Does Iowa still matter?

[NastyRiffraff]

or New Hampshire? I know a win in one of both of the 2 early states can mean a boost for a candidate, but in the long run, do they matter, since subsequent primaries and caucuses are very different demographics.

[Sneederbunk]

1. It thinks it does.

[nsd]

2. They matter for two reasons.

1. They come first. Anyone who wins one or both is marked as a winner and a serious contender. Obama's win in Iowa in 2008 was ENORMOUSLY important -- he might not have won South Carolina without it.

2. Both are swing states. Doing well in California, despite its varied demographics, isn't a great indicator of general election success. Doing well in Iowa -- again, think Obama in 2008 -- is.

[Celerity]

3. +1

[NastyRiffraff]

5. Very good points

I forgot about Iowa being a swing state; I always think white rural conservative.

[LonePirate]

17. Except it is not.

[bluewater]

14. +1

[LonePirate]

16. Iowa is NOT a swing state. It went for 45 by 8 points and Repubs hold the gov and both Senate seats.

If Iowa were not the first state to vote, it would mean almost nothing because it is an old, white, rural state that looks nothing like the current Democratic Party. We would be better off if we ignored Iowa completely.

[nsd]

20. In the eight elections between 1988 and 2016, Iowa went Democratic six times.

Only Kerry in 2004 (by less than 1%) and Clinton in 2016 lost it. Even Dukakis won the state in 1988. How is Iowa is not a swing state or a good target for a Democratic candidate?

[LonePirate]

21. See my previous post for why Iowa is no longer a swing state. They are not decided by 8 points.

Swing states are decided by a small number of points, typically 5 or less. The 2016 election proved that CO, IA, OH and VA are no longer swing states.

[nsd]

22. So the 2016 election is your sole criterion for "swing state"?

The particulars of that election -- Russian interference, Comey letter, etc. -- mean nothing in your estimation? That's what we should go with?

Just take Iowa, Barack Obama won by 9 points in 2008 and by nearly 6 points in 2012 (enough to make it "non-swing state" by your criterion). But you're willing to give it up just because of Clinton's performance?

That doesn't make sense.

ETA: In 2012, Obama won PA, MI, and WI by more than 5 points each. (His margin in MI was nearly 10 points). Should we have assumed in 2012 that these were no longer swing states and could be assumed safely Democratic? Some people did and, as I recall, that didn't work out too well. One election doesn't mean anything.

[LonePirate]

23. How many more facts about Iowa do you need before you realize it is not a swing state?

The governor and both Senators are Republican.

Both chambers of the state legislature are Republican (the State Senate easily so) after the blue wave election in 2018.

As mentioned above, the state is whiter, older and more rural than the national average, let alone the average of core blue states.

Iowa is not a swing state. It should not be the first in the nation to vote during primary season. The eventual Dem nominee should not spend one second or one dollar in the state once the primary is over because it is a safely red state in November 2020.

[Honeycombe8]

18. +1. It starts the ball rolling. There have been losers in IA who became winners...

I can't think of any, but I'm sure there are some.

I wish it wouldn't be Iowa, because I think those caucuses skew things.

[Gothmog]

4. I have never understood why these states matter

Neither state represents the demographics of the party. I tend to think that the South Carolina primary better represents the demographics of the party followed by the Super Tuesday primaries

[NastyRiffraff]

8. I know.

Still, it seems they do give a boost to whoever wins. nsd made some good points about Obama's win in Iowa and being swing states.

[SidDithers]

19. I agree with this...

Sid

[Gothmog]

24. Two 90% white states do not represent the demographics of the party

[SidDithers]

29. Yup. SC and Nevada will tell much more about the state of the primary...

Sid

[wyldwolf]

6. yes, but they shouldn't

Especially Iowa.

Majority white states with majority white voters setting the voting trends for the rest of the country.

I think SC should have their primary on the same day Iowa does.

[Turin_C3PO]

7. I wouldn't mind having every primary the same day.

Why not?

[wyldwolf]

9. Not enough caffeine in the world to recover from election night?

[Turin_C3PO]

10. Lol. True that.

[NastyRiffraff]

11. That's up to the states

but Iowa & New Hampshire fight like Mama Bear protecting her cubs when they're "first" statuses are threatened.

[wyldwolf]

12. Wonder if any study has been done on the disadvanteges that may present to minority candidates?

[Chitown Kev]

13. Strangely enough

Now that Harris is doing much better in Iowa, I could see black voters using Iowa to vet black candidates...and the same could apply to any other minority, I guess...so...maybe

To me, Iowa was more of a bellweather to Obama than it should be to Harris because Obama is from the region and some Iowa voters (in the Quad Cities region) already knew and liked Obama...if Harris finishes strong in Iowa...

[George II]

15. With Super Tuesday just four weeks after the Iowa caucus, it's "importance" has been...

...greatly diminished. I never could understand why it gets all the play that it does in the media. Iowa's delegates are only 1.1% of all the pledged delegates.

By Super Tuesday, more than 1/3 (36%) of all pledged delegates will have been chosen. March 3 is 35 times more important than February 3.

[Gothmog]

25. I will be busy on Super Tuesday

I have heard that one of the counties will have a war room for voter protection up and operating

[bluewater]

26. short answer: Yes.

[customerserviceguy]

27. With other states' primaries getting earlier and earlier

and especially joining clumps like Super Tuesday, maybe not. But, funding is more important than ever, since a candidate needs to run ads on TV, on billboards, on radio and now on the Internet, and doing at least OK in Iowa and New Hampshire gives a candidate a chance to keep the money spigot flowing.

[brooklynite]

28. Yes, it absolutely does...

Doesn’t matter if the Democrats there are reflective of the national Party. What it does is it provides an opportunity for lesser known candidates to show their capabilities through one-on-one campaigning with voters. Conversely, it shows the ability of a campaign team to turn out voters through something other than high cost advertising (see: Howard Dean)