What makes winning in Iowa so important?

Re: What makes winning in Iowa so important?


Nothing because Iowa doesn't matter. In years when no incumbent is seeking reelection Iowa votes for the eventual party nominee only 43% of the time for Democrats and only 50% of the time for Republicans. Of the 15 men who have come in 1st in the Iowa Caucus (I don't think any non-incumbent has ever won a clear majority) only 4 of them made it to the White House. Both George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton took the White House after coming in 3rd in the Iowa Caucuses.

It's the first statement of actual voter intent instead of just the results of polls and fund raising. Imagine the posible scenario of Clinton coming in third to Obama and Edwards with Edwards winning. Suddenly Edwards starts getting a lot of press and Clinton goes into damage control mode all the way to South Carolina. If Edwards comes in third, this campaign is effectively over.

Iowa and New Hampshire are tests of a candidate's ability to be personable in a close, grass roots, person to person contest. The larger states tend to test a candidate's ability to raise money.

The intent is from a group of voters that are not in anyway representative of the American electorate and which has a very bad track record when it comes to supporting the canidate that will win the November election.

I think Iowa and New Hampshire are the first tests of a candidate's ideas and policy goals. But what Iowa wants is counter to what the nation as a whole wants more than 75% of the time and lately New Hampshire isn't doing much better. These states let the eventual winning candidate know what not to say and what not to advocate in order to win in November.

Ron Paul FTW

Iowa correctly selects the party nominee over half the time, but so what? They are still Americans casting a vote. They will be a small part of the ~100 million voting in November, but it's a real start compared to listening to polls, tabulations of campaign donations or celebrety endorsements.

With any luck, it'll mean the media will start covering Edwards in the way they've been covering the media favourites.

I would much rather have the hype spent on Iowa spent on a state that is much more representative of the country as a whole and which has a better record than Iowa has. And I would prefer even more that we not single out any given state. No state should be the only state having a primary or caucus on any given day.

That's what kills me about the process. The news media are the ones who chose the nominees. By covering or not covering a candidate the media can propel or burry him. The news media are who decides what is important- not the voters.

A case in point: During the 1986 gubernatorial election in Florida every single Republican candidate was in town for a debate and the closest any of the local news media came to covering it was when the newspaper published a letter to editor complaining that none of the local news media covered it.

Suppose a candidate for a party's nomination is in town and he has great ideas and policy goals but no money to get a campaign established. By covering the candidate's visit the media can raise his public profile, thus letting people know he is campaigning thereby giving him a chance to gain campaign funds which can help him establish a full-fledged campaign. By not covering the candidate's visit the media helps keep the voters in the dark- leaving the voters with no choice but support one of the candidates that the news media want nominated.

I would like to see the national primary. But it's ridiculously stupid for your to claim that other states have 'better records.' The vast majority of those other states are coalescing behind those who have won earlier primaries, not prognosticating the choices of the country, in the way the earlier primaries are seen as doing.

Cycloptichorn

[quote="flaja]I would much rather have the hype spent on Iowa spent on a state that is much more representative of the country as a whole and which has a better record than Iowa has. And I would prefer even more that we not single out any given state. No state should be the only state having a primary or caucus on any given day.[/quote]
That would be great, but that's not the system we have today. Today we have a system where fledging candidates can put all their efforts into one contest. If they show they are competitive in that little arena, they can attract money and attention for the big shows down the road. If their best efforts are for naught, they might as well hang it up. It's probably not the best system, but since it is the one we have, it is important to do well in Iowa. Despite your belief that Iowa is not important, it clearly is. That is why the candidates are spending big money there. An interesting example from this year: without Iowa, Huckabee is an also ran, never ran, never was in serious contention candidate IMO. Without a serious ground organization or money, he has been able to propel his candidacy upwards against much better organized competition. If he had to compete in ten states, I think those of us outside of Arkansas would never have heard of him.

Iowa has one advantage over a mythical representative state: It lends itself to personal campaigning. You can't just stop in the big metropolitan areas to get to 80% of the voters. You have to get out and press the flesh, kiss the babies, go to the fairs, etc. If the first state was Ohio (my pick for a representative state), the candidates would spend all their time hitting the big cities where they can reach large audiences quickly. Iowa rewards a hard worker.

New Hampshire, whish has followed Iowa since 1972 does have a better record. The winner of Iowa doesn't always win New Hampshire and only Clinton and George W. Bush are the only candidates since the early 1950s to make it to the White House without first winning the New Hampshire Primary. One state does not mean coalescing is taking place.

Personal campaigning doesn't win the election in November. Most Americans would never take the time or make the effort to go see a presidential candidate in person. They are too busy sitting at home in front of the TV.

True, so we are lucky that all the Iowa folks make the candidates get out so we can sit in front of our TV's watching the results.

I doubt that most would-be voters will be paying any attention until their state is about to go to the polls.

Op-Ed Columnist

The Slice of the Sliver Speaks


By GAIL COLLINS
Published: January 3, 2008
DES MOINES



As the presidential candidates tell them every single day, Iowans deserve to be the nation's kingmakers because they are exceptional citizens who take their responsibilities very, very seriously. So tonight, even though it's very cold ?- even though it's Hokies vs. Jayhawks in the Orange Bowl ?- the sturdy Iowa voters will pull on their parkas and go out to fulfill their historic destiny. Perhaps as many as 15 percent of them!

"Money will become irrelevant once somebody wins the Iowa caucus," said John (I Currently Have No Money) Edwards. "The winner of the Iowa caucus is going to have huge amounts of money pouring in." Edwards, the Democratic third-runner, has spent more time in Iowa than many Iowans, who have a tendency to flee to Florida in the winter.

People, ignore whatever happens here. The identity of the next leader of the most powerful nation in the world is not supposed to depend on the opinion of one small state. Let alone the sliver of that state with the leisure and physical capacity to make a personal appearance tonight at a local caucus that begins at precisely 7 o'clock. Let alone the tiny slice of the small sliver willing to take part in a process that involves standing up in public to show a political preference, while being lobbied and nagged by neighbors.

Ah yes, good work fighting for democracy around the globe, American troops, Pakistani lawyers, international election observers. The tiny slice of the sliver of the small state approves.

Tonight, the Iowa Deciders will divide into 1,781 local caucuses. Past history suggests that a few of these gatherings may not draw any attendees whatsoever and that several others will consist entirely of a guy named Carl. Attendance has no effect on the number of delegates involved, and we hardly need mention that the whole thing is weighted to give rural residents an advantage. Iowans in politically active neighborhoods where 100 people show up may find their vote is worth only 1 percent as much as, say, Carl's. This gives them the opportunity to experience what it is like to be a New Yorker or Californian all year round.

Iowa Republican caucuses, which involve writing a name on a piece of paper and going home, are like Athens in the Age of Pericles compared with the Democrats, who are closer to Turkmenistan in the age of Saparmurat Niyazov. Tonight the Democratic caucus-goers (We are expecting way more than 100,000!) will divide up into groups supporting each of the different candidates. (Secret ballots are for sissies.) Then some of the smaller groups will be dissolved under rules so complicated they are known only to the local insiders and experts hired by the candidates to decipher them. (Sometimes these turn out to be the exact same people!)

"What if the largest groups are not immediately apparent because more than one nonviable Presidential Preference group contains the same number of eligible attendees and will not realign?" the party guide asks rhetorically. This is the simplified version of the rules prepared for the benefit of the media, but the answer, obviously, is that you flip a coin. ("A game of chance is used to determine which groups may remain.")

On the Republican side, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani are at a grave disadvantage because of a failure to campaign enough in Iowa. (You'd think Florida was a state or something.) Fred Thompson is so desperate to go home that he's practically begging people to vote for somebody else. Mitt Romney is by far the best organized. His victory in the important Iowa straw poll last summer demonstrated that he would really be a president who knows how to rent a bus. Meanwhile, the very enthusiastic evangelicals are going to try to prove that if a commander in chief has a heart like Mike Huckabee's, it won't matter whether he knows where Pakistan is.

Obama backers believe Barack will win on a record-breaking turnout of new participants, some of them being actual Iowa residents. (Checking is for babies.) Or everything could come down to the minor candidates' supporters ?- rule by the tiny piece of the slice of the sliver.

In the Democratic caucuses, if your group is the smallest in the room you might have to: A) Relive the moment in ninth grade when you were the last one chosen for volleyball and then B) Walk over and join a different team. Dennis Kucinich has told his followers that if ?- by some wild chance ?- they find that they are not one of the most popular groups, they should switch to Barack Obama. Kucinich's positions on most issues actually seem closer to John Edwards's, but last summer Edwards was caught on tape whispering to Hillary Clinton that Dennis was really not a serious contender. Petty, perhaps, but in a contest that begins with the presumption that nobody is qualified to lead the most powerful nation on earth without making at least two visits to Pottawattamie County, it resonates.

As the presidential candidates tell them every single day, Iowans deserve to be the nation's kingmakers because they are exceptional citizens who take their responsibilities very, very seriously. So tonight, even though it's very cold ?- even though it's Hokies vs. Jayhawks in the Orange Bowl ?- the sturdy Iowa voters will pull on their parkas and go out to fulfill their historic destiny. Perhaps as many as 15 percent of them!

"Money will become irrelevant once somebody wins the Iowa caucus," said John (I Currently Have No Money) Edwards. "The winner of the Iowa caucus is going to have huge amounts of money pouring in." Edwards, the Democratic third-runner, has spent more time in Iowa than many Iowans, who have a tendency to flee to Florida in the winter.

People, ignore whatever happens here. The identity of the next leader of the most powerful nation in the world is not supposed to depend on the opinion of one small state. Let alone the sliver of that state with the leisure and physical capacity to make a personal appearance tonight at a local caucus that begins at precisely 7 o'clock. Let alone the tiny slice of the small sliver willing to take part in a process that involves standing up in public to show a political preference, while being lobbied and nagged by neighbors.

Ah yes, good work fighting for democracy around the globe, American troops, Pakistani lawyers, international election observers. The tiny slice of the sliver of the small state approves.

Tonight, the Iowa Deciders will divide into 1,781 local caucuses. Past history suggests that a few of these gatherings may not draw any attendees whatsoever and that several others will consist entirely of a guy named Carl. Attendance has no effect on the number of delegates involved, and we hardly need mention that the whole thing is weighted to give rural residents an advantage. Iowans in politically active neighborhoods where 100 people show up may find their vote is worth only 1 percent as much as, say, Carl's. This gives them the opportunity to experience what it is like to be a New Yorker or Californian all year round.

Iowa Republican caucuses, which involve writing a name on a piece of paper and going home, are like Athens in the Age of Pericles compared with the Democrats, who are closer to Turkmenistan in the age of Saparmurat Niyazov. Tonight the Democratic caucus-goers (We are expecting way more than 100,000!) will divide up into groups supporting each of the different candidates. (Secret ballots are for sissies.) Then some of the smaller groups will be dissolved under rules so complicated they are known only to the local insiders and experts hired by the candidates to decipher them. (Sometimes these turn out to be the exact same people!)

"What if the largest groups are not immediately apparent because more than one nonviable Presidential Preference group contains the same number of eligible attendees and will not realign?" the party guide asks rhetorically. This is the simplified version of the rules prepared for the benefit of the media, but the answer, obviously, is that you flip a coin. ("A game of chance is used to determine which groups may remain.")

On the Republican side, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani are at a grave disadvantage because of a failure to campaign enough in Iowa. (You'd think Florida was a state or something.) Fred Thompson is so desperate to go home that he's practically begging people to vote for somebody else. Mitt Romney is by far the best organized. His victory in the important Iowa straw poll last summer demonstrated that he would really be a president who knows how to rent a bus. Meanwhile, the very enthusiastic evangelicals are going to try to prove that if a commander in chief has a heart like Mike Huckabee's, it won't matter whether he knows where Pakistan is.

Obama backers believe Barack will win on a record-breaking turnout of new participants, some of them being actual Iowa residents. (Checking is for babies.) Or everything could come down to the minor candidates' supporters ?- rule by the tiny piece of the slice of the sliver.

In the Democratic caucuses, if your group is the smallest in the room you might have to: A) Relive the moment in ninth grade when you were the last one chosen for volleyball and then B) Walk over and join a different team. Dennis Kucinich has told his followers that if ?- by some wild chance ?- they find that they are not one of the most popular groups, they should switch to Barack Obama. Kucinich's positions on most issues actually seem closer to John Edwards's, but last summer Edwards was caught on tape whispering to Hillary Clinton that Dennis was really not a serious contender. Petty, perhaps, but in a contest that begins with the presumption that nobody is qualified to lead the most powerful nation on earth without making at least two visits to Pottawattamie County, it resonates.

But that support is bordering on vital, just the same. The media tends to latch on to these first results and make big headlines out of it all. This massive exposure can make or break a campaign, as it has the distinct possibility of influencing people in other areas who have yet to vote.

I'm not saying that a lot of voters are sheep, but..

Which mean nothing by the time the polls open for the New Hampshire primary.