Is Iowa really the be-all and end-all of the primaries? A candidate has said

[gateley]

that if he didn't do well in Iowa, that was the end of the line. If that IS accurate, how? Why?

What would happen (humor me) if the top three turned out to be Gravel, Dodd and Kucinich? Would that mean curtains for Obama, Clinton and Edwards?

Enlightenment and education greatly appreciated.

[aikoaiko]

1. nope, cause it is a caucus.

;-)

[gateley]

3. Sigh. I meant caucus - why oh why do I always do that?

:banghead:

But my questions remain the same. I can't understand why the results in one state can affect a candidate's decision to forge on or drop out.

Keep it coming! :7

[illinoisprogressive]

2. Iowa is a jumping off point. basically those placing down would probably quit

but, most would probably go through the first 4 states with some dropping out during one of the 4 if they placed very low.
Generally if you place, say 3rd, in one state and the next go to 1 or 2 you are in the game.

[gateley]

4. So since it's the first, do they consider that being an indication of how all

the following states will show? And, does the Iowa caucus INFLUENCE the others?

Thanks for your help! Jeez, I'm 54 years old, it's about time I paid attention to this.:eyes:

edit to remove yet another embarrassing gaffe.

[BadgerLaw2010]

5. Historically, losing a contested Iowa Caucus = dead meat.

[Redneck Socialist]

6. Because if you can't do well in an itty bitty state like Iowa or NH...

it means your campaign doesn't have its shit together. If you can't organize a small state, how the hell are you going to organize a nationwide campaign?

[gateley]

7. I can see the reasoning behind that, but it's kind of discouraging to supporters

of the other candidates. One small state only represents one small state. Ah, well...

Thanks.

[BringEmOn]

8. If you can't hire enough goons to herd sheep into your causus, you're fininshed.