Writing for the New York Times today, Nate Silver defended his previous piece Why Ames Actually Matters, after receiving some pushback from political scientists around the webs. Silver, as well as his detractors, focus their analyses on statistics (as expected from scientists). Each piece littered my browser window with numbers, equations and graphs - all lovely and certainly useful in predicting outcomes.
I'd like to posit, however, that a discussion of the relevance of Iowa (caucus, straw poll and all) should weigh less heavily on the past (i.e. - statistics) and more heavily on the present. Instead of looking at what a win in the straw poll or the caucus means statistically, why not look at what it means socially?
The media's current depiction of Iowa is one where anonymous drones vote for some candidate and as a result influence the political landscape of the country. I think it might be more useful, in determining Iowa's relevance, to decipher why its electorate is voting as it is.
I spent some time in Iowa during the last presidential cycle. I had the pleasure (at times, and at other times the misery) of talking to hundreds, if not thousands of voters. I'd like to say I was shocked at what I learned about their voting habits, but really, as I reflect back, maybe I wasn't, perhaps I was just clinging to some naïveté and officially lost my political innocence.
Some examples of reasoning as told to me by actual registered voters:
"I was going to vote for Hillary Clinton, but I don't like how much money she's spending - her campaign has a carpet they bring to events to set up their table on."
"I like Bill Richardson, but I don't see him enough on tv. If he's not on tv he won't win and I want my guy to win."
"I'm going to vote for Barack Obama because I received his campaign information in the mail and learning about the rest of the candidates would be confusing."
"I was going to vote for Hillary until I saw her campaign playing football outside their office - they think they don't have to work for it."
What I learned from my time in Iowa, and from people like these voters, is that much of what goes on there is image based. When some voters perceived that Hillary Clinton's campaign thought they "had it in the bag" they decided not to vote for her (regardless of how they felt about her political viewpoints); some thought Bill Richardson was not visible enough to be a viable candidate (without noting that if every person who felt that way got behind him, he'd become a viable candidate); and Barack Obama's flyer in the mail clearly indicated a serious contender, regardless of his political points of view.
What I'm getting at is this - if Iowa doesn't matter, it's not because of one person or another's interpretation of historical statistics, it's because of voters. I don't know how the Iowa caucuses used to look, pre-internet. But I will assume that Iowa voters were more serious (they had to put in more effort to see the candidates) and the rest of the country cared much less. It's ironic isn't it? The easier it is, for all of us, to see the candidates, the less the Iowa voter seems to take his or her role seriously and yet the media allows Iowa and its voters to become more visible and credible.
I will close on this note - I don't want to suggest that all Iowa voters are lazy, uncritical thinkers. I met plenty of intelligent, serious voters, but I think it would be a mistake to chalk Bachmann's straw poll win up to anything other than over-exposure ("lamestream media" I'm looking at you!). If there is one thing I learned, above all else, Iowa voters want to pick the person who will win (in spite/despite of what he or she stands for) and these days, perhaps the best indicator of a likely winner is face time on the television. Someone else can gather and analyze number of minutes a candidate's face is on tv vs. the number of campaign stops s/he makes vs. amount of money s/he raises/spends vs. size of ground campaign and how those numbers relate to wins.
(Image from the Census Bureau.)
