Iowa Sucks

Paul Waldman in the American Prospect writes about the absurd farce that is the Iowa caucus' wildly disproportionate influence in our American political system. Kevin Drum says that "What's really remarkable, though, is that Iowa has gotten more important over time, not less, even though everybody knows this is absurd."

I'll beat that. What's really, really remarkable is the source of Iowa's growing significance -- arbitrary diktat from the media. If campaign reporters covered Iowa in a manner proportionate to its objective significance -- the assignment of a tiny number of delegates by an unrepresentative electorate through an arbitrary and anti-democratic procedure -- then Iowa would barely matter at all. But the press, instead of doing that, treats us to this endless valorization of the alleged "authenticity" of Iowa as if the vast majority of Americans who don't live in all-white rural states are somehow fake.

Comments

Not fake, just a drain on the hard working farmers of the vast American Midwest who feed the world.

Posted by Joe | October 4, 2007 10:14 AM

If Iowa sucks, does New Hampshire blow?

Posted by Jim | October 4, 2007 10:19 AM

Yet both parties seem to support the idea of a couple of non-representative states controlling the early parts of the primary. See the Democratic Party's response to Florida when they tried to make their primary earlier.

The media makes it possible for them to do most of their campaigning to a very small number of people but reap national benefits.

Posted by mike | October 4, 2007 10:32 AM

Fuck you, buddy.

Posted by Anonymous | October 4, 2007 10:43 AM

Iowa is awesome. You all suck.

We should go to all caucus everywhere, primaries suck, and we shouldn't announce winners until the convention.

Posted by crack | October 4, 2007 10:45 AM

It goes back to 1976, when Carter came from nowhere by winning the Iowa caucus, and almost nobody had ever heard of it. The press is resolved not to let this one get by them again, ever.

Posted by DonBoy | October 4, 2007 10:45 AM

Idiots out wandering around.

Posted by croatoan | October 4, 2007 10:47 AM

Joe, the "hard-working farmers of the American Midwest" don't even feed themselves anymore.

Posted by SteveinIowa | October 4, 2007 11:01 AM

Not fake, just a drain on the hard working farmers of the vast American Midwest who feed the world.

Almost exactly the opposite of the truth.

Posted by Thlayli | October 4, 2007 11:06 AM

From most recent back:

DonBoy: Carter lost the Iowa caucus. He placed second to "none of the above." True story. It was Carter's media consultants that spun that pathetic result as a "win."

Mike: The DNC sanctioned Florida because they didn't play within the rules. Rules they had ample time to review. The rules committee at the DNC let everyone know well in advance what would happen if anyone tried to interfere with the 4 early states.

Joe: That's sarcasm, right?

Matthew: No one makes the claim that Iowa is the only "authentic" state with "authentic" people. Iowa and New Hampshire force candidates to campaign in a "more authentic" manner, that is, instead of grandstanding, speechifying and letting direct-mail and television do the rest, candidates have to campaign in the living rooms and community centers of the voters. It has nothing to do with race.

The author: wtf are you talking about? Obama and Hillary will compete through February 5th. They have enough money to do so and have planned to do so no matter what happens in Iowa. Additionally, with NH's primary taking place only days after Iowa, the post-caucus bump will be minimal at best and any candidate could loose IA and win any two of the remaining three and still remain viable for Feb. 5.

With that said, I concur. Iowa sucks and is, as Matthew eloquently put it: "an unrepresentative electorate [and] an arbitrary and anti-democratic procedure"

Posted by willie | October 4, 2007 11:06 AM

That's not very nice, croatoan. In my limited experience, Iowa is surprisingly progressive with excellent schools and more diversity than you would expect, if only slightly. Iowa also has more city and suburb-dwellers than most people think.

That said, letting these people decide the two leading candidates for leader of the free world every four years is sheer madness.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | October 4, 2007 11:07 AM

Oh, for heaven's sake! Just say you want the state with the highest percentage of blacks to take Iowa's place. Which one is that, South Carolina? Mississippi? Have at it.

Posted by Juan | October 4, 2007 11:19 AM

"In my limited experience, Iowa is surprisingly progressive with excellent schools and more diversity than you would expect, if only slightly. Iowa also has more city and suburb-dwellers than most people think."

Everything I know about Iowa I learned from watching The Music Man.

Posted by Njorl | October 4, 2007 11:22 AM

Luckily, the Sierra Nevada and Appalachian Mountains separate the evil coasts from the real America which makes this country great. Iowa just happens to fall in the middle of this great area. It also is interchangable with Ohio for backward Midwestern place in television shows.

Posted by Joe | October 4, 2007 11:29 AM

Iowa does suck, for the reasons mentioned, plus they are unbelievably smug.

Posted by Phoebe | October 4, 2007 11:35 AM

Everything I know about Iowa I learned from growing up there. I'm going to assume Matt "Holy Cow! Chicago has a lake!" Yglesias has never even been there. Anyway, it's hardly Iowa's fault that the other 49 states can't form an independent opinion.

Posted by Dan | October 4, 2007 11:39 AM

Willie:

Carter placed second to "Uncommitted," not "None of the Above." The primary reason that happened was that supporters of candidates who were not viable joined that group instead of just switching to another candidate.

Posted by Anonymous | October 4, 2007 12:07 PM

I would have to blame Iowa for the string of boring, dry as toast Democratic Presidential Canidates we have been saddled with over the years(Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry). Iowans don't like excitement it seems.

Posted by ligedog | October 4, 2007 12:43 PM

the press, instead of doing that, treats us to this endless valorization of the alleged "authenticity" of Iowa as if the vast majority of Americans who don't live in all-white rural states are somehow fake.

As I said chez Ezra, there's this deep-seated need, it seems, to have a presidential candidate appear in a field like the Great Pumpkin -- the myth of the Organic Candidate that comes out of the heart of the country, even if it's actually a state beholden to agribusiness.

(Think about the language at work: big cities have 'machines' and 'machine politicians'.)

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | October 4, 2007 12:54 PM

Waldman's article was too angry. It should be easy to criticize the amount of attention paid to the Iowa Caucus without attributing negative characteristics to the inhabitants of those states. I too am made furious by the assumption of the superiority of the Heartland (which is false, although it is clearly more American), but Waldman's article spends a lot of pixels on almost misplacing blame.

Posted by Moral Panicker | October 4, 2007 1:01 PM

How are caucuses "anti-democratic"? They may well be less representative than primaries, but like most primaries they are open to anyone who identifies with the party and wishes to participate. I attended my first caucus in 2004 and came away extremely impressed by the level of knowledge of caucus-goers. They know their issues and they know where the candidates stand. I came away thinking that this is exactly how democracy should function and wishing there was more of it throughout the political system.

Posted by Transplanted Iowan | October 4, 2007 1:10 PM

I think it varies. Some years, New Hampshire has been more important; others, it's Iowa. That's because they're first.

As to which of the early states is more important, it usually depends on who's running. The media, showing some intelligence, usually downplays primaries where one candidate is a prohibitive favorite based on geography.

For the Dems, I guess that's Clinton in New Hampshire - too close to New York. South Carolina is too close to Edward's home state, and too unrepresentative of the *national* mood, let alone the Democratic Party. Iowa and New Hampshire tend to be closer to the national median voter - at least both are swing states in the general election!

I might have expected Obama to be such a regional favorite in Iowa, except Iowans haven't had the chance to get to know him since he hasn't been on the national stage long enough to make a substantial regional impact. That, plus Edward's hold-over in-state strength from 2004 and Clinton's national recognition have made Iowa much more of a battle-ground.

This year.

If Harkin had stayed in (and been even remotely competitive), not so much. Next time around, it could be very different.

Besides - it's where the candidates are going and spending money. So that's where the story is. And the candidates and money go there, because that's where the press is. It's a feedback.

Posted by EthanS | October 4, 2007 1:19 PM

Actually it's a feedback loop, the press is there because the candidates are, the candidates are because the press is there. Gore (1988), Bradley (2000), Clark (2004) and McCain (2000) all tired to break that hold, with little success. With Clinton so far ahead in the national polls, the other candidates can't afford to let her get a head ot steam.

There's no use whining about it, at least for this cycle.

Posted by AJ | October 4, 2007 1:33 PM

I didn't realize there were so many Iowa homers reading this blog. The question I have is this: how do those guys respond to the fact that Iowa threatens to move their caucus up to December if that's what it takes to be first? Hardly Iowa's fault my ass.

Posted by mpowell | October 4, 2007 1:43 PM

If Iowa were a country it would be Canada.

Posted by Chris | October 4, 2007 1:51 PM

"Iowa does suck, for the reasons mentioned, plus they are unbelievably smug."

Living in Iowa, I've heard every slander from "Ohio" to "to that's where they grow potatoes", but "smug"?

The national parties can chose to do whatever they want to, but don't confuse their actions at the state or federal level with the people of the state or those that are actually excited to participate in the political process.

Personally, despite having lived in Iowa forever, I think that having Iowa go first is not necessarily the best way to do things (maybe some kind of rotational process would be fairer). But the only thing worse than the TV pundits blowing the importance of Iowa way out of proportion is the hand wringers claiming that Iowa keeps screwing the pooch (in my opinion, it's because Howard Dean didn't win here, thus "proving" that Iowa voters are out of their minds).

I can take the Iowa Sucks and laugh it off (said it a few times myself, despite loving it here), but "smug" Iowans? It just ain't true.

Posted by Rihilism | October 4, 2007 1:56 PM

I didn't realize there were so many Iowa homers reading this blog

Iowans?? But... but... They don't exist!

Iowa threatened to move up the caucuses because they enjoy the attention and money it brings to the state. Still has nothing to do with everyone's tendency to just throw up their hands and say it's over once Iowa has caucused.

Posted by Dan | October 4, 2007 2:19 PM

Dan- the Democratic party can hardly be held responsible for the behavior of the national media. But the Democratic party in Iowa can be held responsible for their own actions. And yes, they're willing to compromise the process in order to get attention and money. Thank you for pointing that out.

Posted by mpowell | October 4, 2007 2:32 PM

So Iowa's forefathers had the good sense to go first. Big deal. I have always thought that the state with the most voters per capita in the general election should get to have the first caucus or primary in the next cycle.

Then Iowa and NH can compete with the other states to retain the right to vote first. I think Minnesota usually has the highest voting percentage. It's not necessarily the best plan for diversity, however, as the highest participation rates tend to be in smaller, less diverse states, but neither is the current plan.

The big states are the big problems, as I think there is something wrong with electing a candidate based on their TV ads.

Nevada and South Carolina only have themselves to blame for not better self-promoting their early caucus and primary.

Posted by bob | October 4, 2007 2:49 PM

Can't say I agree with Transplanted Iowan's enthusiasm about caucuses in general (I have no insight into Iowa). Virginia used to be a caucus state, and in my experience the participants were wildly unrepresentative of the area and the process over-rewarded tricky backroom maneuvering that didn't have much to do with actually winning elections, although to be fair it might be a somewhat relevant test for managing a legislative program.

I came away unconvinced that it was a particularly reliable way of identifying which candidate would do well in a general election held in the same area.

Posted by just sayin | October 4, 2007 3:18 PM

While I agree that th iowa Caucus situation generally sucks, did anyone else notice that Waldman's article is frequently specious and tendentious, and tends to substitute sneering for actual arguments?

Posted by John | October 5, 2007 8:09 AM

While I agree that th iowa Caucus situation generally sucks, did anyone else notice that Waldman's article is frequently specious and tendentious, and tends to substitute sneering for actual arguments?

Posted by John | October 5, 2007 8:10 AM

All I know is that I've been hearing the same complaints for years about Iowa and none of it has mattered one bit.

What's ironic though is how those states moving up their 2008 primaries has helped make Iowa and New Hampshire even more important. Any half-assed poly sci major could have told them that of course, but it seems only complete asses offer advice in those states.

Posted by David W. | October 5, 2007 9:53 AM