Samuel Tenenbaum brings this piece to my attention:
No way to pick a president
By Matt Miller, Wednesday, December 28, 11:50 AM
As the breathless, panting political class turns its eager eyes to Iowa, every sane American needs to step back and ask the obvious question: Is this any way to pick a president?
Our country is essentially coming to a halt to watch what 120,000 idiosyncratic voters in an idiosyncratic state do….
Absolutely, Matt Miller. I’ve said the same myself, four years ago:
By BRAD WARTHEN
Editorial Page Editor
“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain,” said the great and powerful Oz. But I say it’s the guy voting in the privacy of a booth that we should heed. It’s the Iowa caucuses we should ignore.
As I write this [we’re talking Thursday afternoon, folks], I don’t know who won last night, and don’t care. I’ve got my eye on New Hampshire — and, of course, South Carolina.
The Washington Post’s David Broder had it right in his Thursday column when he called the caucuses a “double-distortion mirror” on the campaign. The turnout is tiny, consisting only of people who are willing to attend a two-hour night meeting during the week and declare their preference in front of the world.
Forget what happened last night if you were watching to see which candidate has the strongest support among voters of either party. All the caucuses measure is who can most effectively corral the most highly committed, vocal partisans at a given moment. It tests organization — and a very specialized form of it at that. Organizational skill is important — but it’s hardly everything. [Note this amendment today to this opinion.]…
Today, I heard them on NPR talking about the money being spent on TV ads in Iowa. You’re kidding me, right? The whole marketing world has turned away from mass media (preferring more targeted approaches) to the extent that the industry could no longer afford to pay guys like David Stanton and Robert Ariail and me, and yet these idiots are spending good money on TV ads to reach the handful of people who will attend caucuses? Really? Why not just go to their houses and talk to them?
When I was a very young political reporter, I went to Iowa to write about the 1980 caucuses. I thought they were important. They weren’t then (Ronald Reagan lost), and they aren’t now. But here we all are, with bated breath, again…
Related Posts
I disagree completely. The caucuses (in particular Iowa) do several things that are importatant to our system. First, they winnow out a few of the week candidates before we get into the primary season. Voters can focus on a few solid candidates who are able to bring important organizational skills to the table. It’s not about winning but rather who does poorly.
Second, in party politics partisanship is a good thing. The person who appeals to the most dedicated, loyal adherents to party doctrine stands out as a clear and concise choice that the voters can evaluate on the merits. The primaries tend to be far too mushy in terms of ideology. It’s better to have solid party credentialled candidates moving forward than a much of middle of the road choices that appeal to no one. If you want someone with broad appeal then stay away from the caucuses and vote for a different party. This is, after all, the GOP and caucuses seem to be the best way to identify the true GOP brand.
Third, many folks defend the electoral college in the general election. Frankly that would be the first thing I’d get rid of by way of a constitutional amendment. The reason most folks give for keeping that anachronism is because it takes power away from voters and gives it to a few, select experts who are supposed to be wise enough to make a more informed decision. By the same logic a caucus provides a means for a few focused voters to make a decision within the party framework.
Whatever you think of the process you have to admit the horse race aspect of it all is really extraordinarily intereting. Iowa will eliminate at least 1 and probably two candidates among Perry, Bachmann and Santorum. With one of Bachmann’s major team members jumping on the Ron Paul bandwagon she seems to be the most likely of the three to call it quites Jan 4. Santorum is the most likely beneficiary. Perry with his money is likely to continue a while longer regardless of his Iowa support.
Huntsman will soldier on through New Hampshire but the numbers in SC and FL preclude him from stagging any realistic rally. He could continue through FL but the odds beyond that are very slim.
Ron Paul will continue to attract his libertarian groupies but is likely to gain much more as his bigoted past continues to catch up with him. The skeletons in the GOP closet continue to pour out from all the candidates.
Speaking of skeletons, Newt Gingrich must be delusional if he thinks he can survive “family values” muster with his past. Now he’s telling gays to vote for Obama. Seriously this man is doing his best to alienate everyone.
And now we come to Mitt Romney. It will be very interesting to see what polling numbers are like in SC next week. A good showing there all but seals the deal for the former MA governor. Not sure who could knock him off at this point even with a poor showing in SC. With strong Iowa numbers and a virtual lock on NH Mitt has to be a very solid favorite at this time.
Romney 1-2
Paul 4-1
Gingrich 5-1
Santorum 6-1
Perry 8-1
Bachmann 9-1
Huntsman 10-1
In the Ron Paul paragraph above “likely” should be “unlikely”.
I was in Iowa in 1994 when they were electing a new governor.
“Gopher”, of Love Boat fame, had a funny ad for the GOP primary.
I would’ve loved to been a fly on the wall during the caucuses because I’ve never seen what the process is. But I voted absentee in the South Carolina primary; I would’ve voted in the runoff but I didn’t get my ballot in time to mail because of the tornadoes that ravaged Lexington.