Democrats winning Iowa caucuses are more likely to win presidential nominations as well, suggests survey
Iowa will be going to the first caucuses of the 2020 election year on Monday, February 3. It is often debated whether the Hawkeye State deserves that much significance even if it kicks off the battle for the next occupant of the White House, but it remains a key state since it is the first one. Supporters of each candidate wish for their win in Iowa where six electoral votes are at stake in the general election.
Iowa, however, doesn’t always resonate with the nation’s overall mood when it comes to picking presidents. In 2008, Republican nominee John McCain finished fourth in the Iowa caucuses but yet won the race.
However, for the Democratic Party, Iowa pens a different story.
Democratic candidates winning Iowa succeed more in getting a nomination
Since 1976, when Jimmy Carter won Iowa and went on to bag the Democratic nomination and even the presidency, 70 percent of winners from the party in Iowa went to receive the nomination (in case of the Republicans, it is only 37.5 percent). In the last five elections, all the Democratic presidential nominees had won Iowa: Al Gore (2000), John Kerry (2004), Barack Obama (2008 and 2012) and Hillary Clinton (2016). However, only 20 percent of Democratic nominees could win the presidency in these four-and-half decades. In the case of the Republicans, it is worse at 12.5 percent.
Even current President Donald Trump lost to Ted Cruz in Iowa in 2016.
Recently, personal finance website WalletHub came out with a report over a survey in Iowa to find out how closely the state resembles the entire US. In the survey it asked experts whether holding the first primary in the Hawkeye State made any sense when its demographic and economic profile differed much with the national electorate.
What experts feel about Iowa holding the first primary
Dr Walter J Stone, a professor of political science from the University of California told WalletHub: “Critics of Iowa assume that because it is demographically unrepresentative of the nation, its voters will tilt the process toward their unique interests, against the national interest. There is some truth to this. For example, Iowa agriculture – a big part of the state economy – has an interest in ethanol-based fuels, which some have argued distort the price of corn with other externalities in the national economy. Likewise, the relative lack of diversity of the Iowa electorate may make it more difficult for minority candidates to do well. Against this last point, Obama won Iowa in 2008, which was an important basis for his subsequent successes in that year’s nomination race."
He added saying, "Moreover, research I have done with several colleagues shows that Iowa caucus attendees quite reasonably anticipate how voters in other states later in the nomination process, and how general-election voters, will react to candidates downstream. This means that they cannot simply support the candidate who best represents their interest. Doing so might mean supporting a candidate who has no chance to win the nomination or general election and would therefore not serve their interests. So this sort of strategic voting by caucus attendees and primary voters in early states mitigates against the effects of the unrepresentativeness of the participants in any given caucus/ primary state.”
When asked the same question, Lynn N Rivers, a lecturer at the University of Michigan, told WalletHub that huge money is at stake when candidates spend a year in Iowa ahead of the caucuses. “Other states have tried to schedule their primaries earlier and Iowa has simply moved its caucus up. Michigan was hoping to get a taste of that money and there was a huge battle within the DNC a few years ago. That resulted in an agreement to honor the position of the two early states. If there has been more debate within the party on this, I am not aware of it.”
Dr Robert E Hogan, R Downs Poindexter Professor & Department Chair, Department of Political Science, Louisiana State University, however, feels that having the primary in Iowa did not make any sense since its demographics and economic make-ups do not represent the nation. He also said the number of voters that takes part in Iowa caucuses is also very small.