Letters to the Editor
-
Some Key Variables
What does it mean that this primary season is 1) early than before, 2) more compressed than ever, and 3) there's no incumbent or vice-president on the ballot?
And other variables worth pondering: a woman and a black man as frontrunners on the Democratic ticket and the power of internet fundraising as manifested by a Ron Paul?
It'll be interesting to see if the old formulas still apply.
-
Not So Democratic
The problem with the current structure isn't that Iowa and New Hampshire vote first. Rather, candidates with little money, while able to spend their scant resources more effectively in these small states, are still poorly covered by major media who seem determined to anoint their preferred choices as soon as possible. For the so-called second tier candidates, that renders meaningless the supposed advantage of the small state campaigning. Moving up the primary dates in more heavily populated states wouldn't change this. Since the media see support for a candidate through the lens of campaign contributions (and provide proportionate coverage accordingly), the only meaningful way to create a genuinely level playing field is through public financing. Absent this, those with the deepest pockets and less-than-transparent connections will "triumph" in what is, really, something of a sham.
-
National Primary Day
There's no law that dictates this silly batch of primaries. Why not a singular national primary 8 weeks before the general election?
It would certainly save us all from the this truly vicious cycle that seemingly never ends and certainly doesn't accurately reflect the ideal of a true democratic election.
-
Iowa caucus
So, why are we even bothering to have a primary any place else? Or an election? Why not skip to the chase and give the Iowa caucus winner the presidency now?
As someone who feels disenfranchised because of the last 2 elections, (The Supreme Court elected Bush the first time, and the exit polls were wrong only to favor Bush in the last election.)and as someone who has absolutely NO VOICE this primary because I live in Michigan, I do not feel that we are having a free election or that my vote counts.
I am not a proud American who believes that I live in the best country in the world, I am a bitter person who is frightened by the talking heads who are telling me that a sliver of Iowans count more than me.
I am beginning to wonder what the 'good Germans' heard in pre-Nazi Germany.
-
Iowa is important because of the process, not the results.
The presumption is that Iowa is important because it gives the winners momentum in terms of media attention and fundraising. Perhaps the winners of the Iowa caucus have been successful because they actually used the drawn out process in Iowa to listen and respond to the real concerns of actual voters. In Iowa and New Hampshire it is possible for candidates to receive the kind of feedback they need to be responsive to we, the people. The candidates who take advantage of that opportunity learn what works in the rest of the primaries when one-on-one campaigning is no longer possible. Candidates who think we are a bunch of yokels and don’t really listen to our concerns and think we will be impressed with slick advertising and cool music and celebrity endorsements don’t seem to do too well on down the line. It is really not that hard to figure out why.
-
The media has made it so
I did the Iowa caucus for the 2000 election. The candidate voting portion up front was fun and exciting. It takes all of 10-15 minutes. The rest of the time was taken up with idea upon idea lobbed out to see if it would become part of the "platform" representing everyone. That's the especially long and often painfully-drawn-out part of the process.
There's really only one explanation for the Iowa caucus having the "importance" it does. The media has made it so. There is so much more advertising to sell and airtime/blogspace to fill nowadays that what was once a small state's funky little caucus has turned into the "pulse of the nation".
-
They're all anomalies
Tim's analysis is skewed by his decision that only 1992, when Harkin won the caucus because he comes from Iowa, and 1996, when Clinton was unopposed, count as anomalies. In fact, each year was anomalous (or, at least, different from this year) in some respect: a sitting President or Vice-President in the running, etc. Finally, going back only to 1980 seems arbitrary.
The exception that makes 1992 an "abnormal" cycle is an interesting case, by the way. If you take Harkin out of the equation, Clinton STILL came in third in 1992. In other words, even without Harkin, the winner of the caucus would have a different person from the ultimate nominee. This undermines Tim's position that the caucus is important. By removing that year from his calculations, he has skewed the statistics in favor of his conclusion.
Since the caucuses gained national attention and were moved to be the first in the nation on both sides (1976), there have been eight elections. In three of them, the winner of the election did not win the Iowa caucus for his party, so in 37.5 percent of elections, the election is won by someone who did not win the Iowa caucus.
Since the Democratic caucus was moved out front in 1972, there have been six contested caucuses (where no candidate was a sitting president or vice-president). Of the winners of those caucuses, only three have won the nomination, and that's only if you count Carter in 1976, who came in second to "uncommited."
Since the Republican caucus was moved out front in 1976, there have been four contested caucuses (where no candidate was a sitting president or vice-president). Of those, in two cases the winner of the caucus won the nomination.
In other words, in a year like this, when no one on either side is a sitting president or vice-president, the caucus isn't a good predictor of who will win the nomination--it would be about 40-50 percent accurate.
Even if the caucus were a decent predictor, it wouldn't follow that the caucus had any particular importance to the process. The caucus could be a good predictor merely because Americans had already made up their minds, or because Americans everywhere make up their minds in similar ways and for similar reasons. In either case, the caucus predicts, but does not unduly affect, the ultimate nomination.
The only thing that gives the caucus this air of importance is the media constantly telling us how important it is.