Each year, the caucuses in Iowa seem to draw a large amount of political attention—more than any other agriculturally-based state. You might think this is because of Iowa's diverse melting pot that defines the true America, full of liberty and justice for all. If you do, then you're wrong. Iowa's caucus is really nothing special; every other state holds somewhat similar ballots, many referring to their process as a primary (such is the case here in Virginia). But the decisions made in Iowa are so precious they are guarded nearly as heavily as a Brinks armored truck. Why?
The answer is pretty non-trivial. Iowa is first. Simple as that. Iowa is the first state in America to show support for a political candidate. This support does not come from some elitist left-wing group or an Electoral College. Instead, it comes from Joe the Plumber and other real, American, wheat-fed voters.
The results gathered from the crop that is the Iowa caucus can help tell the candidate whether are not they have a snowball's chance in hell of winning a party nomination, which is necessary to make it on any general election ballot. A candidate receiving few votes in the caucus may be able to see their particular platform is not reaching the everyday American. It's like a test of the waters. Imagine the candidate is on a boogie board and the platforms and the voters are the sharks. The board has to be strong enough to withstand the wrath of the sharks.
The uniqueness of Iowa's caucus system is why it stands out in today's all-or-nothing political landscape. Instead of heading to electronic voting machines on caucus day, residents gather at certain precinct locations such as churches or schools. The Republicans and Democrats hold separate caucuses and participants in each must be registered with a particular party.
National party leaders can also form a fairly precise decision off of what happens in Iowa. You want a strong contender running at the top of your party, so naturally the person who receives the best response in the Iowa caucus is often the one sent to the White House.
But that's not always the case. Hence, why Iowa is not a guarantee.
One must look at the data before making general assumptions about how telling the caucus process is. According to the DesMoines Register, Democrat Barack Obama won the caucus in Iowa over John Edwards by eight percent in 2008. Subsequently, Obama went on to win the party's nomination, won the general election, and became the 44th president of the United States.
However, the same year in the Republican caucus, Mike Huckabee won by a landslide 34 percent over Mitt Romney. Coming in fourth was John McCain, who would go on to win the party's nomination and end up on the ticket. We know McCain was defeated by Obama in the general election. Some pundits still argue to this day that Huckabee could have come out on top in the general election if put up against Obama.
The same thing happened in 1992 when Bill Clinton lost the caucus to Tom Harkin and Paul Tsongas. Clinton only received three percent of the vote. I am guessing Harkin's 76 percent was thanks to his Iowan roots. Still, history shows that Iowa does not always preclude the winner of party nominations and certainly not general elections.
For decades now, Iowa has served as the kick-off to the presidential campaign. However, the influence on the nomination process in the state seems to be dwindling. Sure, the stop is still on the GOP's to-do list this election, but the heavy evangelical base that comes out to voice their opinions has turned some away from the glitz and glammour.
Is the GOP losing its way? Are parochial interests a thing of the past or has a new wave of neoliberalism set in?
Neither, really. However, it can already be seen that Iowa's importance is not the top care for some, including Mitt Romney, who skipped the straw poll there this year. Perhaps it was a good choice. Clearly, the GOP is trying to change its reputation. It is evident from this past week's GOP presidential debate that the days of what used to be a highly conservative agenda might be finished. Instead, a more moderate move—to appeal to more voters—is up and coming.
If Iowa becomes a stump post for right-wing anti-socialists, the state may lose all its credibility in vetting for presidential candidates. Now, it seems more like a haven for the Tea Party movement if anything—a Michele Bachmann paradise.
Regardless of the GOP's move, we cannot base the foundations of a presidential nomination period on the actions of voters in one state. The Iowa voters are the people of the GOP from four years ago. The platform has changed. The base has changed. So must Iowa if they desire to forever be first.
