Most states are pretty stable in their political preferences, at least on the presidential level, but Iowa hops around. It went for Gore in 2000, Bush in 2004, and Obama in the last two elections. It can be contrarian, too, being one the rare states that voted for Michael Dukakis in 1988. One of the odd things about Iowa is that its competitive nature doesn’t necessarily reward middle-of-the-road moderation or punish candidates who stand far to the left or right. As the Republican Party has moved to the right, Senator Chuck Grassley has moved along with them without seeming to suffer much, if any, diminishment in his popularity at home. Democratic Senator Tom Harkin has always been an outspoken liberal who doesn’t side with Republicans on much except some agricultural issues. It never seems to hurt him come election time.
It’s strange that Iowa Democrats are more pacifist than the party as a whole while Iowa Republicans are far more right-wing than the party as a whole. Iowans seem like a very divided people.
Yet, things may be solidifying in ways that will have national consequences. As moderates have started to leave the Republican Party, the GOP has become both smaller and more dominated by Christian conservatives. Some of that pacifist culture has found a home in the Ron/Rand Paul camp, and their leadership in the party is overrepresented. So, now they have an Establishment Republican governor in Terry Branstad, and a party that is divided between Paulistas and folks who think Rep. Steve King is sane.
When the governor announced his desire to cancel the Ames Straw Poll, the party leaders just shrugged. They don’t see what the problem is with a Straw Poll that chooses Michele Bachmann, who then goes on to finish in last place in the actual caucuses.
In 2012, Bachmann proved that being insane is no guarantee of victory in the caucuses, but Rick Santorum proved that it is no obstacle to a share of victory. The GOP Establishment doesn’t think a sane candidate can compete in Iowa caucuses anymore, and they are probably right. Yet, the state is still within reach in the general election. Can a Republican candidate afford to alienate Iowans by refusing to campaign there? Can candidates afford to campaign in a state that they know they will lose badly?
These considerations are creating unsolvable conundrums from the GOP. Crazy has consequences.
Irrelevant, at least when age, frequency of church attendance and race are all more accurate predictors of GOP voting than actual policy preferences…
and all of the crazies have proved it is a gold brick road!
Are there really. any non-crazies in the GOP? if so they ain’t in high enough numbers to do much saving of the party.
the idiots have won and now even. the alleged non-idiots are joining the idiots.
case in point, Bobby Jindal today:
Bobby Jindal Blames Racial Inequality On Minorities Being Too Proud Of Their Heritages
http://thinkprogress.org/media/2013/08/25/2523431/jindal-race-assimilate/
wow, just, wow
First in the nation came to mean bupkus for the GOP, eh. Triumph of retail politics and all that.
Can we start a pool on how long until Iowa creates a primary system?
Probably never, because of tradition and all that good stuff. The only thing Iowa is really worth at all is pushing a narrative. In 2004, it cemented Dean’s demise after this meteoric rise. In 2008, it meant that Hillary wasn’t inevitable (if she had won, I’m convinced she would have steamrolled to the nomination despite her campaign’s incompetence).
All Hillary had in 2008 was ‘ inevitability’
once that was demolished…
it was a sight to behold