If your New Year’s Resolution is to pay more attention to politics, first of all, I might be so bold as to suggest a last minute alteration. It’s a very addicting subject. And one can never predict how these addictions will pan out. Just look at what happened to Howard Dean.
If addiction to you is just another part of life then read on dear friend, because the winner of 2012′s Republican Iowa caucus is less than 48 hours away, which means it is ALL people are talking about, aside from Justin Bieber. My question is, why?
If you, like me, weren’t familiar with the historical implications Iowa has had in previous presidential races, and if you’re wondering why in the heck Iowa matters so much (at least that’s what we keep getting told anyway), then follow me:
1972: The Iowa caucuses, otherwise known as mini conventions taking place within Iowa’s 99 counties, becomes the first electoral event on the presidential campaign cycle. Even though Iowan’s delegates encapsulate 1 percent of the nation’s ultimate presidential outcome.
1976: Virtually unknown former Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter is the first candidate to famously secure a name for himself through Iowa caucus publicity and goes on to win the democratic nomination, and the presidency. He did not win the caucus.
1980: The Straw Poll is introduced at the Iowa caucuses, which tends to show whom large groups are mobilizing towards voting for. However, the poll is nonbinding and controversial because it is known for being manipulative at a crucial decision making time. George H.W. Bush wins the straw poll, but Ronald Reagan ultimately defeats him.
Okay, I’m gonna stop here because I sense you, like me, are detecting a trend. The winner of the Iowa caucus, despite all the fancy bumper stickers, speeches, county visits, money and rallies, rarely EVER wins the only seat that ultimately matters. The one in the oval office. No matter how much deep fried butter on a stick they manage to stomach.
(Wow. They look bored.)
In fact the first time the winner of an Iowa caucus, George W. Bush, wins the presidency, is in 2000. It then happens a second time with President Obama in 2008. Twice. In its history. These campaigns also had tremendous enthusiasm behind them on a national level at the time of their Iowa victories, however, and neither were running incumbents.
I would argue that due to the years in which these two victories took place, the evidence tends to suggest that the Iowa caucuses are significantly growing in relevance. However, some argue the exact opposite, claiming that due to social media, regularly scheduled televised debates and appearances, early caucuses and decisions from states such as Iowa and New Hampshire don’t hold as much power as in previous races. There are only two Republican candidates who can prove either theory wrong.
If national Republican front runner Mitt Romney wins, and then goes on to nab the nomination, analysts will argue that the Iowa caucus matters. If Romney wins the presidency, he will be the third president in a row to be chosen by Iowans. However, if Libertarian Ron Paul wins Iowa, as he is unlikely to win the nomination, let alone the presidency, the same analysts will likely argue how insignificant the media frenzied race actually is.
My guess is that Mitt Romney will not win in Iowa. Ron Paul, however, has a good chance. But Romney is the only one at this point who seems capable of winning the Republican nomination.
In other words; the Iowa Caucus doesn’t really matter. Right?
I never won the Iowa caucus and I was never nominated for president. Therefore, it is clear there is a direct connection.