General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe overhyped, unrepresentative Iowa caucuses
Every four years, this relatively tiny group of people -- a subset of a subset of a subset - holds extraordinary power. Their whims, and those of their Democratic counterparts, are breathlessly followed by a narrative-hungry media laser-focused on the first-in-the-nation voting event, and candidates that do poorly in the caucuses often drop out of the presidential race.
<snip>
The state GOP states that Iowans ask candidates "detailed questions about particular policies" and boasts that "some presidential candidates have noted that Iowa voters ask some of the most sophisticated and nuanced policy questions they receive while on the campaign trail." But it's hard to see why residents of other states wouldn't do the former, and the latter sure sounds a lot like classic political pandering.
Iowa has gone first in the voting process since 1972, and it ensures its status with a law mandating that its contest take place before any other state. (Both the Democratic and Republican parties are on board with the state's spot on the calendar, and cater party rules in ways that have maintained the status quo.) Iowa is fiercely protective of its status, and it's easy to see why: The influx of candidates and media provide a major economic boost to the state, and members of its political establishment clearly enjoy their status as potential kingmakers. (There have been accusations in this presidential cycle from Michele Bachmann and others that highly-sought endorsements were essentially bought.)
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57350781-503544/the-overhyped-unrepresentative-iowa-caucuses/
CanonRay
(14,113 posts)Wonder if Iowa going first has anything to do with the U.S. being dragged to the right all these years.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)How would the last 30 years of elections have unfolded if, say, Wisconsin or Connecticut had gone first? First results do influence those who vote later.
CanonRay
(14,113 posts)I absolutely believe Iowa has played a large role in dragging the Republicans far to the right, and thus the rest of us as well.
Lasher
(27,637 posts)That's the way it should be but I don't see that happening.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)The unwieldy, expensive, time-consuming system
in place today does a disservice to democracy.
Lasher
(27,637 posts)Since 1972, only three non-incumbent candidates won the Iowa caucuses and went on to win the presidency Carter, George W. Bush, and President Obama.
The caucuses are seen less as a predictor of the eventual nominee than as a contest that winnows the field. Conventional wisdom has it that there are three tickets out of Iowa first-class, coach, and standby. Anyone who competes in Iowa but comes in fourth place or lower will have a hard time recovering, the argument goes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/why-and-how-iowa-votes-first/2011/12/05/gIQAgTRiKP_blog.html
By the time the primary gets around to other states, some candidates will have dropped out, thereby limiting our choices - so severely in some years that most people's primary votes become purely academic.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)much airtime, bandwidth and newsprint spent on it?
I know, I know, the 24/7 news cycle, etc. etc.
Thanks for the link, by the way.