Iowa Caucuses & Mass Media

[turtle18]

No offense to the Iowans who post on this board, but how can the popular media declare our presidential frontrunners based on 33% of the vote in one of the smallest states in the country? Wasn’t our constitution designed to give power to the larger states, not the smaller ones?

 

[KatieD]

You make a good point. A very small percentage of voterse participates in the caucuses. The winner of Iowa is not generally the winner of the general election, so the media can proclaim front runner status all they want, but they are not usually correct.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

No offense to the Iowans who post on this board, but how can the popular media declare our presidential frontrunners based on 33% of the vote in one of the smallest states in the country? Wasn’t our constitution designed to give power to the larger states, not the smaller ones?

There are statistical samples taken before and during. Using statistical methods you can usually extrapolate out the eventual winner. If the margin is large, it is safer to declare earlier. If it is smaller, it is better to wait until more data (votes) come in.

News media jump all over themselves to be the first to break the story, aka declaring a canidiate. The most notable problem with this approach was in Florida in 2000. That was a close race and prudence would make you hold off, but ratings and money got in the way to declare one way and than the other way before holding off.

Personally, I think the news media should wait, but I am not in charge of the now profit-driven news divisions.

 

[LittleOne1]

Actually if I remember correctly, the Iowa caucuses have been vital for determing the nominees for both parties with a few exceptions like Reagan. It may be small, but people take head over what happens.

 

[Tonks40]

I heard on a radio show this morning that 15 or so years ago, the Iowa caucuses were not considered the benchmark of the presidential race as they are now. New Hampshire was the first indication of what the campaign season was going to be like. I understand there were some candidates (no, I won’t name them) who did not participate in the Iowa caucuses.

 

[Dale_M]

Wasn’t our constitution designed to give power to the larger states, not the smaller ones?

That wasn’t what I was taught in civics class. We were told that the power of small states and big states were balanced by having two different camera for the legislature… the House of Representatives (which gives more power to bigger states) and the Senate (which is based on each state being equal, regardless of how little it might be).

But as for how presidential candidates are selected… yes, it is a bit screwy. But I guess it is better than relying on the smoke-filled backrooms of the political conventions when powerbrokers cut deals in exchange for their backing a candidate. We should be thankful that era is over.

 

[bobzills]

No offense to the Iowans who post on this board, but how can the popular media declare our presidential frontrunners based on 33% of the vote in one of the smallest states in the country? Wasn’t our constitution designed to give power to the larger states, not the smaller ones?

Things can turn around, but as of now, Obama and Huckabee have the momentum and Hillary is losing steam.

 

[THurifer2]

Iowa is smaller than most states and the caucus is lightly attended (except this year) but when you add active brain cells into the equation the attendees of the Iowa Caucus account for about half the voting population of the United States. (of course I am speaking strictly as a republican…

 

[jman507]

Don’t worry too much, Iowa is over and is all ready being forgotten. It’s the big news of the day, but once the news cycle is over it pushes onto the next one.

I do enjoy the caucuses though, one really has to really participate. On the other hand, it does tend to favor the activist.

 

[gam197]

The Wyoming Republican Caucus is this Saturday and Next Tuesday it is the NH primary then onto So. Carolina, Florida and Michigan so it will continue.

In order to have the early vote, they all had to give up half of their delegates to the convention.

 

[Digitonomy]

No offense to the Iowans who post on this board, but how can the popular media declare our presidential frontrunners based on 33% of the vote in one of the smallest states in the country?

The media declare frontrunners based on the best information they can gather. Previously, that was telephone polls, fundraising levels, etc. After the caucuses, they have actual voter (name removed by moderator)ut to consider, whether it’s 33% or even just 10% if the weather in Iowa had been bad - check out the paltry voter turnout in the wide-open Democratic caucus of 1992.

It’s also worth noting that the winner in Iowa is not automatically the frontrunner - margin makes a difference, as well as other factors. For example, if a candidate from Iowa eked out a narrow win in the caucuses, it’s quite possible the second-place candidate in Iowa may then be viewed as the frontrunner in the overall race.

turtle18:

Wasn’t our constitution designed to give power to the larger states, not the smaller ones?

In some ways. However, the constitution says nothing about primaries, which must follow the constitutions of the main political parties, rather than the Constitution of the US. Furthermore, the constitution does not in general limit the ability of media to call it like they see it.

 

[Digitonomy]

The Wyoming Republican Caucus is this Saturday and Next Tuesday it is the NH primary then onto So. Carolina, Florida and Michigan so it will continue.

In order to have the early vote, they all had to give up half of their delegates to the convention.

This is for Republican delegates. For Democrats, the states jumping the gun may get no delegates at all…
.
Howard Dean to Florida: forget that idea

 

[gam197]

o

riginally posted by Digitonomy
check out the paltry voter turnout in the wide-open Democratic caucus of 1992.

The Democratic vote turnout was strong, double the vote of '04 and double the Republican turnout in the '08 caucus. I wonder if that has any meaning?

 

[turtle18]

The constitutional designers always intended for the larger states to have more power. That is why they created the electoral college. The smaller states are only protected in one house of Congress, the Senate, where every state gets an equal vote, regardless of size.
When only 1/3 of your party votes for you in a very small state, I don’t think that makes you a legitimate frontrunner. I mean, these candidates aren’t even getting a majority of their party’s votes in this little state and now they are the frontrunners.

 

[vern_humphrey]

No offense to the Iowans who post on this board, but how can the popular media declare our presidential frontrunners based on 33% of the vote in one of the smallest states in the country? Wasn’t our constitution designed to give power to the larger states, not the smaller ones?

You have a lot of baggage in that question, so let me try to answer it:

1. Caucuses and primaries are not spelled out in the Constitution. Each state is free to set its own processes for nominating candidates.
2. A caucus or a primary merely selects a candidate. The ultimate winner of all the primaries and caucauses will be the candiate of his or her respective party. A general election will be held later to select the candidate who will become president.
3. The rules for selecting candidates are set by the parties, not by the Constitution or any governmental authority.
4. The stories and opinions you see in the media are the responsibility of the media – not the government – and they are mere opinions.
5. The Constitution was not designed to give power to the larger states. It was designed to preserve a balance. That’s why all states, no matter how large or small, have two Senators. Presidents are actually elected by the Electoral College – and each state gets one elector for each representative and senator – so the smaller states have proportionately more clout than the larger ones.

 

[gam197]

Article on New Hampshire’s primary …

nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031208/NEWS0803/31208015

From the founding of our Republic until the introduction of national political conventions in 1831, candidates for president and vice president were named by congressional caucus or other methods chosen by the House of Representatives…

Beginning in 1831, except for the Republicans that year, New Hampshire chose delegates interested in or committed to certain presidential candidates at town caucuses held throughout the state, then sent them to the state conventions of their respective political parties…

In 1913, the nominating procedure was changed definitively when the New Hampshire Legislature substituted a presidential primary for the caucus system.

Thus, since 1920 until 1996, the New Hampshire presidential primary has always been first in the nation by at least a week.

List of states/Dates for primaries…
Michigan -Jan 15th
Nevada - January 19th
So. Carolina -Jan 26th
Florida - Jan 29th

Project Vote Smart has the complete list. I don’t think the Forums will allow me to post the site.

 

[jman507]

The constitutional designers always intended for the larger states to have more power. That is why they created the electoral college. The smaller states are only protected in one house of Congress, the Senate, where every state gets an equal vote, regardless of size.
When only 1/3 of your party votes for you in a very small state, I don’t think that makes you a legitimate frontrunner. I mean, these candidates aren’t even getting a majority of their party’s votes in this little state and now they are the frontrunners.

Well, the results alone are only so significant, but it’s like you’d be watching a marathon or a car race. After the first couple miles, the front runner is the front runner. If you are covering the event, then your going to report it. More important though is how the results relates to the candidates’ campaign stratagies. One can be a winner by not winning; one can be a loser even if they don’t lose. Some didn’t throw much of any resources there; some did. Some can can gain momentum, others can lose it.

When all is said and done, it’s not really too significant in the aggragate support each will receive at the convention, much less the general election, but in a campaign as such, at some point in time there is going to be a real turning point, where all others start to lose any chance and someone solidifies their nomination. Anyone remember the “Dean scream.” Chances are no one will really know until it occurs. Iowa was just the first step. Just like in a football game, the first series is just as important stat wise, but it can set the tone.

 

[rlg94086]

Actually, Iowa has a pretty good track record in picking the frontrunners…check the history. New Hampshire, on the otherhand has had mixed results in the last few elections.

That said, I think this year can’t be predicted based on past performance. The main value of Iowa and New Hampshire is momentum going into the larger states. I think we will have a clearer idea of frontrunners (probably narrowed to two on each side) by February 6th.

Personally, I think it is an interesting year. They say there may be a “brokered convention” on the Republican side, where the candidate might not be determined until they vote at the convention. Someone who knows more about it can correct me, but my understanding is that delegates to conventions don’t have to vote for the candidate who won the state (although they usually do…I might be getting this confused with the electoral college process). This would especially be interesting if the winner of some states pulls out of the race before the convention.

What does make me smile though is all of the pre-candidate-ban posts who said the frontrunners were a foregone conclusion.

 

[Digitonomy]

Someone who knows more about it can correct me, but my understanding is that delegates to conventions don’t have to vote for the candidate who won the state (although they usually do…I might be getting this confused with the electoral college process).

There are a wide variety of rules, which I think are determined by the state parties. Some states place no obligation on a delegate to vote for his specified candidate, some obligate only for the first ballot, some drop the obligation if the candidate has withdrawn from the race.

The other thing which may be interesting as the Democratic convention approaches is whether the party grants any delegates to states like Florida and Michigan, which under the current rules (in the thread I linked to in post #11) get no delegates because they violated primary rules on scheduling their primaries. It will look rather bad for Democrats in a battleground state to deny voters any representation at the convention. There was talk that the Florida Democratic Party might weasel out of this conundrum by making the January primary a mere beauty contest, and actually choosing its delegates a few months later - I haven’t been following the story recently, so I’m not sure what the status of that move is.

 

[pnewton]

The other thing which may be interesting as the Democratic convention approaches is whether the party grants any delegates to states like Florida and Michigan, which under the current rules (in the thread I linked to in post #11) get no delegates because they violated primary rules on scheduling their primaries.

I hardly blame these states for wanting a bigger say in nominating the next president. I wonder myself how many will still be running when I get to vote. The caucus system seems to favor media influence way to much for my taste. Perhaps one day we can develop a democratic version of “democracy.”