How important was that Iowa caucus win for Ted Cruz and that razor-thin victory for Hillary Clinton? Just ask President Santorum.
For now, it’s about expectations. We’ve heard the spin from the non-winners. New Hampshire will provide context and a degree of clarity.
What Iowa is at its quirky caucus core is a political anomaly, one that is demographically unrepresentative of America. As in largely white, non-urban and evangelically skewed. It’s also known for its dearth of voters, relatively low turnouts and weird rules. Yes, you can caucus in a gun shop. Yes, there are coin-toss tie-breakers. There’s not even a secret ballot for Democrats. Talk about peer pressure.
It’s also a quadrennial stimulus package for the Hawkeye state, which has six electoral votes. This year, upwards of $200 million was spent on political ads.
And every four years–basically since Jimmy Carter’s breakthrough in 1976–Iowa becomes the epicenter of presidential politics. Spotlight on the silo majority.
Regardless of who actually wins, the Iowa caucus is first and foremost a self-indulgent media event. Much more than it is a predictive event. Just ask President Huckabee.
The media plays the role of enabler and accomplice with its saturation coverage and ratings competition. They reference–or create their own–polls, which are suspect snapshots these days because of cell phones and increasingly reluctant participants. They interview candidates, staffers, supporters, waitresses, farmers, Drake undergrads–and each other.
I heard this CNN pundit exchange over the weekend: “So, do you think turnout will be a key factor?”
“You know, Wolf, I do think turnout will be a key factor.”
For once, I’d like to hear someone say: “You know, I doubt very much if turnout will be much of a factor at all. I think doing well in selected polls and preparing statements about exceeding expectations will be the real keys.”