Thanks to the Iowa Republican caucuses last night, Rick Perry has taken a moment to think about his campaign,the Michele Bachmann scream machine has grown subdued, and Rick Santorum suddenly seems like a legitimate contender.
This is all so terribly wrong.
In general, I view caucuses/primaries as meaningless -- after all, what do the opinions of randos on the other side of the country have to do with me? -- but Iowa's last night shouldn't affect ANYTHING. 120,000 people in a state of 3 million voted. Even accounting for those ineligible to participate (Democrats, kids who won't be 18 by November)... clearly only the truly zealous Republicans bothered with it. It should have little to no bearing on the race as a whole. The state of Iowa is different from many other parts of the country: According to the Census Bureau, Iowa is about 91% white, while less than three percent of the population is black and less than four percent is Hispanic. Native Americans and Asians combined are a mere two percent of the population. Iowa is often generally seen as a swing state: Since 1984, Iowans have on average voted around 40-45% Republican in presidential elections. Their caucus does very little to demonstrate how Iowa's voters will perform in the general election.
Therefore, it really shouldn't matter to Rick Perry that things didn't go his way. As much as I hate to say it, Bachmann shouldn't have quit based on this one result. And the biggest problem of all: Rick Santorum's second-place finish can likely be attribute to his single-minded dedication to the state of Iowa. While other candidates have spent time in New Hampshire already and have spoken in various other locations, wooing the nation as a whole the entire time, Santorum has been hitting the pavement in Iowa only. He visited every county. He meet as many Iowans as possible. He won't be able to repeat that in other states; he won't be able to root out the minority that loves him. His strong showing comes at a steep price.
But none of this matters. The media, and the candidates, pretend like Iowa's results mean something significant. Some commentators point out that past winners in Iowa (see: Mike Huckabee) flame out long before their party convention, while others who fail in Iowa (see: John McCain) ultimately capture the nomination. So why should the decisions of one relatively small and homogeneous state affect the race for the rest of us? Why should we care?
The answer is simple. Iowa shouldn't affect the rest of us, and the rest of us shouldn't feel compelled to care. We should focus on watching the remaining debates and continuing to research candidates to find out their real agendas. And when we find a satisfactory choice, we should throw our weight behind that candidate, no matter what his/her party affiliation. We should each vote for the principles we each think are most important to the nation. That, my friends, is democracy.
As Americans Elect proclaims, vote for a person. Not a party. Think critically, y'all. Don't be afraid to assert yourselves as citizens.
Statistically speaking, the people who voted in the Iowa caucus are a self-selected sample of self-identified Republican voters in the state. The outcome is hardly predictive of how any larger group will vote next November. What it does tell us, however, is that no one of the several candidates could muster the enthusiasm of more than 25% of the voters, such are the divisions within the party. Either those rifts are mended or the GOP has some rough sledding ahead.
ReplyDeleteVery good point. Volunteer bias is yet another reason the results are suspect, to say the least -- although, to a lesser extent, this criticism could be applied to the general election. I'm in Alabama, where you don't have to register with a party, so you actually can choose election by election based on the candidate. I imagine a number of Republicans in Iowa looked at the choices and decided to just stay home.
ReplyDelete