Rather than address the horse race, I'd like to talk about why these contests are important and irrelevant at the same time.
First, the criticism.
Iowa doesn't matter. Except when it does. Of the 14 elections since 1972 (yes, this venerated tradition is only 44 years old) without an incumbent, the ultimate candidate has only won 8 times and only three of those eventually became President. It is small, overwhelmingly white and rural. Evangelical Christians have massive, outsized sway. Worst of all it continues the nation's dependence and painful addiction to corn. If you want a future in national politics you can never vote against ethanol or corn syrup subsidies.
New Hampshire doesn't matter. Except when it does. New Hampshire has only predicted the correct candidate 8 out of 14 times since 1972, only 4 of which eventually became President. It is small, overwhelmingly white and rural. Libertarians have massive, outsized sway.
Following those two we get South Carolina. It is also small, deeply evangelical, extremely white (but slightly less than the first two...thanks African Americans). Then, there is Nevada, small, deeply libertarian and extremely white (but slightly less than the first two...thanks Hispanics). Are you sensing a theme here?
So, we have geographic balance with a Midwest, New England, Southern and Mountain-West state (sorry West Coast or Mid-Atlantic states). We have states with deep Evangelical and Libertarian traditions (sorry secularists and Progressives). We have states that are predominantly white (sorry minorities). By the time those four, fairly unrepresentative, states, are settled the race usually is as well. Before most people even have a chance to register their support in anything other thanSupreme Court Free Speech donations the race is over.
New Hampshire and Iowa do take their roles seriously in vetting candidates and being small allows for the retail politics that give charismatic insurgent/non-establishment candidates a chance to get noticed. Two elections in a row in Iowa on the Democratic side we have seen a, purportedly-liberal, outsider candidate swell to surprising support over the inevitable Clinton machine (more on Third Way, Clintonian politics to come at some point). On the Republican side we've seen Gov. Mike Huckabee and clown-troll Donald Trump race to victory over establishment favorites. In New Hampshire we've seen popular politicians from neighboring states (Sanders and Romney) and establishment favorites (Clinton '08 and Romeny) win....oh and rain-soaked-basketball Donald Trump won (but with moderate, Rockafeller Republican John Kasich doing very well as a rally round candidate).
So, the system works? We get insurgent and Quixotic candidates garnering enough attention to, in theory, get enough delegates and attention for their pet issues to affect the party platform and keep the ultimate winner honest. Establishment candidates get a chance to hone their message, get their ground game in order (or not.... Sec. Clinton) and hopefully not take too many hits from the wings of their parties.
The bigger problem isn't so much with the process as it is with the media circus and the horse-race coverage we get from them. That however, is a story for another day
First, the criticism.
Iowa doesn't matter. Except when it does. Of the 14 elections since 1972 (yes, this venerated tradition is only 44 years old) without an incumbent, the ultimate candidate has only won 8 times and only three of those eventually became President. It is small, overwhelmingly white and rural. Evangelical Christians have massive, outsized sway. Worst of all it continues the nation's dependence and painful addiction to corn. If you want a future in national politics you can never vote against ethanol or corn syrup subsidies.
New Hampshire doesn't matter. Except when it does. New Hampshire has only predicted the correct candidate 8 out of 14 times since 1972, only 4 of which eventually became President. It is small, overwhelmingly white and rural. Libertarians have massive, outsized sway.
Following those two we get South Carolina. It is also small, deeply evangelical, extremely white (but slightly less than the first two...thanks African Americans). Then, there is Nevada, small, deeply libertarian and extremely white (but slightly less than the first two...thanks Hispanics). Are you sensing a theme here?
So, we have geographic balance with a Midwest, New England, Southern and Mountain-West state (sorry West Coast or Mid-Atlantic states). We have states with deep Evangelical and Libertarian traditions (sorry secularists and Progressives). We have states that are predominantly white (sorry minorities). By the time those four, fairly unrepresentative, states, are settled the race usually is as well. Before most people even have a chance to register their support in anything other than
New Hampshire and Iowa do take their roles seriously in vetting candidates and being small allows for the retail politics that give charismatic insurgent/non-establishment candidates a chance to get noticed. Two elections in a row in Iowa on the Democratic side we have seen a, purportedly-liberal, outsider candidate swell to surprising support over the inevitable Clinton machine (more on Third Way, Clintonian politics to come at some point). On the Republican side we've seen Gov. Mike Huckabee and clown-troll Donald Trump race to victory over establishment favorites. In New Hampshire we've seen popular politicians from neighboring states (Sanders and Romney) and establishment favorites (Clinton '08 and Romeny) win....oh and rain-soaked-basketball Donald Trump won (but with moderate, Rockafeller Republican John Kasich doing very well as a rally round candidate).
So, the system works? We get insurgent and Quixotic candidates garnering enough attention to, in theory, get enough delegates and attention for their pet issues to affect the party platform and keep the ultimate winner honest. Establishment candidates get a chance to hone their message, get their ground game in order (or not.... Sec. Clinton) and hopefully not take too many hits from the wings of their parties.
The bigger problem isn't so much with the process as it is with the media circus and the horse-race coverage we get from them. That however, is a story for another day
