Iowans wonders: Are the caucuses still relevant?
Mr. Romney’s decision, in particular, suggests that candidates who are viewed suspiciously by the state’s religious conservatives may stand little chance there. Mr. Romney, who was once a pro-choice governor and passed a health care plan that served as the inspiration for President Obama’s, has struggled in Iowa for years.
Some of the state’s Republicans had already been wringing their hands about the outsize influence of the state’s religious conservatives.
“If Iowa becomes some extraneous right-wing outpost, you have to question whether it is going to be a good place to vet your presidential candidates,” Doug Gross, a Republican activist from Iowa, told The New York Times this year…
In fact, the Iowa caucuses now seem more likely to become an opportunity for one of the several lesser-known Republican candidates who are trying to cut through the campaign clutter and are counting on their appeal to the conservative Tea Party movement.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Seriously, what is the record on them being right?
Badger40 on June 11, 2011 at 4:35 PM
Caucuses, Caucasians…see there this is going?
SouthernGent on June 11, 2011 at 4:36 PM
I think Iowans have become a little arrogant in their instances that all Presidential candidates bow down to them and it is now backfiring on them. Candidates are recognizing they don’t have to spend 24/7 for months on end campaigning in Iowa, only to lose the caucus but win the nomination.
They have realized it is more effective and cheaper to spread their resources around to other states.
ramrants on June 11, 2011 at 4:36 PM
“Iowans wonders” – Theys does?
kerrhome on June 11, 2011 at 4:36 PM
Seriously, what is the record on them being right?
Badger40 on June 11, 2011 at 4:35 PM
2000
IR-MN on June 11, 2011 at 4:37 PM
Since 1980, they have been correct twice. 3 of the elections were unopposed (1984, 1992, 2004 – which was a re-election for the President)
ramrants on June 11, 2011 at 4:42 PM
Iowa caucuses just assures that the more Big Government-type of candidate gets their time in the sun. It’s a weird place to start, a state that is completely out-of-whack with what America is and specifically, what Republicans want. I wish either one of the Big 3 states (excluding NY) gets a crack at the first-in-the-country primaries. California Republicans primary voters are a better representative of the party as a whole nationwide than oh, let’s say, Iowa.
Apologetic California on June 11, 2011 at 4:45 PM
Anyone who does not buy into the evangelical thing starts with a serious handicap in Iowa. The only ones more handicapped than Mormon cultists would be an atheist or an agnostic. Perhaps if more and more serious candidates stay away there would be motivation to rethink the whole primary process.
Annar on June 11, 2011 at 4:49 PM
Well then if that’s true, then their track record is probably nothing but luck.
Parts of IA are very nice. And I have several friends that live there.
But they ain’t the cat’s meow of politics.
Get over yourselves.
Badger40 on June 11, 2011 at 4:49 PM
Well I can see the Mormon slurs are already coming.
Nice.
Badger40 on June 11, 2011 at 4:49 PM
I don’t care if the RINO is a Mormon and the Conservative is a Snake Handler. I’m not voting RINO.
Marcus on June 11, 2011 at 4:53 PM
You think “evangelicals” are bad now, wait til Romney gets nominated and have the Libtards take on his Mormonism.
Apologetic California on June 11, 2011 at 4:53 PM
As more and more of us became politically “aware” and better informed when making voting-related decisions, we also became acutely aware that Iowans, along with the MSM, actually were trying to pick our candidates for us.
Effective the 2010 elections, many of us decided it was time to disabuse the MSM of this notion. And the 2012 election cycle will extend that policy to include the states with traditionally early primaries.
KendraWilder on June 11, 2011 at 5:14 PM
Well, I can think of one thing that Mormon politicians do better than their evangelical peers, and that is keeping their faith separate from their policies. They seem to remember that they represent people of varying worldviews.
Haldol on June 11, 2011 at 5:15 PM
I saw a hint of it during the last primaries.
Even here in ND where’s there’s not very many.
Badger40 on June 11, 2011 at 5:20 PM
I agreee with you there.
Badger40 on June 11, 2011 at 5:23 PM
The whole system stinks to high heaven; look at our nominees of late.
There must be a better way of selecting our aspirant for POTUS than the chicken-scramble that is our primary system.
hillbillyjim on June 11, 2011 at 5:25 PM
How in the world can a Morman dictate how the rest of America thinks as president? How can a Catholic dictate how America thinks as a president? How can a Jew dictate how American thinks as a president? NOW, if we get into the rop type, that would dictate how America thinks and acts if someone was elected as president. I remember when Kennedy was running for president. The outcry was the Pope would tell him what he could or would do. If it happened, I didn’t see it.
L
letget on June 11, 2011 at 5:28 PM
Illinoisan answers: No.
Jaibones on June 11, 2011 at 5:29 PM
Oh. It’s that thread again.
BJ* on June 11, 2011 at 5:39 PM
These caucuses are tradition–but a very unhelpful tradition.
As a voter in a populous swing state that doesn’t have its primary until sometime in April, I object to the power that Iowa and New Hampshire have in choosing our party’s nominee. Voters in states like mine are the ones who decide the presidency, not Iowans, and yet by the time our primary comes around, the nominee has already been chosen. It’s really a stupid system and it’s high time it change.
Outlander on June 11, 2011 at 5:40 PM
KS Rex on June 11, 2011 at 5:41 PM
The Mormons have a good history of fighting compulsorily collectivism. It makes me dislike Romneycare even more.
Slowburn on June 11, 2011 at 6:04 PM
Well I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
From what I know of our history, Mormons started out like a hippy commune when they got to UT.
Lots of Mormon men chafed under that.
They did not like it. But it happened.
‘Course you look at the Church’s welfare system: it’s a very good one.
Everyone works.
Badger40 on June 11, 2011 at 6:12 PM
In a word: No
Mcguyver on June 11, 2011 at 6:13 PM
They chafed under it but freely chose not to leave. The Mormon missionaries in Africa and elsewhere were reliably in the anticommunist camp.
Slowburn on June 11, 2011 at 6:18 PM
More whinging from ROmney fans.
promachus on June 11, 2011 at 8:04 PM