It is currently 03/28/24 10:43 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




  Page 1 of 1   [ 14 posts ]
Author Message
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/28/11 4:13 am • # 1 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003

By Alan Silverleib, CNN
updated 9:07 AM EST, Wed December 28, 2011

(CNN) -- As you're being inundated with wall-to-wall coverage of the Iowa caucuses this week, keep the following number in mind: zero.

The quest for the GOP's presidential nomination is ultimately a race for delegates. With 2,286 delegates attending the party's national convention in Tampa at the end of August, the backing of slightly over half of that group -- 1,144 -- will be needed for Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, or someone else to capture the prize.

Guess how many of these delegates will be selected in Iowa on January 3. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

Iowa matters for one reason only: the media says so. It's been deemed the first "real" contest on the presidential nominating calendar, and for some reason "first" warrants wall-to-wall coverage. The winner -- or perceived winner -- is almost certain to get a campaign cash boost and ride a tidal wave of media-fueled momentum.

"Big Mo," as George H.W. Bush once famously called it, can be a game changer.

Want to know what really happens in Iowa in January? Not much. A few thousand people who care enough about politics to spend an evening at their local library or church basement will decide who gets to attend the state GOP's county conventions in March.

They'll also participate in a non-binding presidential preference vote. ("Non-binding" means the state's national convention delegates do not have to vote according to the preferences of caucus participants.)

And that's about it.

In March, the county convention delegates will decide who attends a bunch of congressional district meetings and a statewide convention in late April and June. That's when most of Iowa's 28 national convention delegates — a bit over 1% of the total number of delegates in Tampa — will actually be chosen. If there's already a likely nominee by that point, you can bet Iowa won't rock the boat.

Remember Mike Huckabee's big win in the 2008 Iowa GOP caucuses? The party's eventual nominee, John McCain, won all of Iowa's delegate votes at the national convention.

The history of the Iowa caucuses is actually a case study in the power of the media to shape -- or warp, depending on your point of view -- the nomination contest.

"The name of the presidential nominating game is perception, and the reality of the Iowa precinct caucuses has long been replaced by the media perception," writes Drake University Professor Hugh Winebrenner. "It is not the caucus event per se but the media report of the event that shapes the presidential selection process."

The Democrats, who stripped most nominating power from their party bosses after 1968, first realized Iowa's power in 1972 when the press all but declared George McGovern the "winner" after his surprise second-place finish behind establishment favorite Ed Muskie. McGovern, a liberal anti-Vietnam War candidate, went on to win the nomination.

Four years later, a little known former Georgia governor rocketed onto the national stage by finishing second in Iowa behind an uncommitted delegate slate. Jimmy Carter eventually rolled all the way to the White House.

In 1980, Iowa Republicans came up with the idea of a non-binding preference vote as a way to provide more concrete results to a media mob hungry for primary-style hard numbers to report. The elder Bush's upset win over Ronald Reagan rattled the GOP race that year and eventually helped earn Bush the vice presidential slot.

In 1984, Gary Hart's second-place Iowa finish beat expectations, set him up for a victory in New Hampshire, and established him as the main alternative to Walter Mondale. It also winnowed the field, effectively eliminating John Glenn after Glenn finished a disappointing fifth.

In 2004, eventual Democratic nominee John Kerry jumped from third to first place in the national polls following his Iowa victory. John Edwards also surprised pundits with a strong second-place showing. Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt crippled each other with a barrage of negative ads.

Dean became best remembered for his infamous election night "scream," which further damaged his insurgent campaign.

Four years ago, Barack Obama's eight-point win in Iowa established him as a force to be reckoned with on the Democratic side. Hillary Clinton's disappointing third place finish, meanwhile, undercut her early knockout strategy and set in motion a long nomination fight that her establishment campaign was ill-prepared to fight.

On the Republican side, McCain proved it's possible to ignore Iowa and live to fight another day. The senator's campaign set the media expectations bar low by making it clear he was focusing most of his attention on New Hampshire. McCain's fourth place finish in Iowa proved to be irrelevant when he rolled to victory in the Granite State.

This time around, Mitt Romney's camp has tried to keep media expectations low in Iowa -- never an easy trick when you're seen as the national frontrunner and are therefore expected to compete everywhere. A first-place Iowa finish for the former Massachusetts governor -- overcoming regional, religious, and ideological obstacles -- could set Romney up for a huge win the following week in neighboring New Hampshire. It could also signal an early end to the nomination fight.

Conversely, if Newt Gingrich hangs on for a first-place win in Iowa, the former speaker could potentially narrow Romney's lead in New Hampshire and set the stage for a more protracted contest. Or maybe Rick Santorum's investment in Iowa will reap a reward from the state's social conservatives and earn the former Pennsylvania senator another look from activists in other parts of the country.

Perhaps the most intriguing possibility is a first-place finish by Ron Paul, a candidate with unorthodox GOP views on economic, defense, and social issues. A victory for the Texas congressman -- who has a strong Iowa organization in place -- would test the assumption that there's a hard ceiling on his popular support. It could also help Romney by denying other candidates more favorable media attention.

Defenders of Iowa's role in the nomination process fear a Paul win could potentially marginalize the state in the future by associating it with non-mainstream attitudes.

Iowa's Republican governor, Terry Branstad, is already trying to finesse the significance of a Paul victory.

"It's who comes in second and who comes in third as well as who comes in first," Branstad recently told CNN. "And if somebody else does surprisingly well, it could well launch their campaign. It's happened before. So you don't necessarily have to win in Iowa, but you do need to be in the top three to be in contention going forward."

Just remember: no matter who finishes first, second, or third in Iowa, nobody will be any closer to the magic 1,144 delegate mark at the end of the night. The January 3 caucuses are a media expectations game, the importance of which depends entirely on voter reactions to the headlines on January 4.

CNN's Kevin Bohn, Keating Holland, Adam Levy, and Rob Yoon contributed to this report

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/28/politics/iowa-caucuses-media/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29



Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/28/11 4:19 am • # 2 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
I've never understood the allure of the Iowa caucuses, especially given the frequency that the "winner" there often is not the eventual candidate ~ and most especially because Iowa is, as Ed Kilgore says below, "... a relatively small and notably non-diverse midwestern state" ~ oskar's op adds some perspective for me ~ so does this Ed Kilgore commentary ~  FTR, Steve Benen is taking a few days off and Ed Kilgore is subbing for him ~ Sooz

December 28, 2011 9:52 AM
The Day of the Great Corn Idol
By Ed Kilgore

Normally political writers at this time of year have light duties, sharing with readers many real-life distractions, and confining themselves to year-end thumbsuckers conveying with half-hearted gravitas the greater meaning of the previous twelve months.

But this year, as in 2007, the convoluted front-loading pressures of the presidential nominating calendar have given horse-race enthusiasts a starting point immediately after the New Year, when a small portion of the registered voters of Iowa seek to exercise their illogical grip on the occupancy of the White House.

Most political junkies have a love-hate relationship with the Great Corn Idol of the caucuses, and I'm no exception. Iowa's status makes sense only in the context of a country with weak national political parties and the habit of letting states make a host of decisions that sub-national jurisdictions do not make in most advanced democracies. No one designing a presidential nominating contest from scratch would choose to force candidates to spend months if not years trudging through the pot-luck dinners and “house partiesâ€



Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/28/11 6:33 am • # 3 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Love love love the descriptive "conservative policy pet rocks" ~


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/28/11 6:39 am • # 4 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
I don't get spending millions on "winning" something this meaningless.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/28/11 7:19 am • # 5 
Iowa is more about winnowing the field down than winning.  It's the first test of candidates' abilities to organize and attract supporters, so it's important.  It's not meaningless, but it also isn't the tell-all of the campaign.  For some candidates, it's just the end of the road.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/28/11 7:37 am • # 6 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
gop, how/when/why was Iowa chosen/selected for this role? ~ I ask because it really is "... a relatively small and notably non-diverse midwestern state" ~

Sooz


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/28/11 7:41 am • # 7 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/22/09
Posts: 9530
gopqed wrote:
Iowa is more about winnowing the field down than winning.  It's the first test of candidates' abilities to organize and attract supporters, so it's important.  It's not meaningless, but it also isn't the tell-all of the campaign.  For some candidates, it's just the end of the road.
How do you figure that?  According to the articles the winners always lose in the end and the losers win.  Rather than trying to win in Iowa, they should be trying to lose - run all sorts of "Vote For The Other Guy" ads. 

  


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/28/11 7:48 am • # 8 
... or - be such obvious, complete idiots no one with a working brain cell will vote for them. Wow... what a perverted piece of work the process has become.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/28/11 7:57 am • # 9 
sooz08 wrote:
gop, how/when/why was Iowa chosen/selected for this role? ~ I ask because it really is "... a relatively small and notably non-diverse midwestern state" ~

Sooz

Iowa decided they wanted to have a role in the selection process and so set themselves up as the first-in-the-campaign contest.  Without that, they wouldn't really have a significant role because they are so small and non-diverse.

What it does show, though, is the candidates' ability to build an organization and appeal to voters that are somewhat outside the mainstream in terms of interests and issues.  Its importance is magnified by the fact it's the first such test and the first opportunity to assess candidates and their effectiveness as campaigners.  It's a different kind of a contest from New Hampshire, which is also a less-than significant pool of voters.
  


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/28/11 9:56 am • # 10 
Editorialist

Joined: 08/04/09
Posts: 660
Dare I say?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses


There are times when one can very well understand "trite but true" statements, especially those such as "trite but true?"  ha ha


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/28/11 10:29 am • # 11 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Very apropos, JD.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/28/11 12:43 pm • # 12 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/04/09
Posts: 4072
I can't help feeling that this Iowa campaign is giving both Iowa and the Republican Party a black eye. The rest of the country sees the spectacle of obviously *smart people falling all over themselves to appear as simple as possible. To please a few tiny splinter groups, floaters in the Iowa farm pond, which is otherwise a pretty clean little pond.  But the reputation of the whole state suffers. Same with the GOP.

I wonder how it would be different if, say, Illinois or New Jersey or Washington were the first primary state. My premise is that Iowa's Republican caucus has been an unfortunate experience for Iowa and the Republican party. My question is: is this a function of the population of the state where it occurs? or of the fact that it's a process for calling the crazies out of the weeds so they can be indentified and pandered to, whatever state it might occur in? Other?

*Here I hasten to exclude Michele Bachmann


Last edited by grampatom on 12/28/11 12:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
PostPosted: 12/29/11 3:48 am • # 13 
Large states don't want to be the first contest because they don't want to just be the state that is used to drop the worst performers out of the race.  Parties also don't want the large states as the first state because they want to be able to expend the interest in the race over a longer period, which is helped by having the large states spread out for a while.  Campaigns can change quite a bit in the early stages.

I've always believed the nominating processes are far too primary-centric.  Better leaders would rise to the top if there was less emphasis on primaries, where PR campaigns are king, and more on party infrastructure where candidates' ability to work within the system and build coalitions stand out.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/29/11 4:25 am • # 14 
I have always felt it was silly to even have delegates attend these conventions to nominate a candidate.  IMO it's a total waste of time...  Just put everyones name on the ballot in November and let the people decided who will be President.  The way I see it now.... even if the election went by this method, Obama would still win. 


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

  Page 1 of 1   [ 14 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.