Type to search

Don’t Mess With Iowa As First Caucus State

Memo Pad Politics Tribune News Service

Don’t Mess With Iowa As First Caucus State


By Jonathan Bernstein, Bloomberg News (TNS)

If it’s a year before the Iowa caucuses, it must be time for someone to complain that voters there and in New Hampshire are the first to cast ballots for the presidential candidates. As Philip Bump of The Fix asks, why not let a big, diverse state — California — go first?

If it was true that a few voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada were the big players in presidential-nomination politics, then Bump and the other anti-Iowans would have a case. But that isn’t how many political scientists believe nominations are won.

The primaries and caucuses are (as I’ve argued) no longer the main arena, as they were in the 1970s and 1980s. Rather, they are a version of what they were before 1968: a way for the parties to gather information.

Party actors — the politicians, campaign and governing professionals, activists and donors, formal party officials and staff, and party-aligned groups and media — coordinate with one another and compete over the nomination. Their decisions and resources help determine what happens in Iowa. So, for example, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama had all outpaced Joe Biden, Bill Richardson and Chris Dodd in (national) party support well before the Iowa caucuses in 2008.

Party influence from outside the state doesn’t totally control what happens in Iowa, as surprise finishes such as Rick Santorum’s in 2012 and others going back to Pat Robertson’s in 1998 demonstrate.

But here’s where party actors come in as the most important interpreters of caucus and primary results. If a winner (say, Sen. Paul Tsongas in New Hampshire in 1992) has little support besides the voters in one small state, he’ll get little help — money, favorable publicity, volunteer hours — from that victory. On the other hand, a disappointing finish from a candidate with solid party support (Bill Clinton’s second place in New Hampshire in 1992, John McCain’s fourth place in Iowa in 2008, or even Hillary Clinton’s third place showing in Iowa that year) won’t necessarily deliver a knock-out blow.

True, by the time most Democrats got to vote in primaries in 2008, they could only choose Obama or Clinton, while Iowans had six other options. But what did it matter? If Dodd or even more improbably Dennis Kucinich had managed to score well there despite lack of party support from outside Iowa, they would not have gotten much further.

Let’s look closer at the 2012 Republican contest. After Santorum’s surprising victory in Iowa, he wasn’t able to capitalize on it because he had little support in the “invisible primary” leading up to the caucuses. Relatively little money came in to his campaign. He didn’t receive major endorsements from high-profile Republicans or party-aligned groups, which could have flooded New Hampshire or South Carolina with volunteers. It might have been different if a candidate with more party support, such as Rick Perry, had scored an early upset win.

The parties are better off sticking with the status quo. Keeping the small states first reduces chances that a single state’s quirks will make a difference to the eventual outcome. If Iowa votes for Pat Robertson or New Hampshire puts Pat Buchanan first (as it did in 1996), only a few delegates are at stake, and the process moves on with no problems. But a candidate with a flukish strong finish in California would have enough delegates nailed down to cause a fair amount of trouble.

So why not mix it up and switch to other small states? The party actors have become experts in interpreting the results from the current early states, and swapping in different ones runs the risk that their results will be misinterpreted. A fluke victory might be seen as more significant than it is.

Bottom line: The nomination process, Iowa included, may look messy, but it’s working just fine.

This is also the case against a national primary. Multi-candidate primaries are unstable, and random things can happen. The state-by-state sequence protects the parties from fads, and allows time for careful vetting of the candidates without worrying about overreactions to minor revelations about them.

Photo: Rick Santorum at the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines, Iowa, ahead of the Ames Straw Poll. (Gage Skidmore/Flickr)



  1. annienoel February 7, 2015

    I attended the Iowa caucus as a Howard Dean supporter and found it to be the stupidest waste of time and energy imaginable. The only people who attend the caucus are the party stalwarts who can sit on tiny little chairs for long periods of time. One big thing I discovered was that the Howard Dean people canvased and found big support for Howard. They failed to ask the next question…do you go to the caucus? Most didn’t.

  2. FireBaron February 7, 2015

    Here is my take. Allow Iowa and New Hampshire to waste everyone’s time. Then, one week later have the 8 smallest states by population hold their primaries. Two weeks later, states 11 to 20 (again increasing in population). Two weeks later, states 21 to 30. Two weeks later 31 to 40. Two weeks later 41 to 45. Finally, two weeks later the five largest states. By having them at the end, they can still play kingmaker, but also those candidates with limited appeal will be winnowed out. Oh, and as a hammer to enforce this, any state that goes out of order loses ALL of their delegates at their convention.

  3. charleo1 February 8, 2015

    I hate to continually harp. But the money injected into the political process is absolutely out of control. And it won’t be long, if this trend of multi- billion dollar campaigns continues. Before any time passes at all, the vast majority of us, will be unable to make a meaningful difference with only our simple vote. And the best chance we have of interrupting the situation, would be to perhaps limit the duration of the campaigns themselves, and the release of the money that funds them to a maximum limit of one year prior to election day. As it has been, the gear up for the next election cycle starts with the end of the last. Putting politicians, and the gov. institutions they are supposed to be concentrated on running, in constant campaign mode. The case has become, that whatever we vote for the candidate to do, once elected. He, or she will spend more than half the day either on the phone, or in must attend meetings, with lobbyists, or with prospective big time campaign funders. Almost without exception, the most ideological, and radically opinionated, people in the Country, with the financial wherewithal to push an agenda in todays, pay to play system. The one where we the people don’t matter, as much as coming up with a line, or narrative we will buy, so as to limit any potential voter blowback. That’s the game. And I’m up for suggestions. But we can’t afford to just sit back and do nothing. And we really need to come together with the Right on this, and replace some of that anti-gov. cynicism, with the confidence, and importance in taking our gov. back.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.