An article like Adam Nagourney’s “What if Iowa Settles Nothing for Democrats?” is patently silly on its face, though perhaps a marker of the shallowness of The New York Times. At RealClearPolitics, Jay Cost lays out the data showing that Iowa not only settles nothing, but is rarely influential on New Hampshire, let alone the rest of a presidential campaign.
Yet an article like Roger Simon’s “Should Hillary Clinton have skipped Iowa?” in the Politico is almost as silly, albeit in a different way. That may seem contrary to the thesis that Iowa is unimportant, so allow me to explain.
The central dynamic of the Democratic presidential nomination has been known for years. It is a referendum on Sen. Hillary Clinton. It is a race between Clinton and NotClinton. Thus, the only real issue in the campaign would be whether NotClinton could reach critical mass to defeat Clinton.
On that issue, whether one examines the polls from the early primary and caucus states, or the candidates’ third quarter financial statements, the likely answer is fairly obvious. Though Obama has raised enough money to continue in the process for some time to come, Edwards takes enough of the NotClinton vote and NotClinton money that NotClinton is unlikely to defeat Clinton. Moreover, as Jay Cost notes in the piece linked above, “momentum more usually characterizes also-rans rather than nominees.” Thus even a win or near-win by Edwards in Iowa would be unlikely to change the basic contours of the race.
Had Clinton ceded Iowa to Obama and Edwards, two perceptions could have taken hold. First, her position as front-runner would have been weakened. Second, Clinton’s absence would have painted the Iowa caucuses more starkly as a referendum on who would get to be NotClinton, and perhaps given momentum to the winner as against a seemingly weaker Clinton going into New Hampshire. This is why it is silly to ask whether Clinton should have skipped Iowa.
Oddly enough, Jay Cost’s latest post on the Nagourney article takes it seriously, not because it has any insight about the reality of the race, but because it raises the possibility that the media will declare Iowa to be a “push.” I would go further than Cost on this point. The media would likely welcome an outcome that can be called an Iowa “push,” because it gives the illusion of drama to a story that in reality has little. Moreover, if Clinton wins the nomination — as she is exceedingly likely to do — the media will be able to paint it as a hard-fought victory, instead of a cakewalk.
You know what else is silly? Wild Hogs starring John Travolta and Tim Allen.
The relative lack of a direct opponent that HRC has faced to date will not serve her well in the general election. A hard fought primary would help them hammer out which position will work for them, and what issues she needs to avoid. Obama has shot some spitwads at her, but that will not prepare her for the general. Fortunately, she can count on the media in the general.
JD,
On the media in the general, yes and no. The media covers the horserace, and ultimately cannot blackout the issues the candidates raise.
HRC stumbled on immigration because the Dems prefer not to talk about the issue (as I have noted in a prior post). It has been an issue in the GOP race, and will likely come up in the general.
The media may cover it from the standpoint of HRC’s likely position of GOP=Nativists, but the polling numbers on the issue are such that the media spin will likely have little effect. It is like crime or the death penalty. In 1988, you can bet the media attitude on these issues was closer to Dukakis; voters disagreed.
Karl – dig it. I do think, however, that Iowa plays a crucial role for one reason only: being the first. I say this because I imagine that, like product adoption, there are the “early adopters”, and I’ve got to say that I do think that even if folks in general don’t really pay attention this early in the process, they cant help but Glean more from the early flurry of media even if just because it is novel and noteworthy, than say the indistinguishable muck in the middle and the absolute fatigue that sets in for everyone toward the end. That is to say this: I think the headlines from Iowa in and of themselves do have some impact on the general impressions of the candidates all the way through the time folks cast their ballots (whether or not they pay attention between now and next November).
On a separate note: I heard a couple folks mention the fact that “Iowa doesn’t represent larger America” in terms of it’s racial demographic, which is said to be 96% White, I believe. NH is accused of also being a state whose racial composition serves to disenfranchise minority voters in the manner (yes, this is where I think the them that are nuts are heading with the argument). So, I was thinking to myself, “Myself, it would be interesting to find out whether the racial demographics are representative in the actual caucuses.” That is to say, NH is said to be 5% minority… will we find that 5% of the caucuses see 5% minority composition? Because if minorities are under-represented in the caucuses versus the per capita of the state, one could raise some interesting questions.
And I like interesting questions.
Enoch_Root,
Check the second link in the post; NH is important, IA not so much.
I wish I was able to skip Iowa…wait! I can! Thank you Netflix!
And, as I said yesterday, the Clinton vs. !Clinton question boils down to something very simple and rarely articulated: for a huge fraction of “supporters” Hillary is essentially a nonperson in her own right. They want Bill and expect to get him.
If it were somehow possible to communicate with the electorate that they will not get Bill no matter what — that Hillary is too egotistical to play Lurleen to Bill’s George — at least a third, more likely half, of her support would evaporate in an instant.
Regards,
Ric
– Naw. RoboBitch will be coronated on schedule. Obama will be given a cushy cabinet position so she can garner at least some of his voting block, and she will get around 41% of the national vote in the election run.
– It will be an all NY “thrillah in the pillah”, pitting a NYP Senator with zero experience against America’s Mayor. No contest.
– Rudy has decided to haul out the kiss of death WOT desaster for the Dems early and often, issuing his “surge plan for Afghanistan” today in New Hampshire, even before the bodies are cold in Iowa. The only thing that will start off interesting, and continue to provide entertainment during this entire election cycle, will be watching to see how the Hillery camp intends to convince the electorate that they were just kidding about surrendering to the murdering thugs of al Qeada. Maybe she can channel Houdini.
What If They Held a Caucus, and Nobody Came?
Roger Simon: Should Hillary Clinton have skipped Iowa? If she loses the caucus here Thursday, will her campaign wish it had listened to the advice it got last May to take a hike on the Hawkeye state? Back then, Clinton's deputy campaign manager, M…
Iowa is really only important to the press, and Iowans. The caucus system should be scrapped anyway.
The children of the corn (h/t happyfeet) are directly responsible for ethanol, and deserving of our scorn.
ha ha, just heard Mark Davis talking to Utah Sen. um, Bennet? but this Sen. said, “the big issue in Iowa right now is immigration. I don’t know if it’s realy an issue nationally.” or something crazy like that.
Great JD! Now that little iambic rhyming couplet will be in my head all day.
No problem. Glad I could screw with your melon for a day. I did not even notice that it rhymed. You see, the children of the corn, their insidious influence, it knows no bounds.
I think Howard Dean would disagree.
[…] Part 3 of this series, I argued that the Iowa caucuses will likely have no impact on the campaign for […]
[…] previously noted here: The central dynamic of the Democratic presidential nomination has been known for […]
[…] the beginning of the year, before the New Hampshire primary, I wrote: The central dynamic of the Democratic presidential nomination has been known for years. It is a […]
[…] is similar my early characterization of the Democratic campaign: The central dynamic of the Democratic presidential nomination has been […]