The (non)importance of Iowa
November 26, 2007 at 11:16 am by Wayne GarciaHoward Kurtz at WaPo has a good piece on how the media will create a false narrative about the importance of Iowa’s presidential caucuses. Two pertinents grafs:
But the chief reason for the Iowa effect is an explosion of media coverage that treats the winners as superstars and the also-rans as lamentable losers. Without that massive media boost, prevailing in Iowa would be seen for what it is: an important first victory that amounts to scoring a run in the top of the first inning.
“It stinks,” says veteran political reporter Jack Germond. “The voters ought to have time to make a considered decision, and the press ought to be a little less poll-driven, and we’re not.” Between the coverage and the hyper-compressed campaign calendar, he says, “the whole system this year is absolutely a disgrace.”
Germond is a famously obese old-school journalist who is right. Look at Florida, where substantive coverage of Democratic presidential candidates has dropped dramatically since the delegate flap emerged and candidates were barred from coming here to deliver message (picking up cash is still OK, after all, the Democrats might be stupid but they ain’t crazy). Without a “news hook” of the candidate being in town, mainstream media – especially broadcast television – is at a loss as to how to cover the issues and positions held by each candidate. I recall a time when presidential primaries rolled out at a pace that the public could comprehend and that the media could allow to unfold, with early losses not necessarily knocking a candidate out of contention. Hell, Bobby Kennedy didn’t even jump into the 1968 presidential primary race until March of election year, after LBJ came up lame in New Hampshire against Eugene McCarthy.
Dubya campaigns in Iowa, 2000 (Photo: Time/Brooks Kraft)
Today, in contrast, many pundits figure Fred Thompson waited too long because he didn’t get into the Republican race (officially at least) until Sept. 6 of the YEAR BEFORE the primary vote. (Plus, contrast the speech RFK gave laying out his presidential vision with the Rear Admiral’s announcement on The Tonight Show. Really sad how far we have de-evolved, politically.)
The reality is our primary season will last less than a month, from Jan. 3-Feb. 5, when the dominant candidates on each side will emerge from SuperDuper Tuesday balloting in 21 states. Somebody recently asked me at a speech I gave whether all the current Democratic candidates will be on the Florida ballot by the time we vote Jan. 29. The answer is, in name only. Only 2-3 will still be truly viable by that time, even if all their names are already slated to appear on the ballot, because media distortion will make it impossible for many to raise money once they lose in Iowa, NH, Nevada or SC.
The question is: Is the US better informed because we’ve stretched the presidential primary season by at least 12 months? The answer is: No. In fact, we’re less informed as media and voter fatigue with the horse race, the polling, and fundraising has overcome our capacity to remain focused on the issues. All we’ve done is force candidates to create multimillion-dollar operations that employ all kinds of political consultants and operatives nearly without interruption from one campaign cycle to the next. Sweet deal for those who make a living out of this multibillion-dollar industry.
Remind me why I got out of political consulting?
