New Hampshire and Iowa hold America's first primary elections which are considered a tool for early measurement of the national attitude towards the candidates. Republican candidates have started to focus on New Hampshire which has a better recent record in picking up a nominee i.e 4 out of 6 commencing in 1980 in Republican favour against 3 for 6 since 1984  in the Democrats chart.

Clinton has maintained her lead over Sanders over the last few months but fell short this month according to Monmouth University survey. Iowa has voted for the eventual nominee in only two of the recent six Republican nominations (George Bush in 2000 and Bob Dole in 1996). However, Iowa has shown better record at Democrat races, choosing four out of the past six nominees.

It has been a precedent since 1980s that the single best predictor of party's nominee is the number of endorsements from Part Elites i.e. Elected Officials and Prominent Past Party Leaders. They have better sense regarding which candidate can fulfill the long campaigns, effectively, and they can influence voters and donors by praising or criticising candidates.

Voters dislike the state of politics. The sentiment is particularly resonant among Republican voters who believe the country is on the wrong track and are disappointed that elected Republican majorities don't have much to show for it legislatively. In presidential contests, conservatives are tired of nominating so-called establishment candidates and losing.

The GOP seems like two divided groups: an establishment party that represents figures like Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasich and Chris Christie and an insurgent group headed by Ted Cruz and Ben Carson.

Angry voters have choices in the upcoming elections. Many candidates are spearheading their campaigns as elections are days away, compelling the crowds to vote for them by presenting their respective cases.

Jeb Bush has received far less endorsements in comparison to Clinton i.e. 76 to 10 percent. 'Invisible Primary' is the known framework upon which is comprised of garnering support from the fellow politicians, party leaders and donors. The support of party leaders is a sign of a candidate's long term strength as well as a source of future strength. However, there is new fascinating dynamic: such support will matter less in 2016 than it had in the past elections.

We will have to look at the brief history which depicts the mechanisms in play, determining the ground situation in General Elections. Democrats struggle has emerged from the conflicting amalgam of northern progressives and southern segregationists. Lyndon Johnson's Civil Acts 1964 was a defining step of a party's long struggle to entrench its position in Presidential Politics. This was made possible by sophisticated revamping of its approach regarding Civil Rights. It proved a vital step that led to detrimental effect as white southerners fled to Abraham Lincoln's party despite the fact that his reforms meant that the leadership of the two parties were on same page.

Since the emergence of Civil Rights Era of 80s, the Republicans successful Presidential politics was pursued through the 'southern strategy' which that aimed at the ''silent majority'' who represented major chunk of people who were eligible to vote. This rate has plunged from 80 percent to 44 percent as per 2012 calculations.

In 2016, all American politics is national. On the campaign trail and in polls, voters dislike the state of politics. The Republican voters have strong sentiments who are disappointed with the Republican candidates who don't have much to show in legislatures. These voters believe that the country is on the wrong track and the conservatives are now tired of nominating the establishment-supported candidates and, losing.

Trump, however, is considered synonymous with the emergence of angry voter in 2016, while after 2012 the clear majority has emerged in favour of Republicans who gained the upper hand in legislatures and Congress and Senate 2014 Elections. Although not really likeable, compassionate or particularly honest, his demenaour revolves around his style where he hits the area concerned with voter angst on trade deals, nuclear treaties, ISIS, immigration and economy – where he's considered decisive and competent. This may be bought by the blue collar but that does alone affirm his strong position as his appeal has significantly waned after his top position for few months had put a spotlight on the voters’ widespread dissatisfaction with the national politics.

This year's race has been so far dominated by the outsiders – Trump and Carson – while establishment favourites are the Spanish-speaking Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio; as the party intends to appeal to voters on demographic basis.

Comparatively, among the Republicans, it is believed that Trump, Cruz and Rubio will potentially benefit from voters’ anger. Trump and Cruz are leading in Iowa and nationally, while the establishment has yet to support a candidate despite Rubio being regarded the favourite.

Trump is an outsider deterred by nothing and Cruz has proved himself a valiant fighter who will not back down, easily. Rubio's credibility as an electorate rose through his campaign call for State Convention for change in Constitution, which he hopes will translate into 'winning' vote despite the fact that he still is not the ultimate nominee aside from Christie, Kasich and Bush, particularly in the first spell of New Hampshire.

The Republicans have emerged as revolutionaries and insurgents, which marks an end to their being evolutionary or anarchic throughout the late sixties and the early nineties, wherein only one Presidential Election was won by the Democrats, under Jimmy Carter. At that time, home town politics and industrial factors led to the shaping of the primary contests in the elections, but such factors are now losing their clout, and are being replaced by anger about issues revolving around the economy and terrorism.

The Republicans have cast their nets in an ideological manner in order to capture the renewed priorities that are intensely shaping major policies on national rather than local level. In New Hampshire, Trump has appeared less than the other Republican candidates, where the most important issues are highlighted through the engagement of the candidates with the public and the voters.

It used to be that you had to be right on all these local issues or you wouldn't pass the smallest test in a state but now you have 7 out of 10 voters thinking their country is headed in the wrong direction, and these national concerns are overwhelming the parochial issues. However, Cruz has faced immense criticism in state of Iowa regarding his dubious claim on Ethanol standard where he has been blamed to be indulging favours to the oil producers. The Group, Americans for Renewable Future, has targeted Cruz during his bus campaign tour across Iowa ahead of Presidential Debates.

The Democratic circle is witnessing the play of debate chicken where Clinton camp says that Bernie Sanders is scared and, the Sanders campaign says that Clinton is desperate. If Hillary Clinton bags the Presidency, she will face an impending misery scenario, where the Republicans have sway over House of Representatives which passes laws and have control of the Senate since 2014 with full control of both the lower and upper houses of Congress.

Significantly, the pattern has been that the second term is absorbed by foreign policy while in the upcoming presidential term, the issues that involve Syria, Muslims, visas, homeland security and gun laws will tangle from day one.

Donald Trump has been vocal on Muslim-Immigration issue. Mitt Romney has initiated a political action committee that is devoted to taking down Trump, spending $45,000 up till now, reportedly.

According to the Politico Magazine, the aim is to take down Jeb Bush's direct rivals. This is a dangerous game as Republicans can be in for a very rude awakening where strong support base for Trump while bashing Mr Cruz would be a bad gamble The risk lies in the scenario where Trump may discontinue his party nominee position and follow a path on his own.

On the Democratic front, Hillary Clinton released a letter in which ten foreign policy experts criticised her opponent, Sanders, who called for closer engagement with the Iranian leadership. The letter claimed that Sanders had ''not thought through these crucial national security issues that can have profound consequences for our security.'' The officials from State Departments and Ambassadors, who backed Clinton's campaign, have signed the document on basis of their affiliation with the Military-Establishment which has benefited massively from the Middle Eastern campaigns in the violence-stricken regions.

The Politico magazine names the prominent signatories as Former Assistant Defense Secretary Derek Chollet, former Pentagon and CIA Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash, and former Deputy National Security Adviser Julianne Smith. They are employed by the Beacon Global Strategies Consultants firm whose staff advises both Clinton and Republicans for Presidential Candidature, along with Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Beacon Global Strategies have declined to reveal the names of their contractor clients to whom they provide as military contractors.

A Former Undersecretary of State, Nicholas Burns, is a senior counselor at the Cohen Consultancy – a group that was founded by the former Defense Secretary William Cohen. The firm ''assists aerospace and defense firms on poilcy, business development, and transactions,''  including deals in the US, Turkey, Israel and the Middle East.

Noam Chomsky, a renowned US academic, says that Bernie Sanders has the best policies of the Democratic Presidential Contenders, but does not have a real chance to win in a political system where elections are ''mainly bought.'' The debates have edged onto more factual grounds as Sanders and Clinton have utilised their support base. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont Senator, has garnered popular vote by raising voice on issues like US income inequality and the corporate money influence on the elections aside from US Government, whereby, Sanders has got support from the party's progressive base and the working class.

In the Democrats Presidential debate, Clinton repeatedly tried to make Sanders look comparatively less eligible or qualified for the Presidency to which Sanders addressed the Clinton's TV advertisement that led to questions about Sander's electability as a President. Sanders opted to criticise Clinton for her alliance with the wealthy and the powerful who had their own interests to look after in these elections. This argument, according to the Politico magazine, has appealed to the resonance of many younger and liberal Americans in the early voting stages. Sanders deepened his ongoing critique by bringing into fore the healthcare debate and the position on Wall Street and pressed on a referendum on big money in politics i.e. 'Super PAC' and the wealthy donors supporting Clinton's campaign.

For Clinton's case, she opted to bring into account the past – Obama's Administration and the former President, Bill Clinton. She touched upon issues on how to improve the lives of the American people. She tended to represent her credentials as the inheritor of the Democratic Party's agenda on traditional issues like economy, social and foreign policy; to which Sanders responded by many of his liberal policy views at almost every turn.  At the Debate Night, the main focus of both candidates was to claim Obama's political mantle.

In the series of nationwide elections, Iowa and New Hampshire fall into primary election category; and the race in those states is now closer than ever. Apart from the two states, Clinton has a good chance in South Carolina i.e. among the African American voters, where Obama has a strong standing. She has reiterated support for Obama's agenda while Sanders has focused on pursuing Obama's legacy. The clash between the two candidates soared at the point when Sanders accused Clinton for accepting $600,000 from Goldman Sachs to which Clinton defended herself by questioning Sanders position on his stand regarding Obama's Wall Street regulation.

Both Democrat candidates were under pressure in the final debate before the primary election in Iowa State. Clinton did not represent herself as a freshly thinking candidate when Sanders asked that whether in the office, she will treat his advice as 'Official or at kitchen-table'. Clinton spoke in impassioned manner but not aggressively, while Sanders was emphatic but had a varied response from being soft to aggressive. Martin O'Malley, the third Democratic candidate, is far behind in the polls.

Republican candidates rarely agree with Democrats candidates. The New York Times compared adults’ responses in recent polls to candidates’ statements:


A string of high-profile mass shootings this fall reignited the nation’s long-running debate over gun violence. Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley have been vocal in pushing for new restrictions; Republicans have been more or less uniform in their opposition.


Addressing climate change is a big priority for the Democratic candidates. While some Republican candidates acknowledge the existence of man-made climate change, they oppose regulations that they say would hurt the economy. Some other Republicans have expressed doubts about man’s role or even deny that climate change exists.


After the terrorist attacks in Paris in November, the presidential field split largely along party lines over whether to allow Syrian refugees into the United States. Most of the Republicans opposed admitting them, though two candidates expressed support for allowing Christian refugees


Republicans are staunchly opposed to the Affordable Care Act, the signature domestic policy achievement of President Obama’s administration. They want to get rid of it. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. O’Malley would keep most of the health care overhaul, while Bernie Sanders wants to move to a single-payer health care system.


The issue of abortion largely splits the candidates along party lines. Republicans have called for cutting off federal funds for Planned Parenthood. Those Republicans who oppose abortion are split over whether to allow exceptions in cases involving rape or incest.


The two parties want to follow different paths on taxes. Democrats want the wealthiest Americans to pay more. Republicans are focused on lowering taxes, though they disagree about whether to cut tax rates or more fundamentally overhaul how the country collects revenue.