Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Iowa: Maybe It’s Time to Let Another State Go First?
I was thinking today of the central role Iowa plays in electoral politics. It skews — unsurprisingly — traditional, conservative, and even religious. In fact, I think Iowa’s religious leanings (evangelical especially) cast a long shadow across the whole Republican nomination process. I mean, fer cryin’ out loud, the Iowa caucuses have Donald Trump trying to thump a bible. Huckabee has won here, Santorum too. Their success in this one state carried them a long way into the process, and losing here has eliminated much better-rounded candidates.
Now, what would happen, and what kind of candidates would the Republican Party put forward, if the nomination process proceeded in a different order? What kind of characters would we see making it to the later states if they surfed the wave created by a California win? I’m certain many flyover Republicans would not stand for such a thing, but the immense weight carried by religious voters in Iowa probably drives the coastal elites batty by the time they get their say in the process. Is there a better order? Is this the only way for social values and religious conservatives to have a real say in the nominating process?
Published in Elections, General
A state’s politics are not static. They tend to change pretty dramatically over the course of just one generation and even more dramatically over two. California went for Reagan twice after all.
Also, perhaps part of the reason the GOP hasn’t been competitive there in awhile has to do with the fact that no candidates have bothered campaigning there very seriously in decades. By the time the California primary is held the nomination is typically sewn up so there has been no reason for candidates to go there and make their case. If republicans showed up there once in awhile and campaigned and exposed Californians to real conservative arguments rather than the caricatures and bogus straw men that the left creates about republicans here, the GOP would fare better and the party wouldn’t be moribund.
I agree. That rent seeking problem will never go away though. If another state took Iowa’s weighted influence in the nomination process, the candidates would continue to grovel to the biggest, most heavily subsidized industry of the state in question.
But if the order changed every election the particular lobby couldn’t rely on the pandering to come every four years or use that prime position as leverage in non-presidential elections. Also, if we held multiple primaries together on the same night, no one state’s interest group would be able to dominate the campaign cycle in the early going.
According to my Economic Geography course at the University, the best state was Iowa. It has a centrally located Capital, regional centers such as Cedar Rapids, Davenport, Sioux City, and a somewhat diverse base of farming and manufacturing (Cedar Rapids – Collins Radio and Davenport – John Deere) albeit a little to agriculture focused, hence the Ethanol subsidies.
If it wasn’t for neighboring Chicago and to a lesser extent Louisville and Cincinnati, Indiana would also be a good choice, but it’s bigger than Iowa. Kansas has aircraft manufacturing in Wichita and electronics near Kansas City, and is right in the middle of the Continental US. It also has enough liberal weirdo’s such as Kathleen Sebelius and those at Kansas University in Lawrence to be representative.
What is to say we couldn’t have state primaries simultaneously ? Say Iowa and New Hampshire go on the same day, 2 other states go the next week, or whatever. This all reminds me of the frustrating talk about why creating a college football playoff was impossible because “the bowl games” were too important. This particular process isn’t part of the Bill of Rights- its only been around 50-60 years. I’ve been voting for 20 plus years and I’ve never voted at a time when the nominee wasn’t yet decided, that’s crazy.
It is a net minus, I believe. Channeling our candidates through Iowa first in every cycle has the effect of incorrectly narrowing the field of who is “viable” to win a national election. Preforming poorly in Iowa can ruin a campaign, no matter how well liked a candidate is in other parts of the country. Starting our selection process every time with the test of who best fits the particular cultural and religious (and agriculture cronyism) norms of the same small sub-set of the electorate does not help us pick the best conservative candidate.
That seems like a really smart idea if you ask me.
I think size is why we have Iowa and NH as the first states and is a valuable component of the process. Not that the venue can’t change, but that there is value in having small population states go first.
Some relatives retired in NH, and they find it fascinating that they have the chance to meet the candidates live, in small forums, perhaps even multiple times. And this is not in the “urban mega centers” of Concord or Manchester but much smaller towns. Trying to keep an open mind and on social terms with the neighbors, they have met everyone from Rand Paul to Jeb Bush to Martin O’Malley.
Obviously, good retail ability hasn’t always translated into the best governance. That said, at least the early votes are based on at least the chance of a firsthand, small group impression. It seems to me to have value as opposed to who can muster the biggest ad budget to pay for NY, PA, TX or CA.
Indeed. You have shamed me into reading prior comments slower :)
I’m really sore at you, KP. I thought for sure my post on stolen valor would get promoted, and I’d hoped for promotion on the waterways post. But no, folks turned their nose up at my good stuff in favor of your usual blathering.
:-)
Okay on these two points. So it is because Iowa has gone first that we have ethanol subsidies? Forgive me if I am not buying that.
What does it matter if the never-will-bes are weeded out if they are never gonna be? If you are talking about the number of people on a stage during debates, then that is fixed by the GOP making a rule detailing what it takes to be included.
I think that the “fixes” for the primaries are merely attempts to assuage personal views on who the nominee should be and not a reflection of reforming an “antiquated system.”
Seems like this is a political horse race media problem and not a primary problem.
Iowa doesn’t have to winnow candidates, unless Iowa signals useful information about the viability of candidates.
Does Iowa signal useful information about the viability of candidates?
Does a candidate actually HAVE to campaign in Iowa?
Or is this just a talking heads on the TV problem. Seems Trump is blowing up these assumptions.
You are rather missing the key points. For many “down ticket” states, their primary votes are utterly meaningless. Most years, by the time Ohio has gotten vote, for instance, we’ve been down to 1. Take 2008, for instance. Likely Romney would have won Ohio if he had not already dropped out. Instead the primary candidates have to pander to same states, year in and year out, and other states get no say at all. Can’t complain about “establishment candidates” if we don’t recognize that the primary system is a huge factor in this problem.
Could it not be argued that your own personal views are weighting your arguments too?
I think it has mattered a lot as to why Republican’s haven’t been more opposed to them, yes. The farm bill wouldn’t be nearly as easy to pass if a significant number of leading GOP legislators weren’t wanting to keep their options open for a presidential bid.
This election is a perfect example, we would never have had seventeen candidates crowding the debate stages and clogging the electoral path of really viable candidates. Huckabee, Kasich, Santorum, and Carson are all joke candidates and to a lesser extent, so is Fiorina. None of them really should have had any reason to run but all nonetheless are taking enough votes to diminish the momentum of other really viable candidates. With a shorter process that weeded out unserious candidates, we would likely still have Scott Walker and Rick Perry as part of this.
I’ve had a problem with our idiotic nominating system for at least 20 years, so in my case at least, you are completely off base.
At least I might have the opportunity to vote for my first choice candidate before he (or she, Carly) disappears from the ballot or becomes inconsequential in the eyes of the MSM.
Given the history of Iowa successfully picking a Republican nominee or winner, I think Iowa has a lot of room for criticism.
1976 – Gerald Ford won, but lost general election.
1980 – George H.W. Bush won, but didn’t get nomination.
1984 – Ronald Reagan, unopposed.
1988- Bob Dole won, but didn’t get nomination.
1992 – George H.W. Bush, unopposed. Lost general election.
1996 – Bob Dole won, but lost the general election.
2000 – George W. Bush won and the general election. Lone exception.
2004 – George W. Bush, unopposed.
2008 – Mike Huckabee won, but did not get nomination.
2012 – Rich Santorum won, but did not get nomination.
I think this is a record that would lead reasonable people to consider alternatives.
I would also like to see the whole primary system shortened. Have three of four Super Tuesdays over a period of a few weeks. Lordy* – we are inundated with presidential candidates for two years under the present system. It’s no wonder a lot of voters tune it out.
Does that mean that Republicans can vote for Bernie? My. Wouldn’t that be a good idea?
That tells you all you need to know. We place too much emphasis on this early primary voting…
I believe that there is some merit to this, but would note that California has done a wonderful job of driving Republicans out of the Golden State. The beneficiaries? Texas. Utah. Arizona. About any place where one is allowed to succeed.
The poor want the benefits a very generous and very broke California gives, the hyper rich aren’t disaffected by taxation, and the people who choke on the tax bills are leaving if they are able.
Republicanism is a middle-class party anymore, and the middle class are a minority in California.
The cycle where Rudy Giuliani ran, he kind of sat out some of the early races under the impression that he could win the nomination in some of the later races. That may be true for some candidates but it was not true for Rudy.
So, one might suspect that at least an effort must be made in Iowa to display some backing coming out of that state’s primary. If nothing else, Iowa proves that a candidate is serious about running and that is something that people want to see and hear.
Chris: #38 “Obviously, good retail ability hasn’t always translated into the best governance. That said, at least the early votes are based on at least the chance of a firsthand, small group impression. It seems to me to have value as opposed to who can must the biggest ad budget to pay for NY, PA, TX or CA.”
Thank you Chris. I had not thought of this when I was reading and responding but you are quite right. These people are present and accounted for when the candidates come through and are measured.
The middle class is alive and well in California. Plenty of people live the way the middle class does in other parts of the country, they just make way more here than they do in those other parts of the country. My family is a perfect example. My wife and I have a combined yearly salary over $300,000 but live a very modest lifestyle and can’t afford to buy a house. Our lives look just like what a typical middle class family in Kansas would that are making a quarter of what we make. But I take your point. We are both looking for jobs in different parts of the country because staying here is simply insane.
I think maybe he was trying to do what Reagan did in 1976, essentially losing until North Carolina and then making a close race of it. In 1988, Gore tried to wait until Super Tuesday to make a stand in southern states and accomplished nothing. That 1976 race is a fluke and I don’t think there is the patience on the part of the electorate or the media to wait that long.
Why do the Parties like this set up so much? I remember there being talk years ago of some states moving up their primaries and I believe the DNC and RNC threatened to not count, or under count, their delegates or something like that. Am I remembering that correctly?
I don’t recall what year it was, but various states kept moving their primaries up and up. I think Florida was originally penalized with only being allowed to seat half of its delegates at one of the conventions. But when the time came around for the convention, the party relented because they didn’t want any ill feeling from a state so critical to the balance of the election.
I can see why Democrats like it. Iowa has a decent track record of picking nominees. Carter, Mondale, Kerry and Obama. In 1992, Iowa was a wash because its Senator was in the race, so it didn’t really count.
I’m with Valiuth: the caucus system magnifies the distortions. Caucuses are dominated by people who are obsessed with politics, have the free time to do so, or are professionals.
In turn, the focus on social and subsidy issues seems to produce winners who feed into the worst stereotypes of conservatives: puritans who want to run your lives, remove your government programs, but keep their government goodies.
Funny, that. Hopefully, a little too cynical?
Given that they aren’t predictive of a winner, maybe Americans like the idea of candidates hoofing it through corn fields and diners and town halls and having to be folksy?
It doesn’t seem to disqualify anyone who loses.
It’s a curious system from beginning to end. I don’t care how they vote, it’s their choice. Perhaps there is value is in being different from normal big primary states?