On Dec 31, 2007, at 12:17 AM, Michael Pollak wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>> And it doesn't really matter who wins in Iowa anyway.
>
> Is that true? It seemed to matter in 2004. Is this year structurally
> different?
It's a pretty mixed bag.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucus>
While they have been a financial boon to the state, the political value of the Iowa caucuses has gone up and down over the years. In 1988, for example, the candidates who eventually won the nominations of both parties came in third in Iowa. In elections without a sitting President or Vice President, the Iowa winner has gone on to the nomination only about half the time (see below).
When Iowa Senator Tom Harkin ran for the Democratic nomination none of the other Democratic candidates chose to compete in Iowa, which minimized its importance in the nomination process. President Bush was unopposed on the Republican side, and the media completely ignored the state.[citation needed]
While the Democrats have tried to preserve the position of Iowa and New Hampshire in their nominating schedules, the Republicans have not. Alaska and Hawaii generally have their caucuses before Iowa, and in 1988 the Hawaii victory of Pat Robertson and the 1996 Louisiana victory of Pat Buchanan over Senator Phil Gramm had a significant impact on the results in Iowa.
The caucuses are closely followed by the media and can be an important factor in determining who remains in the race and who drops out. However, the only non incumbent candidate to win their party's caucus and go on to win the general election was George W. Bush in 2000. Neither Reagan nor Clinton won prior to their first term. No incumbent President has run opposed in their own party's caucus since Jimmy Carter in 1980.