leave Hillary far behind him.
DeleteI think that Bernie's young adult following is extremely interesting because in years past, young people have not gone out and voted in large numbers like other age groups. I think it will be interesting to see whether or not Bernie Sanders will be able to convince the young people that much of his campaign is catered towards to actually go vote or if he will fail to win because the young people that he is relying on don't vote when the time comes.
Deletea) Although it is an American tradition, I do not believe that New Hampshire should hold the first primaries. Instead, a more influential and unbiased state should be chosen for the first primaries. Ohio would be the best alternative because traditionally it has even representation of political parties. This would set the primary on an even playing ground. In addition, it would be interesting to see how the media can influence such an unbiased state.
ReplyDeleteb) Yes there is value for candidates who finished in fourth or worse in the Iowa Caucus to stay in the race, as displayed by John Kasich. He received only 1.9% of the the votes in the Iowa Caucus, falling behind fourth place. However in the New Hampshire primary, Kasich finished in second place behind Donald Trump. This is clear proof that there is value in persevering through the race, despite results from the Iowa Caucus. The results of one state will not dictate the results of the race as a whole. Continuing with the race out of the top three may be risky, but it just might pay off.
c)Considering that Hillary Clinton has roughly one hundred million more dollars in funding raised than Bernie Sanders, a win for Sanders in New Hampshire is a huge success. He will now go into South Carolina with great momentum. Also, over the course of the past couple years, Sanders has more total visits to South Carolina, possible giving him the advantage over Hillary. Although Sanders was given more support in New Hampshire, being from Vermont, this victory is still a tremendous step forward in the race for Sanders.
d) I find the situation of Marco Rubio to be very interesting. In Iowa he came in third place, closely behind Donald Trump. However in the results of the New Hampshire primary, Rubio's vote percentage dropped drastically, as Donald Trump won in a landslide. It is cleat that the Republican Debate from this past weekend had a negative effect on Rubio after Chris Christie completely exposed him. Rubio essentially tanked after that debate and it showed in the results from New Hampshire. It's amazing what a poor performance, enhanced by the media, can do to a candidate.
I agree with the comment above. It is really amazing how one debate can really effect a candidate’s poll numbers. Christie really put a dent into Rubio’s numbers after he caught Rubio reciting his stump line numerous times. Although this hurt Rubio significantly, it did not help Christie much either. Christie is debating whether or not to continue his campaign into South Carolina.
DeleteA) I don't think there is a point in changing it. It has been law and tradition that New Hampshire be the first primary, why change it now? One disadvantage to this is that the candidates spend most of their time in New Hampshire and Iowa around this time, when they should be making their way around to different locations.
ReplyDeleteB) I believe there is value in running after placing lower than 3rd place. A candidate who ranked 4th or 5th may gain more support with time and move up to a higher ranking. An example of this is John Kasich, who didn't place well in the Iowa Caucus, ended up being right behind Trump in the New Hampshire primary.
C) A win for Bernie Sanders is definitely going to help him in South Carolina. Him tying with Clinton and beating her in the New Hampshire primary proves that he has potential. However, one of the biggest differences between Sanders' campaign and that of Clinton's is money. Hillary is backed by super PACS and her husband, while Bernie isn't. Problems and difficulties could arise if Bernie Sanders starts to run out of money.
D) I'm interested in Bernie Sanders. I found that a lot of people in my age group (high school and college students) support him because he claims to lower/get rid of college tuition. Although I am a big supporter of this, I'm concerned with how he'd successfully be able to accomplish that. That is a HUGE change, and past presidents have promised things that may be a little unrealistic/difficult to accomplish.
I agree with what Courtney said about the differences between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton's campaigns. Sanders does seem to have more support, but Clinton has more money to support her campaign. It's disappointing to see that money can get in the way of someone's campaign who has proved himself to be popular with voters.
DeleteShawn Callahan Period 5 Day 2
ReplyDeleteA) knowing that New Hampshire has always been the first primary, I don't have a problem with them being the first primary because it has been established for so long. Also nothing wrong has really happened in order to create a fuss, to try and get New Hampshire removed. I do believe however it would make more sense to have a more populated state, such with more of a pull in the actual election, to hold the first primary. Also with this question New Hampshire shouldn't always be the first primary, maybe there can be an order to rotate so multiple states get a turn, but i understand that, that would be a huge pain and the order of New Hampshire being in first has already been established and been ongoing for a while.
B) No I do not believe so because if the candidates who fall in 4th and last keep on running they are just wasting the other major candidates time as well as votes. Most candidates who fall in 4th through last do however drop out of the race and show support for one of the other major candidates who are running in their party. The candidates who are being beaten by a large margin should drop out and show support for the other candidates who are the top 3.
C) A win for Sanders would be huge for his election campaign, this is a guy who was supposed to not even come close to Hillary, who “had it in the bag.” But now with Sanders almost defeating her in Iowa and then turn around and smack her in the New Hampshire primary, a win in South Carolina would definitely put Sanders in a good lead on Hillary. I understand that Sanders was a senator in Vermont which is New Hampshire’s neighbor, which is why he did so well but you also have to take in that Sanders almost beat Hillary in Iowa, which is very far from Sanders “backyard”
D) The candidate I find very fascinating is Donald Trump. This is a man that people took for a joke coming out of the starting gates. But through these past couple months Trump has gained massive support and looking very good, especially with his win in New Hampshire. Even when Congressman Peter King came to our school he mentioned how he was surprised that Trump was doing so well, which is why I find his campaign very intriguing. Another reason why I find Trump’s campaign very interesting is because he is not a “professional politician”, but a businessman. But, perhaps that is what this country may need.
Shawn, I think your idea on a rotation is maybe a possibility but I also agree that it would be "a huge pain". When it comes to your point on what candidates who fall back to 4th or lower should do, I agree that dropping out would be what's best for the party. I also agree with you Shawn Patrick when you said that Sanders may have done so well in New Hampshire, because it is Vermont's "neighbor" and right in his own "backyard" practically. Shawn, your take on the fascinating run of Donald Trump couldn't be more spot on. No matter what he seems to do, he rises in the polls! I believe the other day, Trump himself said that he could kill a man on the street and his numbers would go up. Outrageous. It's sad because he's probably right too. Although he might be the "businessman" this country might need, I don't think he is going to win, and personally I don't really want the boss of the show "The Apprentice" as my President.
Deletea) New Hampshire should not be allowed to always be the first primary. It gives them too much influence over the presidential elections. As well, it forces candidates to make special deals and policies to benefit the people of New Hampshire strictly because their success/failure in New Hampshire could increase/destroy their chances of being chosen as their party's nomination and maybe the next president of the United States. The first primary should be held in a different state and then rotated back to the beginning. Continuously moving the location of the first primary would help to reduce that state's influence over the presidential election.
ReplyDeleteb) I believe that, at this point, there is value for Republican candidates who ranked 4th or lower to stay in the race. At this point there are many Republicans who are still undecided or not fully set on one candidate over another. Marco Rubio's numbers in the NH primary prove that. After doing very well in the Iowa caucus, Rubio received only 10.4% of NH voters' votes. This shows that the Republican candidate is not at all set.
c) A win for Bernie in NH is a good sign for Bernie's future in this race. By almost beating Hillary in Iowa, where she was expected to dominate, Sanders showed that she is not the shoo-in for the democratic nomination that she once was seen as. However his success in NH will likely cause the CLinton campaign to increase their efforts and begin campaigning with the money of a SuperPAC behind them that Bernie's campaign may not be able to compete with.
d) When looking at the results of the NH primary I found Marco Rubio to be very interesting. To go from receiving 7 of the delegates in Iowa to receiving none in New Hampshire in such a short time period was interesting to see happen. To see this huge difference over such a short time illustrates the huge amount of power that the media has on this election. Because of Rubio's repetition of the same speech at the Republican debate, the media has been all over Rubio, questioning his experience and whether or not he is ready to take on the presidency. This doubt in the media is one of the likely causes of Rubio's failure in New Hampshire.
a. The New Hampshire primary should continue to go first because it is a tradition. New Hampshire has been the first primary since 1920. This primary is a good testing ground for the candidates because it is a respectable indicator of how well they will do in other states.
ReplyDeleteb. There is no value for candidates to continue their campaigns if they came in lower than 4th. For example Chris Christie after his past results in Iowa and New Hampshire is reevaluating his campaign. Because his results were low he is debating on continuing into South Carolina. Christie and other candidates that came lower than 4th would just be wasting time and money by continuing.
c. It is a good sign for Sanders that he won New Hampshire. Although he took the win, I believe Hilary will start gaining momentum in the more southern states. Hilary’s home state is Arkansas, so she will most likely be winning that primary. Hillary will have more popular turnouts than Bernie in the south.
d. Donald Trump is a very interesting candidate. I share many of the same views as him, and I hope he receives the Republican Nomination. He speaks his mind and is confident about what he believes in. In my opinion he would be a strong leader for the United States.
JOE G
It would be hard to argue the adjective "interesting" in describing Trump's presidential campaign. Perhaps what I find most interesting about him is his speech mannerisms. He consistently speaks with colloquial slang and often repeats casual phrases such as "we love them". While being a good orator is not a prerequisite for the presidency, Trump's presence surely is a contrast from the slick public speaker that is Barack Obama.
DeleteDanielle Altamura
ReplyDeletea) New Hampshire having the first primary is not something that truly needs to be changed. Other states still have high levels of political influence without having an early primary.
b) There is value in Republican candidates who place 4th or lower in Iowa staying in the race, as shown by Kasich's and Bush's rankings in Iowa. The demographics in Iowa are much different than in highly populated states, which are very important due to the Electoral College.
c) A win in NH and what could have been a tie if not for archaic coin flipping in IA is very helpful for Sanders. It shows that the candidacy is not a runaway for Hillary and that Bernie does stand a real chance. If more youth actually vote in the primaries, as Sanders has a large majority of democrats ages 18-44. However, most primary voters are middle aged and older, specifically past retirement age, as they actually have time to vote.
d) The candidate I am most interested in is Bernie Sanders. He is the best candidate for people my age, and for helping the US actually fix its problems, such as extreme wealth disparity and corruption in politics. He is obviously not perfect, but what politician is?
I agree that the New Hampshire primary going first isn't really an issue. Its political culture makes it a good predictor of the voting results in similar states, but other states that go later still exert strong influence over the primary process (i.e. Texas, California, Florida-all very populous and diverse states).
DeleteA) I don’t think that it’s necessary to change law of New Hampshire being the first primary because it’s a tradition. The candidates don’t spend as much time in other states during this time, which is one disadvantage of New Hampshire going first. This give an early look to see how the candidates might do in other states. There are negatives to New Hampshire being the first primary, but I don’t think it’s that important to change the order.
ReplyDeleteB) I think that there is value for Republicans who get below third in Iowa to stay in the race because it’s so early and other states have different values, so the results may be completely different. This year the results from Iowa and New Hampshire vary, so there still is value for a candidate who gets lower than third.
C) Going into South Carolina, I think that Bernie Sanders has a good chance of winning. It is clear that he has the support of many voters since he did better than expected in Iowa and won New Hampshire. Sanders proved that he has potential to be the nominee because of how he has done so far.
D) I find Bernie Sanders interesting because of what he says he will do to improve the cost of college tuition and about climate change. I share many of the same beliefs, but I think it will be difficult to accomplish some of what he says. Also, I think that he sticks to what he says, which is not a quality that all politicians have.
I agree with Laura in the fact that candidates should continue to run in the primaries even if they place 4th or lower in the caucus. I also have the same feelings towards as Bernie Sanders.
DeleteAshley Liebegott
DeleteI agree with Laura in that I fell that Sanders is another interesting candidate. I also hold many of the same opinions and beliefs as Sanders and feel like he would try his best to accomplish them.
Alexa Fiorillo
DeleteI also agree that Bernie Sanders is an interesting candidate to see that if he is elected into office, if he really will improve the cost of college tuition since that is something that is very important to many people. In reality, it may be difficult for him to accomplish.
A) Whether New Hampshire is first in the primaries or not doesn’t really have an effect on me. I believe that there are more important issues that should be focused on. It might work out better if a larger and more influential state goes first since the state is more important to a presidential election.
ReplyDeleteB) I believe that there is definitely value in running after placing 4th and lower in the Iowa caucus. A candidate should not allow one ranking to defeat their entire campaign. If a candidate didn’t do well in one caucus, that doesn’t mean they should drop out of the campaign running.
C) Bernie Sanders winning New Hampshire is a good sign. Sanders success in New Hampshire will likely cause the Clinton campaign to increase their efforts in campaigning not allowing Sanders to keep up. Also, Clinton’s home state is Arkansas, so she will probably win that primary as well as more southern states.
D) I find Bernie Sanders the most interesting. I share the same beliefs as he does about improving the cost of college tuition and about climate change. Although these fixes wont be easy, I feel like Sanders sticks to his word which is unlike any other politician (for the most part).
A) I believe tradition serves as a foundation for success in the world; maintaining New Hampshire as the first primary - while petty - enables America to have a strong political tradition. Also, perhaps the first primary should not be in a state with a large number of delegates - such as Texas or Florida. New Hampshire is small, and if a plethora of candidates are in the race - like we see this year - the stop could remove the weak individuals from the race and allow states with larger populations to have a more direct and meaningful vote.
ReplyDeleteB) Candidates who finish lower than fourth in Iowa are usually irrelevant to the greater race. There are exceptions (such as John Kasich this year), but no personally campaign gains can be made after such a low finish in Iowa. Having said this, top candidates may prefer a glut of candidates; the numerous figures will divide the vote and require smaller vote counts to win. Thus, a candidate cannot gain by staying in the race after Iowa, but a top competitor may find value.
C) I believe that Bernie Sander's victory means nothing going into South Carolina. Bernie's ideology is far too liberal for the South - even on the Democrat side. The landslide victory in New Hampshire could be more related to his status as "neighbor" that an actually upward trajectory. If Bernie Sanders lost New Hampshire, more individuals would be commenting on the downward turn. Hillary should win South Carolina easily. The real test will be in Nevada.
D) While I will always have an affection for Jim Gilmore, he cannot be deemed a "legitimate" candidate. I think that perhaps most interesting in this campaign have been Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum. While neither have managed to accrue votes and both have dropped out, I still find their "demise" interesting. Both won the Iowa Caucus in their respective last campaigns; however, no large scale support has emerged for either. It really does prove that marketability to votes changes by election cycle, and that this year's election is truly about the outsiders and "new guys".
A) Most people are not in favor or change, therefore I think New Hampshire should remain the first primary. However, I thought New Hampshire was the second state to vote and I thought Iowa held the first primary.
ReplyDeleteB) I think that there is value in the Republican candidates that came in 4th or lower in Iowa to stay in the race because anything can happen no matter what someones rankings are. If a candidate drops out of the running then that just shows he/she was never fit for the job in the first place.
C) I think Bernie Sanders will go into South Carolina strong, and I think Clinton will do the same. However, I think that Sanders has a good chance of winning since he has the support from many voters and is doing better than he had expected since he won New Hampshire.
D) I find Bernie Sanders the most interesting out of all the other politicians. He claims to want to improve college tuition, which would be a positive if he actually sticks to his word and follows through with it. Most politicians just say certain things to win a vote, with the chance that they are "all talk" so to say. However Bernie Sanders seems legitimate in what he says and I think he has the potential to follow through with it.
I also find sanders very intresting, I think him and Trump are changing the concept the typical canidate in the U.S. However Trump is a Radical Personality and Sanders has radical political beiefs and history shows these canidates dont do well in elections and I dont see him doing well in S.C
DeleteA) New Hampshire being first in the primaries doesn't have that great of an impact. However, I do believe that since New Hampshire does not contain that many delegates, that it could remove weaker candidates that are running and let bigger population states have a bigger impact when voting. Also, since it has always been a tradition for New Hampshire going first, it keeps political traditions consistent.
ReplyDeleteB) I believe there is still value in running even after placing fourth or lower in Iowa especially with the current candidates I feel that people's opinions of them can change. Especially with the recent media hit on Rubio repeating the same line over and over again. It made a huge impact on him in his standings even though he placed well in Iowa.
C) Despite Sanders winning in New Hampshire and giving him a lot of momentum, I think Clinton will still win South Carolina. Sander's extreme views do not fit well with Southern states. The tie he had gotten definitely shows that he is a contender, but he really needs a win if he wants to continue because Clinton has a lot more funding. If he had lost New Hampshire, I feel that he would have little to no chance of even staying in the race.
D) The most interesting candidate in my opinion has to be Donald Trump. Thought I may not agree with everything he says, he seems to be the most honest candidate. He speaks his mind and doesn't allow others to manipulate his ideas. Since the economy isn't doing as well as it could be, I believe a person with a strong business background can offer more opportunities for the U.S.
I agree with Gabriellas statement about change, a tradition sets a solid background for America to follow on an election-election basis. New Hampshire was also a big step up and a game changer for Sanders because he came in strong and now has leverage for that, that being said he will take the momentum he has from New Hampshire will be shown in South Carolina.
ReplyDelete-Alyssa Burgois
A. Weather New Hampshire is the first primary or not does not necessarily affect my views but, New Hampshire has strong views about being the first primary. The fact of the matter is that after all these years, the voters of New Hampshire really care about their primary. They like the attention, as well as the visibility and the economic stimulus that it brings. Unlike voters in any other state, the voters of New Hampshire expect their politicians to protect their first in the nation status and they do. Tradition is tradition and I do not believe that a tradition should be broken just because the people don’t want New Hampshire to be the first primary. I do not see a sufficient enough reason to change the policy.
ReplyDeleteB. There is still value for candidates who came in fourth place or lower in the Iowa caucus. There is always a chance of a shift in interests but, I strongly believe that if you are far behind 4th and have spent a lot of campaign funds on Iowa that you should maybe reconsider your decisions in still continue. On the other hand, it is also possible to stick it out until the New Hampshire primary to see if you still have a fair chance and to truly see who is the center of interests at that point.
C. Hillary Clinton seems to have hardly beaten Bernie Sanders in the closest Iowa caucus ever after holding a small lead in most Iowa polls before the caucuses began. This must mean that Iowa probably hasn’t reshaped the Democratic race for president and Clinton remains the preferred.
D. But neither Clinton nor Sanders did well enough to make me think either candidate will gain momentum heading into the New Hampshire primary. Marco Rubio is in a desirable position among mainstream Republican presidential candidates after his strong finish in Iowa. But, I firmly believe that Rubio is running scared. He is tip toeing through New Hampshire as if he’s campaigning to win the Cautious Caucus. As well, Americans nationwide have noticed that Rubio gives the same speech everywhere. The most tightly managed candidate in the race, he rejects risks and appears to live in fear of mentioning the man who dominates the race.
I agree with Alyssa in that many people value tradition, however I think this tradition causes candidates to base their campaigns on a single primary. I also agree that there is value in continuing a campaign after placing 4th or lower. Like most young voters and college entrants I like the idea of lowered college tuition because it is an important topic to address. However, I have yet to really focus in and learn about each of the candidates views to have one stand out
Deletea) I do not think that New Hampshire should always be allowed to be the first primary in that candidates will most likely focus on issues/ topics central and important to NH and shape their initial campaign images off of a single state. Although many people disagree with changing tradition, I believe that having different states be the first primary would allow for candidates to truly show their ideals from the beginning of their campaign rather than displaying themselves in a way just to win the first primary and gain momentum.
ReplyDeleteb) As previously stated, candidates should not base their campaign solely off of one primary. Those who place 4th or lower in Iowa are not guaranteed to place the same in following primaries. Different states have different values and beliefs. We vote for a President that will represent us as all 50 states, if a candidate can not win one state that doesn't mean they can't win others. As the video portrayed, John Kasich was a great example of this.
c) A win for Sanders would definitely increase his momentum going into South Carolina. However, because Hilary was expected to dominate in Iowa but ended up practically tied with Sanders, she will come in even stronger and more prepared. I believe the one thing that differs between the two is the campaign support where Hilary has a lot of support financially especially due to her husband. However, if Sanders stays true and consistent with his values and ideals I believe he will appeal to many voters.
d) Although, I have yet to really focus on different candidates and taking the time to learn about their values and ideals I am very concerned about college tuition. I believe that like many young voters and college entrants, Bernie Sanders campaign interests me in that he has addressed this issue. Although I am a little skeptical about how exactly he would fix college tuition rates, I plan on looking into his campaign more.
I think that Sanders definitely has attractive plans for young people and his publicity from different celebrities is definitely helping with that view. I also agree that his ideas may not have a way to be attained because of the expenses it would cost on the individual in the future, but honestly the less I have to pay for college the better.
DeleteDana Barcellona
ReplyDeletea) New Hampshire being first in the primaries is simply based on tradition. The state relies on the attention and economic stimulus every four years. I do not believe the order of which states vote should matter however the consistent sequence will help maintain the importance of each states influence as the race gets tighter.
b) Each state will have a different opinion on each view and on each candidate. Also the countries opinions change on candidates quickly on a daily basis. A candidate shouldn't drop out immediately after a failed attempt, they may gain momentum or popularity after the caucus and be able to gain success in New Hampshire.
c) Sanders win will give him momentum in the upcoming polls and primaries. Even if he doesn't have the same economic capital as Clinton, his success in the past two votes is showing that he has the support of the people. Sanders is proving that he has a real chance in the election.
d) Bernie Sanders' policies are attractive to me and many other young people however his goals may be unattainable. If he were to be able to achieve these goals he would do it at the expense of raised taxes on citizens. However I do believe his promises attract people as well because he is consistent and has remained true to himself.
A) I believe that New Hampshire should always be the the first primary because it makes it easier for candidates to plan out campaigns ahead of time and if the state changed everytime then it would only complicate things. It would be easier to have a single state be first everytime.
DeleteB) I don't believe that there is any use in a candidate that places lower than third place in Iowa to continue on. Studies show that none of the candidates that scored lower than third place in Iowa have ever become the presidential nominee. By continuing to campaign the cadidate risks tainting his name by making a mistake and wastes money on a campaign that has a very high chance of failing.
C) A win for Bernie greatly increases his chances in South Carolina because it'll start to bring more attention to his campaign and potentially win him more states. Bernie is at a big disadvantage to Hilary because of her huge campaign budget, but a win for Bernie will bring in more donations for his campaign.
D) The candidate I find most interesting would be Donald Trump. Although I am not a Donald Trump supporter he definitely sticks out from the other cadidates. He doesn't really seem to care what people think of him and isn't afraid to speak his mind and verbally attack other cadidates. He also has a different background from most of the other candidates being a businessman.
Ashley Liebegott
ReplyDeleteA) New Hampshire has been the first primary for a long time and I don't really see a point in changing it or amending that now. It is a tradition in New Hampshire to be first and changing it now would be unfair to the people in that state.
B) I don't think that the candidates who came in lower than 4th in the caucus should drop out just because of one bad vote. Different states may have different views and the first one and dropping out when they still might have a chance isn't something they should do. While believe they still might have a chance at doing better next time, I understand the reasons why they might now continue, such as financial reasons.
C) I think that Sanders' success in New Hampshire will help him in South Caronlina. His unexpected closeness to Clinton in Iowa and then his victory over Clinton in New Hampshire prove that he has the potential to win again in South Carolina.
D) I think that the most interesting candidate is Trump. While I don't agree with everything he says, he speaks his mind and isn't afraid of hurting his campaign by his actions and words and I can respect that.
A). In my oppinion New Hampshire should not be the first primary because it is for the most part it is unrepresentive to the nation as a whole espically when it comes to the states diversity; but the fact that it is the first primary causes the results of the primary to have a massive impact on the presidential race despite the fact there results may be very differant from the nation as a whole.
ReplyDeleteB.) Genrally Iwoa's caucus helps voters distiungish the realistic canidates from the ones that are really out of the race. However canidates who perform poorely in Iwoa still may see vaule in running because it may help then in future races, Iwoa is not very represntive of the nation as a whole and they may still be in the race and Like christie in New Hampshire they may help to eliminate other candiates in debates and in gaining votes.
c). I dont think a sanders in in New Hampshire will do much for his race. The Media excpects Him to win and it will be hard to impress anyone by winning in his backyard. However its impressive espically when no one could imagin sanders winning a primary a year ago.
D). To me the most intresting caniddate is Trump, while he wouldnt be my choice for presidante I think him and sanders are starting a revoultion in politics. It seems voters have lost faith is all the typical canidates and I think future canidates are gonna look very differant because of Trump. To be honnest I am amazed trump has made it so far and I'm kinda amazed that a man on the a roast has made it so far.
This was by Me Ryan Gray
DeleteBelinda Bocchiaro
ReplyDeleteA) I don't believe New Hampshire should get to host the first primaries every year. I personally believe it would be more fair if that honor alternated between states every election, depending on the population of each state. If the state with the biggest population hosts the first primary, I believe it will be a more accurate assessment as to how the candidates will do because the bigger the population of a state, the more influential it is.
B) I believe it depends on the situation, but overall there is value in staying in the race because people's values change from state to state. People with extreme views tend to vote in Iowa, but that's not necessarily how people will vote in a different state. However if it was a state a candidate believed they had in the bag but lost horribly, they should probably consider dropping out.
C) A win for Sanders to me isn't as big a deal politically as his moral win over Hillary was in Iowa. I believe that gave him enough momentum already, and a win in his backyard would just be a formality at this point. Sure, it would help, but I don't think it would have that much of an impact other than a self-esteem boost that he pleased his people.
D) Honestly I don't have any positive opinions of any candidate right now. I'm very moderate, but I live in a house dominated by extreme conservative views, so in an effort to keep my sanity I'm trying to stay out of politics until there is only one candidate on either side. From what I've heard from my family, all I can say right now is that I'm anti-Trump, but anyone is entitled to disagree with me just as I am to disagree with them (respectfully).
A) No, New Hampshire should not be the first primary held in the nation. This favoring of New Hampshire isolates other communities of voters who may wish to hold the honor of having the first primary. Perhaps states can determine an order or devise a lottery system to allow outside states an opportunity to hold such an important event and become more involved in the political process than in just a select few states.
ReplyDeleteB) Yes, it is of great value to these candidates. Although winning the primary vote may not be within their grasp, it is an opportunity to have them publicly announce their ideas to a national audience as well as gaining name recognition both locally and nationally for any future elections they may anticipate to run in.
C) I anticipate Sanders' success in New Hampshire will help him gain voters support in South Carolina. His aggressive underdog climb to the top helped gain support from democratic voters, and now with his close match to Hillary I think his momentum will assist him greatly when the ballots are cast. Yet I feel his "backyard" will not provide as much an advantage as compared to his support on social media and the radical ideas he believes.
D) I think the most interesting candidates would have to be Trump and Sanders, due to both being radicals of their respective parties and are thus near polar opposites. Their different ideas and perspectives on various issues facing our country makes each candidate highlight different aspects of the others campaign. This allows for one to get a clear understanding of the various flaws and advantages attributed to each candidate as they vigorously criticize their opponent and violently promote themselves. Making this a highly intriguing campaign season.
Chris, I like your idea of a lottery system for the first state to vote in the primaries. This will force candidates to spend more time in less popular states, and it will give the rest of the country an opportunity to finally see the person who could be potentially running their country. I'm going to disagree with you on point B. Unfortunately, the media doesn't cover everyone with equal amounts of time, which prevents those who are at the bottom of polls to get any screen time due to their unpopularity. Ever seen Jim Gilmore on TV? I haven't, and he received 0% of the votes. This is a perfect example of someone who should drop out.
DeleteI agree that Trump and Sanders have polarizing political views. Their radical ideas draw media attention towards them and away from more moderate candidates.
DeleteA) New Hampshire should be able to have the first primary because now that it has been a tradition, it is something that the state of New Hampshire relies on for an economic boost and a sense of political importance. Historically, New Hampshire has been a benchmark for a candidate to drop out if he did not do so well in the primary.
ReplyDeleteB) The value of candidates that came in forth or lower to stay in the race is large. First, there are forty eight other states besides Iowa and New Hampshire, that can have completely different outcomes than the first two states conventions. Second, a candidate that knows he is not going to win the party's nomination that year still has value to the party, his constituents, and the person he will support after leaving the race. As a political strategy, that candidate that came in forth or lower at the convention may use the publicity of the campaign to spread a certain message, or attack a certain opponent, knowing there will be no repercussions because they already are not winning the Presidency.
C) A win for Sanders in New Hampshire means he has an extreme amount of momentum heading into South Carolina. Because he won by such a margin in New Hampshire, and virtually tied in Iowa, which was unexpected, he is gaining much more followers, traction, and publicity. As Sanders gains more delegates and votes, his popularity will allow him to steal the nomination away from Clinton and create a huge upset.
D) I find John Kasich to be an interesting candidate because he is experienced, from Ohio, and has come out of the lower percents in Iowa to have a much better finish in New Hampshire. Although I do not agree with him on every topic, he seems to be trying to run a more poised, light campaign than many of the other candidates.
Emily Li
ReplyDeletea) By its own state law and long term tradition, New Hampshire has always been the first primary. Since this has been established for so long I don't necessarily see the need for a change and even if a rotation system were placed instead, possible conflicts could arise. The state itself does hold influence for future candidates but candidates should not be putting its main focus on it.
b) There is some value for the candidates that came 4th or lower in the caucus for example John Kasich came in 2nd in the Primary and wasn't in the top 4 in the caucus. Candidates may still have a chance in gaining higher rankings in other states.
c) Since Bernie Sanders won the New Hampshire Primary by a vote of 60.4%, it will most likely help him in South Carolina. However, Hilary Clinton may have the upper hand because her home state is Arkansas.
d) Although I do not have much of an opinion for the current candidates, I want to know how Bernie Sanders will lower college tuition in the future. People agree he is consistent with what he believes in and will act upon. Hopefully this will remain to be the case.
A) I think it is unnecessary for New Hampshire to be the first primary because it drives all media attention and focus to that state, giving it too much political influence. I think the order of primaries and caucus' should be changed every election to make campaigns evenly spread out.
ReplyDeleteB) Iowa is generally a blue state, so there is still much value for Republicans who came in 4th or lower stay in the race. There are still 48 more states to go, and results can always change. Also, the republican candidates could be used as tools by the republican party to spread messages to the states that re yet to vote, and they do not have to restrict themselves because it is not likely they will become the republican candidate anyway.
C) Sanders is doing better than expected, and it seems like he will do well in South Carolina also. He is gaining popularity, and people might like him more than Hillary. It is very possible that he will ultimately take the Democratic candidacy instead of Hillary Clinton.
D) Democrat candidate Bernie Sanders has attracted the attention of the younger votes through mention of lowering tuition for students which seems like a good idea but will be hard to do. Also, social media seems to be most alligned with Bernie Sanders while joking at the expense of Donald Trump.
A) I think it is important that New Hampshire holds the first primary. The honor of holding the primary drives a lot of media of attention to New Hampshire and is an important part of the the state's history as it is a tradition.
ReplyDeleteB) There is a small amount of value for Republican's that finished 4th or lower at the Iowa caucus. The caucus brings in a large amount of attention and people may be more likely to vote for someone who they believe will do well in the election. That being said, the caucus is still early in the election cycle and things can always change for other candidates.
C) A win for Sanders in New Hampshire is expected considering New Hampshire is very close to his home state of Vermont. A virtual tie in Iowa is a big win for Sanders because he was expected to lose to Clinton by a large margin. The tie and the win for Sanders gives him a lot of momentum when moving into South Carolina.
D) I find Bernie Sanders to be the most interesting candidate due to how extreme many of policies he wishes to enact are. If he is elected I would like to see how much he could accomplish or if he only saying many of these things for publicity.
Artie Stanwise
DeleteI also agree with Joe that Bernie Sanders is an interesting candidate because he is a self declared socialist. It will be interesting to see if he continues to succeed going further.
A) I believe that New Hampshire should be allowed to have to first primary for a variety of reasons. Being the first state to vote in the primary is a huge tradition and honor, and if this was to be taken away from the state, New Hampshire would not have much else going for it. With this being said, New Hampshire wold lose the few residents it has and would lose many of its tourists as well.
ReplyDeleteB) I do believe that there is value in staying in the race if a candidate finishes 4th or lower in Iowa because the people of different states have very different sets of beliefs, and just because Iowans disagree with that person's beliefs doesn't mean that they can't come close to winning that party's nomination. For example, Ted Cruz had a very strong showing in Iowa, but fell far short of winning in New Hampshire, showing the diversity of the country's beliefs based on region. However, if a candidate finishes 4th or lower in both Iowa and New Hampshire, it may not be worth the money to stay in the race.
C) I do not believe that a win for Sanders in New Hampshire meant much for his chances going forward considering he was expected to win in this state which neighbors his home state in Vermont. However, I do believe that his strong finish in Iowa shows that Sanders has a legitimate chance of winning South Carolina and eventually gaining the Democratic nomination over Hilary.
D) I am intrigued by Marco Rubio who had a very strong showing in Iowa. After being embarrassed by Chris Christie in his last debate, he lost many supporters, but I am interested to see if he bounces back and gets the Republican nomination.
Adriana Laurendi
DeleteI agree with James in that I am also intrigued by Marco Rubio. However, because of the debated where Christie pummeled him, I believe that he can't bounce back and has lost his chance in becoming the Republican nominee.
a) I believe it is unnecessary and illogical for New Hampshire to hold the first primary because it focuses too much attention on one state and there is a lack of diversity due to the minuscule amount of voters voting in that state. A state with a larger primary should hold it being that that the first primary has a monumental impact on the candidates.
ReplyDeleteb) Republicans that finish 4th or lower still have value because candidates like John Kasich can make unexpected comebacks amiss the other more popular candidates. Also, a candidate like Marco Rubio can ruin his campaign due to a debate mishap which can give another candidate a chance in the race.
c) A win for Sanders is big momentum-shifter since Hillary was expected to win the primary. He also tied in Iowa so if he continues his success in the campaign run, it could be the beginning of the end for Hillary.
d) An interesting candidate is obviously Donald Trump. He gets blasted on social media and is seen as a joke of a president, but his standings in the polls continue to denounce these negative accusations. I agree with Joe's view on Bernie Sanders and it will be intriguing to see how many young voters he attracts due to his bold policy ideas such as legalizing marijuana and providing free college in America.
I agree with Devin that having New Hampshire as the first primary every year creates a lack of diversity in opinions
DeleteA) I believe that New Hampshire should continue to host the first primary's because it is a very important tradition to the residence of that state. If some other state was able to host the primary's than many of the tourists that visit would cease to visit
ReplyDeleteB) There is no reason for a candidate that ranks 4th or below in the primary's should drop out of the race because all of the past presidents have been ranked 3rd or higher in the primaries.
c)A win from sanders would strike a big blow to Hillary who is expected to win in the primaries. If he does win, he will be given more delegates which gives him a bigger chance to win later on
D)The Most interesting candidate in this election is Donald Trump, who has caught the attention of most of the media because of his antics while campaigning. Donald Trump is of particular interest to me because he is from New York and it keeps me interested in following him through the elections.
-Dante Gargiulo
I agree with Dante in that Trump will be an interesting candidate to look out for. Having a great showing in New Hampshire, I'm sure he will continue to be a top contender throughout the election.
DeleteAdriana Laurendi
ReplyDeleteA) Yes, New Hampshire should always be the first primary because it has been a long lasting tradition here in the United States. In addition, it is a very important tradition for the state of New Hampshire, and brings many tourists that cause an economic boost for that state during election season.
B) Yes, there is value in a Republican candidate staying in the race even if they place 4th or lower in Iowa. Firstly, Iowa is only one state, and they do not represent the whole United Sates, so other states can vote very differently than Iowa. Furthermore, staying in the race shows voters that the candidate is not one to give up easily. Lastly, polls can be very misleading, so one should stick it out until the end and try their best to win.
C) A win for Sanders greatly increases his chances in becoming the democratic nominee. He has gained a lot of momentum, and he and Hilary frequently tie. I believe it will be a very close race for the two of them, but in the end most democrats will support either of them, as the video portrayed. However, since many are unhappy with Obama, I'm not sure if another democrat will be able to win the race.
D) Honestly, when I heard that Donald Trump was running for president I thought it was a joke. And after that, I thought he wouldn't last very long in the race. However, he has many supporters, and is very likely to become the Republican nominee. In my opinion, Trump is not qualified to be president because he lacks experience, and he is too stubborn. Although it is good to stand up for what you believe in, I think if he were president he wouldn't be willing to compromise and nothing would get done. He has some good ideas, but also some bad ones, and he s very discriminatory. Lastly, he doesn't think before he speaks, which could get us in trouble with other nations.
I completely agree with what Adriana is saying, except for the fact that Trump has some good ideas. I truly think that Donald Trump doesn't even take himself seriously. Everyone thought he was running as a joke in the beginning but now that he is actually doing extremely well this is very terrifying. Everyone says that Donald Trump is saying "What we are all thinking but to afraid to admit" I can honestly say that nothing he has said is similar to any of my thoughts. If Donald Trump were to become president we wouldn't even have an immigration problem anymore because more people would be fleeing the country than coming in. Donald Trump's mouth and head are too big for such an important job. I think we need to find a presidential candidate that has more experience in government and knows how to handle a government position.
DeleteA. New Hampshire should always be allowed to be the first primary because how it affects their economy. It attracts people from around the US. Changing this tradition could drastically affect their economy around this time of year during an election year.
ReplyDeleteB. Republican candidates who came in fourth or lower do still have value in the race. They can stay in the race to voice their opinions while they have the national media's attention.
C. The win in Vermont could mean nothing for Sanders considering he was campaigning in his home state. But he did almost tie Clinton in Iowa meaning that he has a fair shot at winning in South Carolina.
D. I usually do not follow politics, but I usually stand by the Democrat's social beliefs. Donald Trump is by far the most interesting and entertaining candidate.
"To summarize: it is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem."
Quote by Douglas Adams
Rachael Egbert
ReplyDeleteA. New Hampshire should not be allowed to hold the first primary every year. States with later primaries should have the opportunity to feel that their say is important. By changing it up each year, each state will have the opportunity to voice their opinions on who should be candidate.
B. Yes, I think that Republican candidates who came in fourth or lower in Iowa should stay in the race. Other states may have different ideas and beliefs. While these states are not as important, they can still gain supporters from staying in the running.
C. I think that the win for Sanders can really help him going into South Carolina. By beating Hillary in New Hampshire, he gains more name recognition, and more people will begin looking into his campaign. By almost tying Hillary in Iowa we begin to see him as a real competitor, since he wasn’t expected to do so well.
D. I find Bernie Sanders’ campaign interesting. When I first heard of him, I liked his ideas, but did not think he would make it as far as he has. I find that his campaign is largely directed towards the younger generation of voters for support.
I agree with Rachael that it's interesting Bernie Sanders is doing so well without large amounts of superpac money. in addition so many young people are interested in him because of his focus on college level education and making college an affordable option for all people.
DeleteArtie Stanwise
ReplyDeleteA. I do not believe New Hampshire should be the first primary every election because it is not a fair process. Each election year the people in this state get to voice their say more effectively than people from other states. For instance New York very rarely has a determining vote in the primaries because more often than not, candidates have been decided at this point.
B.After receiving fourth or lower in Iowa, candidates can still have value from staying in the race by voicing their opinions while the national spotlight is on them. Furthermore this is just one state, so it is still possible to gain support.
C.The win in New Hampshire and the virtual tie in Iowa is big for Bernie Sanders. This has led to wide recognition for Bernie and gives him more power as a true candidate going into South Carolina.
D. Donald Trump is a very interesting candidate largely due to the fact that he has almost no political experience. I thought Donald Trump entering the presidential election was basically a joke at first,however he is leading most polls and has become a strong possibility to become the republican nominee.
Sarah Goklevent
ReplyDeleteNew Hampshire should not be allowed to have the first primary, even if their economic situation is worsening, other states do have it worse and if that's their main grounds for this statement; it is weak.
Usually people who take 4th and under in Iowa don't win but many of them don't drop out just yet and keep going. As we've seen in the other caucus' that have taken place iowa differs greatly from other states; so it's not over yet.
A win for Sanders means more to Hillary than anyone else. It shows Hillary that Sanders is an honest threat to her campaign and not one to be taken so lightly.
One candidate that I find personally interesting is Marco Rubio, after watching the video in class of his verbal gaff it struck me as interesting that a republican out right defended Obama such to the point that I begun looking into him on my own time.
A) I don't think it's fair that New Hampshire holds the first primary even though that they have in the past. If New Hampshire holds the first primary every presidential election, more candidates put more time and money into that state than any other state. I think it would be better if the state for the first primary changed every year so that every state has the same opportunities New Hampshire has.
ReplyDeleteB) I think it is smart for a republican candidate to stay in the race after Iowa, even if they were in 4th place or lower for a little while longer. This is because there are two very extreme candidates, Cruz and Trump that many people my be against. Their views are also almost identical so they would take votes from each other. In addition, in the Iowa caucus there was no clear perception on how well Cruz would do in the future because he got a lot of votes from people following the Anglican Church. These votes made him do a lot better than he would in other primaries. Therefore, it would be wiser to drop out after New Hampshire instead.
C) The win in New Hampshire, although it increased Sanders' momentum, was much less important to winning as Sanders' results in Iowa. He was projected to do well in his own backyard, but the fact that he had almost a tie with Hillary in a state that she was supposed to take is a huge deal and made people aware that he wasn't going to just fade out like he was projected to.
D) One candidate I found extremely interesting in this primary was Rubio because he showed what a problem it is to be too scripted. Being too scripted created an untrustworthy air around a candidate while also making him seem less intelligent than he truly is. This was picked apart by Christie in the last republican debate and was such a big deal that it hurt how Rubio did in the primary.
New Hampshire should not always be allowed to be the first primary. The fact that New Hampshire is the first primary every single year gives this particular state more influence than other states. Candidates campaign more heavily and focus their attention on one state rather than devoting time to the rest of the states. Furthermore, New Hampshire is too small and does not fairly reflect the opinions of the rest of the country.
ReplyDeleteThere is value for Republicans who place lower than fourth in Iowa. The results of one small state are not reflective of the national opinion; if a candidate does poorly in Iowa, they may succeed in other states which have starkly different opinions. John Kasich earned a mere 1.9 percent of the votes in Iowa but placed second in the New Hampshire Primary. Thus, the results in Iowa should not deter a candidate from continued campaigning.
Bernie Sanders has gained momentum from the incredibly close results of the Iowa Caucus and his win in New Hampshire. His chances moving on into South Carolina would thus be very high. He has the benefit of support from the large younger voting group and a strong social media presence. Sanders has made a great showing despite relying on donations rather than the Super PAC money that funds Hilary Clinton.
I find Marco Rubio to be an interesting candidate. While Trump has received intense scrutiny on social media, he continues to receive national support and has done well in both Iowa and New Hampshire. In contrast, Rubio's mistake in repeating his stump speech in the recent Republican debate has been detrimental to his campaign. The sound bite has brought on questions about his lack of experience and skills. He's losing supporters. It will be interesting to see if he is able to recover from this mistake.
Juliet I understand your argument for the value of placing under fourth in Iowa. However, I believe that if a canidate has a truely terrible showing in Iowa, no matter what happens in New Hampshire they will not be able to recover and outrun the current front runners. I agree with the statement that Rubio is an interesting candidate. But before I say why lets dispel the notion that Barack Obama doesn't know what he is doing. He knows exactly what he is doing. he is trying to change this country. He is trying to make america like the rest of the world. We don't want to be like the rest of the world we want to be the United States of America. I believe that when he is elected president that this nation will once again become the single greatest nation in the history of the world, not the disaster that Barack Obama has imposed on us.
DeleteGabrielle Hartman
ReplyDeleteA) Why try to fix something that isn’t broken? New Hampshire has been allowed to hold the honor for the first primary for nearly one hundred years. They rely on the economic and media attention every four years, as does Iowa from the caucus. New Hampshire has made this part of their history and I don’t find there to be any reason to change it. If others states are jealous and complaining that they aren’t the first primary they should find something more important to complain about.
B) Yes, both Kasich and Bush came in below fourth in the Iowa caucus and then placed in the top four of New Hampshire so yes it is important for other republicans to stay in the race. I agreed that some of the lower candidates with little momentum should have dropped out but there is still a lot of time left in the race for the candidates that are lying in the middle. Plus in my opinion neither Cruz nor Trump are decent candidates so it is extremely important for one of the other republicans to try to pull into first. Also, the South is a completely different game and the tables could be unexpectedly turned so republican candidates need to stay in the race for as long as their Super PACS can support them. .
C) Bernie Sanders had a phenomenal and unexpected near tie in Iowa. Yes some people expected him to do well but to see him do so amazing was definitely a pleasant surprise. Bernie was expected to win in New Hampshire but not with that high of a margin. Most of New Hampshire is actually registered as Independent and a Democratic candidate in that state has never won by more than twelve points in all of its history. Bernie managed to win by twenty-two points. These wins have inspired his supporters and he has made a record number of young people not only come out to vote but also to donate. Even though I am an avid supporter of Bernie I do not think he finds his strength in the South. He seems to having problems with connecting to minorities and their communities. Bernie is better at reaching out to the youth and Clinton is better suited for minorities. The race is going to be interesting and Bernie is definitely giving Clinton a run for her money because she never even expected him to be this much competition.
D) Bernie Sanders has my vote for the presidential nomination. Not only does he support many ideas that help the youth but he also is a generally good guy and stands by what he believes in. Bernie Sanders has refused to adopt a Super PAC do to the fact that he believes big money should be out of politics. Sanders actions speak louder than any other politician’s words because he has been able to run and sustain his entire campaign without the use of the super PAC. Bernie Sanders also flies coach and walks to work to promote that he is not only environmentally friendly but also doesn’t need to spend extra campaign money on unnecessary luxuries. I enjoy that Bernie takes the environment into consideration and wants to help the economy grow by implementing more green jobs. Bernie Sanders is also a huge supporter of the feminist movement. He is pro-choice, agrees for equal work for equal pay and has supported woman throughout his entire political career. In addition to this Bernie also wants to implement a greater tax on the top 1% who have been getting away with large tax breaks for too long. This will help either fund additional programs he is trying to implement or just alleviate the middle class. Bernie has done so well since the beginning of his campaign. Most people thought he would never make it against Hillary Clinton who was at one point nearly fifty points ahead of him. I find him so interesting not only because of his progressive ideas but also because of his will and motivation that has made him be able to come this far.
I do agree with you as to why Bernie Sanders is should be the democratic party's presidential nominee over Hillary Clinton. Yes, she also is pro-choice but Bernie has so much more to offer and comes off as more relatable than Bernie Sanders. I am also a big fan of the fact that he doesnt use a Super PAC because it shows how his actions has gotten him more support over who he knows like it has for Hillary Clinton.
DeleteI agree that it is important to have a president who cares about the environment which is one appealing aspect of Sanders' campaign. I also like that he supports women through being pro-choice and supporting equal pay. However, I find his lack of foreign policy experience extremely worrying. This is a large part of being president that he has not had experience in., which could lead to many international problems for the US.
DeleteI disagree with the sentiment that Bernie Sanders doesn't indulge in any luxuries of life. I don't feel that flying coach stands as a positive in his campaign because I do not think that's what we should be concerned about. The fact of the matter is that his ideas are far fetched and "Robin Hood"-esque. It is also crucial to keep in mind that Reagan was 69 when elected president and that was considered old, Bernie Sanders is currently 74.
DeleteA) I believe that New Hampshire should be allowed to primary first in the presidential election because it has traditionally been first since 1920. By changing the location of the primary, there would be an extremely large debate and conflict about which state would be able to primary first, and this debate would be reinstated every time that there is a new presidential election. It would be unfair to the citizens of New Hampshire to destroy their tradition of holding the first primary.
ReplyDeleteB) At this point of the republican nomination process, I do not believe that candidates who came in fourth or lower in Iowa should remain in the race. While they do have mild support in some areas, the field is to large and there are candidates who have no hopes of winning the nomination at all, such as Jim Gilmore, who got less votes in the primary than Vermin Supreme. Continuing to run knowing that you have absolutely no chance of gaining enough momentum in the primary process to overtake on of the front runners is honestly just a waste of the candidate’s time and money, as they will not gain the nomination.
C) The win for Bernie is definitely going to help his campaign moving forward to South Carolina. Seeing as Hillary was supposed to absolutely dominate Sanders in Iowa, he gained a large amount of momentum from the extremely close results. Bernie was able to capitalize on not only his moral victory over Hillary in Iowa, but have the confidence of campaigning in New Hampshire because it is essentially his backyard as a Senator from Vermont. The overwhelming victory in New Hampshire continued to add momentum to his campaign and it will certainly be interesting if he continues to grow in popularity in South Caroline and secure another strong victory against Hillary.
D) Particularly, I find it interesting to why Jim Gilmore continues to participate in the race. Not only did he receive approximately zero percent in Iowa, and he only received about 125 votes among Republicans in New Hampshire. His watch party in New Hampshire had approximately ten or so people at it and he was giving out free beer. If you can’t even get people to come out to your watch party with free beer, I don’t even know why it is worth it to spend 40,000 dollars to get on the ballot in South Carolina. It’s simply just a waste of time for him to still actively be a part of this race while others who have received better results in both Iowa and New Hampshire have dropped out. It’s just a large waste of time on a failed campaign that will be forgotten the moment after he decides to stop wasting money on a pointless campaign.
Like seriously Jim Gilmore. You got less votes than Vermin Supreme. Stop trying.
DeleteEvan, I disagree that the candidates that finished fourth or lower in Iowa don't really matter. Although they are not a favorite of the public of Iowa, there is a possibility for them to be more popular in another state.
DeleteAt first, I did not believe that it really mattered if New Hampshire went first in the primaries or not. Then after reading over my fellow peers’ responses, I do see how it is unfair that New Hampshire does get to go first since they now have more of a say in who should be the nominees than other states like New York does. Also, their opinions can be drastically different than other people in other states due to them having different values.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that candidates who rank lower than 4th place should continue on in the race. Many things could happen between the Iowa caucus and state primaries. A candidate could mess up royally and have to withdraw from the race, causing the candidate who came in 4th to move up the totem pole. Candidates could also appeal more to one state than another due to each state having different values.
I do believe that since Bernie Sanders won the New Hampshire primary that now he has a good chance at winning the South Carolina primary. However, I do believe that there might be a different outcome in South Carolina due to it being a different state with views different than the other two states.
I do find it interesting how Bernie Sanders is appealing to the younger generation of voters through issues they care about most such as lowering college tuition.
Dave Marques
ReplyDeletea) I think that New Hampshire should be allowed to be the first primary because of the state's unique identity: New Hampshire tends to lean liberal like the rest of New England, but NH also has a distinctly libertarian/"live free or die" attitude towards government. This two-sided nature of New Hampshire politics makes the state a good predictor of the voting patterns of the rest of the Northeast, both among liberals and conservatives, and as such it is important to hold the NH primary first.
b) The GOP candidates besides Trump, Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, and Bush are doing so poorly both in polls and in the Iowa caucus/NH primary that it's unclear why they are still in the race (as I'm writing this I just realized that Ben Carson is the only candidate part of this category, and I still don't know why he is running). Though Cruz, Rubio, and Trump are in the lead, I don't think Kasich and Bush should consider dropping out just yet. Kasich's more moderate voice makes him a logical choice for the nomination, as he would avoid alienating voters turned off by Cruz's hard-line conservatism and Trump's outlandishness, though he still struggles in the national polls. As for Bush, I think he is unlikely to win the nomination but perhaps with the support of the national party he could earn it; while not outstanding, his performance in the NH primary was better than I expected.
c) Sanders should definitely build off of the momentum of a victory in New Hampshire, but I'm not sure how he will fare as a self-described "socialist" in more conservative states such as South Carolina or Texas. A major obstacle that Sanders faces is his lack of support from African-American voters- although Sanders has received endorsements from some prominent civil rights leaders, many believe his racial justice platform is lacking, and many black Democrats in SC support Hillary Clinton. He did not encounter this problem in New Hampshire, which is not very ethnically diverse and culturally/politically similar to his home state of Vermont. However, his success in Iowa is still promising, as he did extremely well in a state outside of the liberal Northeast.
d) I plan to vote for Bernie Sanders in the NY primary because I strongly agree with his domestic and economic policies, such as campaign finance reform and regulation of Wall Street. However, I am somewhat concerned with his lack of foreign policy experience- he seems to be something of an isolationist, which is unfortunately not feasible today given our involvement in the destabilization of the Middle East. I would still support him over Hillary Clinton, though, because her policies are not as reform-minded as Sanders'.
*shameless self promotion* For more election coverage, follow the official politics twitter feed of MHS' student newspaper, The Chief- The Chief Politics (@ChiefPolitical). (I run the account)
I agree that the GOP should consider Kasich as their nominee. Not only does he have the support of independent voters, but he would also be guaranteed to carry Ohio in the general election, which is a major swing state. His positive campaign message would also hold more weight in an election that has been filled with messages of our country being ruined.
DeleteA)I believe that New Hampshire should continue being the first state to hold a primary. When you look at the other early states, South Carolina represents the South, Iowa the Midwest, and Nevada the western portion of the country. Each state is diverse, and New Hampshire allows the New England region to maintain an influence in the early voting states. However, it would also be fair to consistently switch the order of the first four states, so that Iowa and New Hampshire do not take all of the media attention.
ReplyDeleteB)There is a value for candidates who placed fourth or lower in Iowa to stay in the race. At the moment, it seems the support of many of the candidates are focused in certain regions. While Rubio made a strong third place showing in Iowa, he only managed to win fifth in New Hampshire. Also, as shown by the implosion of Rick Perry and Howard Dean's campaigns, a strong candidate can quickly ruin their chances and leave room for someone else to take their place as a front runner.
C)A Sanders win can potentially serve as a foundation to make major gains in South Carolina. At the moment, Clinton seems to hold a dominant position in the state. However, you saw Clinton somehow trying to twist her defeat in New Hampshire as a strong showing. If Sanders can use his momentum to close the gap to perhaps a ten percent loss, he can use it to show he is making himself a larger presence in the south, which has previously been seen as a region dedicated to Clinton.
D)John Kasich remains an interesting candidate. After a weak showing in Iowa, many disregarded him as someone who would drop out. However, his time dedicated to New Hampshire led to a second place showing. Now, some are viewing him as the leader of the remaining "establishment candidates". However, his presence outside of New Hampshire has been so weak that it is unknown if he will be able to capitalize on his victory or if he will fade away after a brief win.
I agree with Brandon that one simple action can instantly change a candidates chances and take them out of the race as seen in Rick Perry and Howard Dean's campaigns. Nothing is ever certain in politics when it comes to how the public will vote along with how candidates will act.
DeleteI agree with many of the things you have talked about here. Although a Sander's win in South Carolina is highly unlikely, if he can close the gap between him and Clinton here, he can surge in many of the southerns states. As of right now, Clinton is dominating many of the southern states. If he can come close in South Carolina, this can establish his credibility throughout the south. He will need this credibility if he wants any chance of winning the Democratic nomination
Delete1) New Hampshire should continue to have the first primary. It's a tradition that has no need to be changed. There is no point changing up the order of the states, it would not be specifically beneficial and people would be upset if their state wasn't chosen as the new first primary, causing controversy.
ReplyDelete2) There is value in candidates who came in 4th or lower to stay in the race. Clearly one state's decision is not always true to the national opinion or other states' opinions, and not winning one state may not mean you have no chance. Just as easy as someone can lose votes, such as Marco Rubio, someone can rise in the ladder, such as Kasich.
3) A win for Sanders would mean an increase in his chances in South Carolina. Almost tying with Clinton in the Iowa Caucus, Sanders obviously has more support than the general public expected considering Iowa was supposed to be an easy win for Clinton. Winning New Hampshire as well shows support for him on more than just a one state level, and voters in South Carolina may be influenced to vote likewise. Although Vermont is nearby New Hampshire which may attribute to some of his votes, I don't believe that is the only reason for his win.
4) I find Marco Rubio to be an interesting candidate. From having 23.1% in the Iowa Caucus to 10.6% in New Hampshire, his failure of public speaking at the Republican debate was obviously a cause. I understand that every candidate may have a stump speech to lean on, but after being criticized by Christie, you would expect him to change what he was saying at least a little. I'm surprised he didn't and I don't understand his reasoning. Even if it showed his inexperience, he should have known better just by common sense.
Dan Malone
ReplyDeleteA.) New Hampshire should be allowed to be the first primary because that is how it has always been, and people rely on the economic benefits the state receives. Also, it helps New Hampshire gain media attention by having such an important political event, another thing they are used to getting because of the primary, and it would be unfair to take those things away from the people.
B.) There usually isn't value for staying in the race after coming in 4th or lower. This is because candidates who finish 4th or lower start receiving less campaign funding as their election becomes more and more unlikely, so they are less able to effectively campaign with less available funds. Also, candidates finishing 4th or lower usually end up receiving less media attention as well, which makes their nomination even more unlikely.
C.) A win for Sanders probably increases his chances in South Carolina, but not by a lot. This is because of heightened attention given to him by the press, which may sway some voters, but most voters were probably already set on who they want to nominate before his win in New Hampshire. Also, the proximity of New Hampshire to Vermont may have helped Sanders significantly, so not as many of those votes won't be given in South Carolina. Furthermore, New Hampshire's voters are generally more liberal than South Carolina's so Sanders socialism appeals more to New Hampshire.
D.) I find John Kasich interesting, because he appeared to be out of the race when he got 1.9% in Iowa until he finished second in New Hampshire. Also, because he's the governor of Ohio which is a swing state, he may be able to do well if he is nominated because he is almost guaranteed to win Ohio's electoral votes.
Dan
DeleteWhile they're may not be much personal value in staying in the race, candidates can still influence the race in a positive manner. Take for instance Chris Christie, a man who didn't drop out immediately after the New Hampshire results. He was able to take a jab at Marco Rubio, which definitely impacted the race.
a) I do not see a problem with New Hampshire continuing to hold the first primary. This tradition has actually become a law and to change that would be unnecessary and require a lot of time and money. This would also cause controversy because the people of New Hampshire would be angry and it would be difficult to establish a fair way to choose which state wold go first. In addition, with every state except 10 using the primary system, many people would become frustrated with the system.
ReplyDeleteb) I think that there is some value in remaining in the presidential race after coming in 4th because there is always a chance for something unexpected to happen. A top candidate can make a crucial mistake which could allow a lower candidate to quickly gain popularity. However, it is extremely expensive and time consuming to be a presidential candidate so it is understandable that several candidates who did not place well in the first caucus and primary have dropped out.
c) Bernie Sanders has much more support than anyone would have expected from a democratic socialist, which is evident from his near tie in the Iowa caucus and win in the New Hampshire primary. This greatly improves his chances in South Carolina because his win has drawn media attention and people will also be more likely to vote for him, due to the support that has been shown in other states.
d) I think Bernie Sanders is a very interesting candidate. When Sanders first came into the spotlight, I remember thinking that it would be impossible for someone who is a self proclaimed "democratic socialist" to be successful in the presidential race. However, Sanders has seen more support than expected and now poses a huge threat to Clinton's expected lead. It is clear that Sanders' ideas are appealing to young people but I personally believe that his ideas do not have a lot of potential to actually succeed in the way he says they will. He will also have an extremely difficult time getting his ideas passed in Congress. Sanders also has very limited experience in foreign policy which is troubling due to the countless foreign policy decisions that he will have to make if he were to become president of the United States.
John Merz
ReplyDeleteA) I do not believe that New Hampshire deserves to hold the first primary year after year. I believe that it is the Electoral College issue all over again; some states have more political importance/leverage than other states. In order to keep political balance fair amongst the nation, we should either have the primary order randomized each time it is conducted, or to simply have all primaries on the same day.
B) There is a significant value on candidates that finish 4th or below in Iowa. First of all, there is always the possibility that Iowa is simply a weak showing of a candidate's support. Also, it is possible that candidates that seem unpopular will quickly become more expressive of their true selves, which may not affect their own campaign, but can certainly damage other contenders'. For example, although Chris Christie dropped out of the race for presidency, he was not afraid to nearly tarnish Marco Rubio's campaign by calling him inexperienced and exploiting his robotic method of speaking.
C) I think that Bernie Sanders' win has given his campaign great momentum. Bernie has been able to rise from essentially an unknown senator to just as popular, if not more popular, as the world-known Hillary Clinton. Not only does this give Sanders, himself, confidence, but it may also encourage voters to vote for him, seeing that he is now a legitimate Clinton rival.
D) I find Bernie Sanders to be the most fascinating candidate of the 2016 presidential race. The fact that he is running as a "democratic socialist" has received a negative connotation from many Americans. However, it is interesting to see Sanders, who appears to be a far-left politician, campaign against others in a nation that has shifted to the right end of the political spectrum over the previous decades. Sanders' beliefs only seem far-left due to the current times; if he were running in the 1950s or 1960s, he would only seem fairly left-wing if not moderate.
I believe that it is unfair for New Hampshire to always have the first primary. It puts an unproportionate amount of importance upon the state to the candidates. While we need make sure that the states are not competing for the first primary, for one state to always have the first primary is unfair. A solution to this could be a rotation of the order of state primaries.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is possible, it is very rare for anyone coming fourth or lower to still have a relevant stake in the race. In a race where social media is determining polls and keeping your name relevant in media headlines is the most important campaigning tool. One has to wonder if those coming in fourth and fifth even stand a chance against the Trump’s and Sander’s in this race, purely on a name recognition standpoint.
Sander’s win in New Hampshire will certainly help legitimize him in other primaries, but the political landscape of South Carolina is much different than New Hampshire. His success has shown that he is a legitimate candidate despite not following conventional campaigning tactics. As Well, this win may sway people away from Hillary or major Republicans as they may have previously fared voting for Bernie would be throwing away their vote.
Personally, my vote is leaning towards Bernie Sanders. I don’t think that he is the Christ-like savior that will save our countries from the heartaches it is facing. In fact I don’t think that all of his policies are that good of an idea. What I find enticing about Sanders is that he has a very positive forward thinking attitude. While many of the candidates are focused on the bad and like to throw blame around, Sanders talks about solutions; even if they aren't the perfect ones, it's a step in a better direction.
Ethan you're doing a great job buddy, keep it up.
DeleteI'd like to start by saying that I disagree with you in that I believe New Hampshire should have the first primary. They seem to not have much else going on and the fact that politicians focus on them so greatly is a good thing as it would happen to whichever state has the first primary.
I agree with your point about social media but honestly think the Republicans should just cut their losses and drop since all the buzz is on Trump, Rubio, and Cruz anyway.
People didn't take Bernie as seriously before Iowa, and now that he's beaten Hillary, they certainly realize he is a force to be reckoned with. So I agree with you good job buddy.
I think Bernie is interesting as he is the liberal force this country needs as it is getting more and more conservative seemingly by the day so feeling the Bern for 8 years would be nice.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA) I believe that New Hampshire should not be the first primary every year. It should be a different primary every election because the results of the first primary causes many candidates to drop out of the race. Look at this current election race; both Christie and Fiorina drop out due to the results of one primary. If the location of the first primary varied, different candidates would have better chances. Looking at the type of voters in New Hampshire, many of them are registered as independents. This is much different than say New York or Vermont, which are very liberal states. Those states would tend to vote for the most liberal candidate, which would allow different types of candidates to stay in the race and not drop out.
ReplyDeleteB) There is value for candidates who have came in fourth or lower to stay in the race. Kasich and Bush are prime examples of this. Both had poor showings in the Iowa caucus, 8th place and 6th place respectively. Looking ahead at the New Hampshire primary Kasich came in 2nd and Jeb in 4th. The results of one caucus or primary will not determine an election. Traditionally however, if a candidate had poor results from Iowa and New Hampshire, odds are they wouldn't get very far in the election. This race for both parties seems to be much different than any other. A businessman with zero political experience and a democratic socialist are somehow showing strong results. It will be interesting to see where the race goes from here.
C) Bernie Sanders has shocked all political analysts as somehow, coming from little campaign money and his radical idea, he is still in the race and gaining on Clinton. Very few people thought he'd ever get this far in the race. Going into South Carolina do I believe he has any chance to beat Clinton here? Ask me 4 months ago I would say absolutely not. Today? I would say he has shocked the country with his strong showing in Iowa and New Hampshire, states people believed he had no chance at winning. I'm not saying I think he can win South Carolina or even the Democratic nomination, however I believe he will give the frontrunner a run for her money.
D) The candidate I find most interesting is Donald Trump. He is a businessman with no political experience and yet he is winning the race so far for the republican nomination. An outsider to Washington is somehow leading the way. This is unheard of in today's world. His far fetched ideas, like building a wall, are gaining steam and support across the nation. Are Americans tired with Washington politics and corruption? The results from Iowa and New Hampshire seem to show this. The real question is what if Trump receives the most amount of delegates? Would the GOP actually allow an outsider to be their choice for president of the United States? These are all questions that will be answered in the months to come and questions to will change the way our society looks at politics in the coming elections.
Kris
DeleteI have to disagree with your first point. I believe changing the location of the first primary would cause a 'yuge' backlash in New Hampshire. The fight that would come from creating some new type of rotation-based primary system would not be worth the time and money. Let New Hampshire keep their tradition, after all, if a president is dropping out after the first primary and caucus; they probably didn't have much of a shot at being president anyway. Candidates know roughly where they're polling in other states as well, and the bottom line is, if they stood a chance they would stay in.
A) On a personal level I hold no issue with New Hampshire being the first primary. State law requires that its primary must be the first in the nation (it had been the first by tradition since 1920), and in my opinion there's no real reason to change it. Establishing some kind of rotation based system is too much of a hassle for a petty issue.
ReplyDeleteB) Generally, it is necessary to place in the top 3 in Iowa in order to have a good shot at winning the party nominee. However, some value from a candidate could still exist through putting pressure on another candidate. For example, although it is unlikely Chris Christie will win the nominee, him calling out Marco Rubio opened the eyes of the public to how fake he seems. Despite the fact that Chris Christie is not going to be our next president, him staying in the race a bit longer definitely shaped the race.
C) Bernie was expected to win New Hampshire with ease. This win, although expected will continue to spread the campaign interest of Bernie Sanders. Given that he gets the media coverage he deserves, Bernie will continue to gain popularity, whether it be people in favor or against his democratic socialist views.
D) I find Donald Trump to be the most, 'interesting' candidate. What many thought was initially just a gag, turned into something very possible. Trump's campaign following is enormous, and his supporters are often closed-minded in switching their favorite for the presidential race. While many people will instantly bash Trump, he does have some good qualities. Trump is a natural leader and would be strong on all the issues. However, this does have its drawbacks. Trump, when in office, could act extremely impulsively, not giving in -depth thought on the issues. While I continue to find Donald Trump amusing, as it gets closer to the election I become more scared. Now I understand even if Trump were to get elected it wouldn't the end of the world, but in my opinion, someone with no political experience and an ignorant, intolerant, and boastful mindset such as Trump should not be president.
Jake Rosenblum
ReplyDeleteJake Rosenblum
A) New Hampshire should not be allowed to be the first primary in every election because it creates an issue that is similar to that of swing states. The first primary is a momentous postmark in the journey to becoming president and by allowing one state to be first every election it creates unbalance for all states. A presidential candidate will focus their energy more on helping New Hampshire in order to take an early lead in the election rather than focusing on the welfare of nation as a whole. I understand that it has become tradition and is important to the citizens of New Hampshire but the practice is unequal for states that are late in primary season.
B) It is not unfathomable for a candidate to remain in the race despite coming in fourth or lower in the New Hampshire primary. It is only the first of all the primaries so there is plenty of time to make up lost ground and time to build popularity. Most candidates who come in first in New Hampshire do not end up winning the election anyway. It is also wise to stay in the race in order to garner attention for your ideals that you hope may be adopted by candidates with a better chance of winning the election. However, if they are thinking of becoming a vice president it is a good idea to drop out later in primary season in order to gain favor and become useful for another candidate.
C) The win for bernie Sanders means two significant things for his campaign: money and momentum. He will undoubtedly garner a lot more money for his campaign because by winning after a close tie in Iowa he has finally legitimized his standing as a real candidate. On the winning podium he held a fundraiser already. He has raised over 5 million dollars after winning New Hampshire. The win is great in order to keep the finance of his campaign afloat. Even greater may be the momentum he brings into South Carolina with him. I honestly feel that he will fall off in the south to Hillary Clinton though. New Hampshire is a liberal state so the win may be biased and may not actually reflect the popular opinion of the nation.
D) The candidate that I find the most interesting is John Kasich because he seemed to be out of the race in Iowa but he came in second in New Hampshire which brings him back into contention. He is the most moderate Republican Candidate running in 2016, while he was a conservative in 2012. I think what makes him the most interesting is that he represents a major swing state in Ohio. Kasich is extremely well liked in Ohio which is a large advantage if he wins the nomination. I do not think he will win the nomination, however I have thought for a long time that he is the best vice president candidate in the entire election. With his popularity in Ohio Kasich would make a great addition to any campaign for the presidency.
A) New Hampshire has always hosted the first primary, and this pattern I believe should continue. Holding the first primary is very economically beneficial to the state, and many people depend on this increase in income to some degree during the election season. The state also receives much media attention which is beneficial as well. I believe that trying to rotate or completely change where the first primary is held for the presidential election will cause many problems. Since it has been this way for so long and has no evident negative impact, there is no need to make a change.
ReplyDeleteB) It isn't certain that a Republican candidate that places fourth or lower will have zero chance of winning the election as there is the possibility to always have an "underdog" win. There is a pattern that exists though that the candidates that place fourth or lower receive little media attention so they are not as prominent as candidates who placed higher. Many times their supporters will switch to support a candidate who has a better chance of actually becoming president, but this one caucus should not determine whether or not the candidate continues to run.
C) It was expected that Hilary would easily beat Sanders in Iowa, however the election ended in basically a tie. Because of this it shows that Democrats in Iowa are almost split in half with their support for the candidates. Because of such a close race, both candidates are going to prepare to be stronger in upcoming elections including South Carolina. Similarly, since both candidates were close, both will continue to receive media attention causing their popularity to increase. I believe Sanders will have a greater chance of coming out ahead of Hilary in South Carolina than what was originally expected.
D) I feel that Donald Trump is an extremely interesting candidate that is worthy of voter's support. Originally his decision in running wasn't very serious, but now that he is becoming popular and doing much better than what was expected in the caucuses and primaries his campaign is becoming strong. He hasn't done much with politics which makes him an outsider with other ideas that differ from the governors and politicians running for office. I believe he could make a great leader as he has these ideas that he supports very strongly and wants to see them come true. Some people perceive him as being forceful, abrupt and rude, but if he is wise in choosing a vice president to counterbalance these qualities, his potential presidency could be a success.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteKellyann McClenahan wrote this post, I'm not sure why it says unknown.
DeleteI think New Hampshire should have the first primary because, if it wasn't them, it would just be another state and they seem to need the attention.
ReplyDeleteI don't think any of the Republican candidates at this point really have a chance besides Trump, Rubio, and Cruz. They are the ones getting all the attention so all of the runner-ups in Iowa are quite frankly just wasting their resources fighting a losing battle.
Bernie's win really helps legitimize him as a candidate and makes people take him more seriously. People saw him as a joke before and then he whooped Hillary into next week in New Hampshire, so good for him he's got a good chance now in SC.
I like Bernie and think he's an interesting guy when you consider his roots. He has always been a man of his word and can prove it through his extensive resume. He lets his actions speak for themselves and I respect that about the man.
Jason, I'd like to start by saying that personally I think you're doing a great job. Keep it up.
DeleteI'd next like to say that I disagree with you're stance on New Hampshire. The attention that they gain from the primary is unnecessary and unfair for the other states.
I agree that the other candidates are wasting resources running. Personally I'd say that the share of media attention cannot go beyond those three in a significant way.
I think you put it well when you said that people used to see Bernie as a joke. I don't think many on lookers foresaw him getting this far.
In the vein of Sanders, he is in my opinion the most respectable candidate as he does stick go his morals and promises.
A) I think that since New Hampshire is traditionally the first primary, it should stay that way. However, it probably wouldn't make much of a difference if another state had the first primary instead.
ReplyDeleteB)In the past, a candidate who came in fourth or lower in the Iowa Caucus has never gone on to win the presidency. So there may not be value for a republican candidate who did come in lower than fourth, based on what has happened in the past.
C)It was expected by many people that Hillary Clinton would beat Sanders in Iowa, which did not happen. Because of this, it may be hard to predict what the results will be for the New Hampshire primary. Since Sanders was a Vermont senator, it may be more likely that he will win New Hampshire because he might be more well known by the people who live there and are voting.
D) I think Trump is the most interesting candidate because at first most people did not take him seriously as a candidate. Now he has gained a lot of support. Many people believe that having him as our president would be a good change for the country because he was not involved in politics in the past, where all other past presidents were involved in politics before they were in office.
A) I don't see a reason why New Hampshire shouldn't be the first primary. They take great pride in being the first to vote in the primaries and the tradition should stand. New Hampshire is a rather small state, so there would only really be problems had a larger state, like New York or Texas gone first.
ReplyDeleteB) In regard to one of Ethan's responses on a previous comment, I agree that the candidates who came lower than fourth in the Iowa caucus are merely wasting their time and resources. There is a reason they are not winning, and trying to maintain media attention and a captivating campaign is just not worth it when the results show that the efforts are not working.
C) Sanders' success indicates that this election is nothing at all like how political analysts predicted. Anything is fair game at this point in the election, however Sanders' huge support by millenials gives him quite the advantage that Clinton is trying to attain - the use of social media is allowing young voters to spread the word about Sanders, whereas Clinton's attempts to appeal to the youth by using colloquialisms and slang are reminiscent of someone who is just trying too hard.
D) Sanders is the most interesting candidate due to his ideas of democratic socialism. Many argue that he is just a communist, but those who argue that are the same people who forget that FDR's popular reforms were based in democratic socialism. FDR was unarguably one of the most popular and successful presidents; though many think Sanders is a wildcard in his socialistic grounding in democracy, he may be on to something.
a. New Hampshire draws alot of attention from being the first primary and as such a small state its results are not representative of the outcome of the presidential race
ReplyDeleteb. There is no value for these candidates to stay in the race. I agree with Ethan's comment where the candidates waste their time and resources. After coming in fourth place or lower, most media attention will be negative and they do not run a good chance of gaining popularity after Iowa voters have shown their opinion.
C. Sanders' victory here shows that a candidate without superpac money can remain relevant in the race. It was highly unexpected for him to reach this level of success and his position proves that the american voters support his campaign.
D. Trump is one of the most interesting candidates due to his willingness to be vocal about his opinons. It is also interesting that he has gained support due to the popular opinion that his experience as a businessman will allow him to improve the economy.
a. New Hampshire has always been the first primary and I believe it should continue to be purely based on tradition, but it is not representative of the presidential race.
ReplyDeleteb.In theory, no it does not make sense, it can be looked at as simply a waste of time and money. I can understand how some candidates may want to rack up delegates to get more influence in the election, but in the end they will not recieve the nomination.
C. It originally showed that Sanders may have had a chance to give Hillary a run for her money, but we are now seeing the effects that the Super Delegate system has on keeping Clinton the clear frontrunner.
d. If there is one candidate that has essentially shocked the country and the world with his successfull campaign so far it would be Donald Trump. To have someone who is a complete political outsider, never shies away from contreversy, and says things that no other presidential candidate would ever say is extremely surprising and in many ways fascinating. While I do not agree with him on many of his positions, his sucessfull campaign illustrates voters dissatisfaction with the establishment.
a. Personally, I don’t have a problem with New Hampshire being the first primary. New Hampshire is a very small state, with not much media attention or foot traffic. This gives people from New Hampshire a reason to feel good about themselves. It benefits the New Hampshire economy and gives them a great deal of political power for a small state that they might not have had without it.
ReplyDeleteb. If we’re being completely honest, a presidential candidate who comes in fourth or lower in the Iowa caucus has virtually no shot at winning the election. However, this is no reason to drop out of the race so quickly and abruptly. People go into politics because they care about certain issues and want to make a difference in the world to benefit those around them (hopefully). If a candidate truly cares about this nation, they will hold out to the bitter end voicing their opinions and informing voters.
c. A win for Bernie Sanders in the New Hampshire primary is huge for Bernie Sanders going into South Carolina. Hilary Clinton was supposed to wipe the floor with Sanders in Iowa and they basically tied which once again, was huge for his campaign. South Carolina is another state where Bernie Sanders is not expected to do well in so we’ll have to see how he does. He’s shown the people he is here to fight and he is here to win.
d. I find Bernie Sanders to be the most interesting candidate. It is amazing that in a country where the world “socialism” has been viewed as taboo for decades that a candidate with a Democratic socialist agenda can do so well. It is also incredible that he’s come this far without taking money from big businesses or Super PAC’S, industries that have basically run American politics for years.
Clinton really is not answering the question the woman said about the age rating about the last presidential debate she is going back to the whole 'together we are stronger' slogan. What do you guys think?
ReplyDeleteSame with Donald Trump. He's going into trade deficiencies and respect to law enforcement
ReplyDeleteTrump looks like he hasn't slept at all he has bags under his eyes and he's not so orange today lol
ReplyDelete"I have tremendous respect for women"-Trump
ReplyDeleteI've never heard a more ridiculous lie before
This debate is become another name calling debate
ReplyDeleteDid Clinton actually laugh at a woman who was raped at the age of 12?
ReplyDeleteAnd now Clinton is refusing to answer questions going to the whole 'fact checking' scheme and wasting time
ReplyDeleteTrump is obnoxious god
ReplyDelete"Muslims have to report the problems around them" what an answer Shabaash Trump shabaash
ReplyDeleteI feel as if this debate is a bit biased towards Trump it's roasting Trump more than Hillary
ReplyDeleteShe wasn't blaming Lincoln she was pointing out how Lincoln had to hold two different positions to pass the 13th Amendment. He had to keep the union together and said that this act wasn't for the slaves it was to keep the union together. However privately he wanted slaves to be free therefore she is citing this as an example not blaming him
ReplyDeleteTrump is not telling the truth again "America's taxes are the highest in the word" Scandinavia's taxes are higher. Also then if Trump's plan went through where would money for the federal budget come from?
ReplyDeleteTrump had just accepted that he doesn't pay his taxes! Ha! Now blaming Hillary's donors for the same jeez
ReplyDeleteTHE REASON WHY CLINTON AND OBAMA GOT "OUT OF IRAQ LIKE A VACUUM" WAS BECAUSE OF THE DATE BUSH SET IT IS BECAUSE OF HIM NOT OBAMA THAT THE EVACUATION OF IRAQ WAS THE WAY IT WAS
ReplyDeleteWhat is Trump saying about nuclear weapons?! Does he want to support Assad?!
ReplyDeleteAssad is not killing ISIS he is not doing anything what's wrong with Trump?!
ReplyDeleteI feel that most of the questions in this debate have not been answered properly it's just another mudslinging competition after each question one points their finger at the other
ReplyDeleteThat is true Obama did inherit one of the worst financial situations because of Bush. But he did so much with so little. Unemployment was in double digits at the time he took office (don't remember the actual number). Today unemployment is put back to single digits (old number from a week ago was four percent I don't know what it is now). There is a lot that doesn't get done in Cogress because the Republicans have the power in Congress that they stall ideas Obama would like to do.
ReplyDeleteOhhhhh that last question!
ReplyDeleteBut that is such an important question the whole campaign for both of them was pointing fingers and name calling I'm sure this one caught both of them off guard
ReplyDeleteI would elect Hillary Clinton if I were able to vote because I agree with her strategy to improving Healthcare. We should build onto the system that is already in place instead of completely demolishing it. Also she has experience in the political arena and would also be the first woman president in America; therefore I would elect her for these reasons.
ReplyDelete