Interpreting Iowa
- Posted by: Morgan Clendaniel
- on January 4, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Now that the dust of Iowa has somewhat settled (replaced by the dust clouds of candidates jetting off to the frozen north of New Hampshire), let’s step back and consider what just happened:
Obama pulled out an impressive win over a candidate who, up until recently, had been the presumptive nominee. And he managed to do it in a very white state while being black. Everyone is all up in a tizzy about how historic that is. Let’s try to lengthen our memories a little and remember that Jesse Jackson won 11 primaries in 1988. You have to imagine that barring some Dean-esque disaster, Obama will beat that number, but let’s give the Rainbow Coalition some respect. Also, in thinking about how many primaries Obama might win, consider that despite the winner’s glow now handed to him by the press (and the alleged destruction of the Clinton and Edwards campaigns), Iowa is far from an indicator of future electoral success. Since 1972, there have been seven (update: sorry for the miscount, there have been six) Democratic Iowa caucuses (cauci?) in which a sitting president or vice president wasn’t running. Of those six, the winner has gone on to become the nominee twice. You may remember Bill Clinton’s stirring campaign there in 1992, when he won a whopping 3% of the vote, behind 12% of voters who were so stirred with passion for his candidacy that they voted “uncommitted.”
As for the Republicans, congrats to Huckabee for pulling out the miracle win. Now, you have no money, the Republican establishment hates you, and, according to them, your schtick wont fly nearly as well in New Hampshire, et al, as it did in Iowa. They are probably right. On the other hand, you are disarmingly charming to the point that Democrats—not to mention your grotesquely uncharming Republican opponents—should be shaking in their boots about you. You take your four New Hampshire staff members and go get ‘em.
Just remember, there is a long way to go. A win in Iowa doesn’t mean anything, unless a candidate makes it mean something by winning a lot more after it.
DISCUSSION: 5 Comments
Morgan, you wrote:
“Since 1972, there have been seven Democratic Iowa caucuses (cauci?) in which a sitting president or vice president wasn’t running. Of those seven, the winner has gone on to become the nominee twice.”
Not quite. There have actually been 6 caucuses (that’s the plural, btw) since 1972 (unless you include 2008, which makes no sense).
And since then there have been 3 times that a non-incumbent won the nom, not 2: Carter in ‘76; Mondale in ‘84; and Kerry in ‘04 (well, technically Carter lost to “uncommitted”, but he beat all the other candidates). Perhaps you were thinking that Mondale was the sitting VP back in ‘84.
The other three:
Muskie in ‘72
Gephardt in ‘88 (Dukakis finished 3rd)
Harkin in ‘92
Harkin, of course, is from Iowa, so no one even bothered to run against him in ‘92 (which also invalidates your point about Clinton winning 3% of the vote).
So that means in 5 meaningful caucuses, three times the winner became the nominee, twice he didn’t. In other words, your point about Iowa being a pretty weak indicator of future success is itself pretty weak.
“A win in Iowa doesn’t mean anything.”
I don’t understand why everyone hates the Iowa caucuses. Do you think Iowa people don’t have good judgement? Would you be saying the same thing if it were a different state? If it were YOUR state?
What is this argument really about? Why do others say the caucus is ‘undemocratic’? What is your idea of democracy?
What puts you in a good position to interperet what happened in Iowa, anyway? Do we really need another expert opinion on this whole thing?
Christ.
At least one of us at GOOD, me, can surrender my mid-20s armor of jadedness and celebrate a moment of beauty in Iowa. Record numbers of people, record numbers of young people and the first black man to win the Iowa Caucus are far from meaningless. I had the honor of witnessing a caucus and have to say that down and dirty democracy is a giant turn on. Something about baked cookies, civic engagement, a high school gym and a giant win have me more inspired to change this country than ever.
true- the iowa caucus receives an inordinate amount of attention considering the population:ears of corn ratio.
But despite the media circus, the non-stop politicking and a system that too closely resembles a swap meet at an Antiques Roadshow…I DIG IT! Like bristol commented- record turn outs, more young people voting though 3.1 million guitar hero’s were sold this christmas and iowans getting down with the brown for the first time in history are the real stories of this caucus.
and on that note- let’s take a step back and look at the big picture. no matter how you cut it, this election is shaping up to be one for the books:
in the red corner we have three candidates that fall far off the white anglo saxon protestant congo line:
-an italian-american thrice-married catholic
-”Robo-Mormon” from Stepford, mass. (batteries sold seperately)
-and the baptist minister Mike “the power of christ compels you to vote for me” Huckabee
in the blue corner we have two candidates that challenge our ideas about race, gender and confirm the omnipotence of oprah:
-barack hussein obama. he can balance our budget AND drink the blood of infidels at the same time. (update: also has a mean hook shot)
-hillary clinton. her vagina gives her super powers. and by ’super’ i mean ‘SUPER’. and by ‘vagina’ i mean husband.
i’m excited and terrified about this election in a way i haven’t been in quite some time- maybe ever. all indications are that regardless of who is nominated- more americans will turn out to vote, more young people will get involved and things in washington are about to (fingers crossed!) change.
true.
PS- after viewing this picture (see below link) mike huckabee does for charming what lynne spears has done for parenting.
http://wonkette.com/politics/teh-huckbeez/mike-huckabees-aids+less-family-says-hi-332736.php
Notice of Intended Action was published in the August 8, 2001, Iowa Administrative Bulletin as ARC 0854B. A public hearing was held at 2 p.m., Tuesday, August 28, 2001, in the Conference Board Room, Alcoholic Beverages Division, 1918 S.E. Hulsizer Road, Ankeny, Iowa, at which time both written and oral comments were received. Representatives of the Division met with members of the Administrative Rules Review Committee during its meeting in September 2001. The Committee requested the Division to prepare a regulatory analysis of the proposed amendments in accordance with Iowa Code section 17A.4A. The regulatory analysis was published in the Iowa Administrative Bulletin.
———–
johnsmith
Iowa Treatment Centers