The Iowa Effect
New polls just released by the Des Moines Register show John Edwards and Mitt Romney leading the Democratic and Republican Iowa caucus fields respectively. While Edwards (29%) holds a six-point lead over Barack Obama (23%) and national front-runner Hillary Clinton (21%), former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney enjoys a surprising 13% over John McCain (18%) and overall GOP leader Rudy Giuliani (17%). All of which suggests that in 2008, Americans may once again witness the "Iowa Effect."
In a nutshell, the Iowa Effect is the complete upending of the predicted presidential primary landscape by a candidate's unexpected performance in the nation's first caucus. Riding a wave of adoring press coverage by a media eager to hype the tale of the underdog, the perceived winner in Iowa sweeps through New Hampshire and subsequent primary states to take (or at least seriously challenge for) the party's nomination.
Just ask Gary Hart. In December 1983, I joined Hart's Democratic presidential campaign in New Hampshire. At that time, the Colorado Senator polled at 2% nationally and a somewhat more respectable 5% in New Hampshire, well behind the media's chosen front-runners Walter Mondale and John Glenn. Thanks to an experienced team and a ground-breaking grassroots mobilization on the ground, by mid-February Hart moved into a distant second place behind Mondale. The day before the Iowa caucus and eight days before the New Hampshire primary, Hart trailed Mondale by roughly 35% to 15%.
Which is when Iowa changed everything. Sure enough, Mondale ran away with the 1984 Iowa caucus, 51% to 16%. But it was Gary Hart who finished a shocking second. (John Glenn's campaign imploded after his dismal fifth place showing.) That same night, Hart declared the nomination a two-man race and confided to an aide that his second-place showing meant he would be the next president of the United States.
Hart's boundless optimism was based on the media transformation and the tectonic momentum shift he knew would result for his stunning Iowa performance. The next day in New Hampshire, our usual press van of four reporters was replaced by two busloads of media from around the world. A week later, Gary Hart manufactured a 30% turn-around and won the New Hampshire primary by 10 points. The Iowa Effect was complete.
Ultimately, of course, Hart lost a hard-fought nomination battle to Mondale. After sweeping out New Hampshire to wins in Maine, Massachusetts, Florida and other "Super Tuesday" states, Hart stumbled badly in Illinois, New York and New Jersey. A late charge in Ohio and the June California primary was not enough to block a first-ballot win for Mondale at the Democratic convention in San Francisco.
Despite the massive front-loading of the parties' 2008 primary calendar, Iowa could still upset the apple cart. Despite his third place showing in the nationwide polls, John Edwards' excellent organization on the ground and strong second place showing in 2004 make him a formidable candidate in Iowa's January 14th caucus. (Ironically, it was Howard Dean's post-caucus "scream" that hijacked the media attention in 2004, and perhaps robbed Edwards of the New Hampshire bump his surprisingly close 29%-23% race in Iowa might have earned him.)
A solid win in Iowa, especially if coupled with an Obama second place showing over Hillary Clinton, could propel Edwards through the next wave of voting in the Nevada caucus (January 19th), New Hampshire (22nd) and South Carolina (29th). While Edwards is second or third in those states, a post-Iowa wave could catapult him to wins and build the media tsunami for the February 5th "national primary" including California, Florida, Illinois and Michigan.
On the Republican side, Mitt Romney is also well-positioned. Up by 12% over McCain in Iowa, Romney also enjoys a small lead in his neighboring state of New Hampshire. The key for Mitt will be South Carolina, where his Mormon faith appears to be presenting a major challenge to his prospects. In an April Palmetto State poll, Romney (6%) badly trailed John McCain (36%) and Rudy Giuliani (23%).
All of this, of course, is mere speculation. Given the stacked primary schedule, national media candidates like Clinton and Giuliani could bulldoze their opponents as expected. But as Yogi Berra might say, it ain't over til it's over. In Iowa, that is.
UPDATE: Florida has moved its primary to January 29th, a shift which could trigger a forward stampede by South Carolina and others
|
None of this matters. Shillary will buy her way to the nomination.
Posted by Pissed_off_dem on May 21, 2007 11:48 AMThe flip-side to all of this:
Posted by Mary on May 21, 2007 4:21 PM- If Hillary wins Iowa, by your logic the whole thing is over.
- If Edwards maintains a lead through caucus day, then his victory would expected. Thus, no "Iowa Effect."
I saw this piece at Kos and am glad you crossposted it there. There's a really good discussion going on here.
Posted by Snooks on May 21, 2007 4:26 PMit's way too early. Edwards is focusing on Iowa, and Obama hasn't put in near the effort. plus with California and other states (the real primaries) so close behind, Iowa's not going to have much effect. the candidates will be spending way more effort outside of Iowa; a few voters might be swayed by a strong result (or poor) but there won't be enough time for the effect to grow.
and as a diehard, charter-member deaniac, i know what early leads in Iowa are worth.
Posted by t.a. barnhart on May 21, 2007 10:00 PMIt's a pollster's worst nightmare. This year's Republican and Democratic Iowa caucuses have been forced to take place so early that not only will the Jan. 3 caucuses conclude the Christmas/New Year's holiday season, but they will also happen on the same day that one of the top Bowl Championship Series college football games airs on national TV.
Posted by hennry on August 27, 2008 12:12 AM---------------------
hennry
Iowa Alcohol Addiction Treatment