Colwell: Iowa caucuses are a big deal for Democrats
If South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg wins in the Iowa caucuses it will be a big deal — perhaps a big step toward the Democratic presidential nomination, as it was for a senator from Illinois with a funny name back in 2008.
Would it be such a big step this time? And if so, should it be?
The strong possibility of Mayor Pete winning in the Feb. 3 first-in-the-nation test with voters is shown in results of the most respected Iowa poll, conducted for the Des Moines Register. Buttigieg shot in front, with 25 percent and a 9-point lead over Elizabeth Warren, a 10-point lead over both Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders.
Winning in Iowa is no guarantee of winning the nomination, although there is a pattern pointing toward success. Also, the Register warns that leading in its November poll doesn’t guarantee winning in the caucuses. For example, John Kerry was third in the prior November before climbing past the leaders to win in 2004.
Leading in all three major polls in Iowa this month and climbing as well in New Hampshire polls increases speculation of how far Buttigieg could go. A long way? All the way?
FiveThirtyEight, headed by Nate Silver, guru of presidential election forecasting, speculated about what happens if Buttigieg does win in Iowa.
“It’s the morning of Feb. 4, 2020,” writes a FiveThirtyEight analyst, “and fresh copies of the Union Leader blare from every newsstand in New Hampshire: ‘BUTTIGIEG SURGES TO WIN IOWA.’ But how much would that actually matter in the Granite State? History tells us anywhere from ‘not a lot’ to ‘a fair bit.’”
If there was a bounce from Iowa for victory in New Hampshire as well, would Buttigieg be unstoppable? Or would he be stopped in the next primary in South Carolina, where he hasn’t done well in the polls, especially with black voters? It’s uncertain, although the analyst notes that Kerry in 2004 “had no strong ties to the black community before he won Iowa and New Hampshire” and then won black support in subsequent contests as he captured the nomination.
Iowa is big.
Should it be?
Critics of so much reliance on the Iowa caucuses as the first big test point out that the demographics of the state don’t match the country as a whole. Iowa is whiter, older, more conservative.
Also, counting of caucus attendees as they form groups supporting their candidates is not always exactly precise.
Hillary Clinton won narrowly over Sanders in 2016. Sanders’ supporters still think he really won and ponder what a big Iowa bounce would have meant.
Robert Schmuhl, Notre Dame professor, author and political analyst, writes in his new book on the presidency, “The Glory and The Burden,” about the “ludicrous” situation in the Iowa Republican caucuses in 2012. Mitt Romney was proclaimed the winner. But 16 days later, the Iowa GOP declared after a recount that Rick Santorum actually won by 34 votes.
“By that time,” Schmuhl writes, “the New Hampshire primary had already taken place, Romney had triumphed there and the media had reported his second electoral success, triggering wider positive coverage and its attendant momentum.”
Yes, Iowa was big then, even if perhaps it shouldn’t have been.
And whether or not it should be now, it looms big, very big, once again.
South Carolina could be more representative of Democrats nationally. Yet, Iowa will be more important in whether Donald Trump wins re-election. Trump is highly popular in South Carolina, where no Democrat has won a presidential election since 1976. He will win there.
Democrats better win in Iowa, where Barack Obama won handily twice and then Trump won, as he did in other key Midwest battlegrounds. If Democrats don’t win in those states this time, Trump wins again. Iowa is a big deal.
