Why is Iowa being downplayed this year?

[King]

Maybe it just isn't being reported that much, but it seems like none of the candidates care about it nor do any of the polling firms.  On January 14th, it's still the first state to award delegates, right?  While New Hampshire, Super Tuesday, and all that are huge battlegrounds for delegates, the Iowa Caucuses always seems to really decide the undecided vote.

I remember in 2003/04 everybody I knew couldn't decide if Wesley Clark or Howard Dean was the better candidate then the Iowa Caucuses happened and after that is was "well I was going to vote for Clark or Dean, but Iowa did select Kerry and Edwards a lot and they seem like good people."  And while Edwards victories in the Carolinas might've happened either way, do you really think Kerry would've gotten all those votes in Georgia, South Carolina, New Hampshire, etc. without Iowa?

[SPC]

The Giuliani campaign is just in denial. They're convinced that they can win without a good showing in Iowa. It won't happen, though.

[12th Doctor]

Because, all the other primaries have been moved up and people are finally starting to realize how little Iowa acctually reflects the nation as a whole.  Its not even a real election, its a bunch of party old heads who get together to play Bridge and discuss who they want.  Very few people are ever convinced at these things and the total number of people who vote rarely tops 10% of those eligable.

[Mr. Morden]

Actually, I was just thinking that the *opposite* is true.  This year, Iowa seems to be focused on more than ever.  It feels like, even with all these other states moving up, the candidates are constantly campaigning in Iowa.  (Giuliani is an exception to this.)  It's New Hampshire that really seems to be declining in importance.  As recently as 1996 and 2000, it felt like NH got about as much attention as Iowa, but now it seems to be lagging behind.  Perhaps because of how Kerry showed in 2004 that a win in Iowa can be a springboard to winning the subsequent contests.

Regarding the polling from Iowa, it's true that there's been a lack of polling out of the state *this month*, but I think that's just a statistical blip.  Overall, I think we've gotten more polls out of Iowa this time than ever before at this point in the cycle.  There's always been more polling of NH than IA, simply because caucuses are really hard to poll.

[Likely Voter]

I think Iowa is very important to those who have decided it is important. In other words if Romney and Edwards do not win there it will indicate they cant win when they try to win. But Hillary and Rudy do not need to win because they arent really competing there.

the real question is how much will wins by Romney and Edwards in IA help them in other Jan primaries and on tsunami Tuesday. If they cant win more than just IA it wont help. I think Romney should win at least two primaries in Jan, but I doubt Edwards will be in the top two anywhere except IA

[Gustaf]

If they cant win more than just IA it wont help.

You think?

[PBrunsel]

Its because we're a bunch of dumb Iowa heads.

I would say Iowa is being downplayed is because of two resons:

1. The Democrats and Republicans feel that Iowa selects "bad" nominees. This could be valid as well seeing how Iowa has selected Kerry and Dole.

2. The "Super-Duper Tuesday" primary in February 2008 is what will decide the nominee. There are so many candidates entered in Iowa that whoever wins will get less than 30%, and that means little. However, by the big primary several candidates will be out.

Iowa's place in the sun for presidential elections is coming to a close, and I guess we can then join hands with Deleware as "forgotten states".

[Mr. Morden]

2. The "Super-Duper Tuesday" primary in February 2008 is what will decide the nominee. There are so many candidates entered in Iowa that whoever wins will get less than 30%, and that means little. However, by the big primary several candidates will be out.

I don't think that really matters though.  It's not really the winning candidate's margin of victory that's most important.  A lot of it is just beating expectations in the early states.  Buchanan came in second with 23% of the vote in Iowa in 1996 and got a decent boost out of it, because it was much better than expected for him.

And yes, Super Duper Tuesday will likely decide the nominations, but the point is that the outcome in the earlier states will heavily influence the results of Super Duper Tuesday.

I agree that Iowa's special status will likely come to a close in the near future as the other states will eventually force a rule change that revokes IA's preferential status, but I see no evidence that Iowa is already losing that status.  I don't have any hard numbers, but it seems as though the candidates have spent more time campaigning in Iowa than in all the Feb. 5th states combined.  Georgia, for example, has the 3rd largest # of GOP delegates among the Feb. 5th states (and the 2nd largest, NY, is unlikely to be fought over, as it's an easy win for Giuliani).  But when was the last time you heard about one of the Republican candidates campaigning in Georgia?  It doesn't seem to be happening.  Instead, they're spending almost all their time in the states that vote in January, with Iowa being the #1 target.