A question about the significance of Iowa

[Ero]

As I'm not very familiar with American politics, I want to ask about the significance of the Iowa caucus. Why after the Iowa Caucus has the conversation shifted? Why do the results from one state "kill the chances of Biden" and shift Mayor Pete to a position of the possible "democratic nominee"? 

[Annoynymous]

I am not an american, but as a student of politics, i might be able to give you some insight on this.

Iowa primary has been historically the first of all primaries for both democratic and republican party. This is the state from where the journey of winning the party nomination begins. According to the number of delegates, Iowa does not count much as it only offers 1% of the total number of delegates but it has got more significance if you think about momentum wise.

Winning a nomination is a long process. Each candidate has to go through 4+ months of primaries happening all over the US and they usually begin their campaign much more ago. So those who get a winning or near winning start from Iowa usually brings freshness in his/her campaign and it helps them to win other primaries. Those who lose, struggles to keep their campaign alive. If you go thorough the history, you will see that many campaigns had died after doing terrible at Iowa. So that is why Iowa is valued so much.

There are some counter views to this position as in the recent past, winning iowa did not assure that the winner eventually became the nominee. That is true for the case of Donald Trump. He did not win Iowa in 2016 but went on to secure the republican nomination anyway.

To me, Iowa is mostly a hype that gets created by the media. Winning/losing Iowa is although a great deal but not as great as people and the media like to assume.

Edited February 7, 2020 by Annoynymous

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, Ero said:

As I'm not very familiar with American politics, I want to ask about the significance of the Iowa caucus. Why after the Iowa Caucus has the conversation shifted? Why do the results from one state "kill the chances of Biden" and shift Mayor Pete to a position of the possible "democratic nominee"? 

It's the very first state to weigh in on their choice for the nominee. So, the winner gets a media bump because they're starting out on a good foot.

After this, once a week, there will be new states that do their primaries. Next Tuesday is New Hampshire. Then after a few weeks, it's Super Tuesday where a whole bunch of states do their primaries. And then, after that, it keeps rolling until June when every state in the US. has done their primary.

But Iowa is the very first step and sets the tone for the entire primary process.

So, since Pete did well, he got a bump in the polls. Since Biden did poorly, he has really fallen off. People changes their votes to go with who they think will win. So, most of Biden's support has gone to Bernie and probably some to Pete and the other candidates.

Now, a new poll came out after Iowa, showing that Bernie is poised to win in most states, with Biden only winning a few. 

 

[Forestluv]

4 hours ago, Ero said:

Why after the Iowa Caucus has the conversation shifted? 

It depends on which conversation. I've been having conversations with people for months about how Biden is past his prime, unelectable and would tank in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada. Then it would be too late for him in S. Carolina. This conversation hasn't shifted at all after Iowa, it's exactly what was expected.

There were other conversations that Biden was the "most electable". in this conversation, Biden is the safe choice and has the support from moderates necessary to defeat Trump. In this conversation, Biden was expected to be competitive (top 3) in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada - and then win S. Carolina and Super Tuesday. This conversation was obviously blown to pieces and there is no way to put it back together again. Biden got slapped hard in Iowa. He was a distant 4th place and received Zero state delegates. Moderates flocked to Pete, not Biden. Pete got so many moderates that he essentially tied for 1st place. Moderates soundly rejected Biden and blew away the conversation of "Biden wins moderates and is most electable", because he lost moderates and got 4th place. . . So the conversation has shifted. 

4 hours ago, Ero said:

shift Mayor Pete to a position of the possible "democratic nominee"? 

Because moderates voted for Pete, not Biden. Pete is now seen as the leader in the "moderate lane". He clearly was the top moderate candidate in Iowa and polling indicates he is the top candidate in the next two states: New Hampshire and Nevada. That gives him three victories as the top moderate. The top liberal candidate and the top moderate candidate will each be seen as the possible democratic nominee. For now, the top moderate candidate is Pete - due to Iowa results, polling and fundraising.

4 hours ago, Ero said:

the significance of the Iowa caucus. 

I would say the big picture significance of Iowa was that the "old guard" in the democratic party was soundly rejected. Biden is "old guard" he has been in Washington for decades as a Senator and Vice President, he has national old guard support (e.g. John Kerry) and Iowa old guard support (e.g. Vilsak). The voters, including moderates, soundly rejected this old guard and voted for the new moderate, Pete - who is a young mayor from a small city. The only thing most Americans knew about this small city was Notre Dame football. 

[Ero]

I suspected something along these lines. Appreciate the nuanced responses.