The Myth of the Rational Iowa Voter

from The American Prospect:



The Myth of the Rational Iowa Voter

Do the supposedly wise and deliberative citizens of Iowa and New Hampshire take their responsibilities seriously? And if they don't, what does that say about the way we're choosing the next leader of the free world?

Paul Waldman | October 3, 2007 | web only





In the past week or so, lots of wise and serious commentators have started to say that Hillary Clinton's victory in the Democratic presidential primaries is all but inevitable. She is repeatedly described as having "solidified her lead" (see here, or here, or here), not only because of her strength in national polls, but due to the fact that she now leads in New Hampshire by a healthy margin and is in a virtual three-way tie in Iowa. And after all, we know Iowa and New Hampshire voters aren't fickle like those in some other states. They're serious and studious, applying their down-home common sense and refusing to vote for anyone unless they look them in the eye and get a sense of the person behind the politician.

It seems like just yesterday that the reporters and pundits who live for the quadrennial marathon of pandering and debasement that is the campaign for the White House were complaining that things were starting way too early. The first primary contests were over a year away, they groaned, yet the candidates were already tromping through the early states, forcing themselves upon us like dinner party guests who show up at noon when the table isn't set and the food is half-cooked. Yet now that some actual votes are but a few months away, reporters are ready to declare the race all but over.

If there is any consolation, we are told, it is that the wise and deliberative citizens of the early states take their responsibilities so seriously. But do they really? And if they don't, what does that say about the way we're choosing the next leader of the free world?

Since the 1972 elections, the first presidential race run according to campaign reforms intended to take the nominating process out of the hands of cigar-chomping party hacks and deliver it to the voters, we have all been electoral subjects, living under the tyranny of New Hampshire and, even more so, Iowa. And despite the unprecedented sums being raised this year, which would in theory enable candidates to compete in many more places, everyone seems to believe it's truer than ever that Iowa makes all the difference. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_myth_of_the_rational_iowa_voter

Living under the tyranny of Iowa. That seems harsh. Iowa and New Hampshire realized the importance of the primary/caucuses 30 years ago and secured their places and have improved on them each cycle since. They have earned their spots. Others can try to earn a piece of the system as well, but it needs to be cultivated and truely earned ... not just demanded.

i never could understand why anyone would think iowa and new hampshire were more relevant ion the political process than any other state. the state with the "average american voter" is illinois not iowa or new hampshire.

time has a way in turning myths into reality

It's part of the "Live Free or Die" ethos.

This turns the election cycle into a purely commercial enterprise. It is to be condemned, cancelled, and avoided like the plague. Go for a national primary with instant runoff, and let's see if Americans can handle the power!