Iowa Caucuses As Smoke-Filled Room

October 8th, 2007
By SHAUN MULLEN, TMV Columnist

Print Print

01iowa.jpg

A minister, priest and rabbi walk into a 4-H club . . .

I’ll eat my straw boater if it turns out that the Iowa caucuses next January play a decisive role in determining who the Republican presidential sacrificial lamb will be, let alone who the Democrats nominate to be the next president.

This is because some candidates — averse to shoveling snow off of potential voters’ driveways in Sioux City or Des Moines — may avoid the caucuses altogether.

. . . No, that’s not the real reason at all. It’s because not even 10 percent of eligible Iowa voters will show up at their local caucus, fewer than the number of media pundits who already are filling their drool cups in anticipation of this over-hyped but underwhelming quadrennial event.

Well, I guess I’d better start munching on that hat, because the Iowa caucuses — with their quaint winning over one voter at a time charm — will again play an out-sized role in the 2008 campaign.

How did this happen?

Because of smoke-filled rooms and the power and culpability of the mainstream media.

Prior to election reforms in the early 1970s, party hacks operating out of those smoke-filled rooms pretty much determined who the nominees would be. As the result of a media backlash against Politics As Usual and stories focusing on party politics in Iowa in the powerful New York Times, attention turned to the Hawkeye State.

It was Iowa in all its perfect middle America stereohyped glory that the process of choosing delegates to the national political conventions through local caucuses morphed into what came to be known as “straw votes” for presidential candidates. (In 1972, George McGovern won the first Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses to go prime time. The rest, as they say, was history.)

While The Times‘ power to influence national politics may have waned in the last 35 years, the ability of the MSM to manipulate campaign coverage because of its willingness to be manipulated by the campaigns has become pervasive. Along with the deeply corrosive influence of big money on politics, the incestuous relationship between the media and politicians and the ability of both groups to create the illusion that presidential politics are by and for the people, by gosh, are to my mind the most screwed up aspects of this whole mess.

As it is, the winners of the Iowa caucuses go on to win their party nominations only about half the time, which is not surprising since the winners in Iowa reflect less on who might actually be presidential timbre then on who is willing to shovel the most driveways. (My prediction: John Edwards and Mitt Romney will win the driveway vote hands down. I don’t know about the caucuses.)

So Iowa has become the tail that wags the corn dog, which as Paul Waldman notes in The American Prospect sets up two equally ridiculous (my word) scenarios on the Democratic side, which happens to be where my interest lies since the Republican field is beyond pathetic and the GOP primary in a state called Dobson will have an out-sized significance on who the Republican nominee will be.

Waldman’s scenarios:

* If Edwards wins Iowa and Hillary Clinton comes in second, Barack Obama is toast.

* If Clinton wins Iowa, it’s all over bar the shouting and the nomination – and quite possibly the presidency — is hers for the taking.

Mind you, voter turnout in the New Hampshire primary, that other over-hyped “bellwether” event that signals the beginning of campaigning in earnest, or something, isn’t a whole lot better.

But it is beyond perverse that a mere 200,000 or so white Iowans who have no fashion sense, high cholesterol levels and want their driveways shoveled may have the greatest say about who is the next occupant of the Oval Office.

Whuddya think? Maybe we should go back to those smoke-filled rooms.

* * * * *

Meanwhile, Captain Ed is a little more enamored of the primary process in this interesting post at Captain’s Quarters.




This entry was posted on Monday, October 8th, 2007 at 2:58 am and is filed under The New York Times, Campaign Reform, MSM, Political Finance, Democrats, Republicans, 2008 Elections. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

 
close Reblog this comment
blog comments powered by Disqus



By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.