The obligatory reflections on the Iowa caucus

Last updated on: February 2, 2016 at 1:32 pm by Jane the Actuary

The obligatory reflections on the Iowa caucus 2016-02-02T13:32:56-06:00 Jane the Actuary

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

If you read the news this morning, you know the outcome: Clinton and Sanders are effectively tied in Iowa, and the vote was split more evenly than expected among the Republicans, with Cruz, Trump, and Rubio on top with 28%, 24%, and 23% respectively. (I find it hard to say “Cruz won” when he took barely more than a quarter of the vote, so I won’t — though, to be sure, he got a greater share of the vote than, for instance, the Republican primary winner in the 2010 Illinois GOP governor’s race, Bill Brady, who took 20.26% because the field was large and evenly split.)

[ADDED:

Did Rubio “win” the Iowa caucus? Did Clinton “win” for the Democrats? No, and no. The more I read, the more I’m convinced that the terminology of “winning the caucus” makes no sense when there is nothing that’s won. Cruz got a somewhat larger number of delegates than his competitors. Sanders and Clinton got virtually the same number. Each candidate hopes to gain more media coverage and more donors as a result of their results, and hopes to persuade New Hampshire and South Carolina voters that their finishes in Iowa mean that they’re viable, credible, strong candidates — or, in the case of the Republicans, that those who finished in lower places are undeserving of the voters’ support as non-viable candidates.

But to yammer on about who won is meaningless. It’s like talking about who “won” the fist inning of a baseball game, or the first quarter of a football game, or the first period of a hockey game.]

Three comments:

First, on the Democratic side, I share in both the Republicans’ glee that Sanders is doing well, since, after all, in the event, however unlikely, that he’s the nominee, the Republican candidate should be able to easily skate to victory, and also the dismay of many who recognize that, in the end, it is a Bad Thing for so many Americans to take Sanders’ pledge of unlimited Free Stuff paid for by billionaires as a realistic public policy. It’s the same impulse as that which is leading to more calls for a “minimum income”, in a fantasy world in which the federal government has enough cash to give living allowances to every man, woman, and child.

At the same time, well, a Sanders victory would solve the issue of Clinton’s private server a lot more tidily than otherwise may be the case. At this point, there seems to be a genuine likelihood that (1) Clinton, through her use of her private server, put national security at risk, (2) that various rationalizations that information that was labelled “classified” really wasn’t in any practical sense of the term, are increasingly difficult to claim, (3) that the Department of Justice will simply choose to close the case without taking further action, and (4) that the resulting repercussions, of Clinton being declared to effectively have immunity, will do grave damage to our political system.

Second, on the Republican side, I fundamentally think that 28/24/23 are effectively too close to declare conclusions to be drawn, in isolation, about the direction of the contest. I’m glad that Cruz decided to oppose continued ethanol subsidies and upend the conventional wisdom that the only path to the presidency is to maintain them. I’m glad that Rubio gained so much ground over prior polling — even though I distrust him on immigration, I nonetheless think he’s the best choice Republicans have, and I hope that other Republicans drop out (sorry, Chris Christie!) to grow his support.

Third, well, have I ever told you how much I dislike our primary/caucus system? The very fact that Iowans and New Hampshirites take it as their birthright that they should be able to meet as many candidates as they wish in small group settings and question them directly, while the rest of us can only hope for, perhaps, a rally in some stadium — and that, only if we live in a battleground state — really p***es me off. How effective is our democracy if I, living in Illinois, have no chance of casting a meaningful vote in either the primary election (because the field’s been winnowed down) or the general election (because it’s so blue that Republican candidates don’t even make an effort to campaign)?

In 2012, the GOP nomination contest was effectively decided by May 2; in 2008, in March — though Obama and Clinton continued to fight until June. Kerry likewise secured the nomination in 2004 in March, and George W. Bush in March of 2000. In each case, the list of states which had yet to vote, and whose voters therefore were denied a meaningful primary election, is long. It further seems to me that back four years ago, there were proposals being circulated — regional primaries, or rotating early primaries — but that pundits and reformers have pretty much given up this time around.

So there we are. If you support a candidate, your vote doesn’t count nearly as much as your willingness to open up your pocketbook, or maybe your ability to scoot over to an early-primary state as a volunteer.

Previous Post

February 1, 2016

Calling all Cub Scout parents!

Next Post

February 2, 2016 Dumb Zika virus question

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Actuarial/Retirement Issues Politics Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 December 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 August 2021 June 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does Paul say he does not do the good he wants to do, but instead does?

Select your answer to see how you score.

The evil he does not want to do What is sinful What displeases God What leads to death