The Lessons of Iowa

Until yesterday the presidential race existed largely in the collective imagination of the American voting public. The few ways we had of gauging the support a candidate was receiving were none too reliable: polls can never be trusted completely, campaign donations do not always lead to votes, and people attending rallies are not necessarily true supporters. The Iowa caucuses changed all that; finally, Republicans and Democrats have made their choice for their favored candidate in a fashion that allows no argument (unless there was voter fraud). Whether or not Iowa will play an important role in choosing the nominees remains to be seen, but the important thing is that Iowa has played its role. People have voted. The race is truly underway now.

I expected Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee to win the Iowa caucuses as they did -- I must admit that I personally trust polls more than I should! Obviously, this is wonderful for both of those candidacies, but there were other important stories as well that emerged out of Iowa. The race for the Democratic nomination just got a lot more boring because Joe Biden and Chris Dodd dropped their presidential bids after their poor showings. I don't think either of those candidates really got a fair hearing from the Iowa electorate -- instead, what seems to have happened is that three Democratic candidates were assumed to have a chance at the nomination, and virtually everyone elected to support one of those three rather than risk backing a losing horse. While Obama won comfortably with help from a youth vote surge, John Edwards bested Hillary Clinton by only the narrowest of margins. The three-way race was exciting, but I think Iowa voters shortchanged themselves by only allowing themselves three choices. Iowa Republicans chose a different course: five candidates received 9% or more of the vote. The battle for third was arguably the most interesting: Fred Thompson received slightly more votes than John McCain. Given that there was one media report that Thompson was considering dropping out of the race, this third place showing is good for the man from Tennessee. Fourth and 13% of the vote is, frankly, awesome for a John McCain who did not make Iowa a priority for his campaign. John McCain is a serious contender again if he does well in the New Hampshire primaries next week as polls predict he will.

This is the first presidential election I've covered in this blog so I feel like I should consider the Iowa caucuses from a learning politics perspective. What can the caucuses tell us about the presidential race and politics in general? I think there are a few lessons to be learned from Iowa.

#1. Smooth speakers do have an advantage.

Many American presidents haven't been very charismatic speakers. Many politicians in general aren't particularly effective communicators despite the fact that speaking is an integral part of their job. I usually rationalize this by assuming that a candidate who doesn't speak flawlessly may seem more human than one who conveys too perfect a public persona. Iowa suggests something different: namely, that smooth speakers do have an advantage over the competition provided their politics also connect with voters. Why has Mike Huckabee succeeded where other religious conservatives have failed? The core values policies remain the same, but Huckabee is much more capable of transmitting his message in an appealing way to his base and everyone else than a Gary Bauer or a Pat Robertson (who, to his credit, did finish second in Iowa in 1988...I'm judging him on his charisma based on the 700 Club and other more recent TV appearances, so maybe he's actually awesome on the stump). Of course, another factor is that Huckabee isn't a one-dimensional candidate; he's comfortable discussing social issues and his support of the Fair Tax ought to garner him some support from non-evangelicals. The other really smooth Republican is Mitt Romney...who finished second. Barack Obama is probably the most gifted long-form speaker in the race this year, and I think his victory was also a testament to the power of good speaking. One of the reasons I'm disappointed that the second-tier Democrats have remained second-tier candidates (or dropped out) is that I sometimes find it hard to distinguish between Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama policy-wise. Clinton says she's more experienced, Edwards talks about class, and Obama promises hope and change...where is the policy there? Given the similarity of this trio, Obama's charisma and speaking ability has given him an edge on the competition. Once you have lent the Illinois senator your ears, Obama can differentiate himself from Clinton and Edwards by virtue of his more open foreign policy and his health care plan that promises near universal but not compulsory coverage.

#2. It's dangerous to ignore Iowa, but you might be able to get away with it.

Rudy Giuliani can be pleased over one thing about the Iowa caucuses: he totally destroyed Duncan Hunter. The problem is that although Hunter is barely a blip in most national polls and Giuliani has been a consistent frontrunner the two were essentially in the same boat in Iowa: both decided to focus their efforts elsewhere. Giuliani has a big state policy that could certainly earn him the nomination theoretically, but a big loss is never good press. There is a certain herd mentality in politics that makes a lot of voters not want to support a loser, so I have to wonder if Giuliani's new position as "Mr. 3%" is going to impact his electability in other states as well. Worse yet, the momentum other campaigns are getting threatens to overwhelm the Giuliani campaign. Nonetheless, Giuliani is working diligently in the background, focusing on big states like Florida. Giuliani might be feeling just a little bit bitter about another Republican who also failed to focus on Iowa: his name is John McCain. While McCain's debate performances have been strong, I assumed he would pay a heavy local political price for ignoring the Ames straw poll and not swarming Iowa as other candidates have done. Well, maybe McCain did pay a heavy price -- given that he finished 4th and was extremely close to catching Thompson for 3d, I have to wonder if McCain might not have won Iowa if he had taken a different strategy. I don't think any of the Democratic candidates ignored Iowa like McCain and Giuliani did. Indeed, I wonder if that is not one of the reasons that the big three Democrats totally stomped on the rest of the Democratic field. By not giving Iowans their due early on, McCain and Giuliani may have opened the door for ultimate caucus winner Mike Huckabee. I think Huckabee deserves his success, but considering that other deserving candidates have been almost totally ignored I don't think Huckabee's Cinderella story was inevitable by any means.

#3. Iowa cannot be bought.

What Mitt Romney tried to do with money Chris Dodd and Sam Brownback tried to do with their time and presence. Hillary Clinton counted on her organizational resources to carry her to victory in Iowa. None won. It's interesting that the Romney campaign's financial largesse did help lead Romney to victory in the Iowa straw poll and give him the early edge in the state, but it could not quite take him the whole way. Instead, a cash-strapped candidate whose campaign resonated more with the Iowa voting public ended up victorious by a significant margin. Clinton's vaunted organization could only deliver a third place finish in the caucuses...albeit an extremely strong third place finish. Although Dodd essentially made Iowa his home and Brownback visited every Iowa county, Iowans didn't flock in great numbers to either campaign. So, candidates can peddle their campaigns in Iowa till their wallets are empty, their organization is demoralized, and they themselves are physically exhausted and it still might not mean a thing: Iowans are fickle with their votes. Now I really question the wisdom of Chris Dodd's decision to focus so strongly on Iowa. It got him so little he would have some justification if he felt somewhat insulted at this moment -- I would strongly recommend that future candidates not pursue such myopic one-state strategies.

I'm sure there will be a lot more lessons to be learned from the coming primaries and caucuses. Although the media will be focusing on the New Hampshire primaries next week, don't forget the Wyoming Republican caucuses on Saturday. Little Internet birds have been whispering that Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul could do well, so that should be fun.