Normal Version Print Version	Share |

The Problem with the Iowa Caucus

January 3^rd is the date set for the dreaded Iowa caucus. Historically, the event is one of few that sets the tone for the states that follow, and so much to-do has been given in preparation for the event. This, however, is almost entirely a show for the voting public and determines very little in the long run. What really matters are the delegate votes, of which there are 2,286, and while popular opinion can influence these votes that isn't always the case. For further reading, see “Huckabee, Mike.”

But for this year's candidates the public perception means everything. Despite all running under the GOP banner the field is incredibly splintered, leaving the voter base just as divided. Unlike previous years, there's no clear winners. Case in point, the current top tier is made up of (from first to third place) Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, three men with considerable experience and very different positions on damn near everything.

To better reinforce just how bizarre this primary is, Ron Paul is currently leading in Iowa. Historically, Paul has been considered a fringe candidate because many of his positions are about as far  removed from the main stream as possible. Yet he's maintained a young voter base and has seemingly gained traction with other groups as well. While that itself is reason enough to raise an eyebrow, the governor of Iowa has said that folks should ignore a Ron Paul win in his state, because such a thing isn't indicative of a clear winner . But if things keep going in the direction that they've been going in, and if poll numbers can be trusted, Paul may very likely win the state, creating a media frenzy.

However, if we're looking at trends in poll numbers again, Paul could wake up tomorrow and find himself trailing once more. The numbers have been in such a state of constant change as we've drawn closer to the end game that it wouldn't be all that surprising to see someone new pull up from the back this late in the process. In fact, the lead held by Paul (21%), Romney (20%) and Gingrich (19%) is so fragile that the slightest change could shuffle the standings yet again.

Because the media focuses so much on the results from Iowa, many campaigns put their energy into winning the state. However, that isn't always the case. Despite Huckabee's win in 2008, McCain won the nod thanks in part to how he downplayed the importance of the state, instead focusing on New Hampshire. Despite being seen as the front runner, Romney is trying something similar, downplaying the importance of the state while his opponents are frantically canvasing with last minute bus tours and town hall meetings.

Iowa can't be ignored because the media will shape the perception of the results, and some voters will inform their decisions from that. However, that is far from a guarantee of the nomination. Iowa governor Terry Branstad makes a valid point when he says that second and third place are just as important as first, and the previous election proves this. Unless there’s a sudden change in the coming days, expect to go into Iowa with a three-way tie.