What if Going Viral Matters More Than Iowa?

Just look at the graphic! Why anyone would think this backwater represents the views of this nation (with its considerable urban and diverse population) and warrants the attention and kowtowing is beyond me. States like Iowa have no right to the jaded position that allows them so much say in determining who makes it onto the ballot in later states' primaries. None at all. Period. We need a real democracy with everyone voting on the same day, so everyone's priorities and issues are at least discussed by the candidates. I'm tired of watching these candidates contort themselves into pretzels to suit people who have so little connection to the big picture.

Just look at the graphic! Why anyone would think this backwater represents the views of this nation (with its considerable urban and diverse population) and warrants the attention and kowtowing is beyond me. States like Iowa have no right to the jaded position that allows them so much say in determining who makes it onto the ballot in later states' primaries. None at all. Period. We need a real democracy with everyone voting on the same day, so everyone's priorities and issues are at least discussed by the candidates. I'm tired of watching these candidates contort themselves into pretzels to suit people who have so little connection to the big picture.

What they should do is let the swing states with a large number of electoral votes go first. Who cares whom the Republicans of NY state or California want as the nominee? They're not going to win the general. By the same token, it doesn't matter who the Texas democrats (all 3 of them) want as the nominee.

The smart thing would be to let Florida and Ohio go first. By picking a candidate with the most support in those states you increase your chances of winning their electoral votes immeasurably. If they did that, probably Kasich would be the nominee, and he'd win Ohio for sure in the general, and as we know, no Republican wins the WH without winning Ohio.

By the modern GOP seems to do everything they can to avoid winning the presidency. Fine by me.

Perhaps a regional caucus night. Minnesota could move it's caucus up and maybe Wisconsin and the Dakotas could join. That could make it more interesting.

Even Iowans cannot effectively articulate the value proposition of Iowa’s caucuses. Depending on the viewpoints articulated, it either helps candidates raise more money because they are winners, or it aids them in building a campaign framework to scale up from or?

The fact the past two GOP Iowa caucuses winners didn’t subsequently win their party’s nomination says everything about why a “caucus” differs greatly from a “primary” election.

Past Iowa winners are: Santorum (2012), Huckabee (2008), Harkin (1992), Gephardt (1988), Dole (1988), HW Bush (80).

Iowa's diversity doesn't represent the diversity of America, not even close. Iowa's population is 92.7% white, America as a whole is 77% white. Iowa is indeed a wonderful place to visit, but it clearly the importance of Iowa's caucuses is a myth, chiefly prescribed to in Iowa. Just ask Mr. Santorum or Mr. Huckabee. To be fair, Ms. Clinton won the New Hampshire primary in 2008.

By far the historically most reliable predictors of political contest outcomes are the Electronic Markets of the University of Iowa School of Business. So for the moment, anyway, everybody calm down (if you're Democratically-inclined).

http://tippie.uiowa.edu/iem/markets/pres16.html

Since I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat, why does the NYTimes or any news media overvalue the importance of any of this to me? Right now whether it is Trump or Bush or Cruz or whoever Republican really matters only to about 5% of the population.

Even viruses can't survive in the toxic atmosphere of US politics.

Reince Priebus et. al. bear much of the responsibility for the parade of clowns representing the Republican party. Mr Priebus can't even control his own party and is ineffectual at best. Winning to them is far more important than the quality of your candidate. Hence the buffoon brigade.

Ask President Obama if the Iowa caucus didn't matter for him.

Also, Iowa will NOT choose Trump. And this will *hopefully* mean the media will stop giving him so much attention.

'Iowa' is an anachronism and in very few ways actually represents the constituencies of much of the U.S. The fact that candidates shamelessly eat butter off a stick, ride livestock, and wear jeans to garner votes is yet another testament to our dysfunctional and broken political system.

Ya older and whiter and more religious. Which way did we vote in the last 2 presidential races? Hmmm. Maybe we represent more of the nation at large than people give us credit for...

First of all, let's keep in mind that only one person can win Iowa. In the end, no matter how many candidates compete in the state, all but one of them are going to go home losers. So making a list of the people who made "strong pushes" and dropped out doesn't tell us much. In a field this big, it's inevitable that this will happen to somebody, probably several somebodies.

Second, primary polling isn't like general election polling. This time in 2003, Howard Dean was polling 26% in Iowa to John Kerry's 9%. A month and a half later, Kerry won the state. This time in 2011, Newt Gingrich had 30% to Santorum's 6%. Santorum won. Until a couple of weeks before the caucuses, polls are about as predictive as sticking a finger in the wind.

Time enough in February to do postmortems on Iowa.

The main reason that Iowa matters is that it helps smoke out the most extreme beliefs of the GOP candidates so that they can be immunized in the subsequent primaries. On the conservative side, winning Iowa marks that candidate for later defeat and humiliation. Both Trump and Rubio have much to gain from Cruz winning Iowa, then running out of gas in New Hampshire and South Carolina.

I once heard someone propose the idea of six or seven regional primaries, with several states combining, one each of the months before the election, held in a different order every four years.

Iowa & New Hampshire:

"It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

"Macbeth" Act 5, scene 5, 19–28, William Shakespeare, for those who weren't paying attention...

Thank you for an important column. I have been waiting to read these points somewhere, but the cycle just continues.

In addition, don't Republicans in Iowa like smaller government, except when it comes to ethanol subsidies?

Until there is an actual caucus and a primary - no matter how small the states are - we won't know if media darlings like Trump can get their supporters out. We have long experience that shows a strong ground game is as important, or more important, than high publicity. Never bet the farm on polls alone.

With mass media of radio, TV and Internet, the idea of stumping to win state by state primaries have become anachronistic.
We need to get rid of the state primaries and just have a single, national primary day where everyone votes at the same time. That would give every state the same amount of influence and certainly not let rural states with small populations to have outsized influence. It would also save a lot of money and hopefully, start to reduce the amount of PAC money needed to run. While we're at it, we should eliminate money from politics altogether- but that's another topic.

If you want to see the future for the Republican Party, which is dismal, just look at who wins k-12 chess tournaments in this country. I'll give you a hint, by and large its not little white boys and girls.

There is a tragedy taking place in this country. In order for this democracy to properly operate we need two parties that have moderates as majorities because it is only in this manner that compromise can come about, and compromise is the lifeblood of governing.

But when you have one party-the Republican Party-that has taken the stance of no compromise and only appeals to their voting base which is primarily white and xenophobic, it has doomed itself to the role of 'house wrecker' in a country that is becoming increasingly multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and non-white. The Republicans are simply on the wrong side of history.

If a Democrat wins the White House in 2016, I predict it will be a repeat of the last eight years marked by Republican intransigence. And I sincerely hope the American electorate rejects the nonsense from Republican candidates.

If Iowa is no longer such a big deal, I don't think its such a bad thing. Perhaps it will pull the Republicans towards the center-not this election, mind you, but perhaps in the future.

Why a state with only 6 electoral votes garners so much attention from the candidates befuddles me.

We Iowans can't wait to get out from under the deluge of political ads during prime time television. In general, the Republican ads are worse than the Democrat ads. You can watch lies only so long. Some Iowans think that the money spent on campaigning in Iowa is good for the state's economy, but the truth is that little of that money actually creates any new jobs. A TV ad that sells for $300 in non-political season and goes for $3000 in political season doesn't generate a single new job, just increased profit for the TV station.

Please stop imagining that Iowa matters in any way. There were more people in my neighborhood in The Bronx during a Yankee game than there are voters in Iowa.

Our political system is broken, from Iowa to the Electoral Congress.

Why hasn't it changed? Look no farther than the millions/billions of dollars spent on advertising in specific media markets.

A more nationalized schedule of primaries and a direct popular vote in the general election would kill the golden calf.

And who takes in a big chunk of that advertising money? The same networks that pimp circus-like debates and Sunday morning yack shows featuring the candidates that help supply the ad money.

The system goes around and around like a carousel.

I'm from Iowa. "From" in the sense that I received my education, from kindergarten through the first two years of college there. And an excellent education it was. In the '50s and '60s Iowa (and pretty much the entire Midwest) had an enviable public school system. For that, I am grateful. For the idiocy of the quadrennial election circus that Iowa hosts, I am grateful that I am about 700 miles "from" Iowa. Its importance to the election of the president merely reinforces its lofty status as one of the "flyover states."

Iowa during the presidential campaign season has all the earmarks of the Carol Burnett Show. Slapstick fluff followed by more slapstick fluff before moving into some serious slapstick fluff. Cotton candy as brain food.

As for Iowa's political influence going viral, it's about as welcome and toxic as the swine and avian strains of flu, combined.

Iowa is a state, but a great state? It is a bellwether state for the old cranky white vote, many who detest the government but readily take farm subsidies. They vote with corn for crying out loud! At least here in New Hampshire we cast actual votes and there are actual young people along with old people, including some that are non-white, in both the Republican and Democratic varieties.

I think all the traveling, even to remote outposts in states, is important. It shows that the candidate really wants the job and it tests their ability to think and act with under a small amount of duress. Their true personality will become apparent because of the grueling schedule.

Since Iowa is not the only state that votes, then it is a lot more important to go viral than to please the local yokels at the farm show (with all due respect to my local yokel friends).

Generations ago, TV and radio were the only ways to go viral, and where best to do it than in the state getting the most coverage during election time, Iowa.

But nowadays, fewer people watch TV and get their opinion from radio. A lot
more look to tweeter, FB, and on line news for their info, that is where you need to make yourself known, if you would like voter recognition.

Could you have made Bernie Sanders less obvious? Yes, by not including his picture at all. But Sen. Sanders is THE Mr. Viral, winning the Time Person of the Year Poll with more than double the votes of his closest competitor, dear Malala. Nonetheless, Time refuses to include him in the final 8. Why not make it a final 9? Even if you are not a Sanders supporter, shouldn't this make you stop and think about what other news is being buried?

Ms. Roller: Your piece ends on a trenchant point: "What this election is exposing is the fundamental disconnect between what the Republican base wants, and what the party needs to do to win, and that disconnect starts and ends in Iowa."

Unlike the headline (over which you probably had no control), it's clearly not the current virality of Trump that marginalizing Iowa over the long term for Rs but, rather, its base-outlier status: it has large numbers of older, white, evangelical R voters unrepresentative of the larger national body politic and, perhaps, even of the larger Republican voter population.

At least temporarily, Republicans have eschewed any efforts to grow their base byond older white evagelicals, notwithstanding their self-criticism after 2012. I don't think they can grow beyond the base any time soon; their approach to younger voters and voters of color of all ages - "limited" government (intrusive on women's health, however), tax structures favoring the wealthy, and shrinking social programs play very poorly with voters the Rs haven't yet reached.

Here's a heretical proposal, one which will never be adopted because it makes too much sense in my opinion.

What if we had a national primary day, just like we do for the actual election? That way, candidates could be judged on the basis of their ideas, rather than on what the residents of some other state who voted first thought about them. I would be interested in any reasons why this would not be a good thing for the country as a whole.

So far this election is being determined by a handful of men who want to be just like William Randolph Hearst - king makers and war mongers. It's hard to watch them parse the truth and use our fear to bend us to their will. It's turning off voters and they are turning a deaf ear to what is happening around us. It's a recipe for ending the democracy we once held dear. If you doubt me ask yourself why Donald Trump squats on every front page, while a more popular candidate like Bernie Sanders suffers in silence. Now, Ted Cruz becomes a media darling and he now wonders if sand glows in the dark. Mr. Hearst and P.T. Barnum must be laughing at us, but it's not funny - is it?

More important than either Iowa or a viral tweet is actually addressing the pain points of the middle class, particularly those that have been directly caused by corrupt politicians selling lobbyist-crafted legislation for the past forty years.

See Bernie. See Bernie run. See Bernie win.

Michele Bachmann did well there -- for a while.

It turns out that far right evangelicals are not a bellwhether of anything but far right sentiments.

You can expect Ted Cruz to crash and burn as well.

When the reporting of politics lost its gravitas, We, the People lost as well. The highest office in the land has becoming nothing but a sound-byte waiting to happen.

There are so many polls none of them matter. People are voting for hairdos or smiles or because the barber told them to vote for Clown X because he/she believes all widgets are bad and out to destroy the the very fabric of society. There is so little personal research done before those votes are cast.

We have become a nation of illiterate dunces relying on spin-meisters to direct our thinking for us. If people actually listened to or read the full texts of what the candidates are staying, I cannot believe too many people would even be pretending to support Trump, Carson, or Cruz. If people actually read the Bill of Rights, much less the Constitution, they would be running those guys right outta town on a rail.

If the sacred cow states of Iowa and New Hampshire are on their way out as bellweather events, we should be concerned about what will replace them. CNN, FOX, nor MSNBC represent anyone's voice or interests but their own. They manipulate information for their own purposes, not ours. No matter what SCOTUS says, corporations, and especially media corporations are not people.

http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/

But, to figure out what the Republican base wants to hear, don't you just have to sit back and watch Fox News? That's where the Republican base goes to figure out what they believe. Why go to all of the trouble and expense of meeting actual voters?

Why, again, is everybody all a-twitter over the supposed preferences of old, white grandparents down on the farm? Is it nostalgia all over again? Are Iowans, nice and friendly as they seem, in any way, shape, or form representative of the USA today or the direction we're heading for the future?

It's business as usual for the GOP: look backward and imagine the wonders of the supposed Eden of the Past.

I keep thinking that Republicans eventually are going to come to their senses and realize only a semi-sane candidate has a snowball's chance of winning a presidential election. The electoral map still makes it a contested race in all but a dozen or less states. That's where the battleground has been and will be next year. That where elections are won.

But from the looks of it this silly season Republicans are choosing to remain silly. Being a lifelong Lib I certainly hope they continue acting foolishly and nominate one of the nincompoops at the top of the pops, Trump, Cruz, Rubio, or the The Brain Surgeon. These guys have generated enough laughter to keep we Dems in stitches until next November.
Hee Haw.

DD
Manhattan

Neither Iowa nor Vermont (another early state) are actually representative of America anymore. Probably not since 1885 or so.

From this article, one would think the Republicans were the only ones running in Iowa. What's up with that?

Anything that lessens the out sized impact that this uniquely unrepresentative state has in selecting nominees for President is a welcome development.

In a recent Quinnipiac University national poll, Bernie Sanders would beat Donald Trump 49-41 %, better than Mrs. Clinton's 47-41%. Mrs. Clinton is considered not trustworthy 60-36%, while Bernie Sanders has the highest honesty percentages of any candidate of either party - 59-28%.
Here's hoping the Times starts featuring news about Bernie, instead of just about Hillary.
I'm feeling the Bern!

Trump is more a cancer than a virus. The fact that he's still alive makes hash of his argument that all Muslims are violent.