How decided Iowa was the Great Decider?

[JeffL]

I'm listening to the news shows, the roundtables, reading news articles, etc. and everyone makes statements like "Well, if he doesn't win or at least come in second in Iowa, he can start packing" or "If she wins Iowa, the rest of the candidates can start jockeying for the VP or a cabinet bid" etc.

How in the heck did Iowa become the great decider of who should be the nominee for each party? I understand being "first" makes a big difference, but something is really screwed when everyone is of the opinion that the Iowa results will basically make or break everyone's chances.

[Lunch of Kong]

Cuz the person who wins the Iowa caucus is the one who gets their party's nomination about 50% of the time.

[Raife]

It's because Iowa prayed and sacrificed to the giant Ukrainian bone platypus.

[jeffd]

jeff: It's Iowa and New Hampshire, and by virtue of being first they have a lot of influence. Also as I understand it a lot of big donors do a second round of donations based on the results of these early primaries.

[bloo]

Yep. It's about fund-raising momentum. People like to contribute most to the person they think is most likely to win. And, at least in the past, only a few campaigns have had the funding to roll through several of the early primary rounds without being dependent on in-coming donations. They burn it all to win in Iowa and New Hampshire (and then South Carolina and Michigan historically).

Things have changed so much now, I have major doubts that Bill Clinton could have won the nomination if things were like this in '92. Big states moving their primaries earlier is only to going to shrink the pool of candidates that can afford to run, which is a smaller subset, perhaps null, of candidates who should be considered for the job.

While I'm all for democratic processes, I can't help but think that this really isn't a very good way to get the best persons for the job up for consideration. I'd rather it was like a job interview, or better yet, the hiring examination process that applicants to the US foreign service go through.

[Jason McCullough]

It probably wouldn't be so strange if the starting sides were at least remotely representative of the country at large. Say, Texas and New York or something.

[JeffL]

It probably wouldn't be so strange if the starting sides were at least remotely representative of the country at large. Say, Texas and New York or something.

Well, that's kinda my point. Iowa caucuses basically decide who's going to be the party nominees? When you get to the general presidential election, how often do you hear on election night "Well, all eyes are on Iowa!"

[Sarkus]

It's a major issue, in that no matter how you do it the primary system is flawed. In the US we have this idea that the general public (in many, though not all primary's) should decide party nominees, whereas in much of the rest of the world the party decides who their candidate is internally.

Instead we have this primary system. If you spread the states out you end up with a system that rewards the early winners and means Iowa and New Hampshire end up having a big impact on who the nominee is despite neither state being very representative of the country as a whole in terms of urban issues, ethnic diversity, etc. On the other hand, if all the primaries were at one time or close together it would reward the candidate with the most money and not necessarily the one with the best ideas. The deep pocket candidate could afford more advertising, travel, etc.

So it's a pick your poison scenario. Personally I'd rather live with the latter scenario and so I'm kind of happy states are moving their primaries up. We may end up without a clear nominee going into the conventions at some point, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. It would force party internal compromise, for one thing.

[JeffL]

It's a major issue, in that no matter how you do it the primary system is flawed. In the US we have this idea that the general public (in many, though not all primary's) should decide party nominees, whereas in much of the rest of the world the party decides who their candidate is internally.

Instead we have this primary system. If you spread the states out you end up with a system that rewards the early winners and means Iowa and New Hampshire end up having a big impact on who the nominee is despite neither state being very representative of the country as a whole in terms of urban issues, ethnic diversity, etc. On the other hand, if all the primaries were at one time or close together it would reward the candidate with the most money and not necessarily the one with the best ideas. The deep pocket candidate could afford more advertising, travel, etc.

So it's a pick your poison scenario. Personally I'd rather live with the latter scenario and so I'm kind of happy states are moving their primaries up. We may end up without a clear nominee going into the conventions at some point, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. It would force party internal compromise, for one thing.

Well, it seems that the deep pockets dominate even with the system the way it is, so I'm not sure making them all closer together would negatively impact from that POV.

It just seems extremely screwed up, and getting worse every year. We're still over a year away from the election, and the nominees are being coronated already. Does anyone really feel like we've had a good, rigorous comparison of the candidates on the significant issues at this point? Has everyone really decided that Hillary has the vision and leadership and ideas for America that we want in a new president, and that her vision and ideas and leadership is clearly so much better than all of the other candidates that they are all basically done? Same for Guiliani, although the Republicans don't get the coverage in the way Hillary does.

[Grifman]

Does anyone really feel like we've had a good, rigorous comparison of the candidates on the significant issues at this point?

Actually, yes, given all the debates, discussion, news reporting, etc. It's just happened earlier than normal, but I wouldn't say it's any less.

[Anaxagoras]

Does anyone really feel like we've had a good, rigorous comparison of the candidates on the significant issues at this point?

Actually, yes, given all the debates, discussion, news reporting, etc. It's just happened earlier than normal, but I wouldn't say it's any less.

I agree. The system has produced the best candidate on the Democratic side & the worst one on the Republican side... just like it did in 2004 & 2000. (Actually, the best in 2004 was prolly Dean, but we got the second best in Kerry.) Now it's up to the American people to make the wrong decision. And rest assured, Giuliani will be our next president.

9/11 folks, 9/11

[Sarkus]

I agree. The system has produced the best candidate on the Democratic side & the worst one on the Republican side... just like it did in 2004 & 2000. (Actually, the best in 2004 was prolly Dean, but we got the second best in Kerry.) Now it's up to the American people to make the wrong decision. And rest assured, Giuliani will be our next president.

9/11 folks, 9/11

I'm not sure I'd coronate anyone yet. So many states moved up their primaries that even if Clinton and Guiliani win Iowa the rest will stick around at least for a month or so to see what happens. Remember, it's only a month from Iowa (Jan. 3) to Super Tuesday (Feb. 5, includes CA and other big states). As a result, whatever fund raising advantage gained early won't really have time to take full effect.

[Ex-S Woo]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the "Kerry was the best candidate in 2004" bit.

[Anaxagoras]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the "Kerry was the best candidate in 2004" bit.

Well... of those that chose to run at all. And I did say second best.

[Linoleum]

Considering I would vote for Clinton over Giuliani, I wouldn't be calling him the next president just yet.

[Andrew Mayer]

Considering I would vote for Clinton over Giuliani, I wouldn't be calling him the next president just yet.

Are you sure about that?

9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11.

Still sure?

9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11.

How about now?

[Raife]

How about now?

Awesome.

[Aeon221]

Hrm. You've made an interesting point, but I'll need more pr0n before I fully accept it.

[Anders Hallin]

Hrm. You've made an interesting point, but I'll need more pr0n before I fully accept it.
Sorry, but Giuliani will confiscate your porn, and personally beat up the actors in it.

[Ex-S Woo]

I don't like the way Giuliani abuses the whole 9-11 thing for his political advantage and some of his other public remarks...but I do think that he's done one hell of a job as a major of NYC over the 8 years that he was in office and socially he's liberal enough for me to overlook some of his recent actions as realpolitik.

I might be tempted to throw in a vote for him if the thought of another republican president didn't depress me so much :(

[JeffL]

Actually, yes, given all the debates, discussion, news reporting, etc. It's just happened earlier than normal, but I wouldn't say it's any less.

Really? What will Hillary do about Iraq the day after she takes office? What will Obama do? What action will any of the candidates take about Iran? Afganistan? What is the plan from any of the candidates to deal with true terrorist threats? I'm not asking anyone to go google and try to find what they have written on their web sites, I'm asking, based on all you've read and heard them say, what actions will they actually take?

Same question for illegal immigrants - what is the specific path they would push?

Take just about any serious issue. I can tell you sound bites from the debates, but I can also give you contradictory sound bites from each.

And along those lines, what are the specific issue differences between Hillary and all the other Democrat candidates that make her the crown princess?

[Cosmic Hippo]

I don't like the way Giuliani abuses the whole 9-11 thing for his political advantage and some of his other public remarks...but I do think that he's done one hell of a job as a major of NYC over the 8 years that he was in office and socially he's liberal enough for me to overlook some of his recent actions as realpolitik.

I might be tempted to throw in a vote for him if the thought of another republican president didn't depress me so much :(What do you base this on? Because I've read a lot of very critical things about his time as mayor. If you're from NYC, I'll shut up now, though, because a New Yorker would know better than I would.

[Anaxagoras]

Really? What will Hillary do about Iraq the day after she takes office?
Depends on the information that only the president has access to & the political climate of the country on that day.
What will Obama do?
See the answer for the first question.

What action will any of the candidates take about Iran? Afganistan? What is the plan from any of the candidates to deal with true terrorist threats?
Again, see the first answer. (repeat for all the questions you asked.)

Jeff.. your problem is that you expect a road map for what a candidate will do. If any candidate follows a road map for *any* issue, then they're almost guaranteed to fail. Dubya followed a road map (although he lied to the American people about what it was) and we got... well... what we got. The President has to be adaptable. Not least because the American people have the attention spans of gnats, and you're dealing with several thousand power brokers in Washington.



And along those lines, what are the specific issue differences between Hillary and all the other Democrat candidates that make her the crown princess?
Hillary seems better at using the levers of power to accomplish things, combined with her superior fund-raising ability. (Which also hints at her ability to use the levels of power.) That's what makes her the crown princess.

[JeffL]

Depends on the information that only the president has access to & the political climate of the country on that day.

See the answer for the first question.

Again, see the first answer. (repeat for all the questions you asked.)

Jeff.. your problem is that you expect a road map for what a candidate will do. If any candidate follows a road map for *any* issue, then they're almost guaranteed to fail. Dubya followed a road map (although he lied to the American people about what it was) and we got... well... what we got. The President has to be adaptable. Not least because the American people have the attention spans of gnats, and you're dealing with several thousand power brokers in Washington.

Hillary seems better at using the levers of power to accomplish things, combined with her superior fund-raising ability. (Which also hints at her ability to use the levels of power.) That's what makes her the crown princess.

In other words - don't expect a candidate to be able to tell you what they will do on the serious issues? The on what basis do we differentiate the candidates? How much fawning the press gives a candidate?

So Hillary is better because she uses the "levers of power to accomplish things" than all the other candidates, and has more people with money willing to back her? Accomplish what, compared to the others? I'm not sniping, seriously?

EDIT: And how do I correct the title of this thread? Just noticed I type How instead of Who - I started with a thought of "How did..." LOL!

[Anaxagoras]

In other words - don't expect a candidate to be able to tell you what they will do on the serious issues? The on what basis do we differentiate the candidates? How much fawning the press gives a candidate?

I think it's realistic to expect a candidate to tell you what they're going to do on one or two issues... presumably that's where the candidate will spend his or her political capital. All the top tier democrats have produced fairly detailed health care plans, so I assume that's the issue that they'll try to shape & control.

As for the other issues... gay marriage, immigration, Iraq, etc. etc. it would be foolish for canididates to lock themselves into a course of action. Every locked course of action is another area where they'll have to expend political capital to make things happen as they have promised... and in some (Iraq in particular) the candidates prolly don't have enough information to make a wise decision.



So Hillary is better because she uses the "levers of power to accomplish things" than all the other candidates, and has more people with money willing to back her? Accomplish what, compared to the others? I'm not sniping, seriously? I wouldn't say she's "better" because of that... rather, she has demonstrated competence in an area that matters. I find her kinda soul-deadening, and would rather have a class warrior like John Edwards as President. Your "accomplish what" question is especially valid for Clinton, and I don't have a good answer for that. If we were talking about Edwards, I would guess the thing he'd accomplish is to stick it to the rich, which is A-OK by me. Clinton? *Shrug*. She seems like she'll do "the pragmatic thing"... so in Iraq, no rash pull-out, with regards to immigration, she'll listen to all sides & come up with a compromise plan, depending on the mood of the country at the time. etc. etc.
Think of Bill Clinton's time as President. He kinda muddled along, made most people (except the frothing right) reasonably happy, and in general didn't really thrill or anger anybody. From what I've seen of Hillary, I would expect more of that, except this time with the levers of power used more effectively.

What I don't get is why the Clintons make the right so frickin' mad. They're bland centrists that do the "practical" thing. They sure as hell don't satisfy radicals such as myself... they're just... there. So why is the far right so angry about them? My pet theory is that they're insane, but that's the theory I use to explain most of the far rights' actions. As a theory, it fits the facts pretty well, but it doesn't have much predictive power.

Edit - Yeah, I noticed the typo in the thread title.... but it seemed niggardly to correct you when you on such a minor point.

[JeffL]

I think it's realistic to expect a candidate to tell you what they're going to do on one or two issues... presumably that's where the candidate will spend his or her political capital. All the top tier democrats have produced fairly detailed health care plans, so I assume that's the issue that they'll try to shape & control.

As for the other issues... gay marriage, immigration, Iraq, etc. etc. it would be foolish for canididates to lock themselves into a course of action. Every locked course of action is another area where they'll have to expend political capital to make things happen as they have promised... and in some (Iraq in particular) the candidates prolly don't have enough information to make a wise decision.


I wouldn't say she's "better" because of that... rather, she has demonstrated competence in an area that matters. I find her kinda soul-deadening, and would rather have a class warrior like John Edwards as President. Your "accomplish what" question is especially valid for Clinton, and I don't have a good answer for that. If we were talking about Edwards, I would guess the thing he'd accomplish is to stick it to the rich, which is A-OK by me. Clinton? *Shrug*. She seems like she'll do "the pragmatic thing"... so in Iraq, no rash pull-out, with regards to immigration, she'll listen to all sides & come up with a compromise plan, depending on the mood of the country at the time. etc. etc.
Think of Bill Clinton's time as President. He kinda muddled along, made most people (except the frothing right) reasonably happy, and in general didn't really thrill or anger anybody. From what I've seen of Hillary, I would expect more of that, except this time with the levers of power used more effectively.

What I don't get is why the Clintons make the right so frickin' mad. They're bland centrists that do the "practical" thing. They sure as hell don't satisfy radicals such as myself... they're just... there. So why is the far right so angry about them? My pet theory is that they're insane, but that's the theory I use to explain most of the far rights' actions. As a theory, it fits the facts pretty well, but it doesn't have much predictive power.

Edit - Yeah, I noticed the typo in the thread title.... but it seemed niggardly to correct you when you on such a minor point.

It is frustrating to me that we select a candidate based on no real commitment on the major issues, in fact, they try to avoid specifics as much as possible because that's the game - avoid risk, be the one who doesn't make a mistake, play not-to-lose rather than play to win.

Clinton - I think the right hates him for the same reasons the left hates Reagan - their immense popularity. Neither side will admit that, in fact, I'm not sure either side will even believe that is the real reason. My opinion.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

Reagan enriched the rich, impoverished the poor, had a bunch of stupid little wars (e.g. Grenada), gave insipid speeches written by the likes of Peggy Noonan, fanned the flames of the Cold War (and then gallingly took credit for the fall of the Soviet Union), and -- as far as the non-economic stuff goes, this is the real kicker for me -- sponsored extensive terrorism in Latin America. Also his administration was packed with criminals, and I'm talking about real criminals like James Watt, not interns guilty of felony dick-sucking. Tough on crime, my ass.

If all that stuff was untrue, and Reagan was just as popular, do you think he'd still be remembered as unfondly as he is?

[Grifman]

Really? What will Hillary do about Iraq the day after she takes office? What will Obama do? What action will any of the candidates take about Iran? Afganistan? What is the plan from any of the candidates to deal with true terrorist threats? I'm not asking anyone to go google and try to find what they have written on their web sites, I'm asking, based on all you've read and heard them say, what actions will they actually take?

Same question for illegal immigrants - what is the specific path they would push?

Take just about any serious issue. I can tell you sound bites from the debates, but I can also give you contradictory sound bites from each.

And along those lines, what are the specific issue differences between Hillary and all the other Democrat candidates that make her the crown princess?

If you think you are going to get detailed answers to these questions before a president is elected, you're fooling yourself. Changing the current timing of the primary process is not the problem here and fixing that is not going to get you your answers. The problem is deeper than that.

That said both Clinton and Obama have stated their long term plans for Iraq. I don't think it's really relevant what they do the day after. As for Iran, no one is going to tie their hands there. Besides, they don't know what the president knows - if anything. And as for illegal immigrants, can't you just simply check their record on the recent immigration bill? Didn't they both support it (too lazy to check myself :) )

And both have laid out proposed health plans.

So I'm not sure exactly what you want.

[JeffL]

If you think you are going to get detailed answers to these questions before a president is elected, you're fooling yourself. Changing the current timing of the primary process is not the problem here and fixing that is not going to get you your answers. The problem is deeper than that.

That said both Clinton and Obama have stated their long term plans for Iraq. I don't think it's really relevant what they do the day after. As for Iran, no one is going to tie their hands there. Besides, they don't know what the president knows - if anything. And as for illegal immigrants, can't you just simply check their record on the recent immigration bill? Didn't they both support it (too lazy to check myself :) )

And both have laid out proposed health plans.

So I'm not sure exactly what you want.

Iraq - Hillary - We can't pull troops out without knowing what's happening on the ground, lots of things could happen, we could have troops there until the end of the next president's terms. Except when she said she was for phased pull-out ending in 2009. Except, when she said she'd favor immediate withdrawal. Support for the immigration bill that didn't pass - they made a vote based in polls - would they push for it again? Lots of people who voted for it later backpeddled when they perceived polls were against it.

Hey - if you feel like you know what you need to know about how any of the current candidates will lead the country, what they will do when in office, etc. I'm happy for you. I don't feel like we know at all, and that they are not being pushed to give some hard answers. Yeah - I know that getting solid answers these days is impossible - been a hard core political junkie for at least 27 years. Doesn't mean I'm happy about it. And I think we get some crappy candidates as a result.

[Sarkus]

Reagan enriched the rich, impoverished the poor, had a bunch of stupid little wars (e.g. Grenada), gave insipid speeches written by the likes of Peggy Noonan, fanned the flames of the Cold War (and then gallingly took credit for the fall of the Soviet Union), and -- as far as the non-economic stuff goes, this is the real kicker for me -- sponsored extensive terrorism in Latin America. Also his administration was packed with criminals, and I'm talking about real criminals like James Watt, not interns guilty of felony dick-sucking. Tough on crime, my ass.

If all that stuff was untrue, and Reagan was just as popular, do you think he'd still be remembered as unfondly as he is?

Last national poll I saw (around the time of his death IIRC) he was remembered quite fondly. Not everyone has the same interpretation of those events as you do.

Not that I quite understand what an anti-Reagan post has to do with the question of how and why the primary system works the way it does.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

Not that I quite understand what an anti-Reagan post has to do with the question of how and why the primary system works the way it does.

I was responding to this:

Clinton - I think the right hates him for the same reasons the left hates Reagan - their immense popularity. Neither side will admit that, in fact, I'm not sure either side will even believe that is the real reason. My opinion.

Last national poll I saw (around the time of his death IIRC) he was remembered quite fondly. Not everyone has the same interpretation of those events as you do.

As you might have gathered from my use of the phrase "and Reagan was just as popular," as well as the stuff above, I don't dispute that Reagan really moves a certain segment of the population favorably. Especially right after a flag-and-gun motorcade funeral of Warhammer 40k Epic Battles scale.

My point could more accurately be summarized as "Reagan did way more bad stuff than Clinton." Which is not to say that Clinton never did bad stuff. Free Trade here, cruise missiles and messy military interventions there, a compromise on gays in the military that displeased fag-lover and fag-hater alike... the guy wasn't a triumph. And he certainly gave chase to Reagan as a giver of empty speeches. Plus adultery blah blah. But remembering Reagan as he was puts Clinton's terms in perspective. It's absurd to assign the cause of dislike for both presidents to a generalized anti-popularity contest.

Edit: And when I say "extensive terrorism in Latin America," let's not forget that in the eighties, "terrorism" was still a real word.

[DoomMunky]

Has anyone answered the original question? Why is it IOWA (and NH) that the primaries are held in? Why not NY? Why not Texas or California? Why not Alaska?

Why did Iowa and NH become The Chosen States?

[Ex-S Woo]

Exactly. I grew up in NYC and I have very vivid memories of New York before and after Guiliani and I think he was a definite positive influence on the city...a tradition that I think Bloomberg has done a good job in continuing.

The big factor is that it was during his watch that the police managed to finally put a crime rate back under control, that all the modernization of public services came about, and that the city in general began to 'gentrify' and finally shed the dirty and gritty image that it had back in the 70's and 80's.

He may be an asshole in other accounts but I find it very hard to fault the overall job he's done as major.

What do you base this on? Because I've read a lot of very critical things about his time as mayor. If you're from NYC, I'll shut up now, though, because a New Yorker would know better than I would.

[Aeon221]

And how do I correct the title of this thread? Just noticed I type How instead of Who - I started with a thought of "How did..." LOL!

I liked it, added an extra ounce of surrealism to a question about an odd situation.

[Jason McCullough]

Guiliani my ass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_New_York_City#Recent_years).

Although many commentators (and proponents of Giuliani's presidential bid) have suggested that the New York City Police Department (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Police_Department)'s adoption of CompStat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CompStat), broken windows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows) policing, and other strategies during the administration of Rudolph Giuliani were at least partially responsible for the drop in crime, independent statistical studies[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_New_York_City#_note-12)[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_New_York_City#_note-13) have found that these initiatives had no measurable impact on New York City's crime rate. These studies found that the dramatic reduction in crime was strongly correlated with the increases in the number of police officers that started under Mayor Dinkins and continued through the Bloomberg administration.

I remember a study showing that the crime rate drop was of virtually the same magnitude across all high-crime big cities in the US, too. Through the miracle of casual correlation in popular culture, however, everyone will be totally convinced it was all the mayor.

[Ex-S Woo]

Yeah, but even that quote you're using states that "These studies found that the dramatic reduction in crime was strongly correlated with the increases in the number of police officers that started under Mayor Dinkins and continued through the Bloomberg administration."

I think this quote is absolutely true but it's been worded in a way that marginalizes Giuliani's efforts in bolstering NYC's police force.

He was instrumental in merging the different branches of police under the NYPD banner, added thousands of new officers + funding, and pretty much lioned them to take the initiatives that they needed to take back control of the streets .

I do realize that his claims of increasing the NYPD police force by 40% isn't accurate and some of the money that went into the police was from federal funds but I still think that his efforts in improving law enforcement in NYC was substantial and should be recognized as such.

[Jason McCullough]

Everyone increased the size of the police force; the crime rate went down across the entire country; the drop in crime wasn't particularly different from city to city. None of that has anything to do with Guilani specifically.

[Ex-S Woo]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/97/Giuliani_crime_rate.png

I dunno, it looks like the drop of crime in NYC was more than the national average to me.

[Jason McCullough]

The studies I recall were murder rate. On the general crime rate (http://www.gothamgazette.com/commentary/91.barrett.shtml).

he only real claim that Rudy Giuliani can make to a legacy at all is in the crime statistics, and they have been miserably manipulated.

Thirteen percent of the total decline in crime statistics in New York was in larcenies of under fifty dollars. In 95 percent of larcenies, there is no contact between the individuals involved. It is the least threatening crime. Forty-two percent of the total decline in crime under Rudy Giuliani was auto thefts and the theft of auto parts. There are three different kinds of burglary: forcible, non-forcible, and attempted forced burglary. Attempted forced burglary is where you are sitting in your living room, somebody tries to break in, sees you there, and turns around. Or you come home from work, and you can see somebody has tried to get into your apartment, because somebody jimmied with the lock.

The statistic in burglary that has gone down dramatically, by 90 percent under Giuliani, is this victimless attempted forced burglary. In one year, 1996, it went from thirty thousand to four thousand. This is unparalleled anywhere else in the United States. It went from 41 percent of all burglaries to three percent of all burglaries.

And how did it happen? When you call a precinct and tell them, "Somebody tried to break into my house. Come over and take a look," they will tell you, "We don't do that anymore. If you want to report an attempted forced burglary come to the precinct." There is no insurance claim to file, so people don't go to the precinct. That is why that statistic dropped off the books of the City of New York.

I'm not sure what NYC vs. the country at large is supposed to tell you; they're different sample sets, with NYC being contained in the larger. NYC vs. other large cities with comparable crime rates would be more illustrative if you want to tease out policy conclusions. San Francisco, for one, had a better violent crime reduction rate and didn't change anything. This (http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/harcourt/broken-window-myth.html) refers to some studies in the area.

[Crispus]

Has anyone answered the original question? Why is it IOWA (and NH) that the primaries are held in? Why not NY? Why not Texas or California? Why not Alaska?

Why did Iowa and NH become The Chosen States?

It looks like there are articles in wikipedia that briefly touch on the subject. Basically, it looks like New Hampshire's local legislators just decided they wanted to be the first primary, and they keep moving the date of theirs to ensure that's the case. With Iowa's caucus, I think it's just become a tradition:

Iowa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucus)
New Hampshire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_primary)

The Iowa caucus is commonly recognized as the first step in the United States Presidential nomination process for both the Democrats and the Republicans. It came to national attention in 1972, with a series of articles in the New York Times on how non-primary states would choose their delegates for the national conventions. Democratic operative Norma S. Matthews, state co-chair of the George McGovern campaign, helped engineer the early January start for Iowa. McGovern finished second to Edmund Muskie in the first early Hawkeye state caucus, but the momentum was palpable for an ultimate Democratic nomination in 1972 for McGovern in Miami.

[Elton]

I hate how this 18-month campaign seems like a ridiculous waste of money, and effort on the part of the candidates, and my time because I feel obligated to follow the scrum. The good part of all these states moving up their primaries is that maybe Iowa will become less important and supporting corn subsidies won't be so essential to getting a nomination.

The whole primary system (like the electoral college) is an anachronistic throwback; no one would design a party nomination system like this from scratch. Or if you have to have primaries in different states on different dates to preserve the ability of an unknown to build momentum and money over time, at least scramble the order so the same two states don't get all the attention and handouts every election cycle. It makes me furious just thinking about it.