It appears from news stories that no more than about 125,000 Iowans will take part in caucuses on January 3, 2008, as part of the American presidential nomination process. Despite those small numbers in a state that is clearly not reflective of the diversity amongst the American electorate, most observers believe that the outcome will have a profound effect on the nominating process. Specifically, it is expected that at least a few candidates in each party will withdraw from the race after the vote. As well, the outcome will likely affect voter sentiment in New Hampshire, whose own primary comes within a week of the caucuses. The vote in New Hampshire, another very small state whose population hardly reflects the socio-economic, racial, and ethnic divisions among Americans, will also have a disproportionate impact on the presidential nominating process. While many other states have moved their primaries up on the calendar in order to have some impact on the nominating process, these changes do not seem to have significantly lessened the impact the Iowa caucuses are likely to have. I think that is quite unfortunate.
The reason I feel it is unfortunate that the votes in these two small, non-representative states have such a significant impact is precisely because that impact tends to rob many others of having their own significant impact. That concern is precisely what led other states to advance the dates of their primaries. By doing so, the electorates in those states will have a greater say in the outcome than before, particularly if the races remain competitive after New Hampshire, but still far smaller than the impact the small number of voters in Iowa and New Hampshire will have.
I am not in favor of one national primary in each party as a way of eliminating the impact that the early voting (or caucusing) states now have. For one thing, I don't think national primaries would work effectively. For another, there is something to be said for candidates to have to contest primaries in various states at different times. The electorate gets to see how the candidates cope with the process, adjust to the outcomes, and weather the competition.
I think the answer to the problem, one that I don't think will take hold, is that individual voters and the mass media should pay less attention to the outcomes in these first two states and not let them take on a significance that they do not deserve. At the same time, candidates can, do, and should play a role in affecting the significance the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries have. To be sure, the views the candidates take toward the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries reflect their own strategies and calculations of their strength in those two states. The weaker their strength, the less attention they have paid to Iowa or New Hampshire, hoping that by not contesting them vigorously a loss there will not greatly diminish their standing. This year, Rudy Giuliani chose not to strongly contest Iowa or even New Hampshire, believing that he did not have the advantage in these states. But the more the general electorate, nudged by the mass media, gives significance to the outcomes in Iowa and New Hampshire, the greater the risk to Giuliani and other such candidates in writing off those states.
While I am not one to blame the media for the ills of the world, journalists and their organizations play a key role, particularly in this 24/7 cable news driven world, in giving great significance to the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries. Enormous resources have been devoted by the mass media to cover the events, admittedly not unusual in that they begin the electoral phase of the nominating process. But journalists, who have their own interests apart from providing the American electorate with information and insights, affect expectations, just as advertisers do with respect to their products. Journalists could attempt to put the voting in these two states in a broader perspective, in part by reminding us that candidates in the past who did not prevail there nonetheless won their parties' nominations. They could also underscore in their frequent editorial comments that voters should not necessarily turn away from candidates who do not triumph in these early voting states. But the journalists themselves will turn away from them, pepper them with questions not about their policies but about why they are still in the race! The outcome in the Democratic contests will garner incredible press, particularly if Obama edges out Clinton. Again, such coverage is fair game as Obama has emerged from obscurity to be a front-runner. But are the outcomes in Iowa and New Hampshire a sufficient basis to reach profound conclusions about the perspective of the American electorate?
Nonetheless, fat chance that Iowa and New Hampshire won't play pivotal roles this year.
