The overhyped, unrepresentative Iowa caucuses

Chris Carlson

Updated 9:15 a.m. Eastern Time

DES MOINES -- A total of 119,188 people participated in the 2008 Iowa Republican caucuses. That's about 20 percent of Iowa's registered Republicans, 4 percent of the population of Iowa, and .04 percent of the total U.S. population; it's also less than half as many people as fit into the seats at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. 

Every four years, this relatively tiny group of people -- a subset of a subset of a subset - holds extraordinary power. Their whims, and those of their Democratic counterparts, are breathlessly followed by a narrative-hungry media laser-focused on the first-in-the-nation voting event, and candidates that do poorly in the caucuses often drop out of the presidential race.

This despite the fact that they are far from a representative sample of the U.S. population or their party as a whole. Iowa caucus-goers are overwhelmingly white - the state's population is less than ten percent black and Hispanic combined, compared to 28 percent nationwide - and on the Republican side, 60 percent identified as born again or evangelical in 2008. The Hawkeye State is more rural than much of the country, meanwhile, and its 6 percent unemployment rate is 2.6 percentage points below the rest of the country.

Then there's the fact that Iowa holds caucuses instead of a primary, a system that requires voters to attend an evening community meeting on a chilly night and sit through a series of speeches before casting a ballot. (Work in the evening? Tough luck!) The caucus process tends to attract only the most committed voters, which tends to skew the results in the direction of party activists rather than the more casual voters more likely to cast ballots in a primary.

Defenders of Iowa's exalted place in the political process argue that the retail politicking the candidates do here is an early test of their viability, arguing the process allows Iowans to take stock of candidates in a way the nation as a whole cannot. That argument is harder to make in the Internet age, however - when a candidate is just click or two away - and isn't a defense of why Iowa specifically (or New Hampshire, which holds the first-in-the-nation primary after the caucuses) should have the honor of going first.

The state GOP states that Iowans ask candidates "detailed questions about particular policies" and boasts that "[s]ome presidential candidates have noted that Iowa voters ask some of the most sophisticated and nuanced policy questions they receive while on the campaign trail." But it's hard to see why residents of other states wouldn't do the former, and the latter sure sounds a lot like classic political pandering. 

Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King, a staunch defender of Iowa's first-in-the-nation status, said the fact that Iowa is whiter than the rest of the country is irrelevant, telling Hotsheet that a focus on race is misplaced. He said the fact that the Iowa GOP electorate is more evangelical and born again than the country as a whole is a good thing, saying the rest of the nation should aspire to the values of Iowa's conservatives. 

Iowa has gone first in the voting process since the 1970s, and it ensures its status with a law mandating that its contest take place before any other state. (Both the Democratic and Republican parties are on board with the state's spot on the calendar, and cater to party rules in ways that have maintained the status quo.) Iowa is fiercely protective of its status, and it's easy to see why: The influx of candidates and media provide a major economic boost to the state, and members of its political establishment clearly enjoy their status as potential kingmakers. (There have been accusations in this presidential cycle from Michele Bachmann and others that highly-sought endorsements were essentially bought.)

Republican presidential candidate, Texas Gov. Rick Perry answers questions during a campaign stop at the Glenn Miller Museum in Clarinda, Iowa, Tuesday, Dec. 27, 2011.

/ AP Photo/Charlie Riedel

The media focus on Iowa can be misleading. Four years ago, Mike Huckabee won the caucuses on the back of born again and evangelical voters, then faded in the long slog to the nomination. (The eventual nominee, John McCain, finished in fourth.) In 1988, George H.W. Bush, who would go on to win the GOP nomination, lost Iowa to both Bob Dole and Pat Robertson; in 1980, Mr. Bush edged eventual nominee Ronald Reagan in the caucuses.

Meanwhile, the press' focus on every twist and turn of the Iowa horse race takes the focus away from the candidates' positions on issues and creates a distorted narrative in which candidates are often forced to spend weeks focused on winning a few thousand votes in an effort to win a trumped-up expectations game and avoid a flood of negative headlines. 

If Ron Paul wins the caucuses this time around - he's near the top of state polls - it will give ammunition to those who say Iowa's protected first-in-the-nation status should be reconsidered, both by the national parties and the media. Paul's Libertarian views, which include a limited-engagement stance on foreign policy, put him out of step with many in the modern GOP, and political observers see him as a long shot for the nomination no matter what goes down in the Hawkeye State.

Whatever happens, it's more likely than not that the media will be back in Iowa four years from now for another round of horse race coverage focused on a narrow, unrepresentative slice of the population. The Iowa caucuses have become one of those accepted quirks of modern politics, one that becomes harder and harder to change as institutional resistance to altering the system builds with each passing presidential cycle. Which means that barring a serious effort to shake things up, you can expect to see presidential candidates making regular appearances amid the cornfields of this small Midwestern state for decades to come.

40 Photos

On the trail in Iowa

Full CBSNews.com coverage: Election 2012

[b15h09]

Iowan values, while not identical, are similar to a lot of the midwestern states. ND, SD, NB, KS, ect. It's good the MW get's a voice, because that is about the extent of it's sphere of political influence. What it represents is bigger than Iowa itself, and I hope the tradition continues.

[noctumz]

Hmmm. After reviewing the 2008 Iowa C. is seems that in 2008 Iowa was very:

important
legitimate
historically relevant
factual
fair

In 2012 it appears that the Iowa C. is:

unimportant
illegitimate
historically irrelevant
not factual
unfair

The process is the same. The people are the same. What has changed so much? ...Nothing

Well, maybe one thing. Ron Paul.

[b15h09]

Nah, Paul didn't change. The people have. Finally war wear, and starting to pay attention to domestic affairs.

[xxxyyyzzz111222333444555]

Ron Paul is legit. The bias that this article presents shows through. I trust a Vet (Ron Paul is a vet ya' know) with matters of war and foreign policy. He will be 100x more delicate than the other Rebublicans with regard to Iran. He sounds different than the others because he is different. All of the others have the same talking points. All of the others acknowledge his brillance with economic issues. End the Fed.

[two-cats]

The focus on Iowa is ridiculous. Surely, there must be some other way for the states to hold their primaries in a fair manner to the candidates. It is also true that certain candidates unacceptable to the rest of the country receive undue media coverage and an outsized boost from the Iowa caucuses.

[myopinionpal]

Alphabetically is the way to do it with Alabama the 1st state and Wyoming being the last state.

[CNH]

Santorum's last minute rise is really not all that surprising. Iowa's GOP caucus has always been and shall always be a political anomaly. The people who participate are disproportionately extreme right wing hyper-religious conservatives, and therefore are not a useful indicator of the general Republican voting population.

Sanctimonious chest-thumpers often perform well in Iowa's caucus, only to flame out when other states have their more democratically-run primary elections.

Of course, the alternatives are between an isolationism and anarchy-promoting conspiracy theorist, a master flip-flopper (who happens to be ... gasp ... a Mormon), a repeat adulterer and self-serving financial opportunist, a buffoon governor from Texas (part deux), and a dim-witted Minnesotan with a poor grip on reality. GOP voters will no doubt engage in a fair amount of hand-wringing in the next few months.

[Tidusover14]

Of course, you wouldn't call Ron Paul's foreign policy "non-interventionist" as opposed to isolationist or point out that his policies lean more towards Libertarianism and not Anarchy (the difference being that gov't has a role in Libertarianism). So I'd agree with you on all counts, but I definitely don't think we should count out Ron Paul as the only candidate promoting peace and not threatening to promote policies that violate peoples' human rights.

[Jaylah54]

Editorial from an Iowa newspaper published today:

W hat's the perfect place to kick off the presidential nomination process?

There isn't one.

Fair enough. So, what's the best-available location to launch the selection of candidates for the nation's top office?

Iowa.

It's nauseating to hear East Coast pundits whine about Iowa going first in the months-long campaign to decide who will represent the Republican Party in the presidential election. They've been coming up with all sorts of notions as to why Iowa is the wrong place.

It's mostly bunk.

The leading complaint about Iowa this time around is the perception that evangelical Christians have taken control of the state's Republican Party. This, the experts contend, is going to skew the caucus result, giving advantage to far-right cultural conservatives who presumably don't have the same support in other states.

There's some evidence to support this claim. Iowa Republicans supported Mike Huckabee in 2008, and his campaign sputtered afterward. Back in 1988, Iowans threw enough support behind Pat Robertson that he finished second. Each candidate had a strong following on the religious right.

However, this is highly selective history. After all, Iowa Republicans supported Bob Dole in 1988 and 1996 and George W. Bush in 2000. Neither Dole nor Bush could be considered a standard-bearer of the evangelical crowd, and each candidate ultimately was nominated. And in 2010, Terry Branstad won the Republican gubernatorial primary over Christian stalwart Bob Vander Plaats.

This year's race is shaping up much the same way. If the polls hold up, the religious right's favorite candidates are going to take a beating in Tuesday's caucus. Although they have campaigned here more than anyone else, Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry are likely to finish somewhere in the back of the pack. Rick Santorum has seen a late surge, but he's still not a lock for one of the top three spots.

And the projected top finishers — in no particular order, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich — are far from the brand of candidates one would associate with the evangelical wing.

What does this say about Iowa? It reinforces the long-held conventional wisdom about Iowa's moderate, pragmatic mindset. (While Paul is hardly a moderate choice, many see his support as a protest against the establishment candidates getting the most attention.)

Iowa does have a strong evangelical contingent. But how is this different from many other states? Would a Southern state be better to go first in the nominating process? What about Utah?

Iowa, in fact, is a wonderful representative of Middle America. The state is about evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. It's neither a hotbed of far-right tea partiers nor a hive of far-left liberals. With its emerging mix of Asian, Hispanic and African-American residents, Iowa is more diverse than outside commentators suggest. Unlike many other states, Iowans are not overwhelmingly crammed into one or two urban centers, with vast empty spaces in between. Candidates here must traverse the length and breadth of the state — from river cities to college towns to suburban enclaves — in hopes of building support. Iowa State University political science professor Steffen Schmidt, a veteran caucus watcher, argues that Iowans are "selective, individualistic and picky when it comes to finding the candidate who's just right for them."

If there's a legitimate complaint about Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucus, it's the relatively low turnout on the Republican side. Only 119,000 Republicans participated in the 2008 caucus, a small percentage of the state's 645,000 party registrants. Some worry that Tuesday's turnout might not even reach that total, despite a widespread desire among party members to defeat President Obama.

What's the problem? One possibility is a general dissatisfaction with the crop of candidates. Another might be frustration with the negative television ads that have deluged Iowa in recent weeks. While consultants believe negative ads are effective, many voters will tell you they breed anger and apathy.

The Iowa Republican Party has a legitimate dilemma if caucus turnout continues to dwindle. If enthusiasm for the process wanes, Iowa could be challenged on its first-in-the-nation position. If Iowans want to continue to host the high-profile, first-in-the-nation caucus, they need to participate in it.

But other claims that the state is a poor choice to go first are either wrongheaded or sour grapes. No state is an ideal representative of the national sentiment, but Iowa is more representative than most.

[Jaylah54]

Having said that, however, I would love to see some other state usurp Iowa's "first in the nation" status. We've been inundated with revoltingly negative campaign ads for well over two months.

In fact, "election season" starts in Iowa about 2 weeks after a national election. Democrat won the presidency? The Republicans will start yammering away at us just weeks later. Republican won? Democrats start up. It would be nice not to have to listen to campaign rhetoric for more than two weeks out of every four years.

Yes, I suppose it does bring in a certain amount of revenue to this state. But at what cost? Anybody else wants to take "first in the nation" status away from us, I say "have at it."

[Barry_H_Entai]

You should have read the article before wasting so much time writing (copying?) that.

The author gave a breakdown on the numbers and the reasons why Iowa is so unrepresentative of the entire nation.

Iowans just don't want to give up their entitled status as first caucus in the nation. Most people with these kinds of unearned entitlements don't.

[RunsWithWolves]

I have never understood this insanity of the Iowa caucases being so important. Old habits die hard in America. Just like the ridiculous electoral system of voting. We would have never had the disastrous presidency of GWBush if we had a popular vote. The popular vote also guarantees that every vote counts.

[justsane-2009]

old habits die hard? this one has only been around for 40 years; you'd think it wouldn't be that hard to change it.

[Elmer_Presley]

Redstate Insanity
Erick Erickson
The Republican Party has gone insane.

One reader comments:

Stop the hyperbole because you people are discrediting Romney so badly he may be shot in the foot and lose the general election.

[involved_indi]

Think of the Iowa caucus as the first NCAA Mens Basketball poll of the season. Its nice to be number one, but sooner or later you have to "win it on the court" and winning it on the court means in November 2012. What a string of victories in the primaries & caucuses does do for a candidate is allow them to raise funds or to choke off opponents funds... "are you sure you want to support so and so ... after all the best he's finished in the primaries to date is 4th, why throw good money down the drain". or... "Give your donations to me. look how well I've done in the primaries so far".