Who cares about the Iowa caucuses?

[scandal 951]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-oped-0810-iowa-20110810,0,4734549.story

Who cares about the Iowa caucuses?

A proposal for presidential primary reform

By Gerald D. Skoning

August 10, 2011

For months, Republicans have been trekking to Iowa and New Hampshire in hopes of making a good showing in the nation's first 2012 presidential caucuses and primary.

The political pilgrimage to these two idiosyncratic states over the last six decades raises an obvious question. Why Iowa and New Hampshire? Why not give other states a shot at going first and having a real voice in pushing a presidential candidate forward?

I'm sick and tired of hearing what voters in Iowa and New Hampshire think about the candidates. Who really cares? A straw poll in the Hawkeye State seems largely irrelevant, but it looms large among political pundits and pollsters.

Neither state is a good bellwether for the other 48. They are smaller, older, whiter and more rural, and unemployment in New Hampshire is 4.8 percent, almost half the national average.

The system needs to change if we are to find candidates who are more satisfactory to the country at large. We should change the order of presidential primaries and caucuses each election cycle. For the 2016 race, Iowa and New Hampshire should go last.

It's a national disgrace that the later Super Tuesday stampedes (multiple state primaries crammed into a single day) or those very late primaries have zero impact on the selection process. We in Illinois have suffered the indignity of being virtually irrelevant.

Advocates for Iowa and New Hampshire going first argue that it gives candidates an increasingly rare opportunity to engage in retail politics and generate some political momentum if they are starting with less money or name recognition. But, of course, there are many other states (like Illinois) that could provide the same grass-roots handshaking opportunities and "town hall meetings."

Of course, while the political stakes are huge, the financial stakes are considerable as well. Early primary states reap a considerable economic windfall in the form of lavish campaign spending and media buys.

Candidates, their handlers and staff and armies of reporters are flooding New Hampshire and Iowa, injecting millions of dollars into those states' economy. New Hampshire officials estimate their first-in-the-nation primary will mean $264 million in economic benefits to the state from media and campaign visits.

We need a better, more equitable way to schedule presidential primaries. Some have suggested rotating regional primaries — Northeast, Southwest, Midwest and so on. This system would be vastly more democratic and would distribute the economic benefits of early primaries more equitably.

But, to be totally fair, maybe we should have a national lottery.

It could be conducted like many state gambling lotteries (50 Ping-Pong balls in a rotating drum) as a nationally televised event with coverage by the major networks and cable news programs.

A lottery system would be simple to execute and would avoid the escalating interstate competition to run the earliest primaries, an absurd scramble that could ultimately result in the 2012 primaries being held before Thanksgiving or even earlier.

Rotating regional primaries or adopting a lottery system would be preferable, each still providing a sufficient proving ground to allow voters to thoroughly vet candidates.

Who knows, Illinoisans might someday have a meaningful voice in the selection of the presidential candidates.

Gerald D. Skoning is a Chicago lawyer.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

oh this guy needs to stop crying.

This whole #1 and #2 BS is in their state laws. Get over it.

Nothing prevents any other state from NOT being on Super Tuesday, etc...

[TBoneTX 45,969]

Honestly, 99% of all lawyers give the rest a bad name. Sue the bastards.

I caucused in Iowa in 1980, when Reagan very surprisingly got Bush-whacked. I was amazed at how subtly organized the Bush supporters were, si man.

Edited August 11, 2011 by TBoneTX

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

Honestly, 99% of all lawyers give the rest a bad name. Sue the bastards.

I caucused in Iowa in 1980, when Reagan very surprisingly got Bush-whacked. I was amazed at how subtly organized the Bush supporters were, si man.

For a second I read it as concussed.

[^_^ 5,021]

Who cares about the Iowa caucuses?

Obviously, a lot of people do. Why do they care so much? My guess is it's easy to keep the urban riff raff (read, 'people of color') out of the earliest stages of the decision making process. We metropolitan area residents basically get to choose from candidates approved by our rural whiter betters (Iran runs 'elections' the same way. Our Iowans are their Guardian Council).. It is how the Founding Fathers would have wanted it.

Edited August 11, 2011 by \

[Obama 2012 1,714]

by all this race talk, John Edwards or at least Hillary should have won the 2008 Caucus for the Dems.

[scandal 951]

Obviously, a lot of people do. Why do they care so much? My guess is it's easy to keep the urban riff raff (read, 'people of color') out of the earliest stages of the decision making process. We metropolitan area residents basically get to choose from candidates approved by our rural whiter betters (Iran runs 'elections' the same way. Our Iowans are their Guardian Council).. It is how the Founding Fathers would have wanted it.

Regardless of whether it's best for the country, or selects the best leaders, there's a strong argument that it's simply financially unfair. Why should these 2 puny states get an economic shot in the arm every 4 years? Why do they get the TV ad buys, the sold out hotel rooms, the big catering orders? I don't live in IA or NH, but effectively our national system is subsidizing their local economies. We're in tough times. I'd like to see some of that spend happening in my state, thanks muchly.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

Regardless of whether it's best for the country, or selects the best leaders, there's a strong argument that it's simply financially unfair. Why should these 2 puny states get an economic shot in the arm every 4 years? Why do they get the TV ad buys, the sold out hotel rooms, the big catering orders? I don't live in IA or NH, but effectively our national system is subsidizing their local economies. We're in tough times. I'd like to see some of that spend happening in my state, thanks muchly.

I always thought that they were a waste of money and in more than a few cases the winners did not secure the nominations.

[scandal 951]

I always thought that they were a waste of money and in more than a few cases the winners did not secure the nominations.

If they were a waste of money, nobody would bother. There's a high correlation between winners in IA and party nominees.

There's an even higher correlation between people who finish poorly in IA and NH dropping out of the process and not continuing on to the major states later in the spring.

That is - IA and NH are somewhat effective at selecting winners and very effective at weeding out losers.

There are several interesting questions:

- Is that function unique to IA and NH, or could other states going first do just as good a job?

- Are the 'winners' anointed and 'losers' rejected really deserving of that? Should Rudy Giuliani have been out of the running because Iowans said so? Or conversely, should Barack Obama have received the boost he got from winning Iowa?

Democrats

January 3, 2008 - Barack Obama (38%), John Edwards (30%), Hillary Clinton (29%), Bill Richardson (2%), Joe Biden (1%)[15]

January 19, 2004 - John Kerry (38%), John Edwards (32%), Howard Dean (18%), ####### Gephardt (11%), and Dennis Kucinich (1%)

January 24, 2000 - Al Gore (63%) and Bill Bradley (37%)

February 12, 1996 - Bill Clinton (unopposed)

February 10, 1992 - Tom Harkin (76%), "Uncommitted" (12%), Paul Tsongas (4%), Bill Clinton (3%), Bob Kerrey (2%), and Jerry Brown (2%)

February 8, 1988 - ####### Gephardt (31%), Paul Simon (27%), Michael Dukakis (22%), and Bruce Babbitt (6%)

February 20, 1984 - Walter Mondale (49%), Gary Hart (17%), George McGovern (10%), Alan Cranston (7%), John Glenn (4%), Reubin Askew (3%), and Jesse Jackson (2%)

January 21, 1980 - Jimmy Carter (59%) and Ted Kennedy (31%)

January 19, 1976 - "Uncommitted" (37%), Jimmy Carter (28%) Birch Bayh (13%), Fred R. Harris (10%), Morris Udall (6%), Sargent Shriver (3%), and Henry M. Jackson (1%)

January 24, 1972 - "Uncommitted" (36%), Edmund Muskie (36%), George McGovern (23%), Hubert Humphrey (2%), Eugene McCarthy (1%), Shirley Chisholm (1%), and Henry M. Jackson (1%)[16]

[edit] Republicans

2008 - Mike Huckabee (34%), Mitt Romney (25%), Fred Thompson (13%), John McCain (13%), Ron Paul (10%), Rudy Giuliani (4%), and Duncan Hunter (1%)

2004 - George W. Bush (unopposed)

2000 - George W. Bush (41%)[citation needed], Steve Forbes (30%)[citation needed], Alan Keyes (14%), Gary Bauer (9%), John McCain (5%), and Orrin Hatch (1%)

1996 - Bob Dole (26%), Pat Buchanan (23%), Lamar Alexander (18%), Steve Forbes (10%), Phil Gramm (9%), Alan Keyes (7%), Richard Lugar (4%), and Morry Taylor (1%)

1992 - George H. W. Bush (unopposed)

1988 - Bob Dole (37%), Pat Robertson (25%), George H. W. Bush (19%), Jack Kemp (11%), and Pierre DuPont (7%)

1984 - Ronald Reagan (unopposed)

1980 - George H. W. Bush (32%), Ronald Reagan (30%), Howard Baker (15%), John Connally (9%), Phil Crane (7%), John B. Anderson (4%), and Bob Dole (2%)

1976 - Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

If they were a waste of money, nobody would bother. There's a high correlation between winners in IA and party nominees.

There's an even higher correlation between people who finish poorly in IA and NH dropping out of the process and not continuing on to the major states later in the spring.

That is - IA and NH are somewhat effective at selecting winners and very effective at weeding out losers.

There are several interesting questions:

- Is that function unique to IA and NH, or could other states going first do just as good a job?

- Are the 'winners' anointed and 'losers' rejected really deserving of that? Should Rudy Giuliani have been out of the running because Iowans said so? Or conversely, should Barack Obama have received the boost he got from winning Iowa?

Is it a case where all the politicos have chosen IA to be the forum for de facto nomination of their party's representative so they channel most of their resources there or is it just happenstance that as Iowa goes, so does the country? I'm not sure. CA, TX, IL and NY could have been caucussed and that might be a better gauge of how the electorate will vote and for whom. Aspects of annuciation lead me to believe that my former hypothesis about conservation of resources and choice of venue being the likely reason for Iowa being the harbinger that it is.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Who cares about the Iowa caucuses?

[TBoneTX 45,969]

For a second I read it as concussed.

A lot of Reagan supporters were bashing their heads against walls afterwards, splat man.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

A lot of Reagan supporters were bashing their heads against walls afterwards, splat man.

But their hair never moved.