Should the Iowa straw poll have the power to make or break candidates so early in the process?

Jon Gordon August 11, 2011, 5:00 AM Aug 11, 2011

The fortunes of Republican presidential candidates, including Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann, could take a dramatic turn in this Saturday’s Iowa straw poll. Today’s Question: Should Iowa have the power to make or break candidates so early in the process?

About the blogger

Jon Gordon

jgordon@mpr.org • @jongordon • 1-651-290-1024

Jon Gordon was the director of digital news for MPR News.

kurt S

I disagree with the premise. Mike Huckabee was the GOP winner in 2008 and got nowhere. Hillary Clinton lost but rebounded strongly in New Hampshire. This year, Mitt Romney, the presumptive favorite, isn’t even bothering to make an effort in the state. Its important, but not make-or-break.

Rich

Of course.

Because the candidates and the national media assign so much value to it. They make it a bigger deal than what it actually is: a fundraiser for the state (GOP) party……

Rich

On the other hand, the Iowa straw poll isn’t something that I hold as somehow sacred

John O.

I agree with Rich 110%. Between the Iowa straw poll and the New Hampshire primary, the “mainstream” media and a plethora of bloggers, pundits, and prognosticators prattle on and on.

There will be more media people in Dixville Notch, NH at midnight on the day of the NH primary than there are residents who actually vote. It’s cute. It’s quaint. And the coverage is always predictable. By the time the 23rd primary is held, the media have already moved on to something else.

The difference between following media coverage of the presidential wannabes in Iowa and New Hampshire and one of those insane reality TV shows seems to diminish with each passing cycle.

Philip

Regarding Bachmann, you better believe it should.

Julie

This is a great question because the one candidate that never gets mentioned on MPR or any other main media has a good chance to be in the top 3 or even win – Ron Paul

Ron Paul stands out as the ONLY candidate that has addressed the economic problems of today with real answers. He predicted the downturn of 2008 and the current situation.

He knows economics better than any candidate republican or democrat.

Charlie C.

A tiny state in the middle of nowhere 90% devoted growing corn and hogs should not have a king (or queen) maker role in presidential politics.

As I slogged through this hot and humid summer, I couldn’t help but feel sorry for the self-nominated aspirants trudging around the small towns of Iowa, shaking hands with extremely overweight senior citizens. How often did TPaw say to himself “What the H am I doing?”

There are so many things wrong with the nomination process, it’s hard to decide where to start with proposed reforms.

For now let’s just say it”s no wonder our best and brightest don’t aspire to the job.

Kyle

It doesn’t have that power. The only candidates it breaks are candidates who are not doing well anyhow; whatever brings them down, it’s not the straw poll.

Also, how is it early in the process? Candidates have been campaigning for a long time already this cycle, and pre-campaigning before that. They’ve had ample time to make their cases, so how can it be too early for voters to decide they don’t like some of them? And again, the straw poll isn’t the last word by any means.

Roul

The Iowa poll is a good thing because if for nothing more, it is great coverage of non Progressives and can not be skewered by the Soros-DFL machine or the CREW_ Citizens for Responsiblity and Ethics in Washington. see this for a better understanding_

http://www.crewexposed.com/?utm_source=th&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=crew
Steve the Cynic

Our whole process of choosing a president is dysfunctional. The outsized influence of Iowa and New Hampshire is a problem like a patient with metastatic cancer having an ingrown toenail is a problem. Between the undemocratic Electoral College (which was a good idea in 1789 when direct election was impractial) to the corrupting influence of money (especially after the abominable Citizens United decision) the whole system needs an overhaul.

(Sorry if this got posted twice. I have a week wifi connection today, and can’t be sure the first try got sent.)
greg

It fis in wonderfully with the repugnantly sacharine service we call news. Its all about opinions about opinions.
John

The straw poll is a sampling of one area of the country and only that. The mass news medias take away of the results is what sways the public. For example if Mitt Romney wins it will be a big deal and will “mean a lot”. But if Ron Paul wins they will play it down and say “it doesn’t mean anything”

The controlled media and not the poll affect most of the electoral process.
Will

Questions assumes a false premise. Iowa does not have any such power. The “power” derives from the artificial import assigned to it by a small group of interested parties as reverberated in the echo chamber of the press.
Lou

The Iowa straw poll is the first political event for the next presidential election cycle and the media makes it into a much larger event than it should be. For the candidates, it will be easier to fund-raise if they have a good showing so they make it into a bigger event than it deserves also.
Greg

Were it the case that candidates had to make rigourous presentations of their ideas for America’s future, including lengthy questioning by a board of experts – then sure let it have great power or weight. This straw poll is bascially a “face-book-like” popularity contest – whose primary goal is to raise money for the Iowa repbulican party, it should be page 3 at best -even if page on is a weather report.
Patrick Hirigoyen

Of course not. But, neither should a President be elected with a majority of electoral votes, but not the popular vote; nor should it require 60 votes in the Senate to overcome filibusters and get judicial nominations approved; nor should Congress be influenced more by money from corporations, instead of the will of the people. The list goes on and on. The system cries out for common-sense reforms, yet the self-interests of lawmakers keep that from happening — perpetuating the disgust of a cynical populace.
oldgulph

btw, Patrick and Steve,

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. There would no longer be ‘battleground’ states where voters and policies are more important than those of other states.

When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA ,RI, VT, and WA . The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL,CA, NJ, MD, MA, VT, and WA. These 9 jurisdictions possess 132 electoral votes– 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
rose

Personally, I don’t like the nomination process, I don’t like that it starts too soon and forces politics to be a year round, constent job. I tune it out.

By focusing on a state by state primary, candidates promise too much and the promises are local not national. Eliminate the long cycle would mean a reduction in the amount of money that can or should be spent. A result would be less political money spent in each state and less lobbying by local interests. Another result is that politicans would be more national focussed and need to demonstrate their ability to reconcile local and national interests. The national identify would be strengthened.

I suggest one primary about 3 months before the national election and that’s all. (Note that closed door politics was not all bad.)