What is the point of the Iowa caucuses?

[TulipsAndSunscreen]

I'm not even sure this is a debate but I have a question and it's touching on politics so I'm putting it here. I understand that "the point" is an early read on candidates, etc. before the primary elections but, at the risk of offending people from Iowa, WHY IS IT IN IOWA?

The state of Iowa doesn't seem (to me) to be particularly representative of mainstream voters in either party. They're always saying it's way more conservative than mainstream Republican voters and I believe it's the same for Democrats. I believe there are also many fewer minority voters, urban districts, etc. and more rural districts than in the average state.

Now, maybe I'm an idiot and Iowa is actually super representative of the US voting population (and feel free to tell me so) but every election my reaction is "Why do we spend so much time focusing on the electorate in ONE, non-nationally representative state." I mean there are candidates that literally spend 2-3 years canvassing one state. Is this just a historical relic or is there a legitimate reason I should care what Iowans think any more than anyone else?

Can someone give me a civics lesson?

Thanks.

[madeintaiwan]

I know nothing about politics, but we know quite a few Iowans. And, it's completely biased of me, but it shocked me to find out that EVERY Iowan we know voted for Obama. It's right next to Kansas, the big conservative republican state. And surrounded by other conservative states. I am pretty certain he won the state. Our Iowan friends come various backgrounds, their parents are farmers, ceo's of hospitals, factory workers, bank tellers. Their entire families all voted for Obama and fight with teeth and nail to argue their democratic beliefs. There is something surprising about that state. Now maybe someone will chime in about the politics...

[SuzySunshine]

I don't know either but they are one of the few states with legalized gay marriage, aren't they? That's definitely not republican led.

[SoonerTexan]

As I understand it, there is no legitimate reason except they got there first caucus wise. DHs extended family is from Iowa and we went to the boonies to visit them this summer. I told DH no way could he ever move me there.

[oceanchild]

I think it's just tradition. Well held tradition that both parties buy into. Iowa first, New Hampshire second.

The other thing now is that Iowa and New Hampshire, with the support of the parties, will do whatever is necessary to keep their spots. Which is why the caucuses were SO early this year - they had to stay first, and other states kept moving up their primaries.

I don't think any one state is particularly representative of the country, but the problem with a national primary is that it turns everything into a money game. I like the "retail politics" required in Iowa and New Hampshire - I just wish the candidates had to employ them elsewhere sometimes.

[SoonerTexan]

Julia, you should be our official IMSN political consultant

[oceanchild]

I try.

[Cinderella]

Iowa doesn't necessarily represent a diverse cross-section of America. And although Iowa is one of the few states to hold a caucus, the other 49 states hold similar ballots, generally primary elections to choose the state party's nominee for president of the United States, which it will present at the national party convention.

The simplest answer is that Iowa is the first state in the nation to have a chance to show its support for candidates. Sen. George McGovern, the Democratic contender in the 1972 election, explained the significance of Iowa like this: "Iowa is terribly important. It's the first test in the nation, where we get any test at all" [source: University of Iowa].

That test comes from real, everyday voters. The level of support a candidate receives in Iowa gives a reasonable indication of how they will perform with the rest of American voters. If middle-American Iowans support a candidate, then that candidate has a chance with the rest of the nation. The results from the Iowa caucus tell a candidate whether his or her platform is desirable. It is the first chance for a campaign to find out if its message is affecting voters -- should the campaign stay the course or change tactics? And the Iowa caucus is so important that some candidates bow out of the race if they do poorly in Iowa.

A strong showing in Iowa also sends a message to the national party leaders. Each party seeks a strong contender for the White House, and a good response from Iowans helps cement a candidate's chances to win the national nomination. Being first in the nation certainly is important. But Iowa wasn't always first, and the votes cast by its residents in the caucus weren't always so important.

If you want to read a whole lot more about how it works click on this link for the source.

[TulipsAndSunscreen]

I'm not saying I don't get the Iowa thing because it's Republican (you're right about gay marriage BTW) but more because why the hell Iowa vs. any other state.

So, Julia, you're saying it's just a historical thing?

[TulipsAndSunscreen]

But if it's so important, than why do some candidates not campaign there at all or very little?

[corn poffi]

Iowa doesn't have much going to it. I figure this is the only way they'd get any attention.

[SuzySunshine]

The other thing to remember though is that Huckabee won in '08 and didn't come all that close to the actual nomination and McCain ended up 4th.

[Pollyanna]

I think it's something like only three candidates since the 70's that have won in Iowa have gone on to actually with the nomination.

[SuzySunshine]

A friend of mine who is from Iowa just posted this on facebook. Pretty funny!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73vsq...&feature=share

[oceanchild]

So, Julia, you're saying it's just a historical thing?

Yeah. Although according to the article Cinderella posted, only since the 1970s. So it isn't a forever thing. But I guess you could say since the advent of modern presidential campaigns.

Iowa and New Hampshire are less important for who wins than they are for who loses. Obviously, the nominee isn't officially set until the party's national convention, so anybody who can keep campaigning until that point is welcome to keep campaigning. But campaigning is expensive (and exhausting), so people who do poorly start dropping out. Bachmann already dropped out today.

So in 2007 for the Ds you had Obama and Clinton basically both in the running until the end. But in 2003 (when I lived in California), by the end of the day of the California primary, John Kerry was basically the only candidate left. And then most people don't vote for someone who has already dropped out. So they're important because they set the stage for the rest of the primaries and caucuses. But any candidate can skip any state and hope to still be standing in the end. I don't know how often that works - I'm guessing not often.