Perhaps Iowa can help a candidate gain some momentum or conversely lose momentum. But in the grand scheme of things Does Iowa Really Matter to U.S. Presidential Politics? It is not a large or diverse state, and does not represent voting patterns very well. What do you think?
I agree and I smell the stink of mainstream media desperation as all of the major networks try to make Iowa seem somehow relevant.
This circus has been going on for days and it is reaching levels of surreal, infuriating and completely phony excess.
I would appreciate some real news about events that are important for us to know about!
Really, Iowa? Santorum?
I finally believe that Iowa doesn't matter at all.
There is ZERO chance Santorum can beat Obama. ZERO. His name is LITERALLY synonymous with fecal matter.
Some dou*he who was polling in single digits 3 days ago is getting ~30% of the vote?
This is friggin' nuts.
The journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step and Iowa is just the first step. Iowa matters no more and no less than any other state. It is the media that blows it out of proportion.
Iowa matters in that it is the first...and the first will always be special.
All kidding aside, Iowa's importance is that it is usually the place that narrows the field down. But, I agree that they have little relevance in what direction the country is going to. In fact, in the last 5-7 presidential elections, they've only voted for a future president twice.
Didn't Clinton finish something like 4th in Iowa in '92? I feel like Iowa has been a terrible indicator of who will come out on top because Iowa doesn't really reflect the nation as a whole. Favor farm subsidies and you'll probably get more support in Iowa than a candidate who supports family planning funding for teenagers, even if more Americans support the latter issue.
I'd put a lot more faith in the results of the New Hampshire primary. The winner or runner-up there almost always goes on to win his party's nomination. The only exception from the past 50 years that I'm aware of is the New Hampshire Democratic primary in 1968, when LBJ won and Eugene McCarthy came in 2nd. LBJ (who was president at the time) would drop out of that race, Robert Kennedy would enter the race and then be assassinated, violence between Richard Daley's police forces and protesters broke out in Chicago at the DNC, and Hubert Humphrey emerged as the Democratic candidate. In other words, that entire election deserves a big asterisk because so many chaotic things happened after New Hampshire.
As a general rule, New Hampshire favors the candidates who will eventually rise to the top, while Iowa favors the candidates who bend over backwards to appease a few corn farmers or can mimic a few sermons well enough to fool the Religious Right. If you want to have fun at the circus, go to Iowa. If you want to know who you'll be voting for in November, look at New Hampshire.
the prisonplanet perspective goes too far in general, but this article is making a point of validity. Santorum??? where did that come from, who is buying off who and for what??...just to keep Paul from being elected with a new vision for a better and more aligned Constitutional country and stopping the status quo
http://www.prisonplanet.com/republican- … l-win.html
here'a a little more on what iowa will do to look good and has done in the past
http://www.examiner.com/social-issues-i … to-referee
I like who Ron Paul is, you can see he is genuine in this speech after tonights Iowa caucuses.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/136386231700 … ashamed-of
Yeah, this was really amazing.
San-to-rum tied for first. The same guy who was polling in single digits most of this year manages to rise 4-fold in 3 days to TIE the national front-runner.
Give me a break.
I can only really see this as meaning that Mitt Romney and Ron Paul are the first place runners. Ron Paul has been a consistent 20%+ contender in Iowa, and Santorum just kind of popped up out of nowhere to quintuple his support in 3 days - that's just another "lololol, I'm the front-runner, now!" example.
PS - I'm happy to see that Perry is "reassessing his campaign". I'm sure Bachmann will, too. Huntsman was very meager.
This will soon be a 5 way race.
The results are surprising, that's what makes Iowa important because it starts the race and gives unexpected momentum to several candidates.
I was confused upon watching the Caucus. Everyone was counting the votes.
"That's not how a caucus works", I thought to myself, "Or, at least, so I thought. I must just be wrong!".
It turns out I was right: The Iowa votes are nothing more than another Straw Poll, and each candidate's delegates are chosen AFTER the straw poll is over. Many many many Ron Paul supporters stuck around after the Straw Poll, and it turns out that he will likely end up actually winning Iowa.
What's the difference between a Caucus and Primary? This video from Democrats who were pissed off at Obama's "change" and who now support Ron Paul can explain it a bit better than I can:
Basically, a primary is a democratic VOTE; while a Caucus is a republican election of delegates.
In a primary, people just vote, and the total votes is what matters. In a caucus, you vote as a sort of formality, but then each precinct picks a person to represent them, then all of the representatives of each precinct goes on the state level to choose who will represent the state.
Ron Paul has an astronomical number of the delegates, and thus has a HUGE chance of winning the actual Caucus, and not just the straw poll.
http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul … egy-201201
That seems a little sneaky to me but if Paul doesn't get the votes in New Hampshire and the rest, it would be pointless for those delegates to vote for Paul.
Iowa is a CAUCUS, not a PRIMARY.
Caucuses are much more republican than primaries, which are democratic.
The voting at the caucus was NOTHING more than a straw poll.
After the votes, the candidates need to make sure that their fans stick around to be chosen as delegates in each precinct.
Ron Paul has gotten so many delegates in each precinct that Santorum obviously didn't win Iowa.
Why was republicanism invented? To keep out the democratic riff-raff: Santorum did NOT actually quintuple his fan-base in under one week. It's just another idiotic bump that's been happening to everyone else.
Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are the only two candidates who have steady and increasing support, and they are the ones are winning delegates in Iowa.
I think you're right, Evan - Mitt and Paul are going to be the only two who have the money, ground game, and support to continue over the next few months. Santorum is probably the flavor of the week. It was his turn. But...I've been wrong before. lol
It's a 7-7-7 split between Rick "I hate gays" Santorum, Mitt "I've sold my soul so many times before I haven't one anymore" Romney, and Ron "Consistent" Paul.
The candidates need 1044 delegates to win, and 7 chose Paul. After Santorum drops out (give it a month) the delegates will switch their choice.
Late at night, I often ponder the world's problems in bed before going to sleep.
I find myself thinking "What would Jim Bob Duggar support for President of the United States (when he takes a break from procreating)".
Watching CNN's coverage last night, I found the answer to this question.
So yes, Iowa matters.. it mattered in Radar O'Reilly time, it matters in Jim Bob's time, and it will matter in the years to come
I was watching the vote count thinking "I thought Iowa was a caucus state".
When Santorum won the vote, I thought "wow, I guess Iowa doesn't matter. There's no way that Santorum could possibly be taken serious. It's clear he's in another 'I'm not Romney bump' like the rest of the candidates have received".
This morning, I woke up and checked facebook, and my fellow Ron Paul nerds were talking about how Paul might actually win Iowa.
I WAS RIGHT! Iowa IS a caucus, not a primary.
Ron Paul and Mitt Romney received the most delegates from the precincts, and are posed to win the state.
The voting at a caucus is NOTHING more than a straw poll, and has no real effect on the nomination.
Admit it though, if Ron Paul would have won you would be crowing to the world about how great it was that he won Iowa and that he was unstoppable.
Double standard - the media already declared Iowa pointless. Now they are the ones screaming how important it is.
In all honesty, yes, I would scream it from the roof tops.
(but, the jokes on you: Ron Paul is currently tied for 1st: http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/state/ia ... he has a 7-7-7 split of delegates)
hey...droppin' by to say hi and happy new year GO!
...now, do you really think about Jim Bob?
Back in the 1930s, Stalin won the Caucuses held in the caucuses by threatening to cut off everyone's caucuses
I love Iowa, but boy did it ever disappoint me last night. Santorum, seriously? The man is human scum.
Glad I'm not alone in finding his sudden rise to prominence a little fishy. That's been the story of this campaign, but Perry, Cain, Gingrich, etc. had actually done something to deserve it. Santorum didn't, unless I missed something. If Jim Bob Duggar showing up to stump for Santorum really had that much of an effect, then my last vestige of hope for America may be gone.
Don't know if he is scum or not, but he is the sameold sameold. He made religious factions come together to support him, but they are just an abberation, not representative of the electorate. Just like Huckabee, he'll have a hard go of it in the rest of the primaries.
no, it doesn't matter. Whoever raises the most money wins the top seat in the White House. Corporate donors will make sure it's who they want and give generously.
by mio cid5 years ago
Is Ron Paul giving birth to a movement that can develop into a full fledged political party?Maybe attracting real independents not the pseudo independents that are really just to the left of the democratic party or to...
by John Coviello5 years ago
Iowa did not clarify the GOP nomination at all, except for perhaps it indicates that Romney will ultimately win the GOP nomination. Romney will be 2 for 2 after New Hampshire next Tuesday. After that, who...
by Dave Mathews5 years ago
I hate politics. I hate all politicians. I see all politicians as "Legalized Mafia" or Legalized crooks, someone who through "laws" legal or otherwise find a way to dip into your pocket or purse to...
by SparklingJewel5 years ago
Paul candidates know the rules, but are arrested for ithttp://ronpaulflix.com/2012/03/st-charl … r-17-2012/
by steveamy5 years ago
Do newspapers, celebrities or other like minded politicians have an effect on you eventual vote?
by dagny roth4 years ago
Is anyone else annoyed that the media isn't even discussing this? Romney has only won 18 and there are still 11 to go. They are trying to get him out before the convention but quite frankly I think he...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.